This drivers strike ?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mike G on 20 Jun 2008 08:50 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:485B9B93.628CF8E7(a)hotmail.com... > > > Mike G wrote: > >> "Brimstone" wrote >> > Eeyore wrote: >> >> Brimstone wrote: >> >> >> >>> If flying was more intellectualy challenging than driving >> >>> a >> >>> road vehicle then we wouldn't have computers controlling >> >>> aircraft. >> >> >> >> >> No, that makes no sense at all. >> > >> > OK, I'll rephrase it. A computer (or other machine) hasn't >> > yet >> > been offered commercially that will steer a road vehicle >> > (there >> > have been some experiments) whereas such devices are used to >> > control the direction, height and speed of an aircraft. Thus >> > driving a road vehicle is a more complex task than flying a >> > 'plane. >> >> Some years ago I seem to recall a passenger jet taking off, >> flying to New York and landing, all under the control of a >> computer. Just to prove it could be done. It did have a pilot >> though, just in case. > > Sure it wasn't a Virgin A340 from Heathrow to Shanghai ? > > The Americans are funny about auto-land. The more I think about it, the more I seem to remember. It was a long time ago, when the technology was in it's infantcy. AFAIR it was not a scheduled flight. At the time it was carried out just to prove that it could be done. Maybe the plane was specially equipped. I don't recall the details, but it was definitely transatlantic. I'll have a google for it when I get the time. I'm sure I haven't imagined the whole thing. My memory can't be that bad. Mike.
From: Conor on 20 Jun 2008 13:14 In article <e6f8f473-165a-4e2c-bf4b-a276fba4da89 @i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Hiram says... > On Jun 19, 10:03 pm, Conor <conor_tur...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Conor, is that you posting over at The Register? > > > > No. > > > > Ah ok, just a bloke with the same name as you. > LOL. Can't be arsed with registering there. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 14:06 Mike G wrote: > "Eeyore" wrote > > Mike G wrote: > >> "Eeyore" wrote > > >> >> > In a small private aircraft the rudder is used regularly > >> >> > in turns for example to avoid wing drop. One of the first > >> >> > lessons I learnt. > >> >> > >> >> That was down to your instructor. Haha ! I think he liked challenging his pupils. Just to see what they were made of. > >> >> It's perfectly possible > >> >> to make turns in a light aircraft without losing hight, just > >> >> by use of the ailerons and elevator. LIGHT turns I'd say. > >> > Yeah but you'll lose energy. > >> > > >> >> Using the rudder makes a turn more elegant, > >> > > >> > Damn right. Nicely co-ordinated. > >> > > >> >> as it can be used to keep the fuselage in line with the > >> >> direction of flight. So it's desirable IMO but not > >> >> necessary. > > > > Ummm but I was trying to execute a REALLY sharp turn. I DID say > > I was pushing it ! > > > >> > Hmmmm. it's good practice anyway. Esp for PPLs. > >> > > >> > But I was so seemingly 'over-confident' at the flight I had > >> > already conducted already I was pushing it ! Interesting > >> > thing ... I didn't actually panic at all although I could see I > was > >> > losing altitude. > >> > >> Not enough elevator. > > > > I WISH ! I was pulling back on the wheel like there was no > > tomorrow. > > Not enough though. Quentin (the instructor) seemed mildly > > amused (damn ex Air Canada know it all - LOL !) . Funny thing is > though, I > > never panicked, I knew it simply had to be some incorrect use of > > control. > > I'll tell you what I think probably happened. In normal flight > you need very little rudder to make neat turns. Sure. Just to keep the trim nice. > A lot too much rudder causes the inside wing to lose lift or it can > even even > stall. Hopes not ! Stalling is a 'bad thing'. Tell me more about that btw. > At the same time the lift of the outside wing is increased. EXACTLY. Differential airspeed, hence lift. > The nose then dips and the plane starts to roll. The > beginnings of a spin. The elevator on it's own is not enough to > stop the nose dipping, as at that point you've already lost > airspeed. Take all rudder off, At the instructor's request (first lesson) I wasn't even touching the rudder pedals. > and you can possibly recover after > a short shallow dive to regain airspeed. You might need a little > opposite aileron as well. Not much as too