Jump to content

old man emu

Moderators
  • Posts

    5,297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Posts posted by old man emu

  1. Don't know whether that would pass health and safety regs.... giving someone and unmarked can, with no details as to the content or how it is to be used. At least if you know what it's called, you can search on how to use it.

    You are quite correct there. In Australia, and New Zealand you have the right to demand access to the SDS (Safety Data Sheet) of any product that you use. Trouble is, without your kit manufacturer identifying the product, you can't identify the problem.

     

    As a a long shot, why don't you contact an Italian language newspaper in NZ, or the Italian Embassy and ask for help in translating your request to the supplier and emailing the translation?

     

    OME

     

     

  2. Please take your religious crap to the off topic area pls.

    It is an accepted literary practice to misuse a quote from a well-known source. Gnarly's problem was that he didn't give the quotation that had meaning in this topic.

     

    Indeed; praise be to Him for your safety! Psalm 44...

    The appropriate verse from Psalm 44 is verse 15.

     

    " My confusion is continually before me, and the shame of my face hath covered me,", which describes what Dutchroll did pretty well.

     

    OME

     

     

    • Like 2
  3. In simple terms you must prove you have performed build tasks that prove:

    1. You have a clear understanding of each process and practical, hands-on experience and,

     

    2. You are capable of repairing more than 51% of the plane's modules.

     

    This is how the various companies do the 2 week build program. You're not building 51% of the plane. You're being trained, hands-on, for understanding of, and to be capable of repairing more than 51% of the craft's modules.

    Hope you don't mind the editing re-write, but I think that clarifies the spirit of the 51% rule.

     

    OME

     

     

    • More 1
  4. Ultimately I guess this needs to comform to the 51% rule.

    I would imagine that a box of pre-cut assorted lengths of material would not constitute a great proportion of the whole airplane. Just try to tally how much of an airplane the builder actually makes - and make sure you add in all the instruments, electrics, pumps etc.

     

    What is the actual wording of the 51% rule, anyway?

     

    There is also a point where the cost of extensive prefabricated parts starts to eat into the cost and value of a kit.....

    That's probably why it's a goer being made in China.

     

    OME

     

     

    • Agree 1
  5. Not "tongue-in-cheek" at all. I think you used the word "titillation" in a correct context - suggestion that someone could see sexual connotations in the picture. What I was pointing out that the connotations are in the mind of the beholder. Instead of mens sana in corpora sano, there's a lot of mens insana in corpora insano around workplaces.

     

    OME

     

    And I don't know how to remove the picture of the fuel tank.

     

    upload_2016-5-10_17-22-39.png.2f4ab871ee149a42d63c0752f92dad6f.png

     

     

  6. OME, despite the slightly unusual take on breastfeeding, it might be seen that the purpose of sending the pic is purely for titillation, and hence objectionable.

    Now there's the rub!

    I found that the picture, especially with a caption "Good to the last drop", tickled my sense of humour. Since the word "titilate" derives from the Latin "to tickle", I would say that my response was not objectionable. If you examine the presentation of the woman, you will see that no parts of her body usually associated with erotica are displayed. I think the humour of the image derives from the actions of the mother/baby combination. The woman is engaging in a normal recreational activity while at the same time providing for the baby.

     

    To say that "the purpose of sending the pic is purely for titillation" calls into question the mindset of the person saying it.

     

    OME

     

     

  7. Barnaby may not be there after the election. the ex independent Tony Windsor is standing againsst him.

    Which is why Mr Windsor and any other local politician should have been present.

     

    It is unfortunate that the meeting has become more of a local issue than a national one. Who has heard of this topic being given airtime anywhere else but in that one electorate? Surely it is a matter that has impacts in every rural electorate, and in many metropolitan ones as well.

     

    OME

     

     

    • Agree 1
  8. I think you'll find that she is the woman in one of the photos.

     

    The plan was to provide the chance for the pilot to bail out:

     

    "It was proposed that a He 111 bomber would carry either one or two Reichenbergs beneath its wings, releasing them close to the target. The pilots would then steer their aircraft towards the target, jettisoning the cockpit canopy shortly before impact and bailing out. It was estimated that the chances of a pilot surviving such a bailout were less than 1% due to the proximity of the pulsejet's intake to the cockpit".

