aeromotacanucks
-
Posts
2,189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by aeromotacanucks
-
-
28 minutes ago, sonoman said:
As tragic as this is, POTUS still seems to have trouble with numbers or facts
Dear Trump
apparently according you the attack itself killed more than 3x the entire population in Sri Lanka...
Well maybe you should just check this a little bit Mr. Trump...
-
8 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Has your idea ever been done over a major city and had any success?
100m seems a bit low? I live near Wall Centre in Van....it stands 150m tall...wouldn't want to fly a big plane like that so close to buildings....
Those water bombers are soo cool though, I used to watch them fill up at Nanoose Bay as a kid.
I don't know the exact values but I think it can be done, or even using helicopters on small releases instead going it all at once. The technology is there so let's use it right?
Why not drones too? Ok maybe drop 7tons over it will create problems but how about drones releasing 10 or 20kgs of water 1 after another on a precise targeting?
I think the technology is there and we can use it
-
9 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Interesting....has that been done over a city before?
I got my info from this....I know you said 'not directly'
“If you hit that with tons of water from above, that’s going to collapse the entire structure and make the situation worse,” said Wayne McPartland, a retired New York City Fire Department battalion chief. “If you miss, you might hit civilians in the street.”
Not hitting directly because yes that will be bad
Imagine this. Get one of those high pressure water hoses, if you shoot it directly you will hit and cause damage
BUT let's suppose I point it up and shoot it, it will not hurt you but will create an "artificial rain" that will wash you gently and around you because you're spreading the water over a large area
If you get a water bomber and drop the water let's say at 100m or more you will not be unleashing the water to the ground at full force but the air will do the job of spreading the water over a larger area since the water will encounter resistance util it reaches the ground. The higher the distance more drag the water will suffer and since the amount of water dropped is tiny compared to the air around it (since it wasn't raining there) the final velocity will not be huge
I think it can be done, cropduster pilots do all the time, they release the water above us at 100m or more and for us in the ground we feel it's like a common rain
-
17 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Yep, water bombing could damage surrounding buildings too while also being a concern for civilians if the target was missed.
Whoever suggested this idea should stick to what he knows.....oh wait, never mind.
The concept is not directly water bomb because yes it will be a bad idea it but create an indirect effect
You drop the water high enough to bring moisture to the atmosphere, do it enough and you can induce a light rain over a large area, so instead directly doing it you're spreading water over a large area which your target is inside it and also avoids fire propagation
Let's say 8 tons of water at 100m above the target, will not damage the target will will surely add a lot of moisture to the local air
This happen all the time in the Amazon, a single rain nearby can unleash a large effect over a huge area because you added moisture...
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Fantomex said:
I'm almost certain that a water bomber is a bad idea. If you're trying to save the art and wooden architecture, you're far too late. Dropping thousands of litres of water on the remains all at once isn't going to help.
Not dropping directly but above it creating a cloud of moisture in order to provoke a light rain over the entire area
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, goalie13 said:
The Donald weighs in on the fire:
Such brilliant insight.
Actually this is not a bad idea. They could use a Canadian CL415 waterbomber or if they need a heavier one a Russian Beriev B200
-
Thanos dies in the end!
Feel free to hate me now...
-
1
-
-
My hometown
Manaus/amazon jungle/Brazil
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, gurn said:
I miss both of these.
We have to create a topic about the Avro...
-
Who else miss these old dudes?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hammertime said:
Back when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel.
And people took 3 months to cross the north Atlantic instead 7 hours we take now...
-
45 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:
Personally I want the option to have a wheel and manual controls.
Maybe that's why I like Motorcycles so much. Manual shifting. Wind in your face (along with bugs, etc).
The sound of the engine. And your senses on full alert, because a lot of drivers just don't see you.
We have to consider if regulations will allow a full automatic car like this...
I don't think so...
-
5 minutes ago, luckylager said:
Like a pet
But a car
What if I want a truck? All this talk about cars and I forgot that I drive a truck.
