Re: Metric Diablo
You practice some emergency procedures, like 3 engine flying, in the
airplane.
You practice all the emergency procedures in the sim. You had to
pass a sim. check ride just like a flight check ride. There was a KC-
135 simulator built into three Pullman cars and it made the rounds
on the railroad to air bases that did not have a permanant sim.
On the typical sim fight the instructor would fail an engine, a
hydraulic system, elec. system or something. You would go through
the emergency procedures to deal with it. Then he would fail
something else and you would deal with that. He did not give
anything back.
Pretty soon everything was broken and there were several things on
fire and you were stuggling to keep the plane right side up. All
Emergency procedure sim flights ended in a crash. The instructor saw
to it.
You practice instrument flying in the sim too. Those flights are a
lot less stressful. The instructor will sometimes give you a 200
knot wind while you are trying to maintain a holding pattern. They
think its fun.
Charles
airplane.
You practice all the emergency procedures in the sim. You had to
pass a sim. check ride just like a flight check ride. There was a KC-
135 simulator built into three Pullman cars and it made the rounds
on the railroad to air bases that did not have a permanant sim.
On the typical sim fight the instructor would fail an engine, a
hydraulic system, elec. system or something. You would go through
the emergency procedures to deal with it. Then he would fail
something else and you would deal with that. He did not give
anything back.
Pretty soon everything was broken and there were several things on
fire and you were stuggling to keep the plane right side up. All
Emergency procedure sim flights ended in a crash. The instructor saw
to it.
You practice instrument flying in the sim too. Those flights are a
lot less stressful. The instructor will sometimes give you a 200
knot wind while you are trying to maintain a holding pattern. They
think its fun.
Charles
> Gene;are so
> They do practice this in the simulator. These days the simulators
> sophisticated that you can model almost any situation.
> Bob
>
> >With many lives at stake and having never done it
> >before I imagine there was no confidence it could be
> >done. To much risk to let them practice this sort of
> >thing.
saving fuel by making the final approach and landing with engines
From 35,000 feet and 480 knots true AS we would start our letdown
about 200 miles (30 minutes) out. The throttles would not be all the
way to idle but nearly so. We were looking for about a 30:1 glide
ratio. Dead stick glide was 17:1 (at 265 knots indicated AS if I
remember). To make steep desents from altitude, you had lower the
landing gear or raise the speed brakes or both to stay below the
airspeed redline. Passengers prefered the gear because it was
smoother than the brakes. You have to level off at 10,000 feet and
let the speed bleed off to stay below the speed limit (250 knots
max. below 10,000 ft.).
and too flat. Steeper is better (safer)than dragging in low. Slower
is better (the tires were 199 knots max.).
You practice 3 engine go arounds all the time (4 engine airplane).
Retracting some flap is just a short step behind all throttles to
full. Lost one engine several times but never lost two on the same
flight. It would fly with just one plus a giant pucker factor.
Charles
> idlingI used to fly KC-135 tankers for the Air Force back in the 70's.
From 35,000 feet and 480 knots true AS we would start our letdown
about 200 miles (30 minutes) out. The throttles would not be all the
way to idle but nearly so. We were looking for about a 30:1 glide
ratio. Dead stick glide was 17:1 (at 265 knots indicated AS if I
remember). To make steep desents from altitude, you had lower the
landing gear or raise the speed brakes or both to stay below the
airspeed redline. Passengers prefered the gear because it was
smoother than the brakes. You have to level off at 10,000 feet and
let the speed bleed off to stay below the speed limit (250 knots
max. below 10,000 ft.).
>remotely:
> Just to add something related to sailing, although somewhat
> jet aircraft need to power up their engines when making theirfinal
> approach because, with flaps and slats extended, the lift-dragratio
> of the wings is too low to allow the aircraft to follow standard,steeper
> shallow, approach glideslopes without engine thrust keeping them
> flying above stalling speed. If they are allowed to follow a
> glideslope, they can still deploy flaps and idle the engines. Whento
> you think about it, this is safer than having to rely on engines
> which, if they fail during the approach, will cause the the 'plane
> undershoot the runway or stall. Either way they crash.Standard glideslope is 2.5 - 3 degrees. No flap would be too fast
and too flat. Steeper is better (safer)than dragging in low. Slower
is better (the tires were 199 knots max.).
