MartinW

looks like the Boeing funded hybrid endeavour is well under way. I hadn't realised they'd conducted a test flight a few months ago. http://planelopnik.kinja.com/boeing-funded-airplane-goes-hybrid-electric-1674612399

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32780513

Flightsim is CPU dominant. But yes, the graphics card is important too. And these days of course, now that we are using graphically demanding scenery and weather add-ons, even more so. In regard to SLI, it was always said that it only benefits FSX at very high resolutions and AA settings. The point though, is that many of us are indeed now using higher resolutions and AA settings, because we have powerful enough graphics cards to do so. In addition of course, many of us are using CFG tweaks like BP=0, whereby data is fed directly to the graphics card, bypassing the buffer. Not sure how that

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sky=mrdr&site=webhp&source=hp&ei=p3dYVbz0LomkgwTU04DYBg&q=lake+renegade&oq=lake+renagade&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0i10l5.2578.10604.0.13233.14.14.0.5.5.0.743.6245.2-1j5j5j2j1.14.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.14.3987.3.DQRyqBknoSM#imgrc=OiFnP1f7bEdnoM%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F3%252F38%252FLake_Seawolf_N64RF.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FLake_Renegade%3B1120%3B721 A big Lake Renagade.

The investigation is indeed ficused on the aircraft’s TP400 engines and associated fuel system.

Sorry darling!

One of our interesting exchanges again John. But no, that's completely wrong. The Lexus Is 300h for example achieves 0-60 in 8.4 seconds, thanks to it's latest generation Toyota hybrid technology. Hybrid technology has moved on! Fast enough for anyone. However, it does 70 miles per gallon on the motorway and 60 urban. Same for other hybrids, "underpowered" is diametrically opposed to reality. By no means, in any shape or form, are they "impractical still". UK roads are now replete with hybrids. But of course we are talking about aviation, and you can bet that Airbus, Boeing the Volocopter,

They won't be replacing the batteries though of course. The intention is that it will ultimately be a hybrid. Batteries powered by a fossil fuel powered electrical generator. Given that the IC engine only needs to run at a constant rotation speed, it would run at optimum efficiency. Thus the fuel saving. It would also be a relatively small IC engine required. If you strip out all batteries, which I think is what you are saying, you end up with all of the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine back in place plus the requirement for a full sized IC power plant. The designers have chose

Seems Bell have made considerable strides. The V-280 Valour boasts the following specs... The Bell V-280 Valor builds upon proven tiltrotor technology to deliver unmatched speed, range and payload with the agility to perform a multitude of missions unachievable with today’s conventional helicopter. Its clean-sheet design reduces complexity and improves reliability, maintainability and sustainability while reducing total ownerships costs. The Bell V-280 is a combat force multiplier with superior performance, survivability, and reliability to give the warfighter the decisive advantage.

That occurred to me too. What's the range? Minimal I would have thought. Although I believe they are planning "range extenders". And safety issues. It can't auto rotate? So are they assuming that there would always be enough rotors to provide lift? But what if there were an issue elsewhere in the system resulting in loss of power? In terms of gas turbine or gasoline... I would think the weight of such a system would be prohibitive. One power plant driving many rotors would require impressive gearing, drive shafts etc. And then there's the fuel weight, doubt it would be viable. E

Could well be right. Some super rich, posh business man, needs his shoe box sized package super quick. His multibillion deal depends on it. Not a problem slapping down a 100 quid. Might still make it a viable service though, there are plenty of super rich around in need of a quick package.

I'd say it isn't! Amazon were accused of that in 2013. They assured shareholders it wasn't. Since then there have been 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th generation vehicles. In short they have spent plenty of dosh and employed 60 plus staff. They are certainly serious about this. The other point to consider before we become too sceptical, is that Amazon will have conducted a feasibility study, and thus will have deemed it feasible. Whether it really is feasible, time will tell. So yes, it all may all come to nothing, but they are serious about it. Personally, I can see the local kids n

An octodecacopter... nice.

Sorry you are confused needles... It's your moob bra that's creating lift not the flapping.

