You are here: Home > Jet Boats for Sale > Engine jet

HJTravels February 24, 2011 at 11:40 am

Strange images, I doubt Lockheed could make a single engine jet. Northrop’s looks like a mistake, the fuselages will definitely make too much drag. The only one that looks promising is Boeing. The blended body-wing should have the lowest drag and highest lift.

mccand April 3, 2011 at 11:29 am

David, Your comments on how such a system could be made “safer” are correct, but I think you misunderstand a few things:

First, the warnings, They are given because rebreathers can *actually, really truly* be extremly dangerous, not because of some goverment conspiricy. Some of the best divers in the world have died while using (professionally designed, NOT HOMEMADE) rebreathers that were functioning correctly, don't think that something that you cobble together in your privately funded garage will be anywhere near the safety of a commercial system. Divester usually caries stories about fatalities. Hence the warnings: You don't want to be the next one, please don't play with rebreathers. Also, assuming that your college Bio and Chem classes will let you figure out all the kinks in the system would be a big mistake

Next, the uses: In addition the the problem of hauling a bottle of pure oxygen (#19 beat me to it), most rebreathers require constant attention, even when you are consuming o2 slowly (at rest), if you are subject to physical exertion, so much the worse. This is why you don't see them replacing SCBA units in mine rescues, or handed out to folks on the street. Also, for your mass casualty uses (mine accidents, airplane accidents over water, etc.), what is usually needed is a large volume of air or pure o2, which a rebreather cannot supply.

Lastly, the essence: What the author wanted to show is that one of the most expensive systems in diving is based on a very simple system, *which still works.* Those who are intimately familiar with these things can often make them from materials that would suprise the average consumer.

General thoughts:
As to the FBI tracking you, there are only two reasons to use a rebreather.
1) to stay down for a *really* long time, and
2) to travel underwater undetected over any distance (few bubbles).

If the goverment is a little woried about the second, at least they are being proactive about it. Sort of like seeing a person with guest visa looking for a multi-engine jet aircraft rating, you know?

And last of all, your quote: “Geez, Im glad the creative minds that pioneered the innovations that have changed our lives over the centuries werent as much of a pussy as you guys.”

I might suggest that you look up the creative mind who first managed to produce fluorine gas in any substantial concentration (currently dead due to outdated lab techniques). He might enjoy some company, but no wimps, please . . .

For the rest of us, I think the setiment is that we'll use a professional system, whenever possible.

ChairSitter April 27, 2011 at 11:39 am

The thing with Falcon’s campaign is that it is done really well. Theres more to the game than just how good the graphics are or how precise the simulation is, and by no means is Falcon’s simulation not detailed (28 step startup procedure as opposed to 52, but keep in mind a single engine jet is a lot less complicated than a twin rotor helicopter). But I’ve played a lot of games which were supposed to have “dynamic” campaigns like IL-2, but these campaigns are nothing compared to Falcon’s. Falcon’s campaign can be said to be a complete war simulator, simulating entire areas of geography. Two most played campaign is the Korean campaign which includes all of Korea and a small part of japan. The game came with a dedicated server for campaigns which you could run for weeks in real time before the conflict was resolved. Everything is persistent in the server so if you lose an aircraft it actually means something. Priorities could be set for your AI flight scheduler and troop movements. You could also override the AI and do all the troop movements and flight scheduling yourself as well as command flights while they were in the air (essentially, you could play the game in its entirety as an RTS). Flights are organized into Packages which are groups of flights which are meant to achieve a common goal. A package could include helicopters, SEAD strike, CAP flights, and Interdiction strikes, etc. all of which you can schedule yourself, programming in waypoints with timestamps and patrol times. The game was also made in collaboration with the USAF from which they obtained as much declassified data as possible including flight test data from which the in-game flight model was constructed from (this included the notorious high AOA hard stall attributed to the early F-16 fly-by-wire control system which locked the plane in horizontal position and had to be rocked back and forth to recover from). When you play the game, you constantly communicate with the AI AWACS, trying to get a long-range situational awareness since you never know what you will encounter when flying a mission, which really makes the experience feel real. But the main thing I find about Falcon that I find superior to Eagle Dynamics games, is the multiplayer was way more satisfying. I used to play on a free 24-7 server called multiviper (which is pretty much dead now… ) where I would play with people from all over the world and we would take hours to just plan out a mission, and then when we get into the air something completely unexpected happens and we all get our adrenaline rush. When we succeed in a mission, its extremely satisfied because we know we helped to change the tide of the conflict, our actions carry on in the server which will continue to run for weeks. When we lose aircraft, we feel loss because there is not an infinite amount of aircraft and pilots (if you die and don’t eject and don’t get rescued by a helicopter (which you have to call yourself), you lose pilots as well).

Po May 7, 2011 at 2:33 pm

…risk the running out of gas equals the buildup from the tank going in your carb, going to have to clean the carb (s) and get fuel back to the chamber.
Good luck and fun again bro…

Kuwaity May 9, 2011 at 12:33 am

I think it is just unnecessary. I was in Toyota LS 460 and it was changing the 8 gears all the time, it doesn’t let the engine to breath!
I think the 6 Speed is just fine, while the 7 speed in Porsche is just more than perfect (6 proper ratios and one overdrive).
The new BMWs with 8 speed acts just like a proper 6 speed BMW and TWO over drive ratios!
I mean it’s not a two stroke racing engine or a jet engine!
The new engines are very torquey from low down to the top end with variable valves, intakes, exhausts, sequential turbos, compressors etc.

That’s enough!