|
Wordle 933 4/6*
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩
⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟨🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 933 3/6
🟨🟨⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 933 4/6*
🟨⬛⬛🟨⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟨🟨
⬛🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could’ve FaceTimed an Eel.... - YouTube[^]
Uh ... um ... Ok. 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I am not clicking on that. 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that you want to be careful, but if you are that careful all the time, you won't get very much out of Internet 
I do not click on just any link sent to me by just any unknown person. Links from people I know and trust, I do click (if it appears to be anything interesting to me). I do not know OriginalGriff personally, but I have seen his posts here at CP for years, and there has never been anything suggesting that he is not trustworthy. He is one of the regular posters that I have the most confidence that will not spread any sort of malware.
In theory, he could be in good faith, yet there could be something nasty hidden in the image that he didn't know of. That could also happen to some person that I know personally and know that is very malware aware. If you click on any link at all, there is a certain risk that you cannot avoid.
I consider OriginalGriff trustworthy. I consider YouTube reasonably trustworthy. With those two taken together, I did trust that the link was safe and clicked on it. Well, I wasn't too fascinated by the video clip, not my kid of stuff. You didn't miss anything essential. But if you need someone more trustworthy that OriginalGriff, and a more reliable link target than YouTube, before you click a link, then you miss out on a lot.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Err...pretty sure it was a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly in this specific case.
But I have several times on CP explicitly asking other readers what is behind a quoted link, stating that they do not want to follow it themselves. I doubt that all of these were jokes. It is difficult to know when what appears as carefulness is a joke and when it it serious.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
What if we would replace polluting and noisy aircraft with gliders? My idea would be to use lots of smaller glider airports that could be used by gliders to hop from airport to airport within reasonabe distances, it would not be an alternative for transatlantic flight probably, although seaworthy glider-carriers might be an option 
I'm not an aviation expert, so I would love to hear what people in the know think about this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Gliders have no engines, so they are typically taken to height by a powered aircraft. When they are released, they trade distance for height. In flight they can also use updrafts to gain height, but must avoid downdrafts.
Some gliders can take off from a cliff, but cliffs aren't available near every airport location. I suppose that one could lift a glider with a balloon, but that would make the whole process much slower, and would probably be no faster than ground travel (e.g. by train).
Lastly, gliders are typically light-weight, and cannot carry more than one or two people.
I suspect that the economics would make using gliders impractical for travel purposes. Ground travel by train is likely to be much more efficient.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I know the Germans developed a giant glider plane in WW2 that could carry a lot of soldiers or even a tank, but at the time it was not very practical and they did not use it as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
|
And it had to be lofted by a powered plane, so I don't see where the great savings will be coming from.
Gliders have their place, but passenger aviation isn't one of them.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I have often seen gliders being launched by using winches, seems more eco-friendly than using towing planes to me.
|
|
|
|
|
And how large were those winch-launched gliders? From a cursory search of the Internet, we are talking about a few hundred kg.
As Griff said, the Allies used gliders in WWII. These were towed by aircraft and released from the air. However, 28 people or 7 tons of cargo are a small fraction of the cargo capacity of a 707, to say nothing of more modern aircraft.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
We need bigger rubber bands.
|
|
|
|
|
The advantage would have been tactical, given that the glider would have been silent. Aircraft engines in that era were very, very loud.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the OP was discussing civilian gliders, in which the main driver would be commercial. Yes, they are quieter, yes, they are more fuel-efficient, but the carrying capacity is very low compared to even a small commercial aircraft. This means that the number of takeoffs and landings would have to be much higher than the present number. Most commercial airports don't have the spare capacity for this.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but remember how I enjoyed the silence when all aircraft were grounded during the pandemic.
Aircraft engines are still very loud.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: so I don't see where the great savings will be coming from.
A possibility back then would be to get close without noise.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The British had the Horsa (capacity 28 troops) and the Hamilcar (load capacity 7 tons) which were used quite often in WWII - they built 3,600 of the Horsa and used over 2,500 in a single operation (Operation Market Garden - Wikipedia[^])
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but they were towed by powered aircraft. They certainly could not be launched with a winch or from the top of a cliff.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
The allied used gliders in Operation Market Garden (known from the movie - and expression - "A bridge Too Far"). But they where dragged to the destination by powered aircraft - C47 and various bombers. Only the actual landing was completely unpowered. Worked fine to add capacity and capabilities to the powered aircrafts, but I don't think they had any noticable environmental benefits, nor do I I think they would have gone that route if starting from scratch without already having the odd thousand powered aircrafts available.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, I doubt there were any thoughts about "environmental benefits" in those days. The main advantage of using gliders was the tactical advantage of surprising the enemy.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
