All we need is a 2300km diameter hole that is 7km deep just like the Martians, it seems as if they've got their act together. I for one would like to start with France, unfortunately they are too small, Australia anyone?
Experience - I used to work for Rolls Royce plc (the aero engine divison of Rolls Royce).
......used to.
Let me guess, you switched to business management?
Additionally, just because you worked for the company, doesn't mean it counts as "experience". After all, I'm sure they employ a large number of janitorial staff.
Your design and performance data to support your "argument" seem to be accurate, however they further illustrate the point that selection of an engine is based on more than sheer performance, but a number of factors including safety (turbofan vs turboprop).
So....two conclusions.
1)Piston engines are not useless and outdated, otherwise NO plane(regardless of size) would be produced using them.
2)The article is mainly about efficiency, and we need to stop cloaking other design criteria as efficiency criteria for the industry.....
You won't be getting that in piston engined aircraft.
There are design standards that have to be met, but Turboprops are just as acceptable for a lot of aircraft.....
3. Reliability - ETOPS (extended-range twin-engine operational performance standard) hitting 207 minutes. Try that in a piston engine aircraft of yesteryear.
ETOPS is directly related to distance a plane can fly from an airstrip where the plane can land, however your argument is biased. Planes with jet engines are much larger than your typical piston driven aircraft. For example, the endurance of a Cesna 400 is less than 6 hours under optimal conditions, avoiding any headwinds, or other problems. You would have to be insane to certify it as acceptable for such a plane to be able to travel 3.5 hours away from an airstrip, that leaves no "fudge factor". Your argument is bogus.
Oh, and yes, I'm related to the aviation industry:)
Exactly! Marketing increases Engineering Sacrifice which leads to a decrease in efficiency. Turboprops are more efficient, yet consumers don't like the look of this massive propeller in front of their engine. It is not a modern look, so it must be a bad design. Same goes for rear mounted jet engines, you gain greater performance, yet a mechanic has to stand on a step stool to service it, so engines are mounted under the wings. Bottom line, consumers love to complain about efficiency, but are unwilling to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve the efficiency. Marketing is a thorn in every engineers side.....
These ships do nothing about the levels of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere! They merely produce more cloud cover to reflect radiant heat back into the atmosphere. The main purpose of these ships is to combat supposed "global warming" by inducing "global cooling". The method will probably work, but do we really want to have the next ice age started by a bunch of autonomous robots. I for one would rather have the next ice age induced by the smoke from my charcoal grill, at least that way I get to enjoy a savory delight.
It's too bad that WGA never recognizes genuine copies of Windows given to students at my university. I think it is due to the fact that the disks are produced on campus under a distribution license, or, The Pirate Bay is hosted inside the dark cave on campus. Just a thought.
We don't live in a socialist society people, the family is responsible for at least a portion of the cost. Most emergency services bill you. If this was a little girl that got lost in the woods, most likely the family wouldn't be billed, but thrill seekers intentionally take inherent risks that lost little children don't. The policy of billing for services is often practiced by the federal government when U.S. Citizens abroad are evacuated by embassies or military spec ops. Most organizations advise you that, if you have other means of leaving a country then you should use them over the government's. It is significantly cheaper to take a taxi out of a country than to take a Chinook. It's just a simple case of cost recovery, we just take for granted that it won't cost a dime when 100s of people have to come look for us when we get lost, and I mean no disrespect to Fossett or his widow.
You would definitely have to invent some kind of reactive spray so that you could activate your ghostly UV writing. We could call it..........Ghostwriter
Do you know what altitude the Mach 3.2 was achieved at? Altitude makes a pretty big difference if you are comparing the speed at which the plane flies. Mach 3.5 at 80k ft corresponds to a speed of roughly 2312 mph which at sea level would correspond to a Mach 3.0. This is purely due to the definition of Mach, Mach=Velocity/Speed of sound. Speed of sound at 80k ft is 660mph where as at Sea Level it is 761mph
A much more interesting topic than the thermal expansion of the SR-71 and how fast it flies is NASA's research into high altitude, perpetual flight planes. They are being developed to replace existing satellites and potentially fly for something around 5 years without refueling.
I've got some Ancient zip disks, maybe I can print off some artificially aged labels and sell the disks as a "never before seen Windows OS."
Unfortunately, Windows releases every piece of garbage they develop.
Vista, the new Windows ME???
Slashdot Mirror
All we need is a 2300km diameter hole that is 7km deep just like the Martians, it seems as if they've got their act together. I for one would like to start with France, unfortunately they are too small, Australia anyone?
I bet they used g sub c and not slugs too.....
Experience - I used to work for Rolls Royce plc (the aero engine divison of Rolls Royce).
......used to. Let me guess, you switched to business management? Additionally, just because you worked for the company, doesn't mean it counts as "experience". After all, I'm sure they employ a large number of janitorial staff. Your design and performance data to support your "argument" seem to be accurate, however they further illustrate the point that selection of an engine is based on more than sheer performance, but a number of factors including safety (turbofan vs turboprop). So....two conclusions. 1)Piston engines are not useless and outdated, otherwise NO plane(regardless of size) would be produced using them. 2)The article is mainly about efficiency, and we need to stop cloaking other design criteria as efficiency criteria for the industry.....
