Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Exploro

  1. You just ask. Here is an example of what took place for me just this week. At my favorite Wednesday night haunt I ran into an aquaintence of mine. She has visited infrequently over the last year or so but we have a repore. That night she and I had a lot to talk about. Even at the end of the night she and I were continuing to have a conversation; standing outside in the parking lot talking. So I decided to asked if she wanted to go to a nearby diner for bite to eat and continue our conversation. It was totally impromptu but the situation seemed right to ask. The worse she could say was "No Thank You". She said yes. We had a wonderful time. I assume there is a level of repore between yourself and the person whom you wish to ask out. If your two are already comfortable with one another simply ask to hang out at a local coffee shop or eatery. Cliche suggestions?; perhaps, but they are the perfect venues to relax and interact. Let the situation and the temperament of the person you wish to ask out be your guide to know when to pose the question. Above all; don't be afraid to ask. The worse that can be said is "No thanks".
  2. Two nights ago dreamt my feet were horribly distorted; six toes on each foot and the digits contorted in a manner not unlike the claws of birds. I hate such dreams.
  3. To add to your point it was also a matter of training; or lack thereof, on the part of American pilots early on in the War. Simply put American pilots were not adequately trained in dogfighting; particularly against dissimilar aircraft. It was that weakness that contributed to the poorer performance of US pilots during the Vietnam war compared to those who fought during WWII and the Korean War. The Navy and Marine Corp recognized this deficiency and initiated the Fighter Weapons School; or the Top Gun school, during 1969. The program emphasized on training select pilots against aircraft simulating the characteristics and tactics of North Vietnamese fighters. These pilot would return to their respective postings within the fleet and pass on their experiences to their fellow aviators. The training program paid off; improving the Navy/ Marine pilots victory to kill ratio from 3:1 to 13:1. As TheSaint mentions; the lack of a cannon on Phantoms was a problem; but not as big as most of us have been taught it was. It should be pointed out that after implementing Top Gun; Navy Phantom pilots acheived a victory/ kill ratio of a little over 5:1. That was a significant improvement and the Phantoms of the Navy and Marine Corp lacked cannons throughout the entire war! Yet even when an onboard cannon was installed on the Air Force F-4E; that service did not show any improvement. What is more most other Air Force planes operating in Vietnam had cannons; yet they faired no better than their naval counterparts in the early years of the war and would never see the kind of improvements the Navy reaped through emphasis on proper training.
  4. How frequently do you see it? Does it fly the same route each time you have observed it? What major airports or air bases are in your location? Is it driven by propellers or jets? What is the color of the plane?
  5. I'd like to point out it's not just the longevity of the isotope that affects how long an RTG can provide adequate power; it's also the life span of the thermocouples one has to consider. These components degrade over time; reducing how much heat energy is converted into electricity.
  6. Tetryds, this mod has been exactly what I've been looking for when it comes to precise control of aircraft without using the keyboard; particularly for pitch control. MAF has made landing a more placid exercise. Great work.
  7. Greetings B-STRK. I imagine any pitching moments caused by using rudders as speed brakes are actively compensated for by the fighter's flight control computers. p1t1o; I think you have the F-111 in mind. Its nose gear door doubled as the speed brake.
  8. The rudders on each of wing tips would angle out into the airstream to serve as a speed brake; much like rudders on the F-22 do.
  9. Foreign sales would be enough to keep production lines open and that would be sufficient to maintain capability; look at the F-16 for instance. The USAF bought it's last F-16 just after the turn of the century. However it has been foreign sales that have kept the F-16 production lines open. Therefore the claim that Congressional intervention of the Army halting production of tanks as a measure to retain capability is dubious. For example it's no secret that General Dynamics; a company that operates an M1 factory in Ohio, spent millions lobbying Congress (and the sitting Senator of Ohio Mike Turner). GD would be impacted by the Army halting M1 production and thus not surprising they spent millions to successfully lobby Congress to overrule the Army each and everytime the Service sought to halt production of the tanks.
  10. I wouldn't be quick to say that definitively. Reading about the CRISM instrument on the MRO makes me think that any minerology surveys of Mars; both past and present, has been to help identify areas where water had once been for future scientific research. A survey to determine whether or not there are any minerals of use exist on Mars has yet to be done as far as I know.
  11. It's toxicity lies in the fact it is an oxidizer. It will damage human tissue through corrosion in sufficent concentrations.
  12. Not to worry YNM. I didn't interpret your question as statement of opposition.
  13. My guess is that as a BFR-based passenger transport would operate within controlled air space through part of it's flight there would have to be some means provided for ATC to track and identify it. It's not a stretch to imagine such a craft being equipped with something like ADS-B (or an equivalent system). Ballistic missiles obviously would not.
