Tell us something really trivial about your life (vol - XIV)
Discussion
GroundEffect said:
KaraK said:
GroundEffect said:
KaraK said:
I was on a Jetstream Super 31 this morning, not only was it NOT a jet (talk about a misleading name) but it seemed to take the pilots a worrying amount of time to get it started #2 engine started and seemed to rev up with a horrible whiny sound before stopping (smoke then seen coming from the front of the engine), they then started #1 up which seemed fine before having another go at #2
I'm not sure which was more worrying - the apparent difficulty in starting the second engine or the fact that the pilots who presumably are required to be highly-trained and semi-intelligent didn't seem to understand that a switch doesn't care how hard you push it.
Well they are jet engines...turboprops.I'm not sure which was more worrying - the apparent difficulty in starting the second engine or the fact that the pilots who presumably are required to be highly-trained and semi-intelligent didn't seem to understand that a switch doesn't care how hard you push it.
Council Baby said:
Life Saab Itch said:
I have a head ache
I'm sorry to hear that you have a headache.I'm surrounded by miserable people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuRiGTVfMZM
Ahhh Moneypenny said:
i got and iphone today and I fking hate it
Excellent...- Sends cock pictures
drivin_me_nuts said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
Aizle said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
At the risk of embarrassing myself here can I take a stab that it would improve fuel economy at subsonic speeds? Whereas at supersonic you'd want either low-bypass or a turbojet?
Aizle said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
drivin_me_nuts said:
Aizle said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
KaraK said:
Aizle said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
At the risk of embarrassing myself here can I take a stab that it would improve fuel economy at subsonic speeds? Whereas at supersonic you'd want either low-bypass or a turbojet?
GroundEffect said:
KaraK said:
Aizle said:
KaraK said:
I honestly had no idea that bypass ratios were getting that high these days, the RR engine on the 787 has an 11:1 ratio apparantly
More efficient, innit. Low bypass engines (turbojets) have piss poor low speed acceleration.
High bypass engines (turbofans) are better.
Capiche?
At the risk of embarrassing myself here can I take a stab that it would improve fuel economy at subsonic speeds? Whereas at supersonic you'd want either low-bypass or a turbojet?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff