Category Archives: Outside the Box

More than Puzzle Solving

I have always believed that the world has had very few true geniuses. My definition of a genius has been one who changes the world in a fundamental way, often against the thinking of the society at the time.

Sir Isaac Newton. For his laws of motion. Albert Einstein, of course.  Wolfgang Mozart, who started composing at age 5, and whose compositions are still enjoyed over 200 years later.

There is a component of perseverance and lots of work to change the world. I read somewhere that Thomas Edison tried 1,000 different ways to make the incandescent light bulb until hitting the right formula.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.

Great accomplishments depend not so much on ingenuity as on hard work. This is a saying of the American inventor Thomas Edison.”

Continue reading

3 Comments

Filed under Other Stuff, Outside the Box

Cutaway Thursday: Tyrrell P34

It doesn’t have to be an airplane does it? Nope (Imma hired gun pen here so I’m generously provided with a LOT of rope with which to hang myself latitude).

Probably one of my favorite F1 cars aside from Senna’s legandary and 1988 season dominating McClaren MP4/4 and the technologically revolutionary Williams FW15C.

More on the Tyrrell P34 from Wikipedia:

When unveiled, the cover was peeled away from the back forward and the collective gasps from the world’s press said it all. Along with theBrabham BT46B “Fancar” developed in 1978, the six-wheeled Tyrrell was one of the two most radical entries ever to succeed in Formula One (F1) competition, and has specifically been called the most recognizable design in the history of world motorsports.[1]

It first ran in the Spanish GP in 1976, and proved to be very competitive. Both Jody Scheckter and Patrick Depailler were able to produce solid results with the car, but while Depailler praised the car continually, Scheckter realised it would only be temporarily competitive. The specialGoodyear tyres were not being developed enough by the end of the season.

The P34’s golden moment came in the Swedish Grand Prix. Scheckter and Depailler finished first and second, and to date Scheckter is the only driver ever to win a race in a six-wheeled car. He left the team at the end of the season, insisting that the six-wheeler was “a piece of junk!”[2]

For 1977, Scheckter was replaced by the Swede Ronnie Peterson, and the P34 was redesigned around cleaner aerodynamics. The P34B was wider and heavier than before, and, although Peterson was able to string some promising results from the P34B, as was Depailler, it was clear the car was not as good as before, mostly due to the tyre manufacturer’s failure to properly develop the small front tyres. The added weight of the front suspension system is also cited as a reason for ending the project. Tyrrell even tried a “wide track” P34B to improve its handling, but this put the front wheels out from behind the nose fairings and reduced the aerodynamic gains from having four small front wheels. Thus, the P34 was abandoned for 1978, and a truly remarkable chapter in F1 history was over.

More recently the P34 has been a popular sight at historic racing events, proving competitive once more. This was made possible when the Avon tyre company agreed to manufacture bespoke 10-inch tyres for Simon Bull, the owner of chassis No. 6. In 1999 and 2000 the resurrected P34 competed at a number of British and European circuits as an entrant in the FIA Thoroughbred Grand Prix series. Driven by Martin Stretton, the car won the TGP series outright in 2000, the sister car repeating that success in 2008 in the hands of Mauro Pane; this example is today part of a private collection in Italy. Stretton also achieved numerous Pole Positions and class wins at the Grand Prix Historique de Monaco. The P34 has also been seen a number of times at the Goodwood Festival of Speed.

So here ya go:

TyrrellP34a

An interesting car with a uniquely chequered history but why the 4 front tyres? Let the website for the car, Project-34, tell you:

Derek set to work on designing a car to replace the successful, but rapidly ageing Tyrrell 007. He calculated that they needed the equivalent of a gain of 50hp on the competition in order to leap frog the other teams, since almost everyone was running the same engine the gain would have to be made elsewhere in the design. After a few weeks of research he presented his concept to Ken Tyrrell in August 1974. A concept that drew on the experience of those years spent working on the four wheel drive, Gas-Turbine cars, for there, on the piece of paper presented to Ken was sketched an F1 car with six wheel’s ! Two regular sized wheels at the rear and four small 10″ wheels at the front. Derek explained the reasoning behind his concept to Ken.

The theory was that exposed tyres cause lift, and the bigger they are, the greater the lift they will produce, standard four wheel F1 cars counter act this effect by the use of more wing at the front, since the six wheel concept would greatly reduce the lift effect generated by the front wheels it would not need to run large amounts of front wing thus it should have a straight line speed advantage.

An interesting car with an interesting history and there’s one for sale and if you have to ask for how much, you can’t afford it.

2 Comments

Filed under Car Pr0n, History, Other Stuff, Outside the Box

Iron Birds

Static test airframes, or more commonly called, “iron birds” are partially built, non-flying airframes or old formerly flying airframes that are used by agencies and manufacterers to test either the strength of than airframe, various design components or aircraft subsystems (avionics, flight control, engines, etc).

The iron birds used for strength testing are typically full scale representations of the aircraft that are rigged to gaint gantry cranes with weights and strain gauges attached. See the pic:

Lockheed's F-35 test airframe installed on gantry cranes with strain gauges.

Lockheed’s F-35 test airframe installed on gantry cranes with strain gauges.

Once installed on the cranes the airframe is literally pulled and pushed to properly simulate all the aerodynamic forces that the aircraft will encounter throughout it’s flying career.  Often the iron birds are tested till destruction.

This is a VC-10 undergoing wing fatigue testing. Note the bending wing.

This is a VC-10 undergoing wing fatigue testing. Note the bending wing.

Some iron birds are formerly flying airframes that have accumulated too many flying hours and are no longer consider safe to fly. These aircraft are typically stripped of most equipment (engines mostly) and used to test various aircraft subsystems in support of other programs.

This NASA's F-8 Crusader iron bird that was used to test software for NASA's Digital Fly-By-Wire program in the 1960s,

This NASA’s F-8 Crusader iron bird that was used to test software for NASA’s Digital Fly-By-Wire program in the 1960s,

 

As the latest example of NASA's iron bird, this is an F/A-18 Hornet used by NASA to support many of the F/A-18 test programs.

As the latest example of NASA’s iron bird, this is an F/A-18 Hornet used by NASA to support many of the F/A-18 test programs.

Iron birds aren’t limited to NASA. The US military also used them for the same purposes.

This B-2 at the National Museum of the USAF was never an actual flying airframe. This "aircraft" appropriately named "Fire and Ice"was used for fatgiue and climatic testing.

This B-2 at the National Museum of the USAF was never an actual flying airframe. This “aircraft” appropriately named “Fire and Ice”was used for fatgiue and climatic testing.

A close up of "Fire and Ice's" nose gear door.

A close up of “Fire and Ice’s” nose gear door.

You can learn more about that particular aircraft here.

As an aside, old airframes are also typically used as maintaince trainers in the military. These are called ground instructional airframes:

images 080613-F-1322C-001

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Aeronautical Engineering, Air Force, Airplanes, Flight simulation, Flying, Naval Aviation, Other Stuff, Outside the Box, USAF

Infographic: Maersk Triple-E Class

BgBz4uKCEAExUXY

The Maersk Triple-E is the newest class of container ships. First built and delivered in 2013 (the first example being named the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller) there are 20 total units planned (as of January this year, there are 7 units) with planned complete production in June 2015.

In the hull, there’s some interesting technology (from Wikipedia):

One of the class’s main design features are the dual 32-megawatt (43,000 hp) ultra-long stroke two-stroke diesel engines, driving two propellers at a design speed of 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph). Slower than its predecessors, this class uses a strategy known as slow steaming, which is expected to lower fuel consumption by 37% and carbon dioxide emissions per container by 50%

Maersk Triples-Es are designed to be the world’s most efficient container ships by virtue of their hull and how they’re operated:

Unlike conventional single-engined container ships, the new class of ships has a twin-skeg design: It has twin diesel engines, each driving a separate propeller. Usually, a single engine is more efficient;[10] but using two propellers allows a better distribution of pressure, increasing propeller efficiency more than the disadvantage of using two engines.[19]

The engines have waste heat recovery (WHR) systems; these are also used in 20 other Mærsk vessels including the eight E-class ships. The name “Triple E class” highlights three design principles: “Economy of scale, energy efficient and environmentally improved.[20]

The twin-skeg principle also means that the engines can be lower and further back, allowing more room for cargo. Maersk requires ultra-long stroke two-stroke engines running at 80 rpm (versus 90 rpm in the E class);[21] but this requires more propeller area for the same effect, and such a combination is only possible with two propellers due to the shallow water depth of the desired route.[11][11][22]

A slower speed of 19 knots is targeted as the optimum, compared to the 23–26 knots of similar ships.[11] The top speed would be 25 knots, but steaming at 20 knots would reduce fuel consumption by 37%, and at 17.5 knots fuel consumption would be halved.[23] These slower speeds would add 2–6 days to journey times.[24][25]

