Bing Vacuum physics

Discuss all things 1970 & later Airheads right here.
Major Softie
Posts: 8900
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by Major Softie »

I just figured there must be helium in the wings....
MS - out
ME 109
Posts: 7302
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:00 am
Location: Albury, Australia

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by ME 109 »

Steve in Golden wrote: Does an airplane fly due to the vacuum on top of the wing sucking the plane into the sky, or the pressure from underneath it blowing it into the sky? :twisted:
Planes blow up, I've seen it in the movies.
Lord of the Bings
Jean
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:43 am

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by Jean »

MS has been known to exhibit a certain tendency toward foot-in-mouth before.
Have you changed the diaphragms? Bing SAYS they ought to be changed every 2 years...I don't do THAT but did find that although they might LOOK good they aren't. This is usually noticed when you try to pass and suddenly there is an oncoming vehicle.
New diaphragms fixed THAT problem. General sluggishness at speed was cured by a pair of new coils.
('78 R100s, 40mm Bings.)
Clemson, SC
R100s, R75/5
ME 109
Posts: 7302
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:00 am
Location: Albury, Australia

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by ME 109 »

Hey Rob, have we got a popcorn smiley?
If we did, I think someone's eaten it.
Lord of the Bings
Deleted User 287

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by Deleted User 287 »

ME 109 wrote:Hey Rob, have we got a popcorn smiley?
If we did, I think someone's eaten it.
GIT CHER OWN! Image

(stolen from advrider)
Major Softie
Posts: 8900
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by Major Softie »

Jean wrote:MS has been known to exhibit a certain tendency toward foot-in-mouth before.
READ IT AGAIN

I object to the representation, as I said nothing wrong. I then politely tried to deal with the OP's apparently misunderstanding of what I said. A poster who told me off for telling him what he already knows all about, in spite of the fact that his question clearly assumed the opposite.

I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
MS - out
User avatar
bbelk
Posts: 1722
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:13 pm

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by bbelk »

Major Softie wrote:
I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
I am a total fan of your writing style and keeping in mind that if one never falls off a cliff, they are not taking enough chances, I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.
1975 R90/6
1979 R65
Major Softie
Posts: 8900
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by Major Softie »

bbelk wrote:
Major Softie wrote:...I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.
"...On first reading..."

I'm afraid I do do not understand. If I crossed a line, it does not matter how many readings. If a more careful reading led to a different conclusion, it does not signify I crossed any line. Please explain.
MS - out
User avatar
bbelk
Posts: 1722
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:13 pm

Re: Bing Vacuum physics

Post by bbelk »

bbelk wrote:
Major Softie wrote:
I have, in fact, put my foot in my mouth from time to time. This is not one of those times.
I am a total fan of your writing style and keeping in mind that if one never falls off a cliff, they are not taking enough chances, I feel compelled to say you did in fact cross the line. Not an important line, but on first reading, my reaction was the same as Tom's and I am a long time reader.
If it reads better for you, this was my intent:

I am a total fan of your writing style. My reaction was the same as Tom's.
1975 R90/6
1979 R65
Post Reply