Pelican Parts Forums - Random TRANSPORTATION pictures

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Random TRANSPORTATION pictures (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/391522-random-transportation-pictures.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by URY914 (Post 8806149)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1442975452.jpg

That has got to be PSed. A B52 can't land on that short deck, let alone takeoff.

Mazda shows windswept Taiki concept car
Oct 2, 2007
Mazda shows windswept Taiki concept car - SlashGear
http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/dat...cept_car_3.JPG
http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/dat...cept_car_2.JPG
http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/dat...cept_car_1.JPG

Quote:

Practically speaking, the design is also meant to improve aerodynamics and, in turn, reduce the amount of energy wasted pushing a big chunk of steel through the air.

https://www.mazda.co.nz/innovation/concept-cars/taiki-2007

Quote:

Aerodynamic performance with a drag coefficient of 0.25 and zero lift

The design team sought to achieve an extremely high level of aerodynamic performance through a combination of design and technologies. A bird's-eye view of the Mazda Taiki body shows how much its width is tapered from front to rear. From the side, one sees the smooth line of the flat underside kick up dramatically at the rear of the body. Validating the designer's wish to visually capture the motion of flowing air, wind tunnel testing proved the excellent aerodynamic performance inherent in the design.

The distinctive shape around the rear wheels, which channels air flowing back from the front fender through a 'tunnel' formed between the body and rear fender, also proved effective in creating down-force.

The already high aerodynamic potential of the original form was then fine tuned, the end result being an excellent drag coefficient of 0.25 and zero lift.

2007 Mazda TAIKI
http://car-revs-daily.carrevsdailyco...21-800x480.jpg
http://car-revs-daily.carrevsdailyco...32-800x532.jpg
http://car-revs-daily.carrevsdailyco...50-800x481.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ (Post 8806319)

That has got to be PSed. A B52 can't land on that short deck, let alone takeoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ (Post 8806319)

That has got to be PSed. A B52 can't land on that short deck, let alone takeoff.

And it's Air Force
And there's no tail hook
And the wing would have gone through the tower.
And the beam of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is only 135', so the wingspan of the plane would be hanging over 25' on each side.
And......

The only way that plane could exist there is if it was loaded by crane or assembled in place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr (Post 8806349)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1442995010.jpg

Saw a pre-A just like this at a fuel stop on the way from Munich to Vienna last year. Same patina but originally a medium gray paint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashflyer (Post 8806579)

And the beam of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is only 135', so the wingspan of the plane would be hanging over 25' on each side.
And.......

...and since the deck is much wider than the beam... the Nimitz deck is more than 250' wide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcar (Post 8806990)

...and since the deck is much wider than the beam... the Nimitz deck is more than 250' wide.

I was taking the Webster definition and applying it to the data, which said the beam was 134'.

beam
noun: beam; plural noun: beams

Nautical
a ship's breadth at its widest point.

But in this case you're right because the website I was on gives two beam measurements.... 134' at the waterline, and 252' overall. My fault for overlooking that.

So the 185' wide B52 should have 33' of deck clearance on either wingtip, assuming it is centered on deck at the widest point.