User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:10:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Could 1 panty bomber bomb knock it down?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:17:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What with the new "rules" about no wandering around, no going to the restroom and keeping your hands visible, this aircraft won't see the light of day. It looks like it was designed for a different time..... the past.  I'd love to see a blended-wing (flying wing) aircraft, you could have something the same wingspan as a 747 and have tons more interior space... but people don't like being more than X feet away from a window, so not sure if we'll ever see those either. Boeing has a design for that too. I think they had something like a ceiling display to try to take care of that. The project was canned in favor of the Dreamliner I believe. But the blended wing design would be excellent for freight, military transport, and aerial refueling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:20:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Simpy put, FUCK NO!
Not to mention, no Airport could service that aircraft, and could you imagine the cost to retrofit airports to accommodate that sucker! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:22:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Simpy put, FUCK NO! Not to mention, no Airport could service that aircraft, and could you imagine the cost to retrofit airports to accommodate that sucker! It would have to be servicable by whatever ship support facilities there are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:24:23 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2009 7:39:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Thats the UFO from those videos with the 3 lights! I KNOW IT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:40:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Simpy put, FUCK NO! Not to mention, no Airport could service that aircraft, and could you imagine the cost to retrofit airports to accommodate that sucker! Did you notice it was specified as a sea plane? Thus the "Clipper" name? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:44:45 PM EDT
[#8]
All the way to the crash site.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:48:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
dats big Bigger'n any current runways |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:48:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Ditch the mimes and I would consider it. Naah, they could mime the pre-flight safety instructions |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:53:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Ditch the mimes and I would consider it. Naah, they could mime the pre-flight safety instructions that's good for the people that are listening to their headphones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:54:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ditch the mimes and I would consider it. Naah, they could mime the pre-flight safety instructions that's good for the people that are listening to their headphones. Everyone should be made to demonstrate the pre-flight safety instructions, through the medium of dance.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 12:57:21 PM EDT
[#13]
After listening to the stupid French cunt who had a 1-year old toddler sitting right behind me the other day who would NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP FOR THE ENTIRE GODDAMNED FUCKING FLIGHT, there's no way in fucking hell I would want to fly with another potentially 1150 of her. Fuck that shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:00:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ditch the mimes and I would consider it. Naah, they could mime the pre-flight safety instructions that's good for the people that are listening to their headphones. Everyone should be made to demonstrate the pre-flight safety instructions, through the medium of dance.... Only if it's hot female flight attendants stripping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:00:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Looks like a April Fools joke to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:05:40 PM EDT
[#16]
I'm sure I still wouldn't have enough leg room in coach, so why bother?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:05:45 PM EDT
[#17]
The "Jogging track" and the Hydrogen/Electric engines destroy the credibility of the article. Makes the design look silly and amateurish.