You practice 3 engine go arounds all the time (4 engine airplane).
Retracting some flap is just a short step behind all throttles to
full. Lost one engine several times but never lost two on the same
flight. It would fly with just one plus a giant pucker factor.
Charles
Howard said
when you advance the throttle. The engine needs time to spin up, it�s not
like a gas engine where you step on the gas and you go. Because of this you
need to keep power on so that you can perform a go round if something goes
wrong. The flaps, lowering the wheels and slats will reduce the lift both by
adding drag and changing the airfoil shape of the wing so that you follow
the glide path. Of course the engine is not at a very high setting, but it�s
not at idle. The talk about saving fuel is that the airline is thinking of
flying the route at a slightly slower speed.
Bob
>I read somewhere that airlines are considering (or maybe even doingIt�s my understanding that the jet engine will not deliver thrust on demand
>it) saving fuel by making the final approach and landing with engines
>idling and then running them up in reverse-thrust mode to slow the
>aircraft after touchdown. The onboard computer helps the pilot keep
>to the correct (steeper than normal) glideslope and speed.
when you advance the throttle. The engine needs time to spin up, it�s not
like a gas engine where you step on the gas and you go. Because of this you
need to keep power on so that you can perform a go round if something goes
wrong. The flaps, lowering the wheels and slats will reduce the lift both by
adding drag and changing the airfoil shape of the wing so that you follow
the glide path. Of course the engine is not at a very high setting, but it�s
not at idle. The talk about saving fuel is that the airline is thinking of
flying the route at a slightly slower speed.
Bob
I read somewhere that airlines are considering (or maybe even doing
it) saving fuel by making the final approach and landing with engines
idling and then running them up in reverse-thrust mode to slow the
aircraft after touchdown. The onboard computer helps the pilot keep
to the correct (steeper than normal) glideslope and speed.
Just to add something related to sailing, although somewhat remotely:
jet aircraft need to power up their engines when making their final
approach because, with flaps and slats extended, the lift-drag ratio
of the wings is too low to allow the aircraft to follow standard,
shallow, approach glideslopes without engine thrust keeping them
flying above stalling speed. If they are allowed to follow a steeper
glideslope, they can still deploy flaps and idle the engines. When
you think about it, this is safer than having to rely on engines
which, if they fail during the approach, will cause the the 'plane to
undershoot the runway or stall. Either way they crash.
(BTW I'm no pilot, so please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
Over 15 years ago I experienced a power-off landing on a 767 flight
from Apia to Rarotonga. The engines idled all the way from 20 minutes
out. At the time I was very impressed at the judgement required. Now
I'm wondering whether they were short of fuel ...
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
it) saving fuel by making the final approach and landing with engines
idling and then running them up in reverse-thrust mode to slow the
aircraft after touchdown. The onboard computer helps the pilot keep
to the correct (steeper than normal) glideslope and speed.
Just to add something related to sailing, although somewhat remotely:
jet aircraft need to power up their engines when making their final
approach because, with flaps and slats extended, the lift-drag ratio
of the wings is too low to allow the aircraft to follow standard,
shallow, approach glideslopes without engine thrust keeping them
flying above stalling speed. If they are allowed to follow a steeper
glideslope, they can still deploy flaps and idle the engines. When
you think about it, this is safer than having to rely on engines
which, if they fail during the approach, will cause the the 'plane to
undershoot the runway or stall. Either way they crash.
(BTW I'm no pilot, so please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
Over 15 years ago I experienced a power-off landing on a 767 flight
from Apia to Rarotonga. The engines idled all the way from 20 minutes
out. At the time I was very impressed at the judgement required. Now
I'm wondering whether they were short of fuel ...
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> With many lives at stake and having never done it
> before I imagine there was no confidence it could be
> done. To much risk to let them practice this sort of
> thing.
>
> Gene T.
Gene;
They do practice this in the simulator. These days the simulators are so
sophisticated that you can model almost any situation.
Bob
They do practice this in the simulator. These days the simulators are so
sophisticated that you can model almost any situation.
Bob
>With many lives at stake and having never done it
>before I imagine there was no confidence it could be
>done. To much risk to let them practice this sort of
>thing.
With many lives at stake and having never done it
before I imagine there was no confidence it could be
done. To much risk to let them practice this sort of
thing.
