Good answers - yes, I should've searched, just to see what has gone before.
Here's the thing, though. Last time I searched up a topic on a couple of turn radius and rate questions I had, I came across a thread that touched on both as well as the topic of max bank angle. I did some development on the ideas using some common aero formulas and some reasoning.
Skuzzy then wiped out the whole thing and hit me with a "punting" violation. According to him, since Simaril no longer posts here and the thread was a few years old, I was clearly engaged in an attempt to bring an outdated post back to the top of the list.
I understand why he hit me with the violation. I wonder if he understands the uninrtended consequence of it. You can search, true, but any follow-ups better be via a new thread - at which point you have to waste a bunch of time reframing the context - it's so much easier just to start a new thread on the same old crap. My own recommendation would be, if the post is substantive, so what if the issue gets punted up to the top of the queue? Obvious punts are another matter - posts of little/no substance intended to promote an item to the top of the queue should be snuffed out.
There. I've now hijacked my own thread. Perhaps I can draw a violation flag.
As for rectangles of gibberish, there are informative rectangles of gibberish and less useful forms of the same... That, and I doubt the vibration was anything like constant - though here the pain in th a** factor begins to play. After all, the thing will have some set of resonant freq dependent on the mount and will be excited by either large amplitude forces off-resonance or smaller ones on-resonance. Perhaps a "standard mount" might be developed across the board..? My suspicion: at the right engine rpm and aero loads, the thing was probably fairly well settled - other times, a mere blur. Figure a rigid mount to the canopy structure and it would just slightly mass-damp the canopy frame, right?
Agreed, though... probably not worth the (major) hassle...