much will cause even > more loss of speed, amd more loss of hight before recovery. I dare say you're right but I was an utter newbie that day. It all makes sense NOW of course ! > >> I gave up power flying after just a couple of lessons in a 172. > > > > I'd have got bored in a 172 probably too. Not exactly an > > exciting aircraft but I was in a Grumman AA4 Traveller. Nice piece > of > > kit, London School of Flying, Elstree. VERY nice piece of kit in > fact. One > > of the most local really good flying schools. > > > >> I could see little fun in just flying around, so carrying on > >> to get a PPL seemed pointless. But, had a go in a glider and was > >> hooked. > >> There's much more of a challenge to keeping a glider in the > >> air, and being in close proximity to several gliders all doing > >> tight turns in the same thermal can certainly get the adrenaline > >> flowing. I could try it but I doubt it would do the same for me. Yes, I appreciate the skill involved but nothing to me substiutes for having your own power source. Do you fly from Dunstable now btw ? > > I did consider gliding too. Dunstable's near me too. And > > another first class school. But powered flight was what interested > me most. > > One of the things I didn't like was the noise, Yeah, they can be noisy but the Grumman wasn't at all bad actually. Only mildly raised voice necessary at all. No need for cans. > but then I prefer sailing boats to motor boats. I also think they're > more of a > challenge. Oh, I've done a fair bit of canal cruising in classic narrow boats up to ~ 65 ft. I've dome some of the longest tunnels around B'ham too. Sailing looks too complicated to me. Done a fair few 100 miles in narrow boats though, including up the Severn River. Watch for the 'traffic lights' at the big locks ! > > Flying is VERY expensive in the UK. Maybe if things improve, > > I'll take it up again. > > You should try gliding. Well ... I did send for the brochure but I reckon I really want a donk up front. > A bit cheaper and more difficult to do > well than power IMO. I think you'd like it. You know I might, but you know I'd like to really properly master powered flight first ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 14:08 Raymond Keattch wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > I'd have got bored in a 172 probably too. Not exactly an exciting > > aircraft but I was in a Grumman AA4 Traveller. Nice piece of kit, London > > School of Flying, Elstree. VERY nice piece of kit in fact. One of the > > most local really good flying schools. > > I learnt at Elstree flying 172s with Fircrest Aviation ;-) How did you rate them ? They're (were) certainly less expensive than LSF. But a Cessna isn't a Grumman. Does that make me a snob ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 20 Jun 2008 14:13
Mike G wrote: > "Eeyore" wrote > > Mike G wrote: > >> "Brimstone" wrote > >> > Eeyore wrote: > >> >> Brimstone wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> If flying was more intellectualy challenging than driving > >> >>> a road vehicle then we wouldn't have computers controlling > >> >>> aircraft. > >> >> > >> >> No, that makes no sense at all. > >> > > >> > OK, I'll rephrase it. A computer (or other machine) hasn't > >> > yet been offered commercially that will steer a road vehicle > >> > (there have been some experiments) whereas such devices are used > to > >> > control the direction, height and speed of an aircraft. Thus > >> > driving a road vehicle is a more complex task than flying a > >> > 'plane. > >> > >> Some years ago I seem to recall a passenger jet taking off, > >> flying to New York and landing, all under the control of a > >> computer. Just to prove it could be done. It did have a pilot > >> though, just in case. > > > > Sure it wasn't a Virgin A340 from Heathrow to Shanghai ? > > > > The Americans are funny about auto-land. > > The more I think about it, the more I seem to remember. It was a > long time ago, when the technology was in it's infantcy. Hmm, the H/S Trident was the first a/c IIRC with true autoland but no way did it have transatlantic capacity. > AFAIR it as not a scheduled flight. At the time it was carried out > just > to prove that it could be done. Maybe the plane was specially > equipped. I don't recall the details, but it was definitely > transatlantic. > I'll have a google for it when I get the time. > I'm sure I haven't imagined the whole thing. My memory can't be > that bad. Good luck with that. Graham |