So nothing freaky happens (like... you use windows so that non respond in a standards-compliant manner)
Improve performance? Well that's not windows.
Avoiding substantial maintenance costs? Well that's not windows.
"and instance" = "an instance"?
Basically it's clear you're inventing things, have no understanding of servers, services, or windows. If you're using windows for server-side work, you've already lost.
I'm sure you'll find some way to spin it... but since Microsoft doesn't pay ME to be a shill, have a nice evening.
This "approval" you speak of, you mean you have to do all the wrong stuff but someone who doesn't know jack has to approve it when you tell them how to do it right.
This is not a religion. The OP was talking about contributions to Linux. I pointed out MS's contributions are only because their products didn't [and now do] interoperate.
They fixed. That's fine. Consumers choose (that's fine too). The important thing is to remember it's not like MS was building up Linux... they were fixing their bugs.
Hyper-V... VMware... KVM... whatever. I don't worship any of them. HOWEVER, the fixes the OP discussed are because MS had software that didn't work.
I think maybe I was unclear... so I'll try and repair that.
Hyper-V does require an OS to run...hyper-v. It sucks because it's limited.
VMware's ESXi server also requires an OS... vmware ESXi. It happens this one is based on a linux kernel.
If people want to run Linux, and they choose to run it on Hyper-V their experience is limited. Microsoft has fixed some of their software's shortcomings... but Hyper-v is still limited.
I know you're trying to imply neither product needs an OS. This is not true. Both products are built into an OS. The Linux product (VMware ESXi) does not require 361 Microsoft patches to work.
> For those already using Hyper-V, it gives them a choice of using Linux on their VMs instead of Windows. For those already using Linux, it gives them a choice of using Hyper-V to host their VMs instead of KVM, VMware or other solutions
You're saying the same thing twice.
FOR THOSE USING WINDOWS, they can _also_ run Linux.
If they ran Linux they could host whatever they want. THAT'S why Microsoft did this. VMware Server is free, and it runs on Linux or Windows, and it hosts EVERYTHING.
If you're running Windows and Hyper-V... then you can't run everything.
Please who choose to decrease their choices by running windows shouldn't go rushing out to buy greeting cards when some of those choices are returned to them. This does not enhance Linux nor the experience of anyone who uses it. It's for WINDOWS people wanting MORE WINDOWS functionality that they didn't get when they... wait for it... used Windows.
Microsoft contributed stuff so their code would work.
Does it make "linux" better? No.
Does it allow THEIR code to work? Yes.
This "one developer" who contributed it all. Is he the guy who wrote it all... or the guy Microsoft said "Hey you'll be submitting the team's contributions"?
I know it's supposed to be fanboi-good for me to say Microsoft Bad, Google Good, Linux good. Fortunately I believe this.
> Wow, so an attack on a private contractor working for the government is a result of government incompetence? I suppose if all you have is the hammer of government blame in your toolbox....
We're talking about whether it's "suffering" on the part of the government and its contractors from the attacks... or being incompetent.
> the attack was just one of thousands such intrusions that the government and its contractors suffer every year
No, the government and its contractors suffer from incompetence, a lack of encryption, authentication, and data handling procedures. They suffer from violations of their own process. "Here, take this database, decrypt it and email it to our vendor." They suffer from upper management promoted on rank and time served, not competence.
The intrusions aren't what they suffer... they are a direct consequence of the incompetence our government shows daily.
How's that debt ceiling coming? I'd like to have mine raised. The mortgage is due tomorrow.
I'm sorry as I intend no offense other than being shown illiteracy in one's post, but if you wish to enter a third language (Latin) "ad hominem" implies an attack by name and usually not founded.
Apostrophe&s are not added to "it" to show the possessive form, and have only done so by "convention" insofar that the "convention" is the English language.
Nothing personal, and no insult (or "ad hominem") intended, only to make it clear these ARE the rules, and while you can make new ones, if it won't cut it with your daughter's English teacher... it's not English.
Did you say something about terrorists? I must have missed where anyone was discussing terrorists*.
