PDA

View Full Version : why do i prefer to turn left on a circle?



ploughman
11-27-2006, 08:17 AM
Apples and oranges. Great plane though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

mynameisroland
11-27-2006, 08:32 AM
apples and oranges indeed.

Mach 2 plus fighters operate at Mach 2 for minutes Concorde did it for hours.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Haigotron
11-27-2006, 08:35 AM
i salute the concorde!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/haigotron/il2banner.png
The End is Nigh: The World will END in two weeks...be sure!

Thanatos833
11-27-2006, 08:44 AM
I wonder why nobody ever tried to make a concorde based bomber, in the same way 1930's passenger liners were made into bombers. It's just amazing having such a supercruise ability back in that era, it's amazing even now, the F-22 can only cruise at mach 1.6. The technology is just amazing, I wonder if any afterburning system could be added to the concorde?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

raaaid
11-27-2006, 08:55 AM
does it have any advantage?

maybe good karma has that sense or is just the precession of the engine?

wait doesnt happen the same when you take off

mynameisroland
11-27-2006, 09:23 AM
Concorde did have afterburners, they used Olympus engines fitted with reheat capability.

The British government also had drawn up plans to use the Concorde as a free fall Nuclear bomber IIRC. But it only ever got to Blueprint stage.

1982 Falklands war scenario with Concorde dropping a large nuclear device over Argentina , who needs Sea Harrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

mynameisroland
11-27-2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
I wonder why nobody ever tried to make a concorde based bomber, in the same way 1930's passenger liners were made into bombers. It's just amazing having such a supercruise ability back in that era, it's amazing even now, the F-22 can only cruise at mach 1.6. The technology is just amazing, I wonder if any afterburning system could be added to the concorde?


Wow read this

"The aircraft used reheat (afterburners) at takeoff and to pass through the high-drag transonic regime (i.e. "go supersonic"). Although the engines were just barely capable of reaching Mach 2 without reheat, it was discovered operationally that it burnt more fuel that way, since the aircraft took much longer to accelerate even though reheat is quite inefficient."

So Concorde could accelerate to Mach 2 without afterburner lol<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Breeze147
11-27-2006, 09:52 AM
Always remember this: It was a relatively small piece of F.O.D that brought the Concorde down.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg

ploughman
11-27-2006, 10:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Piss off Breeze.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

whiteladder
11-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Interesting piece of trivia,


During the Supersonic cruse only 8% of the power is derived by the engine with the other 29% being from Nozzles and an impressive 63% from the intakes!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5248/whiteladder4ws6pf.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Breeze147
11-27-2006, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Piss off Breeze.

What is your problem, dude? I was relating to the Forum the root cause of the Paris Concorde crash. Or maybe you don't know what F.O.D. is: Foreign Obstacle Damage. Jeez, what a jerk you are!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg

NekoReaperman
11-27-2006, 10:21 AM
I thought it was "Foreign Object debris"

(i used to be ramp crew at KFLL)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d136/Nekoreaperman/reperma.jpg

Breeze147
11-27-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
I thought it was "Foreign Object debris"

(i used to be ramp crew at KFLL)

I guess different places call it something slightly different. It adds up to the same thing.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg

MEGILE
11-27-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Always remember this: It was a relatively small piece of F.O.D that brought the Concorde down.

Ever the gentleman and scholar.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8656/closter08ie6.jpg
YouTube Quote of the week - hey man, **** you because that dog is mad cute.

ploughman
11-27-2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Piss off Breeze.

What is your problem, dude? I was relating to the Forum the root cause of the Paris Concorde crash. Or maybe you don't know what F.O.D. is: Foreign Obstacle Damage. Jeez, what a jerk you are! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you weren't. You were just weiner keen to dump some belittling, poo in a pool bit of info into a topic about a plane you appear dislike, for reasons that are beyond me but probably, if I may venture a speculation, have to do with your location on planet Earth and your inability to appreciate a decent piece of engineering that doesn't originate from your bit of aforementioned planet. Ergo spam. Although, you're sure to deny it.

"Always remember this: It was a relatively small piece of F.O.D that brought the Concorde down."

What's that got to do with the Concorde's mach 2 performance? Really? A pelican once took out a B-1A, but would I drop that into a thread obout the high speed performance of the Bone? Only if I was a troll, or maybe a pelican fancier.

Besides, the root cause of the loss of the Air France Concorde was the speed the Concorde wheels turn due to their samll diameter, which had previously been noted to accelerate tyre debris to such a speed that they were able to penetrate the skin of the aircraft and damage the fuel tanks, although previously this had not led to a catastrophic fire. Had this issue been dealt with when it had been first noticed the Paris crash wouldn't have happened as the foreign object wouldn't have been able to cause the damage it did.

If you think I'm a jerk because I pull you up for being tiresome, well that's fine with me.

Now piss off.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

Arm_slinger
11-27-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Always remember this: It was a relatively small piece of F.O.D that brought the Concorde down.

What are you saying? Apart from stating a massive peice of common knowledge and the obvious.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Causing Havoc online as 242Sqn_Kye
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Kyebromley/IL-2sig.jpg
www.242sqn.com (http://www.242sqn.com)

LStarosta
11-27-2006, 10:49 AM
http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/ea/f5/wellMedicineOTCAllMidol_Maximum_Strength_PMS-resized200.jpg

Here ya go Ploughman.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

ploughman
11-27-2006, 10:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Too much coffee again. Apologies to all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

Breeze147
11-27-2006, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Too much coffee again. Apologies to all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Well, I don't know what to say. You got all of that out my simple statement? I really am sorry that I'm not an Aeronautical Engineer like the rest of you. Whoa, the Concorde, yes indeed, quite the bird there, chums. Flew fast as hell, she did. Sorry that I never got to see one. Did see some B-1's, though. Marvelous!

