tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
No, he's started to repost his earlier posts now. As we used to say at the drive-in, "I think this is where we came in".
- Status
No, he's started to repost his earlier posts now. As we used to say at the drive-in, "I think this is where we came in".
Ok then, why haven't you showed this objective evidence? Why rely on witness accounts only?
Is this a joke or something? If not, then you might find this interesting too: http://einhornpress.com/evidence.aspx
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well no. It might have been for some, I guess, until I posted its name and picture. That kind of identifies it.
Boeing definitely knew what it was.
No need. There are heaps of pictures of it online. At least two.
If there were inherent design flaws they wouldn't have built it, and it certainly wouldn't have flown. Note photo above.
There are some practical difficulties with the design, but it did, in fact demonstrate the feasibility of a lockable rotor.
Ship 3?
guess where the design flaw was,
I don't have to guess. I'm an aircraft engineer, which is why I have an interest in these things.
Cool looking aircraft. 
I would definitely have called that an UFO, and started looking for explanations.
It seems to me that one of the rotors/wings would be the wrong way around (have wrong orientation of profile) as either wing or rotor.
ETA: have anyone tried the vertical take off with twist able wing and jet engines instead of huge propellers?
I would definitely have called that an UFO, and started looking for explanations.
It seems to me that one of the rotors/wings would be the wrong way around (have wrong orientation of profile) as either wing or rotor.
ETA: have anyone tried the vertical take off with twist able wing and jet engines instead of huge propellers?
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,499
I would imagine that the rotor blades would have to compromise on a symmetrical profile, and have sufficient pitch control to bring them to the best angle for either type of flight.
Cool idea. Evidently hard to do.
ETA: Looks like someone tried - Bell D-188AWP "Had it been built, the Bell D-188A project would have been one of the most unorthodox aircraft to fly..."
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Cool looking aircraft.
I would definitely have called that an UFO, and started looking for explanations.
It seems to me that one of the rotors/wings would be the wrong way around (have wrong orientation of profile) as either wing or rotor.
ETA: have anyone tried the vertical take off with twist able wing and jet engines instead of huge propellers?
Yep. But it's an inefficient way to do things. Jet engines lend themselves more to thrust vectoring:
Hawker Siddeley Harrier
Although rotors are much more spectacular:
Boeing V22 Osprey
Just . . . Wow!
Most helicopter rotor blades have a symmetrical or near-symmetrical aerofoil section.
The problem with all of these things is translational lift. Half way between hovering and forward flight involves the 'crashing' phase, all too often.
Last edited:
The Osprey and Harrier are both cool looking aircrafts, but I guess there is a good reason why traditional airplane shapes are generally prefered, they tend to work.
I was wondering about the jets instead of rotors after seeing a picture of the Osprey showing that the rotors would touch the ground if horizontal. That must limit takeoff weight on regular runway, that is, not being able to use full wing lift at regular takeoff.
Guess it is the old generalist vs. specialist.
I was wondering about the jets instead of rotors after seeing a picture of the Osprey showing that the rotors would touch the ground if horizontal. That must limit takeoff weight on regular runway, that is, not being able to use full wing lift at regular takeoff.
Guess it is the old generalist vs. specialist.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Oh Pharaoh, I'm glad you presented that pic of the X-50, for it serves as a good reminder that humans do have built some very weird flying things.
I suppose many an UFO sighting from the 40's to the 60's (especially the early 50's) can be explained by experimental craft. Not necessarily secret projects, I'm talking about those projects which were not well known by the general public. Not everyone is an aviation buff and even conventional craft from certain angles may seem pretty weird.
What would be the possible reactions of Joe Standard Jr. when seeing a Convair XFY Pogo, a Curtiss-Wright X-19 or one of the flying wings buzzing a few kilometers away?
Same is valid for Europe. The Brittish had the Short SC.1 and the French some futuristic designs (some incredibly prophetic).
Too bad UFOlogists refuse to do propper research. Wait, that's how they can keep UFOlogy alive!
I suppose many an UFO sighting from the 40's to the 60's (especially the early 50's) can be explained by experimental craft. Not necessarily secret projects, I'm talking about those projects which were not well known by the general public. Not everyone is an aviation buff and even conventional craft from certain angles may seem pretty weird.
What would be the possible reactions of Joe Standard Jr. when seeing a Convair XFY Pogo, a Curtiss-Wright X-19 or one of the flying wings buzzing a few kilometers away?
Same is valid for Europe. The Brittish had the Short SC.1 and the French some futuristic designs (some incredibly prophetic).
Too bad UFOlogists refuse to do propper research. Wait, that's how they can keep UFOlogy alive!
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Spoken like a true engineer
In the case of Vertical/Short Takeoff (V/STOL) aircraft it's not that thay don't work, but they're terribly inefficient, as you're just about to mention.
Boeing are one step ahead of you, sort of. The Osprey can do an emergency landing with the rotors forward and locked into the position of a Mercedes Benz emblem.
Yup. Again, it's the lack of translational lift that's a problem. A helicopter gains most of its lift in forward flight from the rotors acting in the same way as a fixed wing. They flap to accommodate the change in relative airspeed, but that's a whole other subject, and it's magic anyway.
The main thing to note though, is that that anything not producing lift in a VTOL is just 'weight' even if it's gonna be wings later on, and that means less payload.
Without any intent whatsoever to criticise, the typical American approach to this problem is bigger engines. Have a look at a Vought F4U Corsair as an example of a flying engine.
