My idea: Wings tapered in the opposite way

[Big J]

Looks like what BB wants is a "patron" to design, cad, build and test his idea at their expense, then get in line to pay him for his brilliant idea.

[Bolio]

	Quote: Originally Posted by bigbrain
	I don't understand. bigbrain

You will never understand.
You need to work in your idea, Bigbrain, no one will work for you on the idea.
Someone offers you help and the only thing that happens is that you make your helper runaway.
You will never understand.
Saludos.

[bigbrain]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Bolio
	You will never understand. You need to work in your idea, Bigbrain, no one will work for you on the idea. Someone offers you help and the only thing that happens is that you make your helper runaway. You will never understand. Saludos.

I understand very well.
For example I have suddenly understood that with this ridiculous vehicle
http://www.kidport.com/REFLIB/Scienc...A11_LMfull.gif



thrusted from the bottom, nobody could in 1969 land on the moon keeping it in hovering.
This ridicolous vehicle would have fallen in all directions at 360 degrees.
Nobody, piloting it - inside it - would have been able to keep it vertical during landing GOING BACKWARDS with the help of a ridiculous computer of 1969.

Before talking, dear little guy, you need to link with your brain.

bigbrain

[paffy]

I think it's time for bigbrain to get some kind of award....

P.

[youngflyer]

wow this is almost as bad as the thread on rcu lol! big brain, no one is going to build the plane for you. someone offered to give you the materials at cost and you tell him no. if you want the plane to be built so goddam bad, then take the guy up on the offer and give him the specs to cut out the parts. if not, stop posting!

[Ian]

big brain, with an absence of air and gravity, an object will fall at the same rate of velocity untill such time a n opposing force counteracts it. in space, with no gravity (as such, there is some obviously, well, a lot) and no air, it will be stable falling.

tell me "big"brain, you know a guy called Italian Flyer?

[ShortBus]

This guy reminds me of the person a while back that said we never landed on the moon.

[youngflyer]

i think this thread should be closed, its going nowhere fast!

[bigbrain]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Ian
	big brain, with an absence of air and gravity, an object will fall at the same rate of velocity untill such time a n opposing force counteracts it. in space, with no gravity (as such, there is some obviously, well, a lot) and no air, it will be stable falling. tell me "big"brain, you know a guy called Italian Flyer?

You are saying a lot of nonsense.
On the moon there is gravity (we don't know how much because all calculations about gravity forces in space are based only in unproved theories).
Even if gravity is lower than on the Earth, when that ridiculous vehicle (LEM) was close to the ground, gravity forces would have fallen it in all directions at 360 degrees.
Nobody would have been able to move the gimballed engine so fastly to counteract those forces with the help of a ridiculous computer of 1969 PILOTING THAT RIDICULOUS VEHICLE SEATED INSIDE IT, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE ABOUT VERTICAL POSITION.
You know the difficulty to keep in hovering an helicopter upside down. Image the same thing staying inside it.
I think not even the powerful computers we have today could keep in hovering a rocket that lands going backwards thrusted from the bottom.
No gyro could send them informations about vertical position.

bigbrain

[Doc]

	Quote: Originally Posted by bigbrain
	You are saying a lot of nonsense. On the moon there is gravity (we don't know how much because all calculations about gravity forces in space are based only in unproved theories). Even if gravity is lower than on the Earth, when that ridiculous vehicle (LEM) was close to the ground, gravity forces would have fallen it in all directions at 360 degrees. Nobody would have been able to move the gimballed engine so fastly to counteract those forces with the help of a ridiculous computer of 1969 PILOTING THAT RIDICULOUS VEHICLE SEATED INSIDE IT, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE ABOUT VERTICAL POSITION. You know the difficulty to keep in hovering an helicopter upside down. Image the same thing staying inside it. I think not even the powerful computers we have today could keep in hovering a rocket that lands going backwards thrusted from the bottom. No gyro could send them informations about vertical position. bigbrain

if it had a gimballed engine (first i've heard of this...) why can i see side thrusters in the pic?

[Fly-guy]

.

Wasting time.....

Edit: to save my time

[bigbrain]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Doc
	if it had a gimballed engine (first i've heard of this...) why can i see side thrusters in the pic?

At this site http://www.solarviews.com/eng/apo11.htm you can read:


There was no doubt in Armstrong's mind about landing in the boulder field. It wasn't essential that he land the LM perfectly upright. A tilt of up to fifteen degrees would cause no particular problem with a launch. However, if he hit the engine bell or one of the landing struts on a large rock, there would be a real chance of sustaining structural damage. Two minutes after pitchover and about two minutes prior to the landing, Armstrong took action. He decided to follow an old maxim: "When in doubt, land long." To do that, he would have to overfly the crater and land well to the west of it; and there was clearly no point - nor really much time - to give the computer enough of an update via the hand controller. The Landing Point Designator (LPD) was designed for fine tuning and what Armstrong needed was a big change.

So he switched to manual control, pitched the LM forward, and began to fly it like a helicopter

Within seconds, he had slowed his rate of descent from about twenty feet per second down to about three and flew the LM about 1100 feet west beyond the craters and the boulders

"HE BEGAN TO FLY IT MANUALLY LIKE A HELICOPTER" WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE POWERFUL COMPUTER OF 1969.

Nobody went to the moon.

bigbrain