electric road transport
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing
From: Mike P on 8 Jul 2010 05:10 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:02:43 +0100, Ian Jackson garbled: > In message <i14384$ug5$5(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Mike P > <privacy(a)privacy.net> writes >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:37:49 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man garbled: >> >>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:36:48 +0100, Mike P wrote: >>> >>>>> thats as good a proof as we need. I can move a loaded narrowboat on >>>>> the end >>>>> of a rope, I cannot keep that weight up in the air. >>>> >>>> It's the lift innit? >>>> >>>> I bet if you had a good strong wind providing some lift, you could >>>> pull a glider on the end of a rope along in the air ;-) >>> >>> yes, a very small one. >> >>That would be a kite... theory is the same though, if you had a 150mph >>gale, you could pull a glider along, or a Cessna. >> > Errrrr... > No. > An aeroplane would have to be moving forward THROUGH the air with a > differential (airspeed) of at least 60mph. No. It wouldn't. -- Mike P
From: Ian Jackson on 8 Jul 2010 05:45 In message <i144l8$mh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Mike P <privacy(a)privacy.net> writes >On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:02:43 +0100, Ian Jackson garbled: > >> In message <i14384$ug5$5(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Mike P >> <privacy(a)privacy.net> writes >>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:37:49 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man garbled: >>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:36:48 +0100, Mike P wrote: >>>> >>>>>> thats as good a proof as we need. I can move a loaded narrowboat on >>>>>> the end >>>>>> of a rope, I cannot keep that weight up in the air. >>>>> >>>>> It's the lift innit? >>>>> >>>>> I bet if you had a good strong wind providing some lift, you could >>>>> pull a glider on the end of a rope along in the air ;-) >>>> >>>> yes, a very small one. >>> >>>That would be a kite... theory is the same though, if you had a 150mph >>>gale, you could pull a glider along, or a Cessna. >>> >> Errrrr... >> No. >> An aeroplane would have to be moving forward THROUGH the air with a >> differential (airspeed) of at least 60mph. > >No. It wouldn't. > For a glider or a Cessna to be flying, it would. Less, and it would be dangling. -- Ian
From: boltar2003 on 8 Jul 2010 06:03 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:45:01 +0100 Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> An aeroplane would have to be moving forward THROUGH the air with a >>> differential (airspeed) of at least 60mph. >> >>No. It wouldn't. >> >For a glider or a Cessna to be flying, it would. Less, and it would be >dangling. All a bit moot anyway since you'd have to be bloody strong to hold onto a half ton aeroplane in a 60mph gale! :) B2003
From: Mrcheerful on 8 Jul 2010 06:17 Ian Jackson wrote: > In message <K8gZn.52828$cJ6.8532(a)hurricane>, Mrcheerful > <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> writes >> Ian Jackson wrote: >>> In message <qfjl78qf1wkf.nae5mkltva22$.dlg(a)40tude.net>, Chelsea >>> Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> writes >>>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:34:40 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>> You have to accelerate a lot >>>>> of water to move a boat at consyant speed. Accelerating air is a >>>>> lot easier. >>>> >>>> you have to push some water aside but the lift is free. Aeroplane >>>> lift isnt free and floating on air is a lot harder than floating on >>>> water. >>> >>> And, unlike a railway, the 'track' is always dead level. >> >> and needs very little maintenance and lets faster 'conveyances' pass >> in either direction without extra track/points, also much less >> danger of crashes at level crossings, no 'pedestrians' stepping in >> front of you, cyclists are forced to keep out of your way and on >> their own path. > Eventually cyclists WILL discover a way to get in your way - even on a > canal. It's only a matter of time! Underwater cycling, now there is a sport, mentioned on this site too!!: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bicycle worth a quick read I thought.
From: Mike P on 8 Jul 2010 06:26
<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:i147pq$nml$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:45:01 +0100 > Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> An aeroplane would have to be moving forward THROUGH the air with a >>>> differential (airspeed) of at least 60mph. >>> >>>No. It wouldn't. >>> >>For a glider or a Cessna to be flying, it would. Less, and it would be >>dangling. > > All a bit moot anyway since you'd have to be bloody strong to hold onto a > half ton aeroplane in a 60mph gale! :) Very true indeed. I was watching an old mythbusters the other day where they actually "proved" (note quotes, not *s!) the theory of what I am saying using a small wind tunnel and a model aircraft.. Mike P |