QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Yes, Fed-ex planes are pressurized and climate controlled. The cockpit is necessary, but the cargo compartment is dependant on the design of the aircraft. It isn't necessary to pressurise or climate control a cargo compartment like it is a passenger compartment. On commercial aircraft, cockpit isn't a pressure vessel. The fuselage is. You can't just pressurized the cockpit. On commercial airliners, until recently, the cargo compartment, located right below the passenger compartment, wasn't pressurized, a reason many people lost pets when taking them along on an aircraft and checking them through in a pet carrier. And trust me, if they're not heated in flight, they get MIGHTY cold in there. An aircraft isn't a pressure vessel to the point of a steam locomotive, you're only talking abut 10 PSI difference. The cargo area was pressurized, it wasn't HEATED to full cabin temp and the pets died of hypothermia. At 35,000 ft. nothing would ever survive the flight without pressurization. 10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load. Sounds impressive if your physics were anywhere near accurate. The wall or floor would have to maintain the seal against 10 PSI. An aircraft fuselage is only a thin aluminum. ARGH! I don't even know where to start with you! ..only have to maintain a seal? Utter nonsense! The pressure differential acts on the whole surface. When you pressurize a cylinder, the stress on the skin is entirely tension and the entire skin carries the load. If you "sealed" the floor and then depressurized the area under it, the floor would be acting as a beam - top in compression, bottom in tension - with that 1.4M# load distributed on in it. That would be quite a floor! Don't make me get out my strength of materials book..... So you're saying that a 1/4 inch thick aluminum skin riveted to an inside framework can 1.4 million pounds of force? Impressive if the vessel was large enough, but the strength of materials book will give you ratings in pounds per SQUARE INCH, the same as the measurement of air pressure. And I fail to see how the floor, reinforced to support the weight of the cargo or passengers would be weaker than the outside fuselage of the aircraft. You are confusing the engineering discipline "strength of materials" with "materials science". Material Science deals with the properties of the materials. Strength of Materials is all about how to calculate stress and strain in various objects - like cylinders, beams, floors, columns, etc. Getting out my Singer "Stength of Materials" book. Looking on p 20 to see how to calculate stress in a thin walled cylinder. If the cylinder was made of 1/4" thick aluminum, the hoop stress is only 2300 psi. Aluminum is good for better than 30,000 psi Working backward, you only need 0.019" thick aluminum to carry the hoop stresses from a 10 psi internal pressure. You COULD build an airplane where the area under the floor is not pressurized and the area above is, but you'd have to add so much structure to support the floor and distribute the load to the fuselage skin, that you'd significantly cut into your payload capacity. It's MUCH simpler, lighter and cheaper to just pressurize the whole cylinder - which is why airplanes are built that way! You COULD just take the word of a degreed Mechanical Engineer [:D] But of what value is it? As many times as I've been in the cockpit of an aircraft, I don't recall ever seeing a gauge marked "Hoop Pressure." Is this more of the info "never used outside the school?" Wrong again, reindeer breath! (with appolgies to Johny Carson) Why in the world would anyone measure the hoop, or circumfrential STRESS (not pressure - although the units are the same) in an aircraft fuselage? You DESIGN for it based on the internal pressure. This is really, really basic simple engineering - several hundred years old. It is used ALL OVER THE PLACE outside of "the school". Everything from the water pipes in your house to the brake pipe on a frt car use this stress calculation. It's often called "hoop" stress because of it's application in barrel making. You are either impossibly dense or just rattling my cage.... I feel like I'm stuck in the Bob and Ray "Komodo Dragon" radio play.[:)] http://www.mindspring.com/~biohaz/komodo.txt You seem to be impossibly inept at reading a question. What is the value of the 1.4 million pounds of force other than a exercise in mathmatics? Or trying to impress someone with insignificant numbers? Reference your quote: "10 psi over an area of 100 ft x 10 ft (airplane floor) is 1,440,000 lbs. That would be SOME floor taking that load." Exactly how would the floor be taking that large of a load, which is far above the cargo capacity of most aircraft, even if it were a pressure bulkhead? A small puncture in the fuselage would cause the plane to explode with that much force inside. Something already disproven on "Mythbusters."
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?)
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton Speaking of Badges-and Awards. I have decided to ask Bergie to establish a Trains.com "Forum Topic Hijacking Award". Two members immediately come to mind as the first recipients. Jay
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish."
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you?
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear What I still don't understand is why anyone would ever name a level of Boy Scouting anything remotely sounding like "We Blow"??? Is there even a merit badge involving RRs anymore? LC Webelo (sp?) is a name for a sort of post-Cub Scout, pre-Boy Scout, a contraction of the words "We belong." Scouting does still have a Railroading merit badge. Steamtown runs a program to qualify Scouts for it. Check with a local RR club or museum to see if they offer a similar program. My Webelos book says "WE'll BE LOyal Scouts". It's the last 1-1/2 years of Cub Scouting. My 5th grader "graduates" this January - I can finally stop being a Den Mother!
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd OK, I'll admit a cheap shot with the Cub Scout stuff! I'm not the only one who told you that passenger airliners are completely pressurized. You don't believe them either? Maybe I'm the only one stupid enough to argue with a fence post! (another cheap shot, I suppose, but at whom?) And again you didn't read the question. I hope by the time you're old enough to take your SAT's you'll acquire that skill or the only career phrase you'll need is "Ya want fries with that?" I never said they weren't pressurized, I said it WASN'T NECESSARY to pressurize or heat them. The question was (now read this S-L-O-W-L-Y) "What is the significance of the 1.4 million pound figure that keep bringing up?" A pressure bulkhead, be it the floor or the fuselage walls, will have to hold back the pressure differential, no matter what the number is you wi***o assign to it. It's like me asking "What's two plus two?" and you keep answering "fish." The 1.4M# figure is the load you'd have to design the floor for if you want it to be a pressurized bulkhead. There are NO commercial passenger airliners that have their floor as a pressurized bulkhead. If there are no planes with floor that can act as a pressurized bulkhead, then it is ALWAYS necessary to pressurize the cargo area. You COULD build a car with 7 wheels, too, but why would you? So back to the original question, why is the 1.4 million pound figure appliede to the floor when it's a pressurized bulkhead, and not applied to the fuselage walls when they are the pressurized bulkhead. The "necessity" I'm refering to is based on the contents of the compartment. Cargo doesn't need heat or pressurization any more than most boxcars or enclosed trailers need it. When you're hauling passengers, the need changes.
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas Or will the cub scouts be subsidizing pressurized Subway sandwiches on Amtrak?[:D]
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear So, does this thread name change indicate that the Cub Scouts will now be serving the Subway sandwiches on Amtrak??? Perhaps we can pressurize a few planes with all this hot air?? How 'bout that Southwest crash at Midway? Ouch. Some bad driving there.... LC
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie Dan - since we are hijacking topics - is San Diego still a thrill to fly into? Over the parking garage? Moo
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.