Wiretaps have not and do not stop terrorists, and the number has increased EACH and EVERY year since 2002. These wiretaps have not led to a decrease in CRIME, a decrease in the existence of the mafia (RIAA+MPAA+BSA?) (other than The Sopranos being canceled), or any positive outcome.
Judges have REGULARLY allowed law enforcement to "latitude" in excess (abuse) of the 4th amendment.
I understand it's REALLY EASY to ignore the topic altogether and say "well it's higher in New York and New Jersey so it's ok." However, the Constitution's protections don't have a "some slashdot read thinks it's ok if it's only NY/NJ suffers so let's ignore it" clause. It's EQUAL protection under the LAW.
I tried to use big letters, because the little letters in the Fourth Amendment seem to have escaped attention.
E *P.S. The "9/11" plane attackers had valid non-expired government issued photo IDs, no weapons, knives, liquids, or were caught on wiretaps. Some of them flew out of JFK (which is in NY). What's the mob connection there? Oh. None? You don't say. So this REALLY is an example of courts giving law enforcement privileges they shouldn't have WHICH IN NO WAY FIGHT TERRORISM, PAST, PRESENT, or FICTION? Got it.
It's unusual that you haven't been exposed to that much bullshit or that "DNS", "browser", and "redirects" seem to you be the same thing.
No worries. DNS is the fundamental name to number translation. Any host on the Internet must not screw with this (I posted the RFCs but I understand you didn't read them).
Browser is one choice of application type, and not relevant to any discussion.
Redirect is a function of a browser and even less redirect.
Have a beautiful day, and look up why "it's" and "its" are not the same word, sweetie.
DNS should not be messed with. It's a foundation of the network. The host-RFC says so.
Domain Name System servers must conform to the standards. If Telstra is unable or unwilling to comply, they can be removed. Sure, they're popular in Australia... but you want to be ON the Internet, you have to work WITH the Internet.
DNS is specified in RFC 1034, RFC 1035, covered further in the Hosts Requirements RFCs (1122, 1123).
Telstra, if you can't be standards compliant, you will be worked around.
Australian users: use any public DNS server that is standards compliant. You'll avoid the censorship, and you won't lose connectivity.
Quoting the last line: "Will deliberations at the ITU-R Radiocommunication Assembly in January 2012 resolve or cloud these issues?"
This is a committee to review the standard. Nothing is going to change without proposals. Those come long AFTER the review. Then there's the discussion process. Eventually it may make it to being a standard. Then people have time to implement it.
The reason that MR blades don't typically do negative pitch is because they have a limited range from maximum pitch to negative pitch. That's because even with hydraulic and force-trim assist, there's a limited movement available to the collective *and* it must still have full cyclic range with collective full-up or collective full-down. A helicopter pilot expects a linear response as either cyclic or collective inputs are entered.
Servos do not have this restriction for two reasons. First, because physically they can move the control surfaces a lot more than a human moving a stick, they have that advantage. Second, because the R/C pilot isn't really moving the controls... just the radio controls... and he can make THOSE be non-linear, have them affect differently at the upper and lower edge, etc., it is a far different experience than an actual pilot expecting linear controls.
In a real heli... EVERYTHING is designed to MINIMIZE WEIGHT and provide JUST ENOUGH THRUST and JUST ENOUGH LIFT to get the thing to perform. Nobody builds helicopters that are "twice as light as they need to be" or "twice as powerful as they need to be." Those would be what you need to be able to generate 2x lift... and therefore set the blades so you can go from -1G to +1G. Instead, everything is engineered to be "JUST as light as it needs to be" and "JUST as powerful as it needs to be" (for each class)... and they go from "NO lift (0G) " to positive lift (1G). Yes, some accelerate quicker, particularly military helicopters, but nobody configures them for "+1G to -1G". Instead they are configured from "0G to +nG" (n being some number). The thought being if they need to descend they will use nose-down and forward cyclic...
Could it be done? Yes. Will anyone do it? No. I already covered why the engineers wouldn't. We can also talk companies. Let's say I'm developing the latest "Light Twin". I have put the lightest two engines in. I need the aircraft to work even if one fails. That means I must maximize lift and minimize weight. I'm not going to set up a system so it has less lift 99.9999% of the time, but 0.0001% of the time I can hug a deck because nobody thought to put a tether on.