     

    I would imagine that the idea would be that the pilot flew the thing under power until the fuel ran out and the pulse jet stopped sucking in air, then the pilot could acquire his target and set up a trajectory before jettisoning the canopy and getting out. A lot of aircraft crashed during development and testing, probably due in many cases to structural failure of the airframe, and the usual pilot-in-type-conversion mistakes. Hanna had a few prangs herself.

     

    Their actual use was cancelled because it was held that premeditated suicide in this way was contrary to the code of the Teutonic warrior. It was OK for a badly wounded pilot to take out an enemy bomber by crashing into it. (Both sides did it).

     

    OME

     

     

  9. Was an aviation representative from the Opposition (or minor Party) there? Having the current (albeit lately arrived) Minister present was good, but with an election coming, and no absolute certainty as to who will form the next Government, it would have been nice to have our concerns aired before all Parties likely to form it.

     

    If the Minister heard the Chairman say that CASA was dysfunctional, then one hopes that someone has been told to get his bum off the Chair and start laying in the boot to everyone in the Authority.

     

    We live in Hope.

     

    OME

     

     

  10. Before you go, get Phil to send you pictures of the current designs on English banknotes. Last time I went, I got notes here at home and when I got to England shops would not take them because they were not the current designs. And you can't just walk into any bank there and ask for service. They only provide service to account holders.

     

    OME

     

     

  11. Notice that one engine is upside down, maybe for gyroscope and air flow torque effect equalisation. What happens when an enmgine fails? mmmm

    This has been brought to our attention by the infamous FT

     

    http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/homebuilt-hoverbike.148808/#post-557661

     

    In describing the design, Furze says that the rear engine had to be inverted so that the props were counter-rotating to balance torque effects.

     

    There is no way that design will be stable or controllable. It's effective in getting viewers. Nev

    Considering that the design brief was to "produce a flying machine" I think that it is a satisfactory proof of concept result.

     

    You really must watch the four videos in the link above to understand what has been done.

     

    OME

     

     

    • Winner 1
  12. Of greater interest to the light plane pilot is the kinetic energy to be dissipated as a result of the collision. And the kinetic energy is found by KE = 1/2 mv 2 (sorry, that's supposed to be v squared) So the speed of the drone has a greater effect than its mass, and I'm guessing most drones are fairly slow.

    Bruce

     

    But it is the closing speed that matters, not the drone's speed.

    Actually the effects of collisions are explained by the Law of Conservation of Momentum. The total momentum of a system after a collision is equal to the total momentum of the system before collision.

     

    Momentum = mass * velocity

     

    Therefore:

     

    m1v1 + m2v2 = m1v1' + m2v2'

     

    where

     

    m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies

     

    v1 and v2 are their respective velocities before the collision

     

    v2' and v2' are their respective velocities after the collision.

     

    This is for an inelastic collision where no energy is dissipated through distortion of the bodies; sound generation, or heat of friction.

     

    In a collision, the velocities of the bodies is changed (v1 - v1'). A collision occurs over time, t. Therefore, in a collision the bodies are accelerated (or decelerated depending on the post impact velocities).

     

    If a mass is accelerated by the action of a force on it, so the force one body exerts on the other body by a collision is {m1 *(v1 - v1')}

     

    Say a grasshopper weighs 10 grams (0.001 kg) and flies directly at a 1000 kg mass car at a velocity of 2.77 (10 kph) metres per second. It has a momentum of (o.001 * 2.77) kg m/sec = 0.00277 kg m/sec.

     

    If the car has mass of 1000 kg and is travelling at 100 kph (27.7 metres per second), it has a momentum of (1000 * 27.7) kg m /sec = 27700 kg m /sec. That's a 10 million times difference in momentum.

     

    The kinetic energy of the grasshopper before the collision is 0.5 * (0.001 * 2.77^2) = 0.5 * (0.001 * 7.67) = 0.0038 kg m^2/s^2 = 0.0038 Joules.

     

    The kinetic energy of the car before collision is 0.5 * (1000 * 27.7^2) = 0.5 * (1000 * 767) = 0.5 * 767000 = 383645 Joules.

     

    OME

     

    Too much brain work! I'm going off to have dinner!

     

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...