A truckdog would be pretty cool. Just whistle and it takes me fishing... Talk about mans best friend!!
good point. feel free to present your ideas
-
and guess what i made the calculations from Philladelphia to NY...
from one international airport to another: 90miles
90MILES!!!!!!!
any yet somebody want to do it on a CONCORDE?????????
ok if you consider some extra miles due to ATC vectors and such you would have not more than 100MILES
really how on Earth somebody want to use a supersonic jet to do a job that it´s not efficient even for a REGIONAL TURBOPROP????
the time you will need to climb to 10000ft on a supersonic jet you will already pass the JFK because a regional plane climbs at 170kts while a Concorde climbs at minimum 250kts
again with a transonic distance needing at least 300miles how on Earth a 90mile route would be feasible for a supersonic jet???????
even with holds, speed reduction etc. a regional prop will do it in 30min max...
-
1 minute ago, luckylager said:
100% this
It would really depend on the drive for me. I love driving sometimes, other times (like 300+km on the highway) I'd love to go full auto and chill.
Or if I go to a party and get $&!#tered - "car, drive me the &^@# home"
Driving in the city I'd prefer to have full "manual" transmission so I can rage at traffic lights and a**hole drivers that likely can't control a goddam shopping cart, let alone their white Mercedes SUV with "I have no idea home to drive" dents and scrapes all over it.
My question is - are 70% people ready to forced to take the bus? As in - here's the car you're not allowed to drive. You can tell it where to take you, but you're not driving, no &^@#ing way.
maybe in the future with self-driving cars people will not have to worry about "having a car" anymore because they can simply call one when they need and they car will come all by itself...
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
Mate, the reason why Concorde DIED in the trans-atlantic flights corridor, despite not having sonic booms to worry about and such, is because very few people were willing to pay 10,000 dollars for a 3 hour New York to London flight when they can pay 1,000 dollars for a 7 hour New York to London flight.
nope. one of the reasons Concorde died is because after BAE systems and Aerospatiale merged forming AIRBUS they decided not to support the plane anymore. the maintenance of an analog supersonic airplane was becoming expensive as hell and even more if you consider that the lifespan of a supersonic airplane is actually pretty short and Airbus didn´t want to spend more Money on it especially when they were spending a lot of Money on another failure. the A380
people will ALWAYS SPEND MONEY that´s why these new SSTs are atracting so much people. they want spend Money on something.
if Airbus decided "ok &^@# it we gonna keep the Concorde" people would still fly it. why do you think people are trying to bring back the Concorde?
not having sonic booms to worry about?????
from NY to London the transonic stage was right next to Halifax and yes they complained a lot about it, on the way back it happened near Ireland and guess what they also complained a lot...
concorde was allowed to fly supersonicaly over the atlantic because on a very large portion of the flight nobody would be disturbed by it.
a single transonic stage can consume at least 900MILES. and guess whay during this stage it´s still having the boom!
heck when Concorde operated in Brazil the transonic stage was done 900MILES AWAY, not 300 but 900MILES away. yet even spending a whale of fuel all flights were full
-
8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
If that was the case, then Concorde would've continued flying out of NYC and Philadelphia, given how their airports are close to the seaboard.
Concorde to me, failed because the only discernable benefit - reducing a trans-atlantic flight from 7 hours to 3 came at a 5-6 times the ticket price. Very few people are in that much of a hurry.
I completely disagree. If it would succeed if more than trans-oceanic flights were allowed, Concorde would've succeeded in nations that do not have bans on supersonic overland flights - like China for eg.
does "transonic acceleration" mean anything to you? you need at least 300 miles to do this. AT LEAST 300 miles, not to mention the departure, noise reduction, descent, arrival and the procedure itself. there´s no way a Concorde would match a B737-200 on this route...
then you have to decelerate. and there we go with another 300 miles. meaning you need at least 900 miles just for the transitioning stage
you can´t simply go straight to the sea, accelerate then reduce. big jets do not accelerate like fighters. especially when you have to break the sound barrier...
really? so why China didn´t simply ignored the FAA and purchased some? have you actually stayed near a "sonic boom" area?
because I did and if a single F15 already make you feel the "stomp" imagine a thing with the size of a B727 rushing at mach 2. even USAF made na experiment about it...
-
13 minutes ago, canuckistani said:
Do you understand what bulk majority means ? Do you realize that over 90% of automobiles outside of the 'bus' class, are driven by the owners of said automobiles for personal usage ?
Again, please improve your english before you contest a non-point. I said planes are designed to fly as fast as possible WHILE being as fuel efficient as possible. Its a sweet spot of intersection in a graph having two lines, in this case. Concorde failed because they were not meeting that graph's sweet spot and the only thing they had to offer was a 50% reduction in flight times at the expense of 5x the ticket price.