Let's say I'm doing a heavy aircraft (>12,500lbs in the US)... I have to maximize my lift. If I sacrifice half of it so I can stick to the deck of the lazy deckhands, that means during ALL operational work I'm going to be short on power.
Let's say I'm doing a Robinson R-22 or C300 style helicopter... I have the thinnest blades and the weakest engine, detuned to even less power. I'm not going to make it LESS likely to lift just because one day I might want to stick to a deck.
While it's true that helicopters are engineered for the edge case, the edge case in almost 100% of the time is lifting the helicopter and max allowable weight... NOT pushing that weight into the ground.
BTW, the RC does not generate equal lift in opposite directions. There's flexibility in how you set it up... but the range of movement is limited by the servo arm. So if you want it to go up fast... you won't have a lot of negative pitch to thrown in. If you want it to rise steadily and slowly... you can put in more negative pitch.
BECAUSE the R/C heli has a lower weight and higher thrust, normal considerations like hot and heavy operations don't apply. It is a small little thing with fast small blades. Like I said... (and I have a few, including a Raptor 60) they're fun... but they don't really simulate a real heli except in how control surfaces work.
No, I never said anything as stupid as that. A real heli could certainly fly with flat blades. Nobody would design or build one though. Ever.
Aa real heli with flat blades would have severly limited lift, REQUIRE negative pitch in order to able to autorotate, and be the work of an incompetent person pretending to be an engineer. It would need a greater than normal MR speed, requiring exotic composites, and would suck in performance.
Nobody in his right mind would build a real heli with flat blades. With a simple change in blade construction and no other changes they'd have enhanced lift, better autorotative ability, and less blade stress. (You see, with a flat blade, the outside edge of the rotor plane produces a LOT of thrust. The inner part of the rotor plane, not so much.) That also means less exotic materials could be used for a "twisted" blade, vs extremely exotic materials for a flat blade.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL ANYBODY WILL DESIGN A REAL HELICOPTER WITH FLAT BLADES. And if anybody was stupid enough to design one, the next engineer to look at the plans would replace the blades making it a much better helicopter with no extra effort.
An R/C heli is only real insofar as it demonstrates SOME of the concepts of a full-size heli. However, because of its thrust to weight ratio, it doesn't represent what a real heli will do.
If you have any more questions... there are lots of books on rotorcraft. Try not to focus on small-scale models. There's problems with small-scale representing larger things. One is the engine produces more thrust per weight. The other is they have less gravity to overcome. They are also more susceptible to external forces such as wind, termals, etc.
I don't care if they "blame" lulz... or if lulz really made a difference. Telstra sucks for agreeing to "filter" the Internet. Perhaps it's "great" they want to be like China and filter the Internet. The Internet does not want those filters.
"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore, 1993. That meaning existed llong before Telstra existed, and long after they will.
Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.
Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not being clear. Let me try again.
R/C helis have very short main-rotor blades. That means the edge of the blade as it's traveling in a circle at 3000RPM doesn't actually do that many FPM or MPH or cross the sound barrier.
Real helis (you'll note we don't put a qualifier in front of their name like "R/C" or "mini" or "micro") have longer blades. These blades MUST spin slower so that no part of the blade ever goes faster than the speed of sound. It's a balance between spin as fast as possible... don't go past the speed of sound... and don't have retreating blade stall.
Real helis main-rotor blades are not flat. They are "twisted" or "curved" so the part nearest the hub generates more lift. This gives the blade reasonably equal lift across its entire length. That's also why when going down to minimum-pitch angle, they're NOT negative pitch. However, there is enough "driving area" on the rotor plane to make the "driven area" turn.
So back to the basics. R/C helicopters - they're not real. That's because they are smaller, have smaller rotors, and their thrust-to-weight ratio is greater. (Think "a bird flies on a few bits of birdseed but real helicopters take gallons of fuel).
The main-rotor length limits its speed of rotation... which limits its inertia.
You're right. It's "design decisions." Designers aren't morons and they want the helicopters to fly.