  14. Granted some errors may creep into a converted mesurement.
  15. Conversion from feet/ inches to meters/cm (and vise versa) is a piece of cake. No need to rage.
  16. Furthermore the blotch in question formed in the wrong hemisphere where Galileo ultimately went down. According to the wiki article on Galileo, the craft entered the Jovian atmopshere just south of planet's equator. This is a photo of the blotch on a page by Robert R. Britt. The image is inverted but we can see the GRS in the upper hemisphere of the image. This corresponds to the Jovian Southern Hemisphere. The blotch in question appears in the lower hemisphere (withing the dark and thin color band); which corresponds to Jupiter's Northern Hemisphere.
  17. Did you use regular copy paper? If so switch to cardstock. Having built a card model of Galileo and most recently one of Juno I can assure you'll have better results with the stiffer material.
  18. Would a sufficently sophisticated automated flight control computer make the specific choice to ditch into the Hudson River? I'll concede it would probably would not. However would it have had to make such that choice? From what I read about post-accident simulations, roughly one in two simulated runs ended with a successful landing at either LaGuardia or Teterboro. This at least demonstrates 1549 had the energy and altitude necessary to make a successful glide to landing possible. What matter seemed to be time to recognize the situation fast enough to make such a choice possible. While no specific reason was given for each failed run; I suspect that the other half that result in failure like result from much greater lag in response and applying action. In fact the one test had a more realistic delay between when the engines failed and when action was taken; 35 seconds. That test resulted in failure. Airmanship might also played factor in the failed test runs as well. But suffice it to say a computer would have been faster to determine the engines were inoperative. And a properly written control law might skip attempting a restart at such low altitude (The restart procedure itself assumes sufficient altitude to make the attempt anyway), saving time. Thus all that is required is to know position, altitude, energy state, the weather conditions (specifically wind) and what; if any, suitable landing field are available. Given that a computer could control an aircraft more consistently than a person and can troubleshoot and analyze the situation much faster than a person all the while being immune to mental fog that can befuddle even the sharpest of human minds in a crisis, the chance of making a successful glide to landing at a safe field would likely be much better than chance.
  19. In the case of 447 only one source of data was erroneous; the air speed data. Among the things computers are very good is fault checking. The conditions prior to an upset would be a known and thus makes comparing what all other sensors read before the upset occurred and what they are reading now a simple task. If air speed data became unreliable; the computer could compare among other things the AoA before the upset and what it is reading now. If they are the same than the computer could deduce the reading are valid and can be trusted. It can also compare them to other sources too. For instance if an airplane is in level cruise flight and suddenly airspeed shows an increase; yet power setting was not increased nor any command to pitch down sent to the flight surfaces, and AoA is unchanged, the Computer once again knows air speed data is wrong and can be ignored.
  20. Did I not just say what the computer would have done; or rather did in fact do? It transferred control over to the flight crew...however it does so without any way of knowing whether or not the flight crew is prepared to takeover. You might be correct that a different flight crew might have done something differently and recovered the situation. But the fact of the matter is; and it is the thing that matters the most, the crew of Flight 447 did not respond correctly to an upsetting situation....supposedly the thing we are good at. As the flight control system is designed to automatically revert to a manual control mode it makes speculating on how the computer would have handled it moot. It was not designed to deal with such situations to begin with. If one were I'd say the thing it would do was ignore air speed data and use for instance angle of attack data. Like any airfoil; an airplane's wing will stall at a specific critical angle of attack. This critical AoA does not change with airspeed. Thus a computer can use AoA data to keep the plane from exceeding critical AoA and thus prevent stall in the absence of reliable air speed information.
  21. In the case of 447 the computer did recognize there was a problem. When icing blocked the pitot tubes there was a fault in the air data the flight computer was receiving from these sources. By design the flight computer switched off the autopilot and converted flight controls from a normal flight mode to an alternate flight control mode. The computer was designed to hand over control back to the flight crew; which it did. The switch off assumes the crew would do the things I described in my last post. However we know the crew failed to impliment the procedures necessary to cope with erroneous air speed data and executed the wrong manuevers that caused a stall and kept the plane in a stalled condition that resulted in the crash. Any way, computers may not be able to think outside the box...but they are immune to the physiological and congnitive pitfalls that plauge people.
  22. Provided humans recognize an unexpected condition is occurring, can correctly identify what exactly is happening and take the appropriate corrective actions in a timely way. Air France Flight 447 is an example where these did not happen.
  23. GPS-based navigation systems as well as inertial navigation systems are common place. These are further augmented by the various legacy ground-based navaids like VOR's. Thus aerial navigation systems provide many means by which to navigate an aircraft. It all a matter of learning how to use them and knowing their limitations for a successful flight.
  • Create New...