Oct 212010
 

One variant of the tiltrotor concept is the “trailrotor.” The basic tiltrotor concept has the problem that the proprotors must be a compromise between efficient at low speed and efficient at high speed, and no such prop design exists. The trailrotor is a concept that focusses the proprotor towards low speed efficiency, and then slows, stops and folds the proprotor out of the way at high speed. High speed forward propulsion would be provided by a turbofan engine… which would be geared to run the proprotor at low speed. The idea has been an alluring one for nearly 50 years, but has one major flaw: extreme complexity.

The design below is an early 60’s Lockheed design, but the trailrotor concept has been studied by just about everybody, and certainly as recently as the late 1990’s.

 Posted by at 9:58 pm
Oct 212010
 

Arrived this afternoon. Raedthinn settled in quickly; Fingers went to ground, and hasn’t been seen in some hours. I expect she’ll relax sooner or later and come out.

 Posted by at 9:45 pm
Oct 202010
 

One of my recent projects – one that provides no profit, gave me no joy in feeling the need to do, but that I felt the need to do anyway – was to make a grave marker for Koshka. It’s pretty plain, and in the end it’s a piece of crap… I think I got the mix wrong for the cement, because you can tear it apart with fingernails. But it was done under something of a time constraint (the need to be done by the time I left).

When I get home, I’ll cast another using some other form of cement or mortar mix.

 Posted by at 10:13 pm
Oct 202010
 

From Air Progress magazine October/November 1963, an illustration of the Northrop X-21 laminar flow control research plane. It was a handsome plane, and it’s interesting to consider what an operational version might have looked like. Of course, given the maintenance issues and the probable inability to paint the wings upper surface, what role an operational version would ahve fulfilled is unclear. Perhaps airborne early warning or missileer for the Navy (but that would require wing folding)? High altitude recon? Flying down low in the dirt and the bugs is unlikely.

 Posted by at 9:29 pm
Oct 202010
 

Until recently, I’ve taken a pretty much hands-off approach to commenters (apart from responding, of course). But in the last few days, three have been banned… two for issuing death threats or advocating genocide; one for being a general troll. I suppose I might as well lay down some groundrules:

1) No threatening each other, or issuing death threats or advocating violence or any such crap. Not only is it pathetic and annoying, it might also be legally actionable, and I just don’t need the headache. However, there are clear exceptions for the likes of war strategy, home/self defense tactics, etc.

1A) Advocacy of “stealth death threats.” In other words, advocating for concepts or actions that lead inevitably to genocide and the like. Arguing in favor of Sharia, Dominionism, Nazism, Communism, most forms of totalitarianism/authoritarianism, socialism and collectivism, that sort of thing, will get you on my bad side in a heartbeat.

2) No trolling. Posting rubbish (insults, arguing just to argue, etc.) will annoy me in a hurry.

3) Profanity: I loves me some profanity. It spices up the language and does a far better job of getting across emotions than non-profane language. Sadly, some people get all snippy about such things, so try to keep a lid on it.

4) No racism. Racism is stupid. What is also stupid: declaring every damned thing to be racism. Religion ain’t race. Political ideology ain’t race. And national origin *largely* ain’t race. Saying “Religion X is stupid,” or “people of Religion X are stupid” ain’t racism. Saying “people of ethnicity X are stupid,” or using racial epithets in some manner other than humorously (PC is for suckers), is stupid, and gets you on the fast track to banning.

5) Sexism. See: racism.

6) Act the jackass then dare me to ban you. Challenge accepted.

7) Lie about me to me. “You believe/support such-and-such” had better be an accurate statement.

What won’t get you banned: being a smartass (or Pat would have long since been silenced), or disagreeing with me or others. However, if you post nothing but disagreement, and lots of it, that will get you labeled as a troll. It’s entirely reasonable to disagree with me on a great many topics, but if you disagree with the whole purpose of the blog, then this ain’t the place for you. This blog is highly defocussed, but can probably be boiled down to:

1) Aerospace, history and future development: I’m fer it. Aircraft, spacecraft, the human conquest of the universe just as fast as possible.

2) Politics: I’m a small-“l” libertarian pro-Constitutional American. In other words: the smallest practical government that fulfills the roles proscribed for it in the Constitution… and no further. And I want the US to conquer the Universe. Our allies can tag along. I don’t want the enemies of the US to conquer the Universe in our stead. Plus: firearms are awesome, and every non-crazy adult should be versed in their proper use.

3) Cats: cats are awesome.

4) Photography: I like to do it and have some small talent, but make no claim to being particularly good.

5) Humor: I have an active sense of humor. It may not be yours (in fact, it probably won’t be), but it will be on display.

You don’t need to share all of these. But if you share *none* of them… why are you here? You’ll be happier elsewhere. G’way.

Now, keep in mind, the Unwanted Blog is not a democracy. It’s not a representative republic. It’s not even a cheerocracy. It is instead an Adminocracy. This means that I reserve the right to boot someone who I feel has violated the banworthy rules. If it happens, you could perhaps argue your case, but whining that I’m stifling your opinion/free speech/whatever will only make me laugh at you.

I’m in favor of as much debate as possible. Just keep in mind that this is my place, and I’m kind of an asshole.

 Posted by at 8:57 pm