Since GTP is turning into a BoP class, I wonder how that affects design decisions. Are there design considerations that affects how a team might “game” the BoP process?

Sorry to be that pedantic asshole, but the S-3 had General Electric TF-34 engines. Not Pratt & Whitneys (I used to work there at one time). That does not change the fundamental validity of your post.

If they have 6 cars within 1 second on a track of this length, and 4 within .2 seconds, it looks like they might have gotten the BoP correct (unless there’s a little sandbagging going on)

Nearest stars with exoplanets are 4-10 light years away, meaning that even reaching those in 100 years requires getting to not inconsequential fractions of the speed of light (5-10%). It is FAR past our current or immediately anticipated technology to launch a New Horizons-sized probe. Of course, I hope that those…

It might also cut down on their tendency to roll out features like FSD before they’re fully baked.

That second one looks a little like an RX-8.

I thought that’s why people are lining up outside chinese dealerships.

It could be both. Robbie’s look in this scene is definitely the original Barbie, but the sunglasses gesture could be an homage to Lolita.

I think they accidentally transposed the last two digits from 1968. As others noticed, 2010 came out in 1983.

The last two sentences remind me of the line from Goodfellas:

In an artillery piece, “elevation” is the angle which the gun barrel points up or down. Likewise, in an airplane, the elevator controls the pitch angle of the airplane. Also, it is the universally accepted term used in aeronautics to describe the control surface.

I just think that, since most of the benefit of upgrading was the engines, there just wasn’t a case to be made to pay for a new airframe. Not enough benefit in operating costs. Airbus arrived at the same conclusion with the A320. Of course, the A320 was built with longer landing gear, which makes it far easier to add…

The airframe has only one fundamental flaw - they’re stuck with the landing gear length that was originally sized for ground clearance for JT8-Ds and they’ve had to work around that for adding bigger and bigger turbofans.

Herb resigned as president/CEO in 2001, and left the board in 2008, before the 737 MAX program even started. So, while SWA might have been the problem, I don’t think you can directly blame Herb.

Thank you. This article is rather inaccurate.

One slight point - it didn’t pick up the AMR-1 tub until after it lost the IndyCar bid and they were trying to repurpose the approach for ALMS. They were going to use a custom tub for IndyCar.

Does it come with any setup recommendations - at least a starting point? I could imagine that someone could get themselves in trouble with all these setup options if they weren’t rather seasoned at racecar setup.

Just a reminder that general anesthesia is not like going to sleep; it’s like the anesthesiologist/anesthetist shutting down many of your vital bodily functions and taking responsibility for those themselves.

My understanding is that they were removed mostly due to maintenance issues, and the aerodynamic impact is minimal on the F-15. I don’t know why NASA keeps the turkey feathers on theirs - of course, with only 1, the maintenance load is less, and it could be that they have characterized the F-15 with them on and don’t…

THAT IS TOTALLY CRAZY!!!!