Aviation is about efficiency and economics. But, yes, I would fly it in a heartbeat. When does ground school start? I can be there tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:10:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Uh, no.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. I'm only a simple pilot, not an aeronautical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that this theory makes no sense at all. In a coordinated turn, all passengers would feel G's in a downward vector regardless of their position or angle of bank. Somebody help me out here...BBB is making me confused. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:18:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. It's a seaplane. It can take off in any direction. It doesn't need to turn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:19:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Way too many eggs in one basket
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:24:26 PM EDT
[#22]
That thing would need at least 3 treadmills..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:47:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: The "Jogging track" and the Hydrogen/Electric engines destroy the credibility of the article. Makes the design look silly and amateurish. Aviation is about efficiency and economics. But, yes, I would fly it in a heartbeat. When does ground school start? I can be there tomorrow. The guy who designed it (John McMasters) has written 96 publications / technical papers from 1963 to 2008, 3 of them classified... while the 2nd picture was taken from a more humorous PDF overview of what he's worked on, I don't think I would call the man amateurish..... http://best.berkeley.edu/~aagogino/papers/McMasters_publications.pdf Back in college we read through the entire publication, there was enough technical stuff in there, performance envelopes and other stuff, which makes me think it could very well be built today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 1:47:33 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. I'm only a simple pilot, not an aeronautical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that this theory makes no sense at all. In a coordinated turn, all passengers would feel G's in a downward vector regardless of their position or angle of bank. Somebody help me out here...BBB is making me confused. The outboard passengers would travel a greater distance when the aircraft banks than the passengers in the normally configured center of the aircraft. The aircrafts roll would also be more pronounced farther from the centerline. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 2:16:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
I would only fly in that thing if I was allowed a blanket. What about a blanket for part of the flight? When I flew last night, the stewardesses took the blankets about ninety minutes before landing. They threatened to have a woman arrested who didn't want to give-up her blanket. The stewardess also took a blanket from an infant a couple of rows behind me.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 2:55:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. It's a seaplane. It can take off in any direction. It doesn't need to turn. Taking off isn't the issue. The issue is lining up to land in favorable conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 3:00:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. I'm only a simple pilot, not an aeronautical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that this theory makes no sense at all. In a coordinated turn, all passengers would feel G's in a downward vector regardless of their position or angle of bank. Somebody help me out here...BBB is making me confused. Think of it this way. You are sitting sideways on a teeter-totter. If you sit near the pivot point, you don't have much action as it goes up and down. If you sit near the end, you have quite a ride. Popular Science and/or Popular Mechanics had discussions of the problem when they had articles on the blended wing body. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 3:13:37 PM EDT
[#28]
No, I don't fly ON airplanes, I fly IN airplanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 5:50:17 PM EDT
[#29]
No I would not fly in that thing.
Looks like one of the Soviet WIGs. Google "Ekranoplan" They built a few back in the '70s and '80s. Monsters with the jets up high in the back. Designed to carry 300 fully loaded troops. We named one the "Caspian Sea Monster". Here's one: WIG Here is a detailed writeup: Wig-2 They only fly a few feet off of the surface of the water...in the "ground effect" regime, much like the Hughes flying boat did. The Soviet "plane" was armed to the teeth with anti-ship missiles! Here is the missile launching beast: WIG-3 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 6:20:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. problems facing this concept, the I'm only a simple pilot, not an aeronautical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that this theory makes no sense at all. In a coordinated turn, all passengers would feel G's in a downward vector regardless of their position or angle of bank. Somebody help me out here...BBB is making me confused. Think of it this way. You are sitting sideways on a teeter-totter. If you sit near the pivot point, you don't have much action as it goes up and down. If you sit near the end, you have quite a ride. Popular Science and/or Popular Mechanics had discussions of the problem when they had articles on the blended wing body. I see what your saying now. The up and down movement. It's not a factor. A plane like that isn't designed to do ACM. It will do a couple turns to get on course, then straight and level for 12 hours, then a couple half standard rate turns to final. Of all the engineering problems facing this concept, this one is dead last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 6:48:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The plane would have to make long, huge, very flat, very wide turns or the passengers in the outboard cabins would be really uncomfortable with the degree of banking. With that kind of arrangement, it would probably spend as much time turning as flying to the destination. problems facing this concept, the I'm only a simple pilot, not an aeronautical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that this theory makes no sense at all. In a coordinated turn, all passengers would feel G's in a downward vector regardless of their position or angle of bank. Somebody help me out here...BBB is making me confused. Think of it this way. You are sitting sideways on a teeter-totter. If you sit near the pivot point, you don't have much action as it goes up and down. If you sit near the end, you have quite a ride. Popular Science and/or Popular Mechanics had discussions of the problem when they had articles on the blended wing body. I see what your saying now. The up and down movement. It's not a factor. A plane like that isn't designed to do ACM. It will do a couple turns to get on course, then straight and level for 12 hours, then a couple half standard rate turns to final. Of all the engineering problems facing this concept, this one is dead last. Not according to the engineers interviewed in PM/PS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2010 6:55:14 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
