How high can you fly?

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:42Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
george wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:44Â*am, wrote:
george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane, yes.

There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
might be useful but they are terribly fragile.

And a range of 90 minutes....
That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.

I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
electric motor.

Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.

They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.

No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
carry the weight of a person.

--
Jim Pennino

Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
records in duration and elevation.

Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?

Well, since there's sufficient lift to carry them, you would
design accomodations. But they didn't build them to carry
people. They were trying to set records in endurance and
elevation, within the criteria of the original mission statement
which sought to display it's applications in mapping, etc.

Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.

They serve no other purpose.

As a UAV they are a dud.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

An airplane is an airplane.

And you're a mindless moron.

See we're bonding under truths.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:13:20 -0000, wrote:

I think everyone but you knows what I mean.

--
Jim Pennino

An airplane is an airplane.

I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
wings

Clueless.

--
Jim Pennino

No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?

Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

rofl
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

Yesterday you called me stupid

No no no it's been months now.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

Where do you put the luggage and dog?

Under Tiger Boy's grave?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Sep 20, 9:11*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:

No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?

Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

Cite.

Your last one.

See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.

Gibberish.

Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
to you?

Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok. I'm listening.

You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
(or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)

Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
plates just so you can inspect them.

I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
of where these access areas are.

And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
plates or some other method of inspection.

See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.

I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.

Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
the fabric.

I already know that.

Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.

When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
airplanes have wood structures?

Yes. New homebuilts have wood as well.

Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.

Ok, finally, you're telling me something I'm not familiar with.

Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?

Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
school. I've recounted here in this forum one of my flights
not so long ago where I brought my plane down several
thousand feet in a simulated power out, and specified the
procedures I took, as by the book. Then there was an
incident. My CFI neglected to instruct me to clear the
engine. (yes, I'm very inexperienced) As I set up pattern
over a field, and approached an emergency final, the
motor began to sputter and choke out. Blocking out all
else I continued to fly the plane in descent. Somehow
my CFI cleared the engine and I flew us out of there.
(yes I had on carb heat during descent)

So you see, I'm a newbee in the cockpit. But I have a
vast knowledge in other areas of aviation. And I have
flown tail draggers as well. ( i already told you, the J-3)

I'm in this group to learn, and discuss. Not be insulted.
You (if *you* aren't a phony) have far more experience
than I. On the other hand, I'm smarter than you are.(lol)
So we can help one another, and have a little fun too.

---
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

On Sep 20, 9:17*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:42*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
george wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
george wrote:

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane, yes.

There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
might be useful but they are terribly fragile.

And a range of 90 minutes....
That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.

I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
electric motor.

Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.

They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.

No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
carry the weight of a person.

--
Jim Pennino

Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
records in duration and elevation.

Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?

Well, since there's sufficient lift to carry them, you would
design accomodations. But they didn't build them to carry
people. They were trying to set records in endurance and
elevation, within the criteria of the original mission statement
which sought to display it's applications in mapping, etc.

Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.

Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
world records. LOL!

They serve no other purpose.

It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
but knowledge through discovery.

As a UAV they are a dud.

I can't comment until further study. Form follows
function. This should tell you something.

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:11Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:11Â*pm, wrote:

No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?

Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

Cite.

Your last one.

See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.

Gibberish.

Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
to you?

Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.

--
Jim Pennino

Ok. I'm listening.

You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
(or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)

Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
plates just so you can inspect them.

I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
of where these access areas are.

Then why ask the question?

And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
plates or some other method of inspection.

See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.

I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.

No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.

Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
the fabric.

I already know that.

Then why ask the question?

Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.

Bull****.

GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
stupid that exceeds design limits.

When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
airplanes have wood structures?

Yes. New homebuilts have wood as well.

Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.

Ok, finally, you're telling me something I'm not familiar with.

Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?

Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
school.

Lord help us all.

So you see, I'm a newbee in the cockpit

Obviuosly.

vast knowledge in other areas of aviation. And I have

Not in evidence.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:17Â*pm, wrote:

Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.

Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
world records. LOL!

Nope, as a matter of fact, you can't find work in research unless it is in
a politically correct area, or has a politically correct tie in these days.

Why do you think they hyped all the crap about hydrogen?

They serve no other purpose.

It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
but knowledge through discovery.

There was little to no science involved, just some engineering.

Bolt A to B, fly it, more study, i.e. money, needed.

As a UAV they are a dud.

I can't comment until further study. Form follows
function. This should tell you something.

Try looking at real, working UAV's.

They aren't electric.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:14:25 -0000, wrote:

Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
school.

Lord help us all.

AAAAAAAAAAmen.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!