Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Aerodynamics does not admit of style."

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
    #1

    "Aerodynamics does not admit of style."

    A typically "British" sentence structure above.

    The statement was brought to mind wile I was watching an episode of Pawn Stars Chum of All Fears when a customer brought in an un-restored 1933 Plymouth.



    ANNNNNYYYYwaaay.... over and over again, the statement was made that it was "interesting" and that all the modern cars "look the same".

    And this was reiterated when they took it on a test drive, by people along the street.

    And that brought to mind the above statement from back during the Carter energy crisis..

    That "by g@#d" all those evil car manufacturers were going to go "aerodynamic" because THAT IS THE AGENDA AND THEY WILL DO IT...

    Now.............. yes..... all the fins were getting ludicrous, and the Edsel front end was an example of the stupidity of competition about being "different" was a great example...

    But on a VERY TRENCHANT DISCUSSION television panel discussion of the new politically correct agenda an "engineer" had been called in to try to lend "credence" to the dog and pony show and...

    he ...... used the sentence and ..............you could have heard the owls hoot .....



    For the yammering heads of that talk show.... the sentence....

    "Aerodynamics does not admit of style"..............

    did not compute.

    I just love the way the Brits form their sentences!

    woodsmoke
    Last edited by woodsmoke; Nov 04, 2013, 12:42 AM.
    Tags: None
    • Top
    • Bottom
    #2
    Originally posted by woodsmoke View Post
    Aerodynamics does not admit of style
    Ah, they're just jealous over there.

    Style:




    Not style:



    C'mon, no bus ever had style!
    • Top
    • Bottom

    Comment

      #3
      The phrase has the classic academic prose ring to it. Heard of lot of that when I was teaching at the college level.

      My wife and I drive a 2002 Saturn 4D SL2 sedan, 5 speed stick shift. Bought it for its fuel economy. 26-30mpg in the city, 36-40mpg highway. To achieve that using a 124 hp engine running regular unleaded gas the aerodynamics plays an important role. The wedge shape setting close to the ground. Sleek. Amazingly, after 12 years, it still looks like a late model car. The fibreglass body covered with silver paint and topped off with a glass-coat layer has kept its "new car" look very well. I've waxed it only once, about 10 years ago, and that made it worse, so I buffed it back out and haven't used any wax since then. Just an automatic car wash with the wax it puts on and with de-ionized final rinse. Since we moved to within a few blocks of our kids a year ago our mileage last year has dropped from 10K/year to under 2K. It has 94,600 miles on it and at that rate by the time I quite driving it may not have more than 110K miles on it.


      But hey, Steve, give Airbus their due. They crash with style:
      "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
      – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
      • Top
      • Bottom

      Comment

        #4
        The best part of that video is the cameraman (presumably a developer of the aircraft control system) saying "Oh No" repeatedly as the fuselage trims the trees and the fireball races for the sky.

        Modern cars at the base level do look the same. I see 1000's of them everyday in my commute. It's amazing how subtle the differences are compared to the days of American automobile glory. However, if you rise above the lower end of the spectrum I still see a lot of variance. My 10 year-old daughter already loves "muscle" cars! She picks out Mustangs, Camaros, and Challengers -all while creating a paint scheme using varying amounts of pink, of course.

        Please Read Me
        • Top
        • Bottom

        Comment

          #5
          hey GG I suppose Boeings don't crash
          • Top
          • Bottom

          Comment

            #6
            And Mr Riley, who says buses arn't stylish?
            • Top
            • Bottom

            Comment

              #7
              Yeah who said they ain't stylish.
              Attached Files
              Linux because it works. No social or political motives in my decision to use it.
              Always consider Occam's Razor
              Rich
              • Top
              • Bottom

              Comment

                #8
                Those VW camper vans are collectors items now and their value is going up and up especially the split window version as in the one in your picture
                • Top
                • Bottom

                Comment

                  #9
                  What? An obvious fake!

                  Actually, if the pilot is bad enough, any vehicle can be crashed. It takes engineers to design a crash into the vehicle.
                  Last edited by GreyGeek; Nov 04, 2013, 02:43 PM.
                  "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                  – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
                  • Top
                  • Bottom

                  Comment

                    #10
                    Originally posted by richb View Post
                    Yeah who said they ain't stylish.
                    I realy nead one of those ...........I'm Vinny , my wife is Vivanna or Vi as we call her ,,,,,together we are 2 V's VV whitch is the W AND our last name is Wright so that VW is just perfect for us

                    VINNY
                    i7 4core HT 8MB L3 2.9GHz
                    16GB RAM
                    Nvidia GTX 860M 4GB RAM 1152 cuda cores
                    • Top
                    • Bottom

                    Comment

                      #11
                      Originally posted by oshunluvr View Post
                      The best part of that video is the cameraman (presumably a developer of the aircraft control system) saying "Oh No" repeatedly as the fuselage trims the trees and the fireball races for the sky.
                      My vote for best part is Will Lyman's narration. His sonorous voice reminds us, "Aircraft manufacturers have tried to fix that problem, by designing the pilot out of the cockpit. This is the first fully-automated plane, flown by a computer." And then he...stops, and allows the ensuing carnage to make his point for him. That is one fine piece of speech!

                      For those interested in such things, Patrick Smith, an actual pilot, effectively debunks the notion that planes can be fully automated.

                      Crashes are an unfortunate reminder that humans can never be perfect. As are various attempts at imparting style to buses, apparently.
                      • Top
                      • Bottom

                      Comment

                        #12
                        Originally posted by SteveRiley View Post
                        My vote for best part is Will Lyman's narration. His sonorous voice reminds us, "Aircraft manufacturers have tried to fix that problem, by designing the pilot out of the cockpit. This is the first fully-automated plane, flown by a computer."
                        But that narration is quite misleading, a human pilot directly caused the crash. The crew were convicted of manslaughter, and the pilot sentenced to jail. The only significant effect the computer had was to stop a stall when the pilot tried to lift the plane over the trees; the plane was doomed before then, and a stall would have been less survivable (there were only 3 fatalities of 136 on board).

                        Regards, John Little
                        Regards, John Little
                        • Top
                        • Bottom

                        Comment

                          #13
                          Wait. That video was of a loaded passenger plane, not some test flight? And only three people died in that big fireball?
                          • Top
                          • Bottom

                          Comment

                            #14
                            Originally posted by jlittle View Post
                            But that narration is quite misleading, a human pilot directly caused the crash. The crew were convicted of manslaughter, and the pilot sentenced to jail. The only significant effect the computer had was to stop a stall when the pilot tried to lift the plane over the trees; the plane was doomed before then, and a stall would have been less survivable (there were only 3 fatalities of 136 on board).

                            Regards, John Little
                            Me thinks you responded to the wrong video...
                            I do not personally use Kubuntu, but I'm the tech support for my daughter who does.
                            • Top
                            • Bottom

                            Comment

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Buddlespit View Post
                              Me thinks you responded to the wrong video...
                              Er... Air France 296? Looked like it to me.

                              Regards, John Little
                              Regards, John Little
                              • Top
                              • Bottom

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X