|
Sagebrush posted:You can use it to know something is there, but not to give you any information about the thing ("Radio Detection And Ranging"). OK then, RADOR
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
The first thread to pop up when I looked up the P-51s radar was a War Thunder thread, but the OP has good sources and photos. In British trials, as long as you were flying above 1500 feet, an approaching fighter would set it off around 300-350 meters out. Not amazing for avoiding having a guy on your tail, but potentially useful for not letting a fighter climb up your rear and quickly dump cannons in your tail. https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/171148-anaps-13-tail-warning-radar/
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Simiarly, I'm kinda shocked at how many aircraft out there in WW2 were supposed to drop bombs but didn't have a bomb sight. And not just the Germans either! Coastal Command patrol bombers frequently were lacking in proper bomb sights in the war's early years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Findings from that 777 crash in Dubai: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2016-09-07/botched-go-around-appears-have-led-emirates-777-crash Sounds like some weird wind conditions and an attempted go around without hitting the TOGA switches, landing gear was in the process of retracting when they pancaked on the runway. Normally you'd hit TOGA, set flaps, then retract gear once you're climbing, not select gear up first. Read the checklist backwards maybe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
vessbot posted:According to Wiki, the Germans developed a