I am simply stating that your comparison to planes in general is with busses or mass transit for the model employed. If you wish to compare cars, compare it more or less with recreational pilots who fly their own planes because they want to.
And a lot of people will still want to drive their cars because they also like driving or won't trust technology to not screw up for a long, long time.
Without complete rehaul of the road systems, we are not going to see much improvement on driving speeds anyways, not outside of the rural areas, as most city roads are already saturated.
Concorde failed because the FAA prohibited supersonic flights over USA. at the time PAN-AM wanted to buy 100 Concordes, then Boeing decided to buy the fight and design their SST...
at that time PAN-AM said if Boeing could build a 300 seat SST they would buy it instead of the Concorde. even J.F Kennedy supported the idea...
since Concorde didn´t have the range to fly from USA to South America Airlines in USA wanted to create a "supersonic domestic niche" like NY-LA, and with the FAA ban all these plans were destroyed
then when Boeing said it couldn´t do its SST the American aviation industry didn´t want see the Concorde taking their skies so American politicians and Boeing pressured the FAA to BAN SUPERSONIC FLIGHTS OVER POPULATED AREAS
without this ban the Concorde would sell at least 300 units and would be a hit, however when Boeing said "we cannot make our 300 seat SST" politics entered and said "nope"
concorde didn´t fail because it was expensive, it failed because it only had one Market, transatlantic flights...
if the Concorde was allowed to fly over inland areas the plane would sell more than any conventional jet...
it´s not only me saying this. it´s history and ANY AVIATOR KNOWS THIS
-
Cessna Citation XLS+ as everybody can see not even the &^@#ing backup instruments are analog anymore...
-
1 minute ago, canuckistani said:
I don't think car industry is easily modelled after the trends of aviation industry. Cars, by definition, are driven by the owner themselves and not providing a service to a bunch of individuals like a plane is.
Also, the same systemic pressures on aviation technology does not exist in automotive one : planes are designed to fly as fast as possible while being as fuel efficient as possible. Cars are not, since we have mandated speed controls in our roadways.Furthermore, driving is one of those things where a lot of people enjoy driving a car ( though I am yet to meet one who enjoys grinding gridlock traffic). As such, you may want to compare car drivers to those aviators who are strictly recreational pilots only - do they prefer a cessna where they have to take more controls or a bombardier business jet that is more automated ?
So all in all, i don't think self-driving cars will have as much of a traction as automated piloting systems for planes. They may find easy purchase amongst bus drivers and mass transit operators, but i don't see very many people wanting to give up driving as they do right now.
really? by the owner themselves?
so UBER is what excatly? I´m paying somebody to drive my own car?
really? the Concorde disagree. Concorde was created to be "supersonic eficient", the purpose was to create a plane that would spend less fuel because it would fly faster, but obviously when you have massive turbojets and the transonic acceleration requires afterburners you will spend way more fuel. so not necessarily speed and fuel efficiency can be achieved at once...
and you´re not considering the ATC itself, doesn´t matter if you fly fast when you have to hold at 10000ft because a Cessna at 80kts is ahead of you and by law who comes 1st get 1st. because including these there´s a lot of rules that goes way beyond logic such as helicopters having their routes connected with airplane routes (happens in Vancouver) so it´s not only about the machine being eficient but the entire airspace being eficiente...
however that hydroplane flying at 2000ft crossing the final approach will force that Air Canada B777 do some hold or do the final segment slowly. this is why wings today are also being optimised to fly slowly so the plane can land short and use less runway possible allowing it use more airports and be more flexible...
just see the B787, a plane that can fly safely at Mach 0.84 yet has a VAPP of 140kts (or even less), a B767 much older than it fly at M0.80 and has a VAPP of 150kts
even recreational pilots want some sort of automation while others don´t, that´s why Cirrus is so popular to the point they´re creating a jet. is a great plane for professional but also for leasure flights yet people complain that sometimes Cirrus is more automated than an Airbus
some Cessnas are WAY MORE AUTOMATED THAN A BOMBARDIER. apparently you never entered on a Cessna Citation XLS with proline avionics and the XLS can make almost any Bombardier look like a B52 in terms of old tecnology. actually even some very old planes can be upgrated to new tecnologies.