The various environmental features are expected to cost $30 million per ship, of which the WHR is to cost $10 million.[10]Carbon dioxideemissions, per container, are expected to be 50% lower than emissions by typical ships on the Asia-Europe route[26] and 20% lower than Emma Maersk.[27] These are the most efficient containerships in the world, per TEU. A Cradle-to-cradle design principle was used to improve scrapping when the ships end their life.[28]

As noted in the infographic the transit from the China to Europe takes 20 days. Maersk is hoping the increased fuel efficiency will offset the increased transit times.

You can learn more at Maersk’s Flickr site and at the Triple-E’s website.

It’s going to be interesting to see how these vessels will change the current maritime security environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Other Stuff, Outside the Box

Aeroflot Postcards

English Russia recently posted some postcards from the former Soviet state-owned airline, Aeroflot. Click the picture for the airplane’s wikipedia page.

Enjoy:

TU204

A model of the Tupelov TU-204

YAK42

Yakovlov Yak-42 “Clobber”

YAK-40

Yakovlev Yak-40 “Codling”

IL62

Ilyushin IL-62 “Classic”

IL76

Ilyushin IL-76 “Candid”

IL86

Ilyushin IL-86 “Camber.”

IL862

Another view of the IL-86.

KA26

Kamov Ka-26 Hoodlum.

KA32

Kamov Ka-32 “Helix”

LET410

Let L410 Turbolet

MI6

Mil Mi-6 “Hook”

MI8

Mil Mi-8 “Hip.”

MI82

Antonov An-28

MI102

Mil Mi-10 “Harke.”

TU134

Tupelov Tu-134

TU154

Tupelov Tu-154

3 Comments

Filed under Airplanes, Other Stuff, Outside the Box

Blogging Centurion

No, not this one:

centurion

Or even this one:

Cylon_CenturionIn my mind it’s somewhat more analogous to this:

wUSSAmericaCenturion

Centurion patch.

At least I’d like to think so.

100 traps aboard the boat is a career milestone in NAVAIR. Patches are handed out to commemorate every 100 landings. Given that traps (landings for you non-aviator-ish people) are the most demanding task in all of aviation this is by no means a small feat. It’s not unusual for pilots and crews to log hundreds and even 1,000 (I do recall seeing a 2,000 somewheres) traps over a career. Case in point. Maybe 1,00 isn’t so common anymore is post-cold war NAVAIR but still.

photo

Here’s the trap from the jet.

4725205750_941f56e0e6_z

Here’s the trap from the “not so” cheap seats…who wants to play PLAT LSO? 🙂

I’m getting to the point…

I noticed a few days ago that I reached the 100 post here. Since I missed my “blogo-versary” I’d figured I take this time to first thank xbradtc for handing me a set of keys (and now I’m posting there too!). I didn’t think I do THIS much blogging but still. My goal was to write about things I’ve always wanted to see posts on so…here I am.

My co-bloggers here are freaking awesome people with a wealth of knowledge, experience, and blogging talent. I’m blessed to be a part of this group.

Finally, I’d like to thank all the readers and commenter. Hell, I’m just a pilot dude with attitude (pun kinda,kinda not intended), a brain and a computer hoping to contribute something to the conversation. All of you readers and commenter keep me motivated to keep putting out content.

Another thing I’d like to mention. The commenters here have SO much expertise on things I just usually read about. That’s been the biggest reward for me is to talk to you all that have the proverbial “t-shirt to prove it.” I’m honored and humbled that you take the time to read and/or comment.

So here’s to all of you and the Blogfather of course:

Guiness

…for strength.

and hopefully 100 more:

Patch, Enterprise Centurion 200

Thank you all again so much.t

3 Comments

Filed under Airplanes, Beer Blogging, Good Stuff, Lexicans, Naval Aviation, Navy, Other Stuff, Outside the Box, Perspective, Plane Pr0n, Silliness, Small Stuff

What’s wrong with this picture?

Connie landing

Need to liven it up a little here, by the time most of you read this it is Monday.

Bonus points for naming where this photo is taken. Believe it or not, yours truly nailed where it was at first glance but had to look long and hard to see the obvious wrongness. Duh.

(Monday update) Will post the answers on Wednesday.

8 Comments

Filed under Airplanes, Flying, Outside the Box, Uncategorized