Now I'm going to make an editing decision and stop trying to explain things to someone who isn't listening.
The original article is about a nonexistent aircraft. I stand by my comments. So does reality and science.
Perhaps you're talking about an R/C heli. If so, it does it because it can, and that's for a reason.
A real heli is weight limited, and its entire rotor system is devoted to generating upward thrust (lift). Negative pitch is really a rarity (see Lynx above) on real helis, but common on R/C "3D" and other helis.
There is a second reason for this... R/C helis often have flat rotor blades... and the ONLY way to get them to spin up in autorotation is negative pitch. That's ok tho, because they spin around 3000RPM.
Real helis have curved blades so they generate lift along the slow (close in) and fast (edge of blade) parts of the blade. Real heli blades spin around 400-600RPM. That's because they are much longer... and no part of the blade should ever cross the speed of sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Who got scared? Who was terrorized?
Not every explosion is "terror". Terrorism (except as defined by the US Govt.) requires causing terror.
This was an explosion. I'm glad it wasn't worse... ...but it wasn't terror.
It's time to quit calling everything "terror".
E
Windows specific programs?
As servers?
So nothing freaky happens (like ... you use windows so that non respond in a standards-compliant manner)
Improve performance? Well that's not windows.
Avoiding substantial maintenance costs? Well that's not windows.
"and instance" = "an instance"?
Basically it's clear you're inventing things, have no understanding of servers, services, or windows.
If you're using windows for server-side work, you've already lost.
I'm sure you'll find some way to spin it... but since Microsoft doesn't pay ME to be a shill, have a nice evening.
E
This "approval" you speak of, you mean you have to do all the wrong stuff but someone who doesn't know jack has to approve it when you tell them how to do it right.
I mourn for you, brother.
E
This is not a religion. The OP was talking about contributions to Linux. I pointed out MS's contributions are only because their products didn't [and now do] interoperate.
They fixed. That's fine. Consumers choose (that's fine too). The important thing is to remember it's not like MS was building up Linux... they were fixing their bugs.
Hyper-V... VMware... KVM... whatever. I don't worship any of them. HOWEVER, the fixes the OP discussed are because MS had software that didn't work.
Best and good weekend,
E
I think maybe I was unclear... so I'll try and repair that.
Hyper-V does require an OS to run...hyper-v. It sucks because it's limited.
VMware's ESXi server also requires an OS... vmware ESXi. It happens this one is based on a linux kernel.
If people want to run Linux, and they choose to run it on Hyper-V their experience is limited. Microsoft has fixed some of their software's shortcomings... but Hyper-v is still limited.
I know you're trying to imply neither product needs an OS. This is not true. Both products are built into an OS. The Linux product (VMware ESXi) does not require 361 Microsoft patches to work.
E
> For those already using Hyper-V, it gives them a choice of using Linux on their VMs instead of Windows. For those already using Linux, it gives them a choice of using Hyper-V to host their VMs instead of KVM, VMware or other solutions
You're saying the same thing twice.
FOR THOSE USING WINDOWS, they can _also_ run Linux.
If they ran Linux they could host whatever they want. THAT'S why Microsoft did this. VMware Server is free, and it runs on Linux or Windows, and it hosts EVERYTHING.
If you're running Windows and Hyper-V... then you can't run everything.
Please who choose to decrease their choices by running windows shouldn't go rushing out to buy greeting cards when some of those choices are returned to them. This does not enhance Linux nor the experience of anyone who uses it. It's for WINDOWS people wanting MORE WINDOWS functionality that they didn't get when they... wait for it... used Windows.
E
Sure. People who want to use windows should switch to windows. The "module" is useless to anybody else.
You want windows? Go use windows.
You want linux? Use linux.
Microsoft contributed nothing that helps anyone who doesn't want to use windows.
E
No, I checked. it's you.
They only added interoperability for them. It does nothing for linux.
I know, facts upset you people who call everyone else fanboys.
It's ok.
One day when you're out of junior high (or ITT tech) you'll understand.
E
Microsoft contributed stuff so their code would work.
Does it make "linux" better? No.
Does it allow THEIR code to work? Yes.
