In article <Z5CgD.84014$GU1.25316@fx34.am4>, johnny-b-
good@invalid.ntlworld.com says...
>
> All that may be true but you seem to have missed the (old) joke
> reference to the phrase; "You can't have your cake and eat it." :-)
Which was the punch-line to a long story (one of many) told by Frank
Muir and Denis Norden in the BBC radio programme "My Word". (IIRC the
kayayk was, improbably, crewed by Ab, Abdul and Abdullah.)
Mike.
Reply by Johnny B Good●August 26, 20182018-08-26
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:29:48 -0700, gnuarm.deletethisbit wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:40:47 AM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> On 10/08/2018 00:22, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt
>> > Christensen wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Sailing - The fine art of getting wet and becoming ill, while going
>> >> nowhere slowly at great expense (equivalent to standing in a cold
>> >> shower, fully clothed, throwing up, and tearing up $100 bills, while
>> >> a bunch of other people watch you).
>> >
>> > You are thinking of power boats. In a kayak you have to paddle as
>> > well!
>> >
>> > Rick C.
>>
>> And it's cold. You can't have your kayak and heat it.
>
> No, you wear a wet or dry suit and then the problem becomes cooling.
> But that's an easy one, rotary cooling. We also call that rolling.
>
All that may be true but you seem to have missed the (old) joke
reference to the phrase; "You can't have your cake and eat it." :-)
--
Johnny B Good
Reply by bitrex●August 12, 20182018-08-12
On 08/11/2018 10:17 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>>
>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if
>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for
>> short trips.
>
> 20-something years ago there was a documentary on a guy whose dream was
> to build a quad-copter out of 4 rusty surplus transport copters and a
> square steel framework. He wanted it for logging, to replace a balloon
> IIRC. One copter failed and all 4 pilots came down. I don't remember
> if they all lived.
>
>
The moral of this story is to have pedestrian dreams. Mine is to
hopefully own my own small tool/garden shed before I'm 50.
Reply by Reinhardt Behm●August 12, 20182018-08-12
AT Saturday 11 August 2018 18:34, Steve Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:53:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> Or brute force:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail-sitter
>
>> John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
>> picosecond timing precision measurement
>
>> jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
>> http://www.highlandtechnology.com
>
> As my flight instructor used to say, "Taking off is optional. Landing is
> mandantory."
A good landing is when the A/C comes down in one piece, a very good landing
is when it can be used again.
--
Reinhardt
Reply by Tom Del Rosso●August 11, 20182018-08-11
John Doe wrote:
>
> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if
> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for
> short trips.
20-something years ago there was a documentary on a guy whose dream was
to build a quad-copter out of 4 rusty surplus transport copters and a
square steel framework. He wanted it for logging, to replace a balloon
IIRC. One copter failed and all 4 pilots came down. I don't remember
if they all lived.
Reply by Steve Wilson●August 11, 20182018-08-11
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:53:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 21:13:59 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>On 08/09/2018 08:52 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I thought the bulk of the weight in an orbital rocket was the
>>> fuel? That's the big problem with rockets, it takes a lot of fuel
>>> to get the fuel up to where the little bit of remaining fuel can
>>> get the satellite into orbit.
>>>
>>> In other words, it's all about the fuel, fool! That's "fool" in
>>> the same sense as stupid in "keep it simple, stupid". Don't want
>>> anyone to think I am trying to insult you.
>>>
>>> I don't know VTOL is inherently contradictory. It's more a matter
>>> of design goals. Will it be as efficient as a jumbo jet in fuel
>>> per passenger, maybe not. But when you factor in the huge
>>> inconvenience of transportation to and from airports it mitigates
>>> a lot. So what are the requirements? I know in DC many would pay
>>> extra to not have to go to the large airports.
>>
>> Depending on distance traveled... It will be more efficient, faster, and
>> less hazardous than a helicopter or a multi-rotor.
>
>All VTOL aircraft so far have been exercises in compromise, there's no
>known way to build such an aircraft with all the advantages of rotary
>aircraft plus the speed and efficiency of a fixed-wing aircraft. Remind
>me of what your gimmick is again that makes your concept have different
>rules?
>
>And at least so far there also haven't been any aircraft of that type
>which could be described as safer than a conventional plane or
>helicopter, AFAIK pilots have described them all as "unforgiving" at best.
>
>> The inefficiency comes from the vertical movement of takeoff and
>> landing. But that is temporary.
>
>The inefficiency primarily comes from the fact that to VTOL you want
>your thrust vectored up and down. For efficient cruising you want your
>thrust vectored 90 degrees to that. So at least naively your options are
>either to build an aircraft with two sets of thrusters pointed different
>directions which adds weight, cost, complexity, and inefficiency. Or to
>build one that has a single thruster set that rotates which also adds
>all the above (likely in some other proportion.)
>
>
>> There are other possibilities, involving ultralight aircraft.
>>
>> Possible solutions, besides building the vertical-to-horizontal
>> capability into the aircraft, include a platform for launching and
>> landing.
>>
>
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:40:47 AM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 00:22, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:42:43 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Sailing - The fine art of getting wet and becoming ill, while going nowhere slowly at great expense (equivalent to standing in a cold shower, fully clothed, throwing up, and tearing up $100 bills, while a bunch of other people watch you).
> >
> > You are thinking of power boats. In a kayak you have to paddle as well!
> >
> > Rick C.
>
> And it's cold. You can't have your kayak and heat it.
No, you wear a wet or dry suit and then the problem becomes cooling. But that's an easy one, rotary cooling. We also call that rolling.
Rick C.