A paradoxical thought experiment
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Twibil on 8 Jul 2010 03:16 On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > The US built an experimental lifting body, yes. It crashed. The US has built and flown a number of different lifting body aircraft featuring various configuations. So far as I know, that's the only one that's crashed so far.
From: TOG on 8 Jul 2010 04:26 On 8 July, 08:16, Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > > Gentleman) wrote: > > > The US built an experimental lifting body, yes. It crashed. > > The US has built and flown a number of different lifting body aircraft > featuring various configuations. I'm sure the US has, but that was the only one I could remember. I suppose you could say that the Northrop whatever-it-was and the B2 bomber are lifting bodies of a kind. > > So far as I know, that's the only one that's crashed so far. <AOL> Who was it had in his sig: "Given sufficient thrust, even pigs can fly"? pjm, wasn't it?
From: Vito on 8 Jul 2010 07:18 "sean_q_" <nospam(a)no.spam> wrote in message news:495Zn.6330$xZ2.1348(a)newsfe07.iad... | Imagine an extremely lightweight (but very strong) sidecar | mounted on the right-hand side of the bike (meaning | no offence to Brits, Kiwis, Ozzies, Sri Lankans and others). | | Make a hard left turn; the chair lifts because it lacks | enough weight to keep the bike from leaning into the turn. I don't think so. A bike must be forced to lean, either by 'body english' or counter-steering.
From: J. Clarke on 8 Jul 2010 08:22 On 7/8/2010 4:26 AM, TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 8 July, 08:16, Twibil<nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older >> >> Gentleman) wrote: >> >>> The US built an experimental lifting body, yes. It crashed. >> >> The US has built and flown a number of different lifting body aircraft >> featuring various configuations. > > I'm sure the US has, but that was the only one I could remember. I > suppose you could say that the Northrop whatever-it-was and the B2 > bomber are lifting bodies of a kind. Nope, they're flying wings, the opposite of a lifting body. By the way, the B2 is a "Northrop whatever-it-was", sixth in the line of development--there was the small prototype, a 1/3 scale development mule, the propeller driven bomber, the rocket fighter, the jet bomber, then a long hiatus, then the B2. As for the lifting bodies, they were all testing ideas for wingless reentry vehicles. There've been at least 7 built in the US and it would be surprising if the Russians hadn't fiddled with them as well. A lifting body design was considered for the Shuttle but that configuration couldn't meet all the requirements that were placed on it by the planners, most of which capabilities have never been used. >> So far as I know, that's the only one that's crashed so far. > > <AOL> > > Who was it had in his sig: "Given sufficient thrust, even pigs can > fly"? pjm, wasn't it? The F-4 Phantom: Proof that given sufficient thrust a brick can fly. However, there was not enough thrust in all Christendom to fix the F-111B.
From: Twibil on 8 Jul 2010 13:55
On Jul 8, 4:18 am, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > > I don't think so. A bike must be forced to lean, either by 'body english' > or counter-steering. Oh dear. Note: Left to it's own devices, a non-sidecar bike will fall right over. And this is equally true whether said bike is moving or at rest. It's only the kickstand when at rest, or the rider's constant corrections when moving, that keep it upright. |