Gene T.
--- David Romasco <dromasco@...> wrote:
before I imagine there was no confidence it could be
done. To much risk to let them practice this sort of
thing.
Gene T.
--- David Romasco <dromasco@...> wrote:
> I read his account of the flight, and I don't thinkhttp://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
> he was as casual about
> the descent as it sounds......
>
> _____
>
> From: Gene T. [mailto:goldranger02-boats@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:21 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Metric Diablo
>
>
> And I was told the pilot was a glider pilot on the
> side so he had way more dead stick time than the
> average pilot and knew the tricks to max range, max
> lift, max drag, in general how to use all the
> control
> surfaces to his advantage. Kind of like a good
> sailor
> would. You don't need no stinking motors!
>
> Gene T.
>
> --- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
>
> > <stephensonhw@a...> wrote: "Wasn't it in Canada
> that
> > a 767 had to
> > glide rather a long distance and then land
> powerless
> > because the
> > pilot thought he had so many kg of fuel, but it
> was
> > actually in
> > pounds?"
> >
> > Yep, It glided better than 60 miles (100 klicks)
> to
> > a dead stick
> > landing and a round of clean underwear for the
> > flight crew (to say
> > nothing for the passengers) in Gimli, Manitoba.
> >
> > Bruce Hector
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
I read his account of the flight, and I don't think he was as casual about
the descent as it sounds......
_____
From: Gene T. [mailto:goldranger02-boats@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:21 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Metric Diablo
And I was told the pilot was a glider pilot on the
side so he had way more dead stick time than the
average pilot and knew the tricks to max range, max
lift, max drag, in general how to use all the control
surfaces to his advantage. Kind of like a good sailor
would. You don't need no stinking motors!
Gene T.
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
the descent as it sounds......
_____
From: Gene T. [mailto:goldranger02-boats@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:21 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Metric Diablo
And I was told the pilot was a glider pilot on the
side so he had way more dead stick time than the
average pilot and knew the tricks to max range, max
lift, max drag, in general how to use all the control
surfaces to his advantage. Kind of like a good sailor
would. You don't need no stinking motors!
Gene T.
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote: "Wasn't it in Canada that
> a 767 had to
> glide rather a long distance and then land powerless
> because the
> pilot thought he had so many kg of fuel, but it was
> actually in
> pounds?"
>
> Yep, It glided better than 60 miles (100 klicks) to
> a dead stick
> landing and a round of clean underwear for the
> flight crew (to say
> nothing for the passengers) in Gimli, Manitoba.
>
> Bruce Hector
>
>
And I was told the pilot was a glider pilot on the
side so he had way more dead stick time than the
average pilot and knew the tricks to max range, max
lift, max drag, in general how to use all the control
surfaces to his advantage. Kind of like a good sailor
would. You don't need no stinking motors!
Gene T.
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
side so he had way more dead stick time than the
average pilot and knew the tricks to max range, max
lift, max drag, in general how to use all the control
surfaces to his advantage. Kind of like a good sailor
would. You don't need no stinking motors!
Gene T.
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote: "Wasn't it in Canada that
> a 767 had to
> glide rather a long distance and then land powerless
> because the
> pilot thought he had so many kg of fuel, but it was
> actually in
> pounds?"
>
> Yep, It glided better than 60 miles (100 klicks) to
> a dead stick
> landing and a round of clean underwear for the
> flight crew (to say
> nothing for the passengers) in Gimli, Manitoba.
>
> Bruce Hector
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Badenoch" <robinbadenoch@a...>
wrote:
Convert.exe up in the files section of bolger4 under a folder called
Convert, just click on it and download it to your hard disk and
execute it from there. I have a shortcut on my desktop and use it all
the time. Hope this helps.
issue of unit conversion but it seems to me that Bruce Hector made a
more practical solution of just using an "English" unit rule to lay
out the design. This approach requires only converting the plywood
sizes and the 2X used for the gunwales and spray rails. It also
seems to be the least likely to accidentally add an error to the
conversion. If this general approach is of interest there is one
final extension and that would be to buy the full size patterns that
Peter Spectre (ex Wooden Boat columnist) offers through Payson's
website. The patterns are reportedly taken directly from Dynamites
and so should be definitive. As above "hope this helps".