You won't be getting that in piston engined aircraft.
There are design standards that have to be met, but Turboprops are just as acceptable for a lot of aircraft.....
3. Reliability - ETOPS (extended-range twin-engine operational performance standard) hitting 207 minutes. Try that in a piston engine aircraft of yesteryear.
ETOPS is directly related to distance a plane can fly from an airstrip where the plane can land, however your argument is biased. Planes with jet engines are much larger than your typical piston driven aircraft. For example, the endurance of a Cesna 400 is less than 6 hours under optimal conditions, avoiding any headwinds, or other problems. You would have to be insane to certify it as acceptable for such a plane to be able to travel 3.5 hours away from an airstrip, that leaves no "fudge factor". Your argument is bogus.
Oh, and yes, I'm related to the aviation industry :)
You sound like an estranged step cousin.
Exactly! Marketing increases Engineering Sacrifice which leads to a decrease in efficiency. Turboprops are more efficient, yet consumers don't like the look of this massive propeller in front of their engine. It is not a modern look, so it must be a bad design. Same goes for rear mounted jet engines, you gain greater performance, yet a mechanic has to stand on a step stool to service it, so engines are mounted under the wings. Bottom line, consumers love to complain about efficiency, but are unwilling to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve the efficiency. Marketing is a thorn in every engineers side.....
Exactly how many bristols is it? Will we be seeing Elricks as a sub-measurement of bristols?
.....MS paint FTW!
These ships do nothing about the levels of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere! They merely produce more cloud cover to reflect radiant heat back into the atmosphere. The main purpose of these ships is to combat supposed "global warming" by inducing "global cooling". The method will probably work, but do we really want to have the next ice age started by a bunch of autonomous robots. I for one would rather have the next ice age induced by the smoke from my charcoal grill, at least that way I get to enjoy a savory delight.
Get out of my head!
But if I google it I will only get www.google.com?
Perhaps a ring made from a spent uranium rod. It pays off in the end if you have a large enough life insurance policy.
I didn't know hunchbacks were in season this year.
It's too bad that WGA never recognizes genuine copies of Windows given to students at my university. I think it is due to the fact that the disks are produced on campus under a distribution license, or, The Pirate Bay is hosted inside the dark cave on campus. Just a thought.
a competent chef is vary important
I agree, the necessity of a competent chef does vary, depending on what smells like fish.
I guess NASA needs to waste money to justify a bigger budget.
Considering that NASA operates on about 0.6% of the GDP ($17.318 billion) and that a typical space shuttle launch burns around 835,958 gallons of liquid propellants costing NASA around $450 million per launch I think that they are doing quite well with their meager budget. Especially once you factor in the fact that if it wasn't for their splurging on the ballpoint pen you would still be using your No.2 Pencil and Big Chief writing pad. Not to mention the fact that the communist would have won the space race.
There you are, I was wondering when the insightful and informative moderators were going to let the funny mod out of the closet.
We don't live in a socialist society people, the family is responsible for at least a portion of the cost. Most emergency services bill you. If this was a little girl that got lost in the woods, most likely the family wouldn't be billed, but thrill seekers intentionally take inherent risks that lost little children don't. The policy of billing for services is often practiced by the federal government when U.S. Citizens abroad are evacuated by embassies or military spec ops. Most organizations advise you that, if you have other means of leaving a country then you should use them over the government's. It is significantly cheaper to take a taxi out of a country than to take a Chinook. It's just a simple case of cost recovery, we just take for granted that it won't cost a dime when 100s of people have to come look for us when we get lost, and I mean no disrespect to Fossett or his widow.
First Shipaturd, now this? Damn Democrats.
You would definitely have to invent some kind of reactive spray so that you could activate your ghostly UV writing. We could call it..........Ghostwriter
Plus, you can sell his lvl 70 Warlock.
Isn't that a question on the MEYER'S briggs personality test?
Do you know what altitude the Mach 3.2 was achieved at? Altitude makes a pretty big difference if you are comparing the speed at which the plane flies. Mach 3.5 at 80k ft corresponds to a speed of roughly 2312 mph which at sea level would correspond to a Mach 3.0. This is purely due to the definition of Mach, Mach=Velocity/Speed of sound. Speed of sound at 80k ft is 660mph where as at Sea Level it is 761mph A much more interesting topic than the thermal expansion of the SR-71 and how fast it flies is NASA's research into high altitude, perpetual flight planes. They are being developed to replace existing satellites and potentially fly for something around 5 years without refueling.
I've got some Ancient zip disks, maybe I can print off some artificially aged labels and sell the disks as a "never before seen Windows OS." Unfortunately, Windows releases every piece of garbage they develop. Vista, the new Windows ME???