Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 03:42:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
References: <o4ucnYo2YLqmZ876nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lsln9nFbe1iU1@mid.individual.net>
 <t9mcnch_qe5p8Pv6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lsnaguFjmi0U2@mid.individual.net>
 <dadeb53f-44e3-4eb1-c7db-d5a93fd7e068@example.net>
 <lsomuuFqfauU2@mid.individual.net>
 <0569900a-ccc1-bc30-56ef-af726a877c16@example.net>
 <lsrbfjF9131U3@mid.individual.net>
 <2db292c9-731d-8239-0a92-06b1e800e9cf@example.net>
 <lsu02kFlilgU3@mid.individual.net>
 <69508434-907d-e198-1ae5-37b900722b42@example.net>
 <lsui6iFovpkU2@mid.individual.net>
 <512904de-4ebb-f4c3-a4d2-3021b08f63a2@example.net>
 <lt0kg4F42ngU4@mid.individual.net>
 <1494aafd-0ee7-532a-7110-6c6cef205a37@example.net>
 <lt12peF6oupU1@mid.individual.net>
 <318fed3a-2c61-e7b5-3455-a7aeeb14556e@example.net>
 <lt35e8FglkbU2@mid.individual.net>
 <54bbf6b3-cb79-c4a4-f7be-226d9513a7f0@example.net>
 <lt3uu6FkkjsU2@mid.individual.net>
 <cb197ca4-c3d6-71bb-2ac4-e4243def4ef4@example.net>
 <lt5n20FstimU1@mid.individual.net>
From: "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net>
Organization: wokiesux
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 22:41:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <lt5n20FstimU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <fU2dna_NJt-Fv_P6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 99.101.150.97
X-Trace: sv3-O7M9LAvlYAqXU4bhh1Y3O4oQYjaKDzb30MoPfblGO7qa9Gt8Xh2o+pKneJT0hTPrYrn6ihwna1z01va!hrJmPXWdPXyOZoSwYeivd1akb3QTBgU5+DxuQYJpLqxhc7BWtwlra03VpnQbO3JOt3rfEXovwhLa!TiKQn6F5tdjbsRuWWUSX
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7070

On 12/26/24 1:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 12:44:57 +0100, D wrote:
> 
>> Wow! Talk about a visionary! He took the logical step from everyone
>> owning a car, to everyone owning a plane! I would like to own a flying
>> car. Even a helicopter I would be content with! Imagine... then I could
>> build a _real_ fortress of solitude, far, far away from any public
>> roads!
> 
> Now there's a scary thought. When I was learning to fly a fixed wing the
> person teaching me, an ag pilot with several thousand hours in the air,
> was trying to tech himself to fly a helicopter. He was as frustrated as I
> was. The motivation was to allow precise insecticide application rather
> than the fly low and open the valves technique.


   About 25 years ago, a smart guy I knew decided he wanted
   to fly helicopters. He described it as somewhat like trying
   to balance on a big rubber ball. About the third or fourth
   lesson he CRASHED the thing while trying to hover just ten
   feet off the ground. All survived OK, but that was the
   END of the lessons  :-)



> It was interesting but I realized there were practical problems. With only
> VFR you were completely dependent on the weather. With IFR you had a
> little more flexibility but you weren't going to keep schedules. The other
> problem is after you fly to Oshkosh you find yourself at a small airfield
> 10 miles from town.

   Today, it IS possible to build a 'stable' helicopter or,
   even easier, a stable multi-motor drone. Saw a larger
   drone - intended for ag work - that was about 4x6 feet
   in size - auto-hover a few feet above the ground ON A
   WINDY DAY - and barely vary position or altitude by
   an inch or two. You could walk up and kinda shove the
   thing and it'd spring right back to where it was
   supposed to be.

   As such, replacing full mechanical with fly-by-wire,
   you could get such machines to do what they figure
   you WANT them to do rather than respond to a millimeter
   of random joystick input. Military - probably still
   want 'em to be "touchy" - but for 'consumer' needs ...

   I think the F-16 was the first performance aircraft
   where humans didn't ACTUALLY fly them - it was all
   "smart" fly-by-wire. Humans could not cope with the
   changing aerodynamics at all possible speeds and
   attitudes and such, so the computer did the real
   work, 'translating' the pilots inputs. It worked.
   TODAY it'd be relatively CHEAP and maybe even better.

> The light aircraft industry has had its dreams, particularly after WWII
> with returning servicemen but they never worked out. The FAA came up with
> a sport pilot license which only required a drivers license and not a
> medical certificate and shorter training. It had limitations but the major
> problem was a 1320 maximum takeoff weight. Most existing planes to make
> that limit are Piper Cubs, Taylorcraft, Ercoupes, and other antiques,
> often taildraggers for added excitement. Cessna 150s, Piper Tomahawks, and
> other common training planes are too heavy. There are some new planes that
> meet the requirements. Cessna tried with the 162, a cut down 152, but at
> $150,000 it didn't sell.

   I've flown Cubs ... right down to hand-cranking
   the propeller. They are slow, but there's a nice
   'floaty' aspect to them, and quite stable, once
   in the air. Fat wing intended for low speeds. The
   one I few a few times only had like 30 horsepower,
   the originals were like 20hp.

   The C150/152 is great 'general purpose' craft. Again
   very stable but feels more 'airplane' than the Cub
   and is notably faster. Flaps and engine power down
   you COULD fly them at a bit under 40knots though
   it was wobbly. Extra plus, they're intended for
   students - which means robust construction. As such
   I never saw the 'weight' as a negative - more as
   an insurance policy.

   Never liked newer Pipers - can't see a damned thing
   with that wing under you. Also knew a guy who worked
   on one of their lines ... and NOPE, did NOT want a
   plane he helped bang together  :-)

   A number of corps are fronting 'air-taxi' now using
   what are essentially large drones. One or two don't
   even have a pilot, all automated. Would NOT wanna
   get on one will less than six thrusters though ...
   that way one can die and the rest can still compensate.

   As for George Jetsons' flying around in 'cars' ...
   I can foresee disasters aplenty even WITH nominal
   automatic route control. Humans don't even
   navigate 2-D very well ......

   Oh well, glory days ... I think the 2nd OPEC embargo
   was the end - fuel prices went through the roof and
   you couldn't always get the CORRECT fuel (a stuck
   valve in a small plane engine is NOT encouraging).
   Just couldn't afford to keep flying. BUT, still
   KNOW how, just in case .....