Pete
wrote:
> Hi,of values and it will convert it for you. I will put a file called
> I have a program called "Convert" and you can input all sorts
Convert.exe up in the files section of bolger4 under a folder called
Convert, just click on it and download it to your hard disk and
execute it from there. I have a shortcut on my desktop and use it all
the time. Hope this helps.
>The conversion program route is certainly one way to address the
issue of unit conversion but it seems to me that Bruce Hector made a
more practical solution of just using an "English" unit rule to lay
out the design. This approach requires only converting the plywood
sizes and the 2X used for the gunwales and spray rails. It also
seems to be the least likely to accidentally add an error to the
conversion. If this general approach is of interest there is one
final extension and that would be to buy the full size patterns that
Peter Spectre (ex Wooden Boat columnist) offers through Payson's
website. The patterns are reportedly taken directly from Dynamites
and so should be definitive. As above "hope this helps".
Pete
Hi,
I have a program called "Convert" and you can input all sorts of values and it will convert it for you. I will put a file called Convert.exe up in the files section of bolger4 under a folder called Convert, just click on it and download it to your hard disk and execute it from there. I have a shortcut on my desktop and use it all the time. Hope this helps.
Rob B
I have a program called "Convert" and you can input all sorts of values and it will convert it for you. I will put a file called Convert.exe up in the files section of bolger4 under a folder called Convert, just click on it and download it to your hard disk and execute it from there. I have a shortcut on my desktop and use it all the time. Hope this helps.
Rob B
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Metric Diablo
I can understand that the metric system works better,
considering that people have ten fingers.
Still, measuring in feet, inches and eights isn't all
that hard.
The secret of building Diablo is the layout of those
curvy expanded panels for the sides, bilge panels,
and bottom which magically drape correctly onto
the transom, frames, thwarts and stem to become
a beautifully curved boat.
Those panel layout dimensions matter! You could measure
them out on a 76.2 mm grid, or on the 3 inch grid per
the plans. It seems to me, that staying with the 3 inch
grid is better. Any mis-read or mis-calculated layout
points will be obvious when you connect the dots with
the springy batten anyway! Messing up the layout grid
would be a bigger problem than individually wrong layout
points.
Bolger swings back and forth between metric and the
more traditional F,I,E measurements depending on
who has commissioned the design.
Either way, the old adage: "Measure twice, cut once"
still applies, and there is no shortcut for thinking
twice about just what you are trying to measure.
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote: "Wasn't it in Canada that a 767 had to
glide rather a long distance and then land powerless because the
pilot thought he had so many kg of fuel, but it was actually in
pounds?"
Yep, It glided better than 60 miles (100 klicks) to a dead stick
landing and a round of clean underwear for the flight crew (to say
nothing for the passengers) in Gimli, Manitoba.
Bruce Hector
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote: "Wasn't it in Canada that a 767 had to
glide rather a long distance and then land powerless because the
pilot thought he had so many kg of fuel, but it was actually in
pounds?"
Yep, It glided better than 60 miles (100 klicks) to a dead stick
landing and a round of clean underwear for the flight crew (to say
nothing for the passengers) in Gimli, Manitoba.
Bruce Hector
Maybe it depends on whether you're talking about Imperial gallons or
American ones at, I think, 4/5 the size of an Imperial one.
Wasn't it in Canada that a 767 had to glide rather a long distance
and then land powerless because the pilot thought he had so many kg
of fuel, but it was actually in pounds?
Howard
American ones at, I think, 4/5 the size of an Imperial one.
Wasn't it in Canada that a 767 had to glide rather a long distance
and then land powerless because the pilot thought he had so many kg
of fuel, but it was actually in pounds?