This "one developer" who contributed it all. Is he the guy who wrote it all... or the guy Microsoft said "Hey you'll be submitting the team's contributions"?
I know it's supposed to be fanboi-good for me to say Microsoft Bad, Google Good, Linux good. Fortunately I believe this.
Microsoft bad.
Google good.
Linux good.
If you feel differently go to backslashdot.com.
E
> Wow, so an attack on a private contractor working for the government is a result of government incompetence? I suppose if all you have is the hammer of government blame in your toolbox....
We're talking about whether it's "suffering" on the part of the government and its contractors from the attacks... or being incompetent.
I suppose if all you have is inability to understand simple sentences in your toolbox....[sic] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis
E
> the attack was just one of thousands such intrusions that the government and its contractors suffer every year
No, the government and its contractors suffer from incompetence, a lack of encryption, authentication, and data handling procedures. They suffer from violations of their own process. "Here, take this database, decrypt it and email it to our vendor." They suffer from upper management promoted on rank and time served, not competence.
The intrusions aren't what they suffer... they are a direct consequence of the incompetence our government shows daily.
How's that debt ceiling coming? I'd like to have mine raised. The mortgage is due tomorrow.
E
Arrogance... or how English is constructed --
I'm sorry as I intend no offense other than being shown illiteracy in one's post, but if you wish to enter a third language (Latin) "ad hominem" implies an attack by name and usually not founded.
Apostrophe&s are not added to "it" to show the possessive form, and have only done so by "convention" insofar that the "convention" is the English language.
Nothing personal, and no insult (or "ad hominem") intended, only to make it clear these ARE the rules, and while you can make new ones, if it won't cut it with your daughter's English teacher... it's not English.
Best
E
Illiterate people often say that.
It's - contraction for "it is". In no way is this possessive.
Its - possessive for "the thing belongs to it". In no way is this a contraction.
There - a location not here.
They're - a contraction for "they are"
Their - a possessive for "the thing belongs to them"
You'll note that other than your one slashdot post, the rest of the literate English-speaking world goes by THESE definitions.
Your wilkum, sweetie!
E
Did you say something about terrorists? I must have missed where anyone was discussing terrorists*.
Wiretaps have not and do not stop terrorists, and the number has increased EACH and EVERY year since 2002. These wiretaps have not led to a decrease in CRIME, a decrease in the existence of the mafia (RIAA+MPAA+BSA?) (other than The Sopranos being canceled), or any positive outcome.
Judges have REGULARLY allowed law enforcement to "latitude" in excess (abuse) of the 4th amendment.
I understand it's REALLY EASY to ignore the topic altogether and say "well it's higher in New York and New Jersey so it's ok." However, the Constitution's protections don't have a "some slashdot read thinks it's ok if it's only NY/NJ suffers so let's ignore it" clause. It's EQUAL protection under the LAW.
I tried to use big letters, because the little letters in the Fourth Amendment seem to have escaped attention.
E
*P.S. The "9/11" plane attackers had valid non-expired government issued photo IDs, no weapons, knives, liquids, or were caught on wiretaps. Some of them flew out of JFK (which is in NY). What's the mob connection there? Oh. None? You don't say. So this REALLY is an example of courts giving law enforcement privileges they shouldn't have WHICH IN NO WAY FIGHT TERRORISM, PAST, PRESENT, or FICTION? Got it.
Careful - that's a Disney Trademark!
It's unusual that you haven't been exposed to that much bullshit or that "DNS", "browser", and "redirects" seem to you be the same thing.
No worries. DNS is the fundamental name to number translation. Any host on the Internet must not screw with this (I posted the RFCs but I understand you didn't read them).
Browser is one choice of application type, and not relevant to any discussion.
Redirect is a function of a browser and even less redirect.
Have a beautiful day, and look up why "it's" and "its" are not the same word, sweetie.
DNS should not be messed with. It's a foundation of the network. The host-RFC says so.
Best regards.
E
Yeah, those private jets over the poles, why DO THEY DO IT??? Stop private planes flying over the poles. All zero of them.
And as others have mentioned, yeah "propellers" on the "jetliners". LOL! Sure.
