A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How high can you fly?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 21st 10, 01:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How high can you fly?

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:13Â*pm, wrote:

Clueless.


--
Jim Pennino


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


Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.


Cite.


Your last one.

snip nonsense

Does the phrase, "metal fatigue" mean anything to you?

Does the phrase "annual inspection" mean anything to you?


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

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #52  
Old September 21st 10, 01:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How high can you fly?

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:

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.


No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
them large enough to carry a man.


Having comprehension problems?

If you want to be 100% anal-retentively correct, there was never any plan
for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
enough to be able to fly with what's in them.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #53  
Old September 21st 10, 01:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default How high can you fly?

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.

"Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."

---
Mark

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...ios/index.html
  #54  
Old September 21st 10, 01:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default How high can you fly?

On Sep 20, 7:52*pm, Mark wrote:

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.


No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
them large enough to carry a man.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...ios/index.html

Keep trying. Even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while.

---
Mark


I AM WRONG! They aren't unmanned because they didn't want
to make them large enough to carry a man.

I AM RIGHT! See my first answer. They are unmanned because
they wanted to set endurance and elevation records.

My mistake was in thinking I was wrong.

Like you.

---
Mark
  #55  
Old September 21st 10, 01:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default How high can you fly?

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.


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)

---
Mark

  #56  
Old September 21st 10, 01:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default How high can you fly?

On Sep 20, 8:17*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:


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.


No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
them large enough to carry a man.


Having comprehension problems?


No I am not. You are!

gibberish snipped

... there was never any plan
for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
enough to be able to fly with what's in them.

--
Jim Pennino


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

If you study the development of the design and it's mission
statement, you will see that these things are designed to
carry nearly an 800lb payload. Further study will explain
what that payload consists of, and what it will be used for.

No acorn for you.

---
Mark




  #57  
Old September 21st 10, 01:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How high can you fly?

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?

"Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."


Or in other words, it was already full of junk.

BTW, this text isn't in your link.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #58  
Old September 21st 10, 01:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default How high can you fly?

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.

"Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."


Or in other words, it was already full of junk.


There is sufficient lift to carry 3 really fat chicks. But
they were trying to set records in endurance and
elevation, plus market it's applications.

BTW, this text isn't in your link.


Yesterday you called me stupid for not backtracking a site
to another site that wasn't even linked.

In this case, the text is on the *same* website I
just gave you. It's in the specification area. (Hint,
ya gotta click the little prompt icon).

---
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #59  
Old September 21st 10, 02:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How high can you fly?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #60  
Old September 21st 10, 02:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default How high can you fly?

Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:17Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:


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.


No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
them large enough to carry a man.


Having comprehension problems?


No I am not. You are!

gibberish snipped

... there was never any plan
for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
enough to be able to fly with what's in them.

--
Jim Pennino


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

If you study the development of the design and it's mission
statement, you will see that these things are designed to
carry nearly an 800lb payload. Further study will explain
what that payload consists of, and what it will be used for.

No acorn for you.


Actually, the thing was designed to keep researchers employed.

They have otherwise no useful purpose any time in the foreseeable future.

They are too fragile to survive in the real world and too slow to be useful
for surveillance as they can't keep up with winds aloft.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apollo 13 pix last batch includes .par2s - "Apollo 13 Saturn V with boilerplate spacecraft during transfer move from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3 ap13-trfr-noID.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [90K] hielan' laddie Aviation Photos 0 September 12th 08 03:17 PM
Apollo 13 pix last batch includes .par2s - "Apollo 13 Saturn V with boilerplate spacecraft during transfer move from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3 ap13-rollaround2-noID.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [97K] hielan' laddie Aviation Photos 0 September 12th 08 03:17 PM
Apollo 13 pix last batch includes .par2s - "Apollo 13 Saturn V with boilerplate spacecraft during transfer move from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3 ap13-KSC-69P-684.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [109K] hielan' laddie Aviation Photos 0 September 12th 08 03:17 PM
Apollo 13 pix last batch includes .par2s - "Apollo 13 Saturn V with boilerplate spacecraft during transfer move from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3 ap13-KSC-69P-683.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [121K] hielan' laddie Aviation Photos 0 September 12th 08 03:17 PM
IVO pireps wanted.. high performance/high speed... Dave S Home Built 8 June 2nd 04 04:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.