@dingus: A driver on I-70 was cited for reckless driving today, for apparently "tea-bagging" a device mounted to the center console of his Rolls Royce while the vehicle was in motion.
Initial reports are sketchy, but it seems that the device may have been a factory option, our calls to Rolls Royce USA were not returned.
If you're going to comment on a technical blog, the least you could do is not show your ignorance by using ridiculous terminology. The correct phrase is rudder thingies.
@Aturayd: "I just cant wait until they put a credit card swiper at the lavatories..."
Oh, now that's just crazy. That's like saying, "wait until they start charging you exorbitant fees for your normal luggage and carry-ons." As if that kind of thing could ever really...
I see a basic DC10 body, enlarged and then stuck on cool wings. I should have been an aerospace engineer.
Also, if it's only 15mph faster than the 747-8 like Lite says, and it flys much higher. Isn't it actually slower? Because the high altitude means a larger circumference to traverse?
I do see one huge advantage though. Skydiving with oxygen and thermal gear for a solid 3 minutes. Good times.
@vista64guy: It isn't some monumental leap forward really. Hell a 787 has a 43,000' operational ceiling, and max cruise speed for it is 510 Knots...
We're mostly limited to ~.85 mach for efficiency reasons at the moment. Boeing was going to build a plane prior to the 787 that would have cruised at like .97 mach, but w/ the rapid run-up in fuel costs the last few years, that plan was scrapped outright in favor of the 787's increased fuel efficiency.
What amazes me is that a plane designed in the 60's is still being revised and improved 40 years later. (747 Series)
So, basically right now it's a pretty picture and mostly vaporware that will require billions of dollars of investment in manufacturing processes, materials development, and will be turned into another sardine can like the current generation of aircraft when and if it makes it to production?
Let's see, it flies... 15 mph faster on paper than a 747-8 at cruising speed. It is also only a twin-engine design which limits some routing as well.
@Lite: well, with ETOPS-180 and ETOPS-207 regulations, twin-engine aircraft can reach about 95% of the world. Routing may not be quite as favorable, but they can still get there.
My curiosity, though, is where's the vertical and horizontal stabilizers? Or are the winglets sufficient for yaw control? The horizontal stabilizer on conventional planes also allow for large variations in CG of the plane that you don't find so much in a "flying wing" design. Don't know how well this'll work for commercial service...
@Lite: Back when the NDP was in power here in British Columbia they spent billions making new, faster, fancier ferries (say that 3 times fast, lets go) to take people from the mainland to Vancouver Island. What they didn't consider was that the new faster ferries would have to wait in line while the old slower ferries unloaded and loaded, essentially making the new ferries just as slow as the old ferries. I believe we sold the new ferries for about 1/10th of their original cost. Good times. I wonder if the same problems would affect something like a new, faster plane?
@misler: I was wondering the same thing. Sure it looks futuristic and all, but that design will make it so much more dependant on computer for stable flight. That thing would probably have one hell of a landing distance due to the fact that it would have to come in pretty fast. Kinda tough to flare well with only ailerons. Unless they want to use drag chutes like an F-117.
@hooked-on-tronics: So, they sold the newer ferries, rather than expand upon the infrastructure to dock them by selling off a few slower older ones?? Sounds like government
@closhedbb: Many newer jet aircraft systems at this point are depending more upon electronics and electric motivation rather than hydraulic. So, that's pretty normal for the current evolution of aircraft.
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
06/02/09
06/03/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
Initial reports are sketchy, but it seems that the device may have been a factory option, our calls to Rolls Royce USA were not returned.
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
06/02/09
11/24/08
11/24/08
If you're going to comment on a technical blog, the least you could do is not show your ignorance by using ridiculous terminology. The correct phrase is rudder thingies.
Sheesh.
11/24/08
I just cant wait until they put a credit card swiper at the lavatories...
11/24/08
Oh, now that's just crazy. That's like saying, "wait until they start charging you exorbitant fees for your normal luggage and carry-ons." As if that kind of thing could ever really...
Oh. Wait.
11/24/08
Also, if it's only 15mph faster than the 747-8 like Lite says, and it flys much higher. Isn't it actually slower? Because the high altitude means a larger circumference to traverse?
I do see one huge advantage though. Skydiving with oxygen and thermal gear for a solid 3 minutes. Good times.
11/24/08
We're mostly limited to ~.85 mach for efficiency reasons at the moment. Boeing was going to build a plane prior to the 787 that would have cruised at like .97 mach, but w/ the rapid run-up in fuel costs the last few years, that plan was scrapped outright in favor of the 787's increased fuel efficiency.
What amazes me is that a plane designed in the 60's is still being revised and improved 40 years later. (747 Series)
11/24/08
Let's see, it flies... 15 mph faster on paper than a 747-8 at cruising speed. It is also only a twin-engine design which limits some routing as well.
11/24/08
My curiosity, though, is where's the vertical and horizontal stabilizers? Or are the winglets sufficient for yaw control? The horizontal stabilizer on conventional planes also allow for large variations in CG of the plane that you don't find so much in a "flying wing" design. Don't know how well this'll work for commercial service...
11/24/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08