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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On 2015-09-23 08:22, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 17:11:44 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote: On 2015-09-22 11:49, Whisky-dave wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-museum.html Excellent! Really like the over water shots - including the shadows on water. yes it's not something you see very often. There is a group in England who have raised some $120 (or Ŗ - not sure which) which ever 120 is not a lo, but a few 0s on the end then I'l believe it. Sorry. 120M. Not insignificant. in order to buy or lease an Air France Concorde which would be used for air shows and perhaps charter flights[1]. A 2nd one would be put on static display - perhaps alongside the 'eye' in London. not much space there. The Concorde is not a big airplane. 25 m (ą) wingspan. Alongside would be on a platform over the Thames. A friend of mine went up in a spitfire a few weeks ago, apparently you can apply to go up, he wouldn;t say how much it cost but rumours seem to indicate between 2,000 & 5,000 quid. I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised how small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a supersonic jet. Yep. My father flew Paris/Kennedy once. Helo to LGA, thence home. Among the group's leaders are former BA pilots. BA itself is on the sidelines as all its Concordes have been consigned to museum type roles (leased or lent out). [1] The fateful crash happened to be a charter flight. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On 2015-09-24 11:01, Mort wrote:
Whisky-dave wrote: I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised how small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a supersonic jet. I spoke with a man who flew the Concorde several times. He was not very tall, and said that he could not stand up straight in that airplane, as it was small inside. His best memory of his flights: getting a manicure in his seat. Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to Fuel is used as a coolant in main rocket engine cones. Fuel is used as a coolant in your car engine (run rich) Fuel has great cooling properties. Fuel does not burn or explode absent oxidant. And the wings on most large aircraft are wet in any case. heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane. It was smart to use Li-ion. It was the height of stupidity to select a non Aerospace battery maker in Japan as putting "business" in Japan was part of winning ANA/JAL contracts. (The wings, wingbox and forward plug are made there too - at least by qualified aerospace co's). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On 2015-09-24 11:31, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-24 15:01:26 +0000, Mort said: Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane. Not as looney as the all titanium SR71 which leaked fuel on the ground and until the fuselage skin had heated up in supersonic flight and expanded to seal the tanks. Then it would top up the tanks with mid-air refueling and complete the mission. The fuel used by the SR-71 is very high flashpoint. It's pre-heated before the nozzles inside the engine get it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On 2015-09-24 16:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:01:26 -0400, Mort wrote: Whisky-dave wrote: I've been on concorde although not while in flight. I was suprised how small and cramped it was beign more like an old bus than a supersonic jet. I spoke with a man who flew the Concorde several times. He was not very tall, and said that he could not stand up straight in that airplane, as it was small inside. His best memory of his flights: getting a manicure in his seat. Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane. The heat of supersonic flight would have cooked the passengers and crew if there wasn't something to absorb the heat. Using the fuel made sense as the absorbed heat ended up being dumped in the engines and contributing to the thrust. The fuel was used not only to help keep people cool but to maintain the fore and aft trim of the aircraft. The centre of lift changed considerably as the speed increased and literally tons of fuel were pumped backwards and forwards to keep the aircraft in balance. Fuel is also pumped from the center tank into the vertical stabilizer on the 747-400 (and probably other later versions) in cruise in order to move the COG back. This reduces the necessary downforce on the horizontal stabilizer and therefore less drag and fuel consumption. This also reduces the longitudinal stability and rudder effectiveness but the former is not so much an issue in cruise and the later hardly used in cruise at all. On descent that fuel is moved back to the center tank. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:17:03 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Mort wrote: Loony design of the century: the Concorde's fuel tanks were purposely situated just beneath the plane's skin, to help cool the skin at supersonic speeds. Using jet fuel as a coolant, in exposure to heat????? That is about as smart as Boeing's use of flammable lithium ion battery packs, to save a mere 60 pounds of weight per airplane. neither is stupid. also, concorde had 11 fuel tanks and 2 auxiliary tanks, with the fuel moved between them during flight to shift the cog. Irrelevant obfuscation does not change the facts.The thin skin tore from a small metal fragment on the runway, and the exposed fuel tank caught fire, killing everyone on board. I do not care if it had 2 tanks or 22; the stupid design killed people. that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally brought up. furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact. It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run over the metal debris on the runway. the crash was due to a combination of events, including human error. it was also the *only* crash in concorde's history. http://www.askthepilot.com/untold-concorde-story/ The plane went down not because of any fire, directly, but because 1., it was flying too slowly; 2., it was several tons overweight and beyond its aft center of gravity limit; 3., two of its four engines were damaged or erroneously shut down. .... and by the time that it took off a change in wind direction meant that it was taking off down wind. And yes, in the stress of the moment, the copilot shut down engines when he intended to open them up. ... An investigation by The Observer suggests the truth is much more complicated. In the words of John Hutchinson, a Concorde captain for 15 years, the fire on its own should have been ŗeminently survivable; the pilot should have been able to fly his way out of trouble.