you still classify a Cessna as "those single engine buzzy planes" but apparently never saw the state-of-the art of their jets or even props. the Cirrus is a 4 seat piston plane yet you can manage it on the same way you manage na Airbus
lot of people enjoy drive cars because they have only this option. when the "self driving car" option come many people will say "&^@# it I go automatic" because drive on a city sucks and even on highways you will drive manually only for short periods of time. studies show that on a 8 hour trip drivers will drive for not more than 1 hour...
and with computers taking charge you don´t have to put speed limits because pretty much the entire system will be "self communicative", cars will "talk" with each other on the same way airplanes do today (using the TCAS) so with better communication cars will know what´s happening many KMs ahead...
heck even the car my boss have has a HUD. a HUD. when I looked it I saw a very similar version I saw on a plane!
-
4 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:
Why be limited to just 1 when you can have all 3 in 1?
/Tesla.
it´s just a brainstorm scenario
personally I don´t think the regular driver is ready to let the machine have full authority, humans have a natural instinct of have the final word and cars are pretty much the "last bastion" of it since planes, ships and trains already have some sort of automation...
also my question is how reliable will be this things on cars?
-
I gonna give na example...
imagine that tomorrow 3 types of cars are avaliable to the public:
normal: it has self driving capabilities but you can switch to "full manual" at any time, however the "automatic mode" cannot park for you or drive offroad...
semi-automatic: you can still drive manually if you want but it´s not fully manual, it´s more like "manual with computer assistance", the computer will let you drive where you want but will limit your speed and your agressive ways if detected. however it can park for you and drive offroad most of the time
full automatic: here you´re no longer a driver instead you´re merely a "button pusher", you turn on the car and tell where you want to go and the car does all, no manual controls, no gears, no human interface. all automatic without any human autority
make your choices...
-
it started today as a brainstorm and I think it might be a good conversation...
in Aviation we´re already used with computers taking charge of things because planes are complex and the fast you fly more sensitive the controls became to the point you will need some assistance from the computers. for example I had an experience of Pilot manually and airplane at 850km/h and honestly it´s REALLY sensitive, you move the controls 5cm and the plane goes wild to the point you will need think 10x ahead of the machine only because of the "speed fator"
after my aviation school formation I flew in the jungle where most of the machines were pretty much junkyards with wings with no automation at all and only my GPS as computer I pretty much had to do all the job, the few times I got something similar to automation I felt strange and honestly had some problems with the machine doing everything I was supposed to be doing (fly the airplane)
luckly after some fast training I learned how actually understand the autopilot and computers and Interact with them but even so I never forget the motto "let the machine do the job but Always stays ahead of it"
and I considered it pretty valid and I do it since them...
the machine does what it´s supposed to do but I Always stay way ahead of it because if the computer fails I will be ready to take charge...
my question is simple and I want everyone answer it considering your own opinion...
we´re now on the verging of self-driving cars that will drive without you do anything, drivers will have to suffer the same process that Pilots suffer when they pass from "full manual" to "full integrated machines"
are drivers ready to become "car managers" instead of regular drivers? are drivers ready to operate and understand how full automated computers work and actually believe on these computers?
some of you will say "sure no problem I can do it" but honestly i don´t think it will be that easy for a non trained person actually do this...
-
16 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:
Pretty much what I've been saying. Most people sell their BTC for real CAD/USD. I have a guy on Facebook who does just that then acts as if he's beating the system somehow, someway. You still need the bank for your mortgage, car payment, retirement account, or anything of the sort. Getting ahead? Beating the system? Someone's clearly deceiving themselves.
"Beating the system" would be if you could simply migrate fully to Bitcoin and use it as real currency with a different value and interactions...
But...
A virtual currency you can simply stipulate the value you want
That means you can say that a Bitcoin is worth 2 billion dollars or 7 Cows, yes it doesn't make sense at all since 7 cows are not worth 2 billion dollars but since you're dealing with a virtual currency that nobody uses so who gives a damm?
People don't realise Bitcoin is a SCAM, a pure simple SCAM
They buy because people inflate it and induce other people buy it then you sell your bitcoins before everybody and get a high value for this but at some point with everybody selling bitcoins its value will be reduced to nothing
So the person who sold earlier gets better deals...
Sounds pretty much like a Pyramid scam to me...
-
2
-
Philippines president said 'we will declare war'...
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Dammit dude you're making all Rodrigos out there look crazier than our usual...
Btw my 1st name is Rodrigo