If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Silent Super Efficient Propeller!
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote: "Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in : "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Oh i don't see any change. Toothpicks have, by far, been the most common props on lightplanes for years and not without good reason. I'm not arguing that. But it depends on a lot of things. A lot of turboprops have relatively wide chord scimitar props, for instance. My point was really more directed towards the sentiment that efficiency shoud be described in such narrow terms. Most people want an airplane to go from A-B real fast and burn as little fuel as possible, but that doesn't mean that it's nore efficient than an airplane that excelles in some other way.. Bertie And all your input has had zip **** to do with "Silent Super Efficient Propellers". Actually, it does. Quit rattling your empty head. You're starting to sound like Anthony again. Yeh, right wannabe boi.. Bertie heres a story for you airplane heads from an electrical engineer. i used to work for Black & Decker years ago. and once we did an experiment with a certain tool for marketing. one tool had the normal not so efficient fan in it, and the other had a super quiet high efficiency fan in it that actually allowed about 25% more runtime off the battery, including a bit more power. we took them out into the field for user comparison. ~every~ ~single~ ~person~ we did the comparison with thought the louder, less efficient tool was more powerful BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. even though they were dead wrong, thats what they thought, and thats how they bought their tools. my 2 cents |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Silent Super Efficient Propeller!
On Sep 10, 4:02*pm, david hillstrom wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: "Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote : "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message . .. Oh i don't see any change. Toothpicks have, by far, been the most common props on lightplanes for years *and not without good reason. I'm not arguing that. But it depends on a lot of things. A lot of turboprops have relatively wide chord scimitar props, for instance. My point was really more directed towards the sentiment that efficiency shoud be described in such narrow terms. Most people want an airplane to go from A-B real fast and burn as little fuel as possible, but that doesn't mean that it's nore efficient than an airplane that excelles in some other way.. Bertie And all your input has had zip **** to do with "Silent Super Efficient Propellers". Actually, it does. Quit rattling your empty head. You're starting to sound like Anthony again. Yeh, right wannabe boi.. Bertie heres a story for you airplane heads from an electrical engineer. i used to work for Black & Decker years ago. *and once we did an experiment with a certain tool for marketing. *one tool had the normal not so efficient fan in it, and the other had a super quiet high efficiency fan in it that actually allowed about 25% more runtime off the battery, including a bit more power. we took them out into the field for user comparison. *~every~ ~single~ ~person~ we did the comparison with thought the louder, less efficient tool was more powerful BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. *even though they were dead wrong, thats what they thought, and thats how they bought their tools. my 2 cents Harley bikers demonstrate that too. Now, if we could make a Cub sound like a jst. . . |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Silent Super Efficient Propeller!
In alt.usenet.kooks on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:02:00 -0400, david
hillstrom wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: "Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in : "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Oh i don't see any change. Toothpicks have, by far, been the most common props on lightplanes for years and not without good reason. I'm not arguing that. But it depends on a lot of things. A lot of turboprops have relatively wide chord scimitar props, for instance. My point was really more directed towards the sentiment that efficiency shoud be described in such narrow terms. Most people want an airplane to go from A-B real fast and burn as little fuel as possible, but that doesn't mean that it's nore efficient than an airplane that excelles in some other way.. Bertie And all your input has had zip **** to do with "Silent Super Efficient Propellers". Actually, it does. Quit rattling your empty head. You're starting to sound like Anthony again. Yeh, right wannabe boi.. Bertie heres a story for you airplane heads from an electrical engineer. i used to work for Black & Decker years ago. and once we did an experiment with a certain tool for marketing. one tool had the normal not so efficient fan in it, and the other had a super quiet high efficiency fan in it that actually allowed about 25% more runtime off the battery, including a bit more power. we took them out into the field for user comparison. ~every~ ~single~ ~person~ we did the comparison with thought the louder, less efficient tool was more powerful BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. even though they were dead wrong, thats what they thought, and thats how they bought their tools. my 2 cents If you build a LOUD version of Usenet, they will come. -- PJR :-) slrn newsreader (v0.9.9): http://slrn.sourceforge.net/ extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/ newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Hi David, that sounds very intersting and that was my thought from the begining , the more silent a machine is the more effective it really is, coul you give more info about that fan?
Kalle heres a story for you airplane heads from an electrical engineer. i used to work for Black & Decker years ago. and once we did an experiment with a certain tool for marketing. one tool had the normal not so efficient fan in it, and the other had a super quiet high efficiency fan in it that actually allowed about 25% more runtime off the battery, including a bit more power. we took them out into the field for user comparison. ~every~ ~single~ ~person~ we did the comparison with thought the louder, less efficient tool was more powerful BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. even though they were dead wrong, thats what they thought, and thats how they bought their tools. my 2 cents[/quote] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The birth of a quieter, greener plane: 35% more fuel-efficient; Cambridge-MIT Institute's 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 24 | November 9th 06 11:05 PM |
The "Whirl": More Efficient Rotary Craft? | sanman | Home Built | 5 | September 10th 04 04:11 PM |
The "Whirl": More Efficient Rotary Craft? | sanman | Rotorcraft | 5 | September 10th 04 04:11 PM |
Fuel efficient freight planes | Jonas Heisenberg | General Aviation | 6 | November 17th 03 02:24 AM |
How efficient are our tailplanes? | Kevin Neave | Soaring | 12 | October 24th 03 06:22 PM |