Howard
>
> Bruce Hector
> Who still can't figure out if 4.6 litres per 100 kilometers is
> better or worse than 30 miles to the gallon after 30 years of
> official Canadian metrification.
www.dixdesign.com has a wealth of conversion information. For example:
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
1/32" 0.08 1/16" 1.59 3/32" 2.38 1/8" 3.18
5/32" 3.97 3/16" 4.76 7/32" 5.56 1/4" 6.35
9/32" 7.14 5/16" 7.94 11/32" 8.73 3/8" 9.53
13/32" 10.32 7/16" 11.11 15/32" 11.91 ½" 12.70
17/32" 13.49 9/16" 14.29 19/32" 15.08 5/8" 15.88
21/32" 16.67 11/16" 17.46 23/32" 18.26 3/4" 19.05
25/32" 19.84 13/16" 20.64 27/32" 21.43 7/8" 22.23
29/32" 23.02 15/16" 23.81 31/32" 24.61 1" 25.40
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
Inch
mm
1/32" 0.08 1/16" 1.59 3/32" 2.38 1/8" 3.18
5/32" 3.97 3/16" 4.76 7/32" 5.56 1/4" 6.35
9/32" 7.14 5/16" 7.94 11/32" 8.73 3/8" 9.53
13/32" 10.32 7/16" 11.11 15/32" 11.91 ½" 12.70
17/32" 13.49 9/16" 14.29 19/32" 15.08 5/8" 15.88
21/32" 16.67 11/16" 17.46 23/32" 18.26 3/4" 19.05
25/32" 19.84 13/16" 20.64 27/32" 21.43 7/8" 22.23
29/32" 23.02 15/16" 23.81 31/32" 24.61 1" 25.40
I can understand that the metric system works better,
considering that people have ten fingers.
Still, measuring in feet, inches and eights isn't all
that hard.
The secret of building Diablo is the layout of those
curvy expanded panels for the sides, bilge panels,
and bottom which magically drape correctly onto
the transom, frames, thwarts and stem to become
a beautifully curved boat.
Those panel layout dimensions matter! You could measure
them out on a 76.2 mm grid, or on the 3 inch grid per
the plans. It seems to me, that staying with the 3 inch
grid is better. Any mis-read or mis-calculated layout
points will be obvious when you connect the dots with
the springy batten anyway! Messing up the layout grid
would be a bigger problem than individually wrong layout
points.
Bolger swings back and forth between metric and the
more traditional F,I,E measurements depending on
who has commissioned the design.
Either way, the old adage: "Measure twice, cut once"
still applies, and there is no shortcut for thinking
twice about just what you are trying to measure.
considering that people have ten fingers.
Still, measuring in feet, inches and eights isn't all
that hard.
The secret of building Diablo is the layout of those
curvy expanded panels for the sides, bilge panels,
and bottom which magically drape correctly onto
the transom, frames, thwarts and stem to become
a beautifully curved boat.
Those panel layout dimensions matter! You could measure
them out on a 76.2 mm grid, or on the 3 inch grid per
the plans. It seems to me, that staying with the 3 inch
grid is better. Any mis-read or mis-calculated layout
points will be obvious when you connect the dots with
the springy batten anyway! Messing up the layout grid
would be a bigger problem than individually wrong layout
points.
Bolger swings back and forth between metric and the
more traditional F,I,E measurements depending on
who has commissioned the design.
Either way, the old adage: "Measure twice, cut once"
still applies, and there is no shortcut for thinking
twice about just what you are trying to measure.
Just work with the units first, not the values. You have liters in the
numerator and want gallons, so multiply by gallons per liter and the liters
are gone. Multiply the denominator by miles per kilometer to get rid of the
Km. Then take the reciprocal to get miles per gallon.
Analyzing units is a real good check of one's algebra.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
numerator and want gallons, so multiply by gallons per liter and the liters
are gone. Multiply the denominator by miles per kilometer to get rid of the
Km. Then take the reciprocal to get miles per gallon.
Analyzing units is a real good check of one's algebra.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hector" <bruce_hector@...>
> Bruce Hector
> Who still can't figure out if 4.6 litres per 100 kilometers is
> better or worse than 30 miles to the gallon after 30 years of
> official Canadian metrification.
Anyway, my advice is DON'T convert. Just get an Imperial tape
measure. Far to much chance of errors through converting a hundred +
measurements.
When I made my Seagull it's plans were metric, so I just bought a
metric tape.
Bruce Hector
Who still can't figure out if 4.6 litres per 100 kilometers is
better or worse than 30 miles to the gallon after 30 years of
official Canadian metrification.
measure. Far to much chance of errors through converting a hundred +
measurements.
When I made my Seagull it's plans were metric, so I just bought a
metric tape.
Bruce Hector
Who still can't figure out if 4.6 litres per 100 kilometers is
better or worse than 30 miles to the gallon after 30 years of
official Canadian metrification.