˛ The reason why he failed to do so, Hutchinson believes, was a lethal combination of operational error and negligence. This appears to have been a crash with more than one contributing factor, most of which were avoidable. ... Shocking evidence now emerging suggests that the Air France Concorde F-BTSC had not been properly maintained. The airlinešs ground staff had failed to replace a ŗspacer˛ a vital component of the landing gear which keeps the wheels in proper alignment. Although the BEA disputes it, there is compelling evidence that it was the missing spacer which may have caused the plane to skew to the left, so forcing Marty to leave the ground too early. At the same time, the plane was operating outside its legally certified limits. When it stood at the end of the runway, ready to roll, it was more than six tonnes over its approved maximum takeoff weight for the given conditions, with its centre of gravity pushed dangerously far to the rear. Even before the blowout, Marty was already pushing the envelope. ... The BEAšs critics say that once the tyre burst, the load on the three remaining tyres became uneven, and even if the wheels had been more or less straight before, they now twisted disastrously to the side. The smoking gun is a remarkable series of photographs in the BEAšs own preliminary report. They show unmistakably the skid marks of four tyres, heading off the runway on to its concrete shoulder, almost reaching the rough grass beyond. ... A planešs centre of gravity is expressed as a percentage: so many per cent fore or aft. Brian Trubshaw and John Cochrane, Concordešs two test pilots when the aircraft was being developed in the early 1970s, set the aft operating limit at 54 per cent beyond that, they found, it risked becoming uncontrollable, likely to rear up backwards and crash, exactly as Flight 4590 did in its final moments over Gonesse. The doomed planešs centre of gravity went beyond 54 per cent. The BEA states a figure of 54.2 per cent. A senior industry source, who cannot be named for contractual reasons, says the true figure may have been worse: with the extra fuel and bags, it may have been up to 54.6 per cent. And as the fuel gushed from the hole in the forward tank, the centre of gravity moved still further back. When the plane was just 25 feet off the ground, Gilles Jardinaud, the flight engineer, shut down the ailing number two engine. Both French and British pilots say it was another disastrous mistake, which breached all set procedures. The engine itself was not on fire, and as the tank emptied and the fire burnt itself out, it would probably have recovered. The fixed drill for shutting down an engine requires the crew to wait until the flight is stable at 400 feet, and to do so then only on a set of commands from the captain. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally brought up. furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact. It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run over the metal debris on the runway. the metal debris could have been anywhere. it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over by a tire had the plane stayed on track. it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:13:56 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally brought up. furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact. It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run over the metal debris on the runway. the metal debris could have been anywhere. Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just 'anywhere'. it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over by a tire had the plane stayed on track. It could have, but it didn't. it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit. True, but he was and he was. I'm not going to take this further. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally brought up. furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact. It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run over the metal debris on the runway. the metal debris could have been anywhere. Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just 'anywhere'. the debris could have landed anywhere. there is no 'debris goes here when falling off a plane' spot on a runway. it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over by a tire had the plane stayed on track. It could have, but it didn't. and? it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit. True, but he was and he was. he got hit because the driver ****ed up, not because he was standing on the sidewalk. I'm not going to take this further. good, because you're talking nonsense. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
photo's of a Vulcan and red arrows
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:06:08 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: that crash had nothing to do with cooling, the issue you originally brought up. furthermore, the metal fragment did not puncture the fuel tank. it punctured the tire, sending rubber pieces toward the plane, causing a stress fracture *elsewhere* due to the impact. It started with the omission of a spacer in the left (?) landing gear which caused it to track off at an angle. This caused it to run of the usual track on take off. If it was not for this it would have not run over the metal debris on the runway. the metal debris could have been anywhere. Someone had collapsed the probability integral. It wasn't just 'anywhere'. the debris could have landed anywhere. there is no 'debris goes here when falling off a plane' spot on a runway. it was a random event leaving it in a random spot on the runway. it could just as easily landed in a spot where it would have been run over by a tire had the plane stayed on track. It could have, but it didn't. and? it's a bit like saying if the person wasn't standing on the sidewalk when the driver went off the road, he wouldn't have been hit. True, but he was and he was. he got hit because the driver ****ed up, not because he was standing on the sidewalk. I'm not going to take this further. good, because you're talking nonsense. Ignoramus -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drawing circles, boxes, and arrows in "The Gimp" freeware (onLinux) | jm | Digital Photography | 32 | September 6th 10 12:23 AM |
EPSON Stylus Photo R1800 InkJet Photo Color Printer? _ Opionions? | Ignoramus19259 | Digital Photography | 19 | August 28th 07 01:17 AM |
Snapfish - Digital Photo Printing and Free Online Photo Sharing | Starlord | Film & Labs | 1 | November 13th 06 05:12 PM |
Magic photo, blend photo onto another picture, add frame, cartoon and flowers | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | August 22nd 06 08:40 PM |
Epson color controls, photo enhance, ICM - which one for accurate photo printing? | Lindyhop | Digital Photography | 5 | July 3rd 04 03:06 PM |