I was sceptical too... but Amazon aren't sceptical they are taking this very seriously. The intention is to get packages into customers hands in 30 minutes or less. They say they will deploy when regulatory support is in place. They may deploy the service and discover it's feasible, or it may be unfeasible, we will have to wait and see.

It's obviously nonsense, absolute nonsense! The cross sectional area of a muscle is directly related to it's strength. Other factors come into play, like neurological efficiency etc but essentially it's about muscle mass. A human being does not posses pectoral muscles large enough and strong enough to lift his body weight as a result of wing flapping. Take a look at a birds pectoral muscles and compare to it's bodyweight.

Did you mean the the AW-609? It's been in development for years. Last I heard it was waiting for certification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609 Lots of other fascinating prototype and concept demonstrator VTOL aircraft around. Which one do you like best? Sikorsky X2. Conventional helicopter design, but with a prop pusher at the rear. Goes like a rocket! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_X2 Eurocopter X3. Conventional helicopter design, but with small wings and two props for forward thrust. 255 Knots in a helicopter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3

Bell Boeing wouldn't be continuing with the V44 Quad Rotor design for a second, if it was unstable. I don't see any reason why it should be. Yes, the V22 Osprey is fly-by-wire and the V44 Quad will be too. Not sure what you mean by "requiring Nacelles". The V22 Osprey has nacelles, as will the V44 Quad. Drag isn't sufficient enough to be an issue. The V22 does have the capability to manoeuvre in the hover, and the V44 Quad will too. As I said, the V22 functions like a helicopter in the hover, in regard to collective and cyclic, same for the V44. The V22 has a VTOL and a STOVL/STOL capabilit

My comment regarding drag actually came from an aeronautical engineer. It was made in in a documentary on the history of VTOL. He made this comment in regard to the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A. It was a few years ago now, on Discovery channel, so I can't really elaborate further. Yes, great for the drone. But my response was in regard to JG commenting that the design may be "scaled up" to full sized aircraft. He then compared it to the V22 Osprey. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the wings don't need to tilt" but presume you mean in order to provide pitch control for slow manoeu

In case you're interested, this is the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A in action.As I say, the tilt wing concept was abandoned. Apparently there were issues with the aircraft's cross-linked drive shaft, and in addition wing flexing. So who knows, with modern technology and materials maybe one day this is a concept that will be looked at again.

Top speed yes. And economy. Lift for free as a result of forward velocity rather than engine power. Not a tilt wing, but don't forget that the V44 is in development. Clearly tilt rotor is preferred rather than tilt wing. Possibly because in a tilt engine configuration, the aircraft can fly with engines partially tilted for extended periods. Try that with a tilt wing, and the drag is phenomenal. This is a Bell video from 2006, demonstrating the Quad Tilt Rotor. As I say, it's still in development as far as I know. I recall that the Quad Tilt Rotor, if it comes to fruition, will have the ca

The Osprey can "almost" land and take-off in a conventional fashion. The engines are tilted but not all the way. In this mode it can take-off and land with higher payload. Thus the fact that the rotors are big isn't an issue. Tilt wing isn't new of course. In fact it was one of the first designs. I refer to the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A. The design was abandoned! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_aircraft#/media/File:Ling-Temco-Vought_XC-142A.jpg

Different designs, but the stores are already replete with all manner of drones to buy. I was looking at a quad copter in Selfridges the other week. Not sure why the NASA design is any better than the multitude of quad copter drones available. The only advantage I can see is range. Tilt rotor, so you gain the advantage of lift from the wings in the cruise. They range from 30 quid up to a few thousand in the shops as I'm sure you know. The 30 quid version I was looking at would have been deemed imposable a few years ago. Amazing little thing. Utterly stable and only a few centimetres acro

That was an utterly horrific incident. I recall the disgruntled employee was hell bent on crashing the aircraft into the Fed Ex building. I believe the captain was bashed on the head with a hammer. Still managed to execute some crazy manoeuvres though. Ironically he thought he was doing the right thing, but in reality it was making it harder for the co-pilot to disable the bad guy. The bad guy had a spear gun and all manner of weapons at his disposal. I would agree that if someone is crazy enough and determined enough, that even with 3 men in the cockpit you would have trouble disabling

Precisely!