If the V-22 Osprey has a power to weight ratio of only 0.259

>power to weight ratio for aircraft typically expressed in pounds of thrust to aircraft weight

>>909184
>thrust to weight
Propellers

Magnets

>>909182
I don't know the physics of the aircraft, I do know I would be scared shitless to fly in one. The Osprey does not exactly have the best safety record.

>>909182
>NO ICE PROTECTION
fuck that desu senpai baka

>>909198
>one accident every few years and people shit themselves
>meanwhile people die in car crashes every millisecond and nobody cares

>>909198
That's false despite morons like you believing it.

>>909416
>>909424
How many V-22's are their, it must be a statistical lottery ticket to catch them crashing on video. Youtube the crashes. The vertical lift/forward flying aircraft scares the shit out of me.

I prefer an aircraft with some glide ratio, not a flying rock

with great difficulty OP
the thing is dangerous and prone to failure

>>909429
Over 200 apparently

>>909182
Mind power

V-22 Osprey. NATO reporting name: "Sky Cager".

File: Metric-vs-Imperial.jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>909182
For an accurate comparison, you'd need to compare thrust and weight in the same unit.

lbs of thrust per lbs of weight, Kgs of thrust per Kgs of weight, or Newtons of thrust per Newtons of weight*9.8m/s^2.

>>909182
Power does not equate to thrust. That hp/lb means precisely dick when talking about thrust to weight ratio. A propeller or rotor blade takes the power produced by the engine and creates thrust, which is what determines its performance. I can have an engine that produces 12000hp, but with no means to change the rotational energy into thrust (i.e. a propeller), it is doing a lot of nothing.

>>909182
Lift

>>909424
They had a lot of crashes when they started first flying then. Then again so does everything that flies...

>>910063
>Kelvin-gram-seconds
>'or Newtons'
>'Newtons of weight'
>No space between the number and the unit
Good on you for trying, but please re-read the SI Brochure once more.

>>911296
Newton is a unit of force, weight is a force. Kg is a unit of mass, roughly exerting 9.81 N of weight on earth.

>>911298
>weight is a force
Yes, that's right. I made an oopsie. Your flagrant misuse of SI prefixes, unit symbols and unit names caused me to short circuit.

>Kg is a unit of mass
Please refrain from making further posts until you have read the SI Brochure in its entirety.

>>911416
stfu you cringey parroting cunt

File: image.jpg (188KB, 635x798px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 635x798px

>>911416
You mean this brochure?

>>911433
Hahaha owned

>>911433
Yes, that brochure. I'm glad that you are putting forth the effort to understand the SI more completely.

>>911445
I am laughing as well: I too own a copy of the SI Brochure!

>>911524
Weird how obsessed you are with other people's knowledge of and adherence to this brochure, yet feel no obligation to read or follow its instructions.

>>911416
The kilogram is formally defined as a unit of mass, not weight (weight merely being the force of gravity acting upon an object). When we express an object's weight in kilograms, we're actually talking about kilogram-force, i.e. the force of gravity acting on a mass of 1 kilogram, equal to approximately 9.81 newtons.

>>909376
>NO ICE PROTECTION

what's on all the leading edges, faggot

>>911524
holy fuck I hate this fedora autist so much
arguably the worst poster anywhere on the internet
I get that his gimmick is to act smug but saying "re-read the SI brochure" as to imply someone is beneath you for not having read it once is just like "look at this guy who doesn't even eat shit"
and he's just thrown away all of his imaginary credibility by failing to understand the difference between weight and mass
if I could kill any person in history it would be this guy

>>911640
the turbines suck air directly from the outside
the intake is not heated like the only equivalent (AW609)
so flying in sub-zero temperatures is dangerous

>>911525
I assure you that I do my utmost to conform to the correct use of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure in communication of any form and any and all other aspects of my life.

>>911536
Congratulations on your secondary-school level physics education. None of that is under dispute (by me, anyway).

>>911649
I can assure you that I fully understand the difference between weight and mass as it pertains to the use of SI units.

>>911690
>Congratulations on your secondary-school level physics education. None of that is under dispute (by me, anyway).
You weren't the one who criticized >>911298 for saying "Kg is a unit of mass"?

