Thursday, the citizens of Scotland will vote on whether to leave the United Kingdom and stand on their own as a sovereign nation. There are a lot of issues to consider, and, as of now, the vote is too close to call. One of the less important questions surrounding the referendum is what will happen to the British flag if Scotland secedes. The Union Jack has been a familiar sight all over the world for a couple of hundred years now.
The Union Jack is a combination of some other very historical flags. It started off as St. George's red cross flag in 1270. In 1606, it was combined with the cross saltire of St. Andrew, the Patron Saint of Scotland. That's the white cross on the blue background Lord West is not fond of right now. After that, St. Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland, had his cross saltire incorporated into the flag. That's the red diagonal. On the first day of 1801, the Union Jack flag as we know it today was created.
While that is when the flag came to be, it was never actually formally adopted. Chief executive of the Flag Institute Charles Ashburner told The Guardian that the Union Jack "fell into use" and therefore "nobody controls the union flag." He also notes that removing the blue would allow for Wales to be represented in the Union Jack. Wales could also be represented using the flag of their Patron Saint David, a black and yellow cross.
Honestly, Wales has an awesome flag, but incorporating it into the mix may be problematic. The Wire has some possibilities to show you, none of which will please everyone. -via Digg
(Image credit: Flickr user Fr Lawrence Lew, O.P.)
Comments (2)
It appears to be geared with the main rotor, but is likely pitched such that it doesn't provide any thrust to the left or right during flight. When the pilot wants to turn, he pitches the tail rotor blades to provide thrust.
If the tail rotor failed, the helicopter would be just fine, although it would have no ability to turn on its emergency descent.
actually it would start to spin uncontrollably with out the tail rotor, just because there is no powered axle between the main rotor and the main body of the helicopter doesn't mean that the friction from the rotor and where it is connected to the body isn't enough to cause it to start spinning. We don't live in a world with frictionless bearings. Also the fuel delivery system to the rockets probably add's a lot more friction to the main rotors axle.
It might not happen as quickly and violently as a normal heli would if it lost it's rotor, but if he were high enough, by the time he got the heli to the ground he could be spinning like a tea cup.
I like the noise of that thing- While most chopperbuilders work frantically on reducing or even cancelling the noise of their rotorblades as best as they can to make their choppers more useable in crowded areas, these guys come up with a system that wakes up the whole valley when they start up their machine. :-D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jhpUJLhQfs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Helikopter_Industrie_(NHI)
And an American prototype:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YH-32_Hornet
All designs failed...
The difference with friction as a force is two fold. First, obviously, is that it would be in the direction of the rotors, not the opposite direction. Second, we're talking an incredibly small amount of the output of the engine being transferred via friction (easily as low as .01%). Third, it takes much more energy to spin the heavier body of the helicopter than the rotors.
So it would take very, very little to cancel it out.