Can we please stop hotlinking pics?

nderwater wrote:

Dammit FD, why must you look so derpy?

(because turbos = derpy, that is why)

Because Wankels are derpy.

Flight Service wrote:

RossD wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: My understanding is he's a bit of antihero with a whole lot of snark.

Deadpool is Wade Wilson from the X-men franchise X-Men origins-Wolverine. Ryan Renold's plays the same charecter in both movies. Now if they will be tied together I don't know as the middle end of origins should be when he is turned into weapon X aka: Deadpool. so same time period. yeah he is the anti-hero hero. He doesn't take himself very seriously, at all.

Except that movie's version of Wade was one of the many things wrong with that movie, so wrong in fact they made days of future past alter the timeline so they could undo all the dumb E36 M3 hey did with the franchise.

It seems Ryan Reynolds helped push for this movie to be made to make up for the horrible job they did in the wolverine origins movie and to make up for how horribly cgi he was in green lantern.

Deadpool is known as the only comic book hero to know he is in a comic book and break the 4th wall constantly.

In reply to moparman76_69:

Yes....he also intentionally went for R because that is how it is in the comic book.

This is why I think they will reconcile with xmen

Appleseed wrote:

Radials aren't rotaries!

Rotary aircraft engines are like radials, except the crankshaft is fixed and the engine rotates. Seems silly, but I realized that this means there is practically no reciprocation relative to the airframe, so they probably vibrate a heck of a lot less than a radial. That is important when your plane is made out of tongue depressors and tissue paper.

Ha! I wondered if anyone would notice the error in nomenclature. Aircraft rotaries were no smoother than any other round reciprocating engine, plus, you had the gyroscopic effect of that big wad of metal spinning. Plus, plus, there is no throttle. All on or all off. To slow it down you killed the ignition to individual cylinders with a blip switch. Its the button on top of the control stick.

Best thing since The Watchmen!

Been waiting impatiently on this since the leaked test trailer a couple years ago!

Sometimes vintage isn't better.

Toyman01 wrote: Sometimes vintage isn't better.

Welcome to 2016. this is the size of your pinky nail

Appleseed wrote: Ha! I wondered if anyone would notice the error in nomenclature. Aircraft rotaries were no smoother than any other round reciprocating engine, plus, you had the gyroscopic effect of that big wad of metal spinning. Plus, plus, there is no throttle. All on or all off. To slow it down you killed the ignition to individual cylinders with a blip switch. Its the button on top of the control stick.

Why all the…

But you get a smaller, lighter, less complex engine through the elimination of the flywheel and you get oodles of cooling (helpful when you’re hurriedly slapping engines together with cheap metals that have expansion properties that approximate me when visiting a buffet) and although the rotational mass hurts your turn rate in one direction, it improves it exactly the same amount in the other…what you pay in offensive capability (your prey knows to escape towards your slow direction) you get it back in defensive capability (you know to slip away from your attacker towards your fast direction). Lastly, the poor throttle control was resolvable, it’s just that the rotary was about extreeeeeme simplicity. Fun fact, the iconic silk scarfs worn by WWI pilots was used to first wipe the castor oil the rotary engines expelled from their goggles and then to wipe the puke from their faces after having ingested the castor oil.

Bottom line – If I had the same constraints and objectives of a WWI aircraft engine designer, I may well go rotary as well.

Ross413 wrote:

That looks like the inside of the powerhouse at Conowingo Dam.

Ross413 wrote:

There's an awesome you-pull-it yard not far from there.

Ross413 wrote:

Is that the parking lot at Hershey Park?