Things that oughtn't be flying

• 

  whatever

  11 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  I'd have to concur with unimpressed. hipstomp has probably never heard of the bernoulli principal; no its not some headmaster at a school in italy.
  
  The workings of an aircraft are inherently more intuitive than any bird. Thats why they are designed the way they are. The mechanics of flight by birds and bees are so complex that until recently they haven't been well understood by scientists much less duplicated in a laboratory.
  
  Balloons and airships are lighter-than-air aircraft. Sikorskys and 767s have airfoils. They move through air and generate lift. Whats so non-intuitive about that? Whats the alternative; that Sikorsky and Boeing manufacture witchcraft or pixy dust?
  
  At least every Blimp, Sikorsky, and 767 I've seen looks like it can and should fly.

  !Report as spam
• 

  unimpressed

  11 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply
  Ugh, what a load of bull! Honestly, a blimp is a big balloon, lighter than the rest of the air around it, and it looks like it should fly about as well as a bubble rises in water, which it does. Planes are sleek, fast, aerodynamic, and those are all words that I would attach to a flying machine. And finally a kite is nothing but a huge wing being tied down to the ground!
  
  Slow day? Here's how I picture YOUR offices:
  
  design guy 1: Wow, I don't really think these things should fly, because I can't figure out simple physics!
  d.g. 2: Yeah, and they don't look like an iPod or anything else sleek and designy, what an offence!
  d.g. 1: Man, WE should be in charge of designing flying machines! Then they'd all fly well AND be trendy!
  
  Around the world, engineers and physicists have just experienced absolutely horrible shudders and they have no idea why.

  !Report as spam