File: 1451549583911.png (102KB, 557x555px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 557x555px

>>910063

File: SI superhero.gif (876KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 300x200px

>>911913
Of course.

>>911690
>I assure you that I do my utmost to conform to the correct use of SI units
Oh, so you're not careless, just incompetent. Got it.

>>911682
>flying in sub-zero temperatures is dangerous

to nitpick, this is not how icing works at all, the correct sentence is "flying into icing conditions is dangerous"

>>911977
Please alert me to any error I may have made in the correct use of SI prefixes, units or unit symbols.

>>912125
You fuck up here: >>911296
You admit your mistake here: >>911416
You assure everyone that incompetence, rather than carelessness, was the source of your mistake here: >>911690

It doesn't matter. Like I've told you elsewhere, strict adherence to the SI is not required outside the realm of science, engineering, commerce etc. In colloquial conversation we can bend the rules of standardised grammar and orthography. The only relevant rule in (relaxed) enforcement on this website is that a post should be legible. Hell, we can make up words if we want as long as its intended meaning can generally be grasped. If you have a huge problem with this, I think you may be better off not spending too much time on this forum.

>>909182

Your question is stupid and you should feel stupid.

>>912204
I made an oopsie in admitting I made an oopsie which I had not made. I hereby rescind my initial admission of fault. The implications made in >>911296 are impeccable. >>911298 implied I had made an error where I had not.

I ask you to be more explicit in how you drew the conclusion that you did from >>911690.

If you have a huge problem with using SI prefixes, units and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure, I think you may be better off reading the SI Brochure repeatedly until you no longer feel that way.

>>912281
>I ask you to be more explicit in how you drew the conclusion that you did from...
Feigning dim-wittedness to tire out someone by forcing them to rephrase an explanation over and over again until they give up will grant you no points.

I don't feel I have a huge problem with using SI prefixes on 4chan. See, in one respect the SI brochure is just like Sharia laws: they apply some places, but they don't apply on 4chan. Again, this is a colloquial conversation, I can use fake words if I want to. Speaking of, why don't you feel the same anal retentiveness regarding your use of correct language as you do with SI? After all, this website is all about conversation.

>>912358
>Feigning dim-wittedness to tire out someone by forcing them to rephrase an explanation over and over again until they give up will grant you no points.
I'm not looking for points, just to foster a greater understanding of the correct use of SI prefixes, units and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure.

The SI Brochure makes it perfectly clear that the use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in the Brochure, is mandatory. Indeed, from its very inception, the founding fathers of the metric system intended that "The metric system is for all people for all time." (Condorcet, 1791). There is no change in this regard in its current incarnation as the SI.

There is no similarly comprehensive, universal and widely adopted standard for the English language.

>>912408
>the use of the correct symbols for SI units ... as listed in the Brochure, is mandatory.
Not everywhere all the time. I'm terribly sorry, but it just isn't. You are wrong, and that's all there is to it. End of discussion.

>>912999
>Use the exact phrasing in the SI Brochure
>Quote one of the founding fathers of the metric system
>The rebuttal is 'no u r rong'
The SI Brochure does not excuse the use of incorrect symbols for SI units, and for units in general, under any circumstance.

>>913122
It doesn't matter. We are outside the jurisdiction of the SI pamphlet, just like we're outside the jurisdiction of ISIS. Even though ISIS themselves claim that the entire world belongs to them, it doesn't matter because the rest of the world disagrees. Anal retentive adherence to SI is mandatory only in contexts where there is an agreement that it should be mandatory. Colloquial conversation in general, and on 4chan in particular, are not such contexts. Malapropisms, neologisms and spelling errors are all acceptable, even if they should occur in the context of units and dimensions. This is self evident. You have misread the SI brochure. Perhaps your French isn't up to the job? You are wrong. I know it irks you, but you must learn to live with it. The alternative is to enforce the brochure with the same tenacity (and amusing inaccuracy) as you have demonstrated in this thread, and watch as everyone around you starts wishing they weren't. I recommend you instead just give up your lonely crusade.

>>913169
Dude it's pointless, you might as well tell a dog not to bark as try to reason with people like this...

>>913169
If you're going to use SI, shouldn't you at least try to use it properly?