Guess it is the old generalist vs. specialist.
Yup, especially in the military. I believe the US Marines like the Osprey, but Puddle Duck would have a better idea of that than me.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Truer words were never spoken.
I'm glad my point seems to be made that one man's UFO is another man's bread-and-butter, and folks like Rramjet need to take more note of that simple fact.
Cheers Correa.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Recent article on Drake, his equation and SETI:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/01/why-hasnt-et-made-contact-yet.shtml
Serves as a quick guide to see how poorly informed Rramjet and his source (Friedman) are regarding this issue (among others). Rramjet, do you mantain the claim you are a scientist?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/01/why-hasnt-et-made-contact-yet.shtml
BBC article on why ET is not phoning us said:
Serves as a quick guide to see how poorly informed Rramjet and his source (Friedman) are regarding this issue (among others). Rramjet, do you mantain the claim you are a scientist?
To which I replied:
Here is a testable hypothesis then:
1. There are no testable hypotheses in the field of UFO research.
Here are some more testable hypotheses for you:
A. All UFO sightings are the result of misperceptions, delusion, lies or hoaxes.
B. There is a plausible mundane solution for every UFO sighting.
(all less that 12 words...
This is typical of what Freidman pointed out about the UFO debunkers: “Don’t bother me with evidence, my mind is made up.” carlitos has made up his mind that there are no hypotheses forthcoming and will simply not accept the objective evidence - no matter how many times it is presented to him…
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
These oblique responses to minor, non-sequiter points of order are pretty indicative of how your case is going, eh Rramjet?
Smells like desperation to me.
ETA: No offence intended, carlitos, and the answer is definitely "Right."
Smells like desperation to me.
ETA: No offence intended, carlitos, and the answer is definitely "Right."
Last edited:
Because your hypotheses are bunk. All of them are vague, theoretical mumbo-jumbo.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Pick. One. Case.
State your hypothesis as to an explanation.
Offer EVIDENCE that supports your conclusion.
Really? You really don't get this?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Okay, lets begin with some photos…
The Battle of Los Angeles (25 Feb 1942)
(http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
(http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
The Trindade Island Photographs (16 Jan 1958)
(http://www.nicap.org/baraunadir.htm)
(http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm)
These are examples of objective evidence. Of course there are MANY more I could present, but let’s not overtax the UFO debunker mind with TOO much evidence at once. LOL.
I also pointed you to the following links in response to your questions and statements:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
To which you replied:
This perfectly demonstrates the level of the UFO debunker mentality. You asked me to reply to some posts you stated I had missed, implying that it was (apparently) important to you that I do reply. I did so in an extensive post here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5551145#post5551145 containing more than 60 individual replies to your questions and comments – and all you can come up with in response is a SPOOF website? LOL, Oh dear… In my opinion I am afraid that it is your attitude that is the joke here, and specifically, not my reference to the Scientific American article.
(FYI: The article you reference has some internal server problems)
Strange world the UFO debunkers live in. Here is an article that supports Freidman’s (and in part my own) position, yet the UFO debunker sees precisely the opposite!
The article states:
“…our searches so far have been puny compared with the scale of effort that would be required to do a thorough audit of the Milky Way.”
Much of Freidman’s (and my own) criticism of SETI is - that given the sheer NUMBER of stars, SETI has a snow-ball’s chance in hell of success – so the money would be better spent on researching what we already have here in our own back yard!
Drake states:
"In searching for extraterrestrial life, we are both guided and hindered by our own experience. We have to use ourselves as a model for what a technological civilisation must be, and this gives us guidance for what technologies might be present in the Universe.
"At the same time, this limits us because we are well aware that all the technologies that might be invented have not been invented; and in using ourselves as a model, we may not be paying attention to alternatives, as yet undiscovered and as yet unappreciated by us."
"At the same time, this limits us because we are well aware that all the technologies that might be invented have not been invented; and in using ourselves as a model, we may not be paying attention to alternatives, as yet undiscovered and as yet unappreciated by us."
The article goes on:
“In other words, we've been listening for extraterrestrials' radio signals but this may not be how they're trying to announce their presence.
It's one of the reasons why Seti, in the last few years, has also started to look for the optical flashes that might originate from powerful alien lasers systems.”
It's one of the reasons why Seti, in the last few years, has also started to look for the optical flashes that might originate from powerful alien lasers systems.”
To which I merely comment… this of course is one of Freidman’s criticisms of SETI – that SETI assumes the aliens will “message” us on the 1Hz band…and now SETI changes “focus” and the aliens will of COURSE aim a laser signal directly at us in the hope of attracting our attention! (for that is what it would take for us to see such a signal). LOL.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Mr Rramjet,
This is a forum. It works just like it did in Rome:
Can you see where you're not doing it right?
This is a forum. It works just like it did in Rome:
1. Present proposal.
2. Argue merits of proposal against detractors, and persuade fence-sitters.
3. Obtain consensus.
4. Win vote to invade Britain.
2. Argue merits of proposal against detractors, and persuade fence-sitters.
3. Obtain consensus.
4. Win vote to invade Britain.
Can you see where you're not doing it right?
This got me wondering about navy UAV's and short takeoff.
Ships have a plentiful supply of distilled water and compressed air at 30 bar.
Have anyone tried to build a drone around a carbon/glass fiber cylinder that could double as structural element and water/air rocket for takeoff from a rail?
- Status