Well, cheerio and chip-chip, old chums!

Oh, and by the by, go pound sand up your arse! Same goes for you, Megile.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg

ploughman
11-27-2006, 11:18 AM
There was an inflamatory response here, but I've removed it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
11-27-2006, 11:24 AM
Olympus 593 mk610 only has 22% reheat, which is very little compared with fighter engines. Concorde B which was to have started production from the next serial number was to use an improved engine without reheat.

One of the many reasons for staying at "only" Mach 2 or so was to avoid the need for reheat in the cruise.

If you do the sums you'll find that the chances are that the Concorde fleet indeed amassed more supersonic time than all the other supersonic manned aeroplanes put together. Most supersonic fighters spend something like 98-99% of their flying hours subsonic, which is why variable geometry inlets were abandoned on the F-16; the performance improvement was considered to be so rarely realised that it wasn't worth the weight, cost and maintenance.

Concorde was an awesome technological achievement. It was also the last commercial aeroplane to designed the old fashioned way, by men with pencils and rulers, which just goes to show you what is possible. I have one of the original drawings at home; they sold them off when the programme was shut down.

MEGILE
11-27-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
go pound sand up your arse!
Same goes for you, Megile.

That's quite an expression.. have you been taking lessons from the bard?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

Breeze147
11-27-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
What's the interest in pounding my arse? You coming out again Breeze?

Your not worth the sweat from my testicles to keep this going. Cheerio and balderash, old bean!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.inkart.com/images/Vector/P_47D.jpg

ploughman
11-27-2006, 11:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/clivesanta.png
Dum spiro, spero

I_KG100_Prien
11-27-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/ea/f5/wellMedicineOTCAllMidol_Maximum_Strength_PMS-resized200.jpg

Here ya go Ploughman.

+2. If anybody started the "Patriotic Defense Mechanism" It was you. The aircrafts place of design and manufacture wasn't brought up until you did it. So, you say "piss off". We say "Go die in a fire"


Besides, the root cause of the loss of the Air France Concorde was the speed the Concorde wheels turn due to their samll diameter, which had previously been noted to accelerate tyre debris to such a speed that they were able to penetrate the skin of the aircraft and damage the fuel tanks, although previously this had not led to a catastrophic fire. Had this issue been dealt with when it had been first noticed the Paris crash wouldn't have happened as the foreign object wouldn't have been able to cause the damage it did.

Hey, we know about a problem. But that problem hasn't caused any problems yet. Lets wait until the problem really becomes a problem, and causes a problem. Wait he have a problem.. That problem caused a BIG problem. What caused this problem? A problem with design. Not so little a problem really.

Doesn't mean the plane didn't do great things. I tell you what I can't count how many times I've thought it would be nice if the 8 hour flight across The Pond only took two. I'd fly on a superfast Concorde over a C-5 any day of the week.

That is after they fixed the design flaw that caused one to crash and burn.

ploughman
11-27-2006, 12:07 PM
+3. Yeah well, fair enough on the me being a bit of a tit there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

As to the wheely dangerous thing, of course it's all tremendously obvious afterwards.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/clivesanta.png
Dum spiro, spero

general_kalle
11-27-2006, 12:14 PM
Concorde (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Concorde)

think abaut how the speed would have felt in realife! more than twice the speed of a rifle buttet.. Impressive

although ive seen on in realife in a hangar at duxford airshow 2000 i think. id still like to try a ride in that plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

how many passenger could it carry??

wish i had one of these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp_YboqbrL4<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

what have you got to lose?
You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!) -life of Brian

WB_Outlaw
11-27-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
In an aircraft this comes from the position of the stick and the fact that in all combat planes that have a stick , the stick is to be used with the right hand/arm. In this case when you have to turn left you have more force for the initial bank. (You pull the stick instead of pushing towards the outside.) This is a more natural move in my opinion, and you can put more force in the movement. In many planes you did not have room for the elbow to help put more power in a roll to the right.

If I'm holding the stick in my right hand, I would call banking left (ie moving the stick to the left) a "push to the outside", not a pull.

It does seem to me that you're right in that you can generate more force pushing the stick to the left although I don't have any real evidence to support this feeling.

--Outlaw.

ploughman
11-27-2006, 12:19 PM
A friend of mine once told me Concorde used to be contracted to fly 'missions' against USN battle groups in the North Atalantic as it was the only aircraft available that could reasonably simulate a Soviet Tu-22 Backfire bomber. Might be true.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/clivesanta.png
Dum spiro, spero

AWL_Spinner
11-27-2006, 12:25 PM
There's some major Concorde envy on this thread. As there ever was.

Beautiful aircraft, the pinnacle of aeronautic engineering. As I think someone pointed out on the Cleverest Aircraft thread, Concorde wasn't as fast as the Blackbird, but then again your chances of being served caviar and champagne by a beautiful hostess on the latter were somewhat slim.

And the only Western interceptor proved able to overtake it on a stern intercept, erm, the Lightning! Oh man, that'll get those Euro haters even more agitated!

My other half went to Barbados on a Concorde once. I am forever jealous. At least until I get enough money together to visit Thunder City.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

x6BL_Brando
11-27-2006, 12:25 PM
I use the stick with my left hand and an instinctive break has me rolling to the right.If I have pre-warning of an attack then I'll break in whatever direction seems appropriate to the threat, but without warning it's rightwards I go.

B.