>>913169
You're right, my French isn't that good. Perhaps you could translate the following for me:
>L’utilisation correcte des symboles des unités SI, et des unités en général, dont il a été fait mention dans les chapitres précédents de cette brochure, est obligatoire.

In order to put the question of my competence regarding the proper use of SI units, prefixes and unit symbols as prescribed by the SI Brochure beyond doubt, I am going to take leave from my usual posting format and explicitly state the errors in >>910063 which I addressed by implication in >>911296.

Kgs is not a permitted expression of SI prefixes and unit symbols. The most likely intended interpretation is the Kelvin-gram-second, a unit of dimension MTΘ. Neither quantities of thrust nor quantities of weight can be expressed in such a unit. Either a space or a half-high dot is required between the unit symbols of a compound unit, to indicate multiplication.

The Newtons are a set of human beings of distinct masses and hence subject to distinct forces of weight. They are neither SI units nor standardised units of any other description and are hence unsuitable for expressing quantities of thrust nor quantities of weight.

>No space between the number and the unit
Self-explanatory.

Here's a bonus I neglected to mention the first time around:
>Mixing unit systems

>>911682
I'd like to know your source for no Ice protection on the inlet.

>>911298
It's not capital K in kilograms
It's kg

>>914434
So you're supposed to begin a sentence with a lowercase letter?

>>914434
>>914614
>Implying the SI does not permit prefix names to take an initial capital when they start a sentence
Please re-read the SI Brochure.

>>914616
>implying the SI accommodates the English language and American practices of bastardizing units
Please re-read the SI Brochure.

File: helo lifto.jpg (693KB, 1865x1513px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1865x1513px

>>914616
>re-read the SI Brochure
>>914629
>re-read the SI Brochure
Buthats ,,NOT,,,, POSSIBLE! against the laws of Nature,, im notaking the ticket!
,not without a time machine?,, if only i could go backin time, then i could,, READ the SI.

>>914629
>implying the SI accommodates the English language
>Implying it doesn't
The SI explicitly permits capitalising prefix names when they are at the beginning of a sentence.

>and American practices of bastardizing units
I never implied that, BIPM preserve us.

>>914633
>writing like a retard
Please reread the Oxford dictionary.

>>914641
That's Bacon ya egg. That's what he do. He's a quality trip.

>>909198
It actually has the best safety record.
All the early bugs are fixed

>implying people can't tell which unit we are talking about, be it capitalized correctly or not
Please re-read the "How to avoid autism for dummies"-brochure.

>>914395
i would like to post a pic of the aw609 as an example, but i can't find it

look at 1:11
https://youtu.be/CF8RRb3vxVA

basically, the turbines are mounted upside down inside the nacelles.
After the power turbines, the exaust gasses continue along the air inlet, and a metal layer conducts heat to the intake.

instead, the V-22's intakes are straight forward

>>914699
>Implying anyone could reasonably be expected to arrive at intended meaning of an expression of SI prefixes and unit symbols that more closely resembles an unintended meaning

>>909416

I'm not sure you know how statistics work, my friend.

>number of V-22s
>number of cars

This needs to be taken into account.

>>914638
>The SI explicitly permits capitalising prefix names when they are at the beginning of a sentence.
Where does it say that? All I found is that prefix letters are capitalized when derived from a proper name.

>>914875
average number of drivers/pilots at a given time would probably make more sense tbհ

>>914981
it permits the capitalizing of units, not of symbols; the person you're replying to is wrong

so "Kilograms are defined by special reference mass" is correct and "kilograms are defined by special reference mass" is not, whereas "kg are defined by special reference mass" is correct and "Kg are defined by a special reference mass" is not

>>914981
Section 3.1

>>915045
>Implying I ever said that the capitalisation of symbols represented by lower case letters was permitted
Please re-read my post.

>SI brochure autist ruins another thread

>>915063
>>Implying I ever said that the capitalisation of symbols represented by lower case letters was permitted
>Please re-read my post.
you may not have explicitly stated that you can capitalize lowercase symbols at the beginning of the sentence, but since you posted in regards to >>911298 and >>914434, where this usage is the only issue being discussed, you were either implying that lowercase symbols can be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, or spewing irrelevant shit.