That is definitely not a jet plane. However jets can have propellers attached to them. Many decades ago I used to work on Scout helicopters and they have jet engines. OK not propellers but rotors. I think some helicopters today have jet engines and no doubt their are fixed wing propeller aircraft with jet engines as well. The more learned I am sure will correct me if I am wrong.
Same sort of idiocy/ignorance/carelessness that leads to many journalists referring to semi-automatic pistols as 'revolvers'; and talking about safety-catches on standard revolvers, and calling revolvers 'automatics*'. This is just the lax approach which passes for competence in English and good research in today's journalism.
*For any firearms historian who wishes to correct me, I am well aware of the Webley-Fosbury semi-automatic revolver, patented 1895/6 and in production 1901-15. As fewer than 5,000 were ever made, they are rather rare now and fetch anything from £7,000 - £10,000 at specialist auction.
Even bigger screwup is apparent now I've actually read the caption accompanying the picture. This MUST have been copied directly from a US press agency's report, because in proper English, one would never apply for a "license" (verb), but one would apply for a "licence" (noun), as any fule kno*.
*Any fule, that is, other than rebel colonials who slaughtered Hessian mercenaries rather than the English, and so proceeded to mutilate the English language as a substitute.
Anisthenes, there were many instances of gas turbine engines driving a propeller. Turboprops, as they were known, were very common just a shortish time ago.
Good luck with his application to the local authority for a test flight. My lot would wet their knickers at the thought. Now, there's a sit-com scenario for you. I feel my creative juices running (no, not those creative juices). Perhaps a script submitted to Auntie Beeb featuring a PC/hag ridden county council might give her the vapours.
there are manifold (snork) reasons for using gas turbines to run propellors. Fewer moving parts and lighter than pistons for the same SHP.
Helicopters are especially suited as pistons need forward speed for cooling (turbines are homeothermic).
They are more expensive to buy, run and maintain, so they have not made it into slow, small trainers like the C-152. If you look on YouTube you can see a demonstration of the servicing of a heli engine put into a racing boat.
11 comments:
Maybe they were confused by the exhaust system of the engine and thought it was a turbojet.
That is definitely not a jet plane. However jets can have propellers attached to them. Many decades ago I used to work on Scout helicopters and they have jet engines. OK not propellers but rotors. I think some helicopters today have jet engines and no doubt their are fixed wing propeller aircraft with jet engines as well. The more learned I am sure will correct me if I am wrong.
Same sort of idiocy/ignorance/carelessness that leads to many journalists referring to semi-automatic pistols as 'revolvers'; and talking about safety-catches on standard revolvers, and calling revolvers 'automatics*'. This is just the lax approach which passes for competence in English and good research in today's journalism.
*For any firearms historian who wishes to correct me, I am well aware of the Webley-Fosbury semi-automatic revolver, patented 1895/6 and in production 1901-15. As fewer than 5,000 were ever made, they are rather rare now and fetch anything from £7,000 - £10,000 at specialist auction.
Even bigger screwup is apparent now I've actually read the caption accompanying the picture. This MUST have been copied directly from a US press agency's report, because in proper English, one would never apply for a "license" (verb), but one would apply for a "licence" (noun), as any fule kno*.
*Any fule, that is, other than rebel colonials who slaughtered Hessian mercenaries rather than the English, and so proceeded to mutilate the English language as a substitute.
Anisthenes, there were many instances of gas turbine engines driving a propeller. Turboprops, as they were known, were very common just a shortish time ago.
Still not as good as the BBC reporter who described a Spitfire as "The famous WW11 Jet"
Another sideslip downwards in the Tellytubbygraphs ever descending tail-spin.
Good luck with his application to the local authority for a test flight. My lot would wet their knickers at the thought. Now, there's a sit-com scenario for you. I feel my creative juices running (no, not those creative juices). Perhaps a script submitted to Auntie Beeb featuring a PC/hag ridden county council might give her the vapours.
@Ted and Aristhenes
there are manifold (snork) reasons for using gas turbines to run propellors. Fewer moving parts and lighter than pistons for the same SHP.
Helicopters are especially suited as pistons need forward speed for cooling (turbines are homeothermic).
They are more expensive to buy, run and maintain, so they have not made it into slow, small trainers like the C-152. If you look on YouTube you can see a demonstration of the servicing of a heli engine put into a racing boat.
Technical stuff...it's best you stay in the shallow end, JuliaM.
"The more learned I am sure will correct me if I am wrong."
This is what I love about the Internet... ;)
"..and talking about safety-catches on standard revolvers..."
Best one I've ever seen was an article Russian Roulette, illustrated with an automatic. Must have been a short game.
"Another sideslip downwards in the Tellytubbygraphs ever descending tail-spin."
It's no better than the 'Daily Mail' for the Waitrose shopper, now... :/
"Good luck with his application to the local authority for a test flight."
I suspect it'll go through!
Post a Comment