Originally posted by esecallum
i did not inmsult anyone.
You called at least one person a liar. This is an insult. N'est-ce pas?
a truth is not an insult unless you you are being incorrect.
Oh, goodie
! You seem to be otherwise incapable of denying ignorance. You are refuting valid points with examples that are not clearly explained or
well-thought out. See the below point for an example of my own.
you are wrong about a missile tumbling.
the shuttle flies backwards at mach 25.on re-entry.
it turns forwards and at certain times IT IS SIDEWAYS to the flight path at up to mach 25 !!!!!!!.
ALL UNDER CONTROL.
WITHOUT TUMBLING.
It's generally accepted to be a bad idea to refute aerodynamic points with examples in which no air is present. Note the word that usually precedes
"shuttle" to see exactly where many of the craft's maneuvering happens, including this stage in reentry.
i mean an aircraft like a 747 or any other aircraft has a cross sectional area hundreds of time bigger.
flying aginst the wind at the nose.
A MISSILE IS A TINY LITTLE THING.
Yeah, but the 747 is moving at Mach 0.7-0.8 (somewhere around there) forward, with maybe up to 40 knots wind at worst from a right angle.
The missile, were it launched directly sideways would have, based on its attitude relative to the oncoming wind, possibly all the way up to Mach 1.5
as a
side wind. The force is significantly more. And past Mach 1, you get the problem of air not going around the missile but rather piling up.
If the thing isn't ripped apart, it's definitely going to tumble.
i write short sentances.
Your observational abilities do you credit.
also a wing can be imagined to be made up of hundreds of missiles at right angles stuck together.
And in a very convenient aerodynamic shape that is formed such that rather than cause turbulence, the air flows over and reseals the seam formed by
the wing without causing turbulence or the following tumbling.
the tornado aircraft proves my point you can have pylons which can turn.
Yes, but they never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever point the missiles sideways. Ever. I'm just speaking from a position outside the know, but there
may or may not be a somewhat valid reason behind this. Then again, they might just be too lazy to give it a try.
you say you are a designer but you must be over 25 which means you are incapable of fresh thought as your mind would have ossified.
If you want someone capable of fresh thought, I'm 17, and have worked beside my uncle who works for Pratt and Whitney as an engineer. Not only this,
but I've been studying my arse off on aircraft of all kinds to move into a field of aeronautical engineering.
You want to talk fresh ideas? If you so desire, once this discussion is finally worked out, I'll submit an idea of my own that has been boiling
around in my brain to demonstrate proper procedure here. Da?
in your own post you proved that missiles dont tumble when you said they have a wide angle of firing.
They're launched forward and through some magical, fairy-tale means change their direction while in flight in such a way that they don't tumble.
Maybe this is due to the presence of large complicated microchips inside things like the aircraft from whence it was launched as well as the missile
itself.
the 747 to orbit was proved with calculations and equations but again your ingrained prejudices prevent you from
Originally posted by esecallum
i did not inmsult anyone.
See the definition of "contradiction" for further clarification.
I nearly spat out my late night beer on the monitor and p###ed myself laughing.
It's what I do
.
Also, if you want this combined with a factual reply, say something nasty about a Su-27/30/33/34/35/37/etc. THEN I have my fun
[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]
[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]
[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]
