Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support
From: Keith Cayemberg (keith.cayemberg_at_arcor.de)
Date: 07/24/05
- Next message: Keith Cayemberg: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Previous message: Klaus-D. Bohn: "Re: perfomance question about bool variables in cxx"
- In reply to: Dave Froble: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Next in thread: Doc.: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:12:01 +0200
Dave Froble wrote:
> Doc. wrote:
>
>> %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Dave Froble wrote in news:11e4u6h55jm7604
>> @corp.supernews.com
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So fine, let the world continue on it's mad quest for stupidity.
>>> There's money in helping them. I'm all for being stupid. I can
>>> prove it. There's 2 jet engines on my back porch, and I'm putting
>>> them on a 50 MPH Ultralight aircraft this afternoon. Not only have I
>>> joined 'them', but now I'm leading them. But at least I'll have some
>>> fun.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two jet engines?
>>
>> "They" will have some trouble keeping up. :-)
>>
>> Will there be photographs of this creation in action?
>
>
> I think something can be arranged.
>
> The engines are manufactured by a company in West Virginia. They have
> multiple uses, models, target drones, and such. Each produces 45 lbs of
> thrust. Not really much, with the standard reciprocating engine set-up
> on the Ascenders we get over 200 lbs of static thrust, so it's more for
> the idea and the sound than it is for performance. The only thing is
> that a jet continues to produce constant thrust, regardless of speed,
> while a prop, once it reaches a certain speed, cannot produce more
> speed. Has to do with the speed of the screw (basically what a prop is)
> through the air.
>
> Neat things. About 12 inches in length, 6-7 inches in diameter. Very
> light. Expensive, $5,000 per engine, with a TBO of 50 hours.
>
> My friend Jack McCornack produced the thingies that were in the last
> James Bond movie. Basically a set of wings that a sky diver can strap
> on. Once free of the aircraft, the wings are used to extend the glide,
> and can reach speeds near 200 MPH. Jack thinks that with the 2 jet
> engines the device can maintain level flight at 200 MPH, and fly
> formation with a slow flying F-15. Note, he likes the notoriety of the
> credits in a movie. He thinks that the next Bond movie might use his idea.
>
> Stupid, still have to deploy a parachute to land. Not for me.
>
> Anyway, he just left for the Oshkosh flyin with the engines and my
> 2-place training aircraft, which flew with them last year. When he
> returns in a week, I'll be flying the 'jet (under) powered ultralight',
> I'll take some pictures, and try to get them on the web.
>
> Are we off topic yet?
>
Nope, not as long as you are willing to discuss your confidentials plans
for building a private ultralight wind tunnel using OpenVMS for
transonic area rule and supercritical airfoil analysis and for the
Computational Fluid Dynamics simulation of gliding bodies at transonic
speeds. :-) :-)
Cheers!
Keith Cayemberg
Sempter Supremus Sonitus Volo Dacronius :-)
- Next message: Keith Cayemberg: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Previous message: Klaus-D. Bohn: "Re: perfomance question about bool variables in cxx"
- In reply to: Dave Froble: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Next in thread: Doc.: "Re: Platform Support vs. Business Support"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
