Wow that guy made the video annoying to watch. It is a shame he hasn't watched other R/C planes, he might learn that those modern electric motors can generate so much thrust that the body wouldnt even be needed. You would have to try very very hard and add a ton of weight to make a battery powered plane that couldn't fly. And when I say fly I mean "dragged along by a horizontal helicopter blade".

I dunno...that stuff you mention is also pretty harmful from some perspectives.
Introducing far less technology to other hidden tribes has changed them immensely, and usually for the worse. I feel somewhat bad that they're suddenly thrust into the iron age through no fault of their own...they were doing just fine with stones. Now there aren't any known pure stone age people left at all now, are there?

The 675lb pelvic thrust press thing looks pretty hard on the back. Also, I wish I had a 675lb pelvic thrust.

Counter-rotating propellers sparked my curiosity when I first saw them on a British Seafire Mk46 at a flight show in the early nineties.

So my amateur's answer would be that it's about the problem of turning the engine's power into thrust. With increasing power, you can either increase the propeller's RPM or its area. So you either a) spin it faster, b) increase its diameter, c) use a more favourable blade geometry, d) add more blades.

a) and b) both lead to blade tips moving faster, and once they approach the speed of sound, wave drag sets in and ruins your day. b) also runs into issues in terms of ground clearance. Thus the Kim Jong-un blades on planes like the An-70: short and fat.

c) is rather difficult to do in terms of manufacture -- that's why more pronounced blade shapes are a relatively recent development.

d) on a single propeller decreases the efficiency of each blade as it passes through the previous blade's vortex. That's why, for instance, German planes in WW2 almost exclusively relied on 3-bladed propellers with increasing blade size, whereas Supermarine went to four and even 5 blades rather quickly. You can work the issue to a certain degree by modifying the blade geometry, thus the 8 blade props on a modern A400M.

Adding more blades by adding another propeller gets around d), although the aft prop still loses efficiency compared to the front prop. On the other hand, counter-rotating props massively reduces problems with torque, which can be rather horrendous for single engine prop planes. The Bf 109, for instance, is (in)famous for being difficult during take-off as it pulls to the side quite violently.

I don't know, but I've seen it before in other demonstrations or illustrations so they must have had good gloves . I figure that the blade was probably only kept sharp at the tip.

from wiki on the ineffectiveness of cutting slashes against full plate:
"To overcome this problem, swords began to be used primarily for thrusting. The weapon was used in the half-sword, with one or both hands on the blade. This increased the accuracy and strength of thrusts and provided more leverage for Ringen am Schwert or "wrestling at/with the sword". This technique combines the use of the sword with wrestling, providing opportunities to trip, disarm, break, or throw an opponent and place them in a less offensively and defensively capable position. During half-swording, the entirety of the sword works as a weapon, including the pommel and crossguard. One example how a sword can be used this way is to thrust the tip of the crossguard at the opponent's head right after parrying a stroke. Another technique would be the Mordstreich (lit. "murder stroke"), where the weapon is held by the blade (hilt, pommel and crossguard serving as an improvised hammer head) and swung, taking advantage of the balance being close to the hilt to increase the concussive effect."

Diagram of re-entry for the Soyuz:
---------------------------------------------
http://spaceflight101.com/soyuz-tma-20m/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2016/09/6618866_orig.jpg

Orbital Module:
---------------------
It houses all the equipment that will not be needed for reentry, such as experiments, cameras or cargo. The module also contains a toilet, docking avionics and communications gear. Internal volume is 6 m³, living space 5 m³. On the latest Soyuz versions (since Soyuz TM), a small window was introduced, providing the crew with a forward view.

Service Module:
---------------------
It has a pressurized container shaped like a bulging can that contains systems for temperature control, electric power supply, long-range radio communications, radio telemetry, and instruments for orientation and control. A non-pressurized part of the service module (Propulsion compartment, AO) contains the main engine and a liquid-fuelled propulsion system for maneuvering in orbit and initiating the descent back to Earth. The ship also has a system of low-thrust engines for orientation, attached to the Intermediate compartment. Outside the service module are the sensors for the orientation system and the solar array, which is oriented towards the sun by rotating the ship.


Consequences of bad jettisons:
------------------------------------------
The services modules are jettisoned before the spacecraft hits the atmosphere. A failure or partial jettison of the modules means that the capsule will not enter the atmosphere heat shield first which can lead to a number of scenarios:
- Capsule pushed off course (by hundreds of km)
- High sustained g-loads on reentry
- Plasma on reentry can burn through the craft if the heat shield is not exposed and oriented properly resulting in loss of crew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-10

I dunno, the concept is plausible. Model jet engines can give up to 25 kg of thrust (off the shelf, more for custom built). He has six of them, so that's plenty of thrust.

I have over ten years of experience in computer animation and his movements are exactly what I'd expect. The engine effects are perfect, everything is just as I'd expect even things at a good distance disturbed by the wind. If this is fake it's the highest level of fakery and the concept is very plausible.

IMO this is probably real.

Better than skinemax -- not to say I haven't watched plenty of those movie late at night hahaha!

Funnily enough Zatoichi is a masseuse because of his affiliations with the zakuza and being blind; essentially he can't find any other work due to social stigmas and is picked on for the nature of his lower class status. The lower class status which thrusts criminality and an association with sexuality upon him.

Being a masseuse is associated with being a prostitute, therefore he is disregarded even more so.

So your natural inclination to be amused and associate that profession with sex is almost proof of a portion of Zatoichi's struggle.

The struggle against those whose tendency is to mock rather than perceive.

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

There is so much wrong with this video I don't even know where to start. First, there are only two types of aircraft engines, piston and turbine. When a turbine is used to drive a propeller, it's called a turbo prop. When he is talking about turbo props, he shows pictures of a piston driven propeller aircraft (Cessna 41x), and piston engines are the most common type of engine used on propeller driven aircraft, not turbo props.

He mostly gets it right about turbo jets, except again, every aircraft he shows when talking about turbo jets uses a turbo fan (the F-15 and F-16 both use afterburning turbofan engines). They get their thrust from the hot expansion of exhaust gasses, but he gets it wrong with turbo fans, which get most of their thrust from the bypass air from the fan.

OMG that was AWFUL! I mean astoundingly bad.
Something hilariously unaware about an entertainer singing "I'm not here for your entertainment" and other phrases meant to indicate she's not just a sex object while wearing skin tight spandex and group pelvic thrusting, though, so there was an ironic redeeming quality in there somewhere.

Someone screwed up leading up to this , , but the engine thrust causing the destruction was probably the right call , for whatever reason , the ship was on its way to simply crash into the marina, and that would likely cause _much_ more destruction. Also obviously too late to call the tug boats . (When the video starts)

I like the setup. A lot of people would place the jets at the rear, like in a Lear Jet or A10 Warthog, or on the wings like most commerical liners. Where the jets would push the plane. Obviously this airframe was initally designed to be pulled through the air, so having everything up front probably balances thrust and makes the plane mostly react like the prop version. Definitely simplifies the engineering required for the modification.

The S has a biodefense mode option. The cabin becomes somewhat airtight if you activate it. Also, the battery pack is sealed vs leaks or water.

Musk tweeted in response: We *def* don't recommended this, but Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time. Thrust via wheel rotation.

Kitty does not have enough thrust to reach escape velocity.
Kitty is doomed to spend eternity in the black hole of hand bags.