 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lt. Kettch" <AKK### [at] aol com> wrote in message
news:395BC422.6C8E068D@aol.com...
>
> Yes, the Air Force washes its planes. Why, I'm not
> sure, maybe to increase its life span.
Maybe just to keep people busy. When I was in the Navy we had a Marine
detachment on board (I was on the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk). They
had an old F4. It never flew, but the jarheads were always taking it apart,
painting it, and generally just getting in the way messing with it.
Eric
--------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
--------------------
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
- Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Mechanics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alan Kong wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:48:18 -0800 "Lt. Kettch" <AKK### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, the Air Force washes its planes. Why, I'm not sure, maybe to increase its life
> >span.
>
> I think that's the reason. Keeping the surface clean probably removes
> contaminants that will ruin the finish coating on the metal, which in
> turn protects the bare metal from corrosion in the harsh environment of
> flight.
They keep it clean to reduce drag which improves flight effeciency and
fuel comsumption. On some of the jets that can exceed mach 2 or better
even finger prints can cause enough drag to be noticable.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ryan constantine <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:395B24F5.88D9E917@yahoo.com...
> i've knuckled down the last several days and i'm nearly finished.
Whoa! Looking very nice!
You might want to put a few "war defects on it." Ya know, like maybe a
laser burn or something. Or maybe I'm asking for too much too soon ;-)
I can't wait to see this when it's done! May the force be with you, Ryan!
;-)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:44:32 -0700 Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>They keep it clean to reduce drag which improves flight effeciency and
>fuel comsumption. On some of the jets that can exceed mach 2 or better
>even finger prints can cause enough drag to be noticable.
Ack! The more obvious answer... even on race cars, taping over of gaps
between body panels can eke out another few miles per hour from a
production-type body design. These improvements are sure to be more
significant as speed increases.
--
Alan
ako### [at] povrayorg
a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Of, course there's no such drag in space so no reason to keep your xwing
clean...
--
Ian
Inkwell: Ian's Homepage
http://www.topcities.com/cartoon/inkwell/index.htm
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:395C33C0.9ABAE16F@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Alan Kong wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:48:18 -0800 "Lt. Kettch" <AKK### [at] aolcom>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, the Air Force washes its planes. Why, I'm not sure, maybe to
increase its life
> > >span.
> >
> > I think that's the reason. Keeping the surface clean probably removes
> > contaminants that will ruin the finish coating on the metal, which in
> > turn protects the bare metal from corrosion in the harsh environment of
> > flight.
>
> They keep it clean to reduce drag which improves flight effeciency and
> fuel comsumption. On some of the jets that can exceed mach 2 or better
> even finger prints can cause enough drag to be noticable.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Witham wrote:
>
> Of, course there's no such drag in space so no reason to keep your xwing
> clean...
I'm pretty sure that since X-wings can go faster than light even the
traces of hydrogen and helium gas found in space will cause some drag.
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreq | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
attglobal.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If you've jumped to hyperspace how much faster do you need to get? Is there
a range of faster than light speeds for cleaner than clean space ships? I
would have thought such a twist in the space-time would bring you to your
destination at the same instant you leave -- but in star-wars they entered
hyperspace and then had time to sit around playing chess, practising light
sabre duelling, drinking coffee etc. Perhaps this is because the Millennium
falcon was such a grubby thing. It looks as though the clean spaceship vs.
dirty spaceship debate has been thrown wide open.
--
Ian
Inkwell: Ians Homepage
http://www.topcities.com/cartoon/inkwell/index.htm
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] attglobalnet> wrote in message
news:395DF45F.C65B6BA5@attglobal.net...
>
>
> Ian Witham wrote:
> >
> > Of, course there's no such drag in space so no reason to keep your xwing
> > clean...
>
> I'm pretty sure that since X-wings can go faster than light even the
> traces of hydrogen and helium gas found in space will cause some drag.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ian Witham" <ian### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:395e00bd@news.povray.org...
| If you've jumped to hyperspace how much faster do you need to get? Is there
| a range of faster than light speeds for cleaner than clean space ships? I
| would have thought such a twist in the space-time would bring you to your
| destination at the same instant you leave -- but in star-wars they entered
| hyperspace and then had time to sit around playing chess, practising light
| sabre duelling, drinking coffee etc. Perhaps this is because the Millennium
| falcon was such a grubby thing. It looks as though the clean spaceship vs.
| dirty spaceship debate has been thrown wide open.
It was just a science-fiction movie :-) I don't think George Lucas had a PhD
or anything, or did he?
Seen the movie Lost in Space? They go through the Sun in hyperspace,
similarly like the Millennium Falcon slowing to sub-light speed into planet
debri at one point. Like nothing is there during the hyperspace travel. Pure
speculation I guess, even if theories exist to allow for such possibilities.
The main thing is a sort of invisibility at the atomic level I suppose. So
that means no drag forces in the usual sense, the entire craft would be
subjected not just the exterior.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <395e00bd@news.povray.org>, "Ian Witham"
<ian### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If you've jumped to hyperspace how much faster do you need to get? Is
> there a range of faster than light speeds for cleaner than clean
> space ships? I would have thought such a twist in the space-time
> would bring you to your destination at the same instant you leave --
> but in star-wars they entered hyperspace and then had time to sit
> around playing chess, practising light sabre duelling, drinking
> coffee etc.
Maybe it made a bunch of small jumps instead of one big one...
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that since X-wings can go faster than light even the
> traces of hydrogen and helium gas found in space will cause some drag.
I would think a very substantial ammount of drag, at those speeds.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