I would rather blame rich guys with long noses who were originally made of wood.
Sure, it's Pinnochio. Just as real.
Looks like Slashdot let another potsmoker start a thread.
E
Domain Name System servers must conform to the standards. If Telstra is unable or unwilling to comply, they can be removed. Sure, they're popular in Australia... but you want to be ON the Internet, you have to work WITH the Internet.
DNS is specified in RFC 1034, RFC 1035, covered further in the Hosts Requirements RFCs (1122, 1123).
Telstra, if you can't be standards compliant, you will be worked around.
Australian users: use any public DNS server that is standards compliant. You'll avoid the censorship, and you won't lose connectivity.
Telstra -- Australian for "Censorship"
E
If you want to read it for yourself: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3141v1
Quoting the last line: "Will deliberations at the ITU-R Radiocommunication Assembly in January 2012 resolve or cloud these issues?"
This is a committee to review the standard. Nothing is going to change without proposals. Those come long AFTER the review. Then there's the discussion process. Eventually it may make it to being a standard. Then people have time to implement it.
Cheers,
Ehud
The reason that MR blades don't typically do negative pitch is because they have a limited range from maximum pitch to negative pitch. That's because even with hydraulic and force-trim assist, there's a limited movement available to the collective *and* it must still have full cyclic range with collective full-up or collective full-down. A helicopter pilot expects a linear response as either cyclic or collective inputs are entered.
Servos do not have this restriction for two reasons. First, because physically they can move the control surfaces a lot more than a human moving a stick, they have that advantage. Second, because the R/C pilot isn't really moving the controls... just the radio controls... and he can make THOSE be non-linear, have them affect differently at the upper and lower edge, etc., it is a far different experience than an actual pilot expecting linear controls.
In a real heli... EVERYTHING is designed to MINIMIZE WEIGHT and provide JUST ENOUGH THRUST and JUST ENOUGH LIFT to get the thing to perform. Nobody builds helicopters that are "twice as light as they need to be" or "twice as powerful as they need to be." Those would be what you need to be able to generate 2x lift... and therefore set the blades so you can go from -1G to +1G. Instead, everything is engineered to be "JUST as light as it needs to be" and "JUST as powerful as it needs to be" (for each class)... and they go from "NO lift (0G) " to positive lift (1G). Yes, some accelerate quicker, particularly military helicopters, but nobody configures them for "+1G to -1G". Instead they are configured from "0G to +nG" (n being some number). The thought being if they need to descend they will use nose-down and forward cyclic...
Could it be done? Yes. Will anyone do it? No. I already covered why the engineers wouldn't. We can also talk companies. Let's say I'm developing the latest "Light Twin". I have put the lightest two engines in. I need the aircraft to work even if one fails. That means I must maximize lift and minimize weight. I'm not going to set up a system so it has less lift 99.9999% of the time, but 0.0001% of the time I can hug a deck because nobody thought to put a tether on.
Let's say I'm doing a heavy aircraft (>12,500lbs in the US)... I have to maximize my lift. If I sacrifice half of it so I can stick to the deck of the lazy deckhands, that means during ALL operational work I'm going to be short on power.
Let's say I'm doing a Robinson R-22 or C300 style helicopter... I have the thinnest blades and the weakest engine, detuned to even less power. I'm not going to make it LESS likely to lift just because one day I might want to stick to a deck.
While it's true that helicopters are engineered for the edge case, the edge case in almost 100% of the time is lifting the helicopter and max allowable weight... NOT pushing that weight into the ground.
BTW, the RC does not generate equal lift in opposite directions. There's flexibility in how you set it up... but the range of movement is limited by the servo arm. So if you want it to go up fast... you won't have a lot of negative pitch to thrown in. If you want it to rise steadily and slowly... you can put in more negative pitch.
BECAUSE the R/C heli has a lower weight and higher thrust, normal considerations like hot and heavy operations don't apply. It is a small little thing with fast small blades. Like I said... (and I have a few, including a Raptor 60) they're fun... but they don't really simulate a real heli except in how control surfaces work.
E
No, I never said anything as stupid as that. A real heli could certainly fly with flat blades. Nobody would design or build one though. Ever.
Aa real heli with flat blades would have severly limited lift, REQUIRE negative pitch in order to able to autorotate, and be the work of an incompetent person pretending to be an engineer. It would need a greater than normal MR speed, requiring exotic composites, and would suck in performance.
Nobody in his right mind would build a real heli with flat blades. With a simple change in blade construction and no other changes they'd have enhanced lift, better autorotative ability, and less blade stress. (You see, with a flat blade, the outside edge of the rotor plane produces a LOT of thrust. The inner part of the rotor plane, not so much.) That also means less exotic materials could be used for a "twisted" blade, vs extremely exotic materials for a flat blade.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL ANYBODY WILL DESIGN A REAL HELICOPTER WITH FLAT BLADES. And if anybody was stupid enough to design one, the next engineer to look at the plans would replace the blades making it a much better helicopter with no extra effort.
An R/C heli is only real insofar as it demonstrates SOME of the concepts of a full-size heli. However, because of its thrust to weight ratio, it doesn't represent what a real heli will do.
If you have any more questions... there are lots of books on rotorcraft. Try not to focus on small-scale models. There's problems with small-scale representing larger things. One is the engine produces more thrust per weight. The other is they have less gravity to overcome. They are also more susceptible to external forces such as wind, termals, etc.
Best regards.
E
I don't care if they "blame" lulz... or if lulz really made a difference. Telstra sucks for agreeing to "filter" the Internet. Perhaps it's "great" they want to be like China and filter the Internet. The Internet does not want those filters.
"The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore, 1993. That meaning existed llong before Telstra existed, and long after they will.
Telstra - be quiet. You don't have the backbone to provide the freedom of Internet communication to the masses.
E
Dude, if there's something you want to say... please do.
Thus far I've done my best to be polite.
If you know something ... share it.
I'm sorry whatever knowledge you have is not of helicopters.
Real helicopters do not have flat blades.
Have a good night
E
P.S. If there's something I said that you found offensive I apologize. I really meant to say "You're a known-nothing idiot. Go screw yourself."
Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not being clear. Let me try again.
R/C helis have very short main-rotor blades. That means the edge of the blade as it's traveling in a circle at 3000RPM doesn't actually do that many FPM or MPH or cross the sound barrier.
Real helis (you'll note we don't put a qualifier in front of their name like "R/C" or "mini" or "micro") have longer blades. These blades MUST spin slower so that no part of the blade ever goes faster than the speed of sound. It's a balance between spin as fast as possible... don't go past the speed of sound... and don't have retreating blade stall.
Real helis main-rotor blades are not flat. They are "twisted" or "curved" so the part nearest the hub generates more lift. This gives the blade reasonably equal lift across its entire length. That's also why when going down to minimum-pitch angle, they're NOT negative pitch. However, there is enough "driving area" on the rotor plane to make the "driven area" turn.
So back to the basics.
R/C helicopters - they're not real. That's because they are smaller, have smaller rotors, and their thrust-to-weight ratio is greater. (Think "a bird flies on a few bits of birdseed but real helicopters take gallons of fuel).
The main-rotor length limits its speed of rotation... which limits its inertia.
You're right. It's "design decisions." Designers aren't morons and they want the helicopters to fly.
Now I'm going to make an editing decision and stop trying to explain things to someone who isn't listening.
The original article is about a nonexistent aircraft. I stand by my comments. So does reality and science.
E
> I do it all the time.
Perhaps you're talking about an R/C heli. If so, it does it because it can, and that's for a reason.
A real heli is weight limited, and its entire rotor system is devoted to generating upward thrust (lift). Negative pitch is really a rarity (see Lynx above) on real helis, but common on R/C "3D" and other helis.
There is a second reason for this... R/C helis often have flat rotor blades... and the ONLY way to get them to spin up in autorotation is negative pitch. That's ok tho, because they spin around 3000RPM.
Real helis have curved blades so they generate lift along the slow (close in) and fast (edge of blade) parts of the blade. Real heli blades spin around 400-600RPM. That's because they are much longer... and no part of the blade should ever cross the speed of sound.
E