previous post next post  

Since Boq got his Hanes' in a twist over the pics for Dusty and Bill...

...this one's for you, Boq - per your request!

taco truck.jpg The Master and Mistress of Argghhh! are back on dry land.  The drunken weaving walk is not due to alcohol or Parkinson's - we finally got our sea legs, so, of course it was time to debark...

BTW, Boq - are these things fueled by customer feedback?

12 Comments

Hey! I recognize those things!

The IRC had a fit and started quoting Geneva and Hague at us when they saw them in our mess tent in Can Tho -- then they realized that we were eating them, not dropping them on the VC...
 
John, you raise a question to Boq. But to answer it, in a 'rulez' compliant manner just might take some creative usage of our glossary or vocabulary.

Your question, "BTW, Boq - are these things fueled by customer feedback?"  Within the context of your question, what do you mean by the word, "fueled"? I figure it's a gas, if it was a solid, it would give the tacos a funky aftertaste. "...Fueled by customer feed back?" Are we talking about natural gas recycling? To be honest, this is not my world, but how do they capture the gas? Stay away from me when you are doing it! I figure the transfer is always done as you're looking downwind to observe.

If it can be taken wrong, it most surely will.    ; - )
 
Yeah, nice vehicle, but can it FLY
 
Dusty - supply sufficient energy, anything can fly.  Exhibit 1, the F104.  Exhibit 2, the F4.  Exhibit 3, the turret of an T-54.  Granted, it didn't fly very far, and the landing wasn't the kind that crew and cargo could walk away from... but it *did* fly.
 
Depends on what you mean by "fly."  I take it to mean failing to fall, by means of doing work on the air.  Aerostation and ballistic trajectories don't count.
 
 What he said...
 
Oh, lift does not need to be greater than drag in order to fly. It just needs to be greater than weight. This might require lots of thrust.
 
By that definition, JTG, the Space Shuttle didn't fly, either. :)

...I do recall reading they used F-104s with gear & flaps down as lift/drag models for the Shuttle back in the 60s...

 
The final approach speed for a 104 no-flap approach was about 220 knots...it flew, but had about the same glide ratio as John's T-54 turret, making it a good initial platform for Shuttle tests. Standard final glideslope for an ILS is 3 degrees. The Shuttle approach angle is 22 degrees. Basically, you're on a low-angle, low-drag bomb pass aimed at the concrete until until you can't stand it anymore, then you swap ends for the final couple of thousand feet of approach and flare. And, no, you're not "flying" in the lift/weight, thrust/drag sense, but it ain't too bad as a glider, given its shape.

BTW, the best use of an F-104 ejection seat was at a naval aviation base on the north German coast--an aborted takeoff put the jet in the drink and the only way the guy could get out under all that water was to pull the handles...and it worked. He didn't go very far, but it did get him out of the airplane. Ah, those were the days...
 
The space shuttle was engineered in part  by an RVN Chinook driver..........
 
Sweet mother of all Jeeps!  So what if its angle of attack is *er* a bit shallow on the final approach. That's one cool ride.
 
IIRC, dead-stick landings were not allowed in the Starfighter. Stall speed without flap blowing was something like 260 knots. If you couldn't re-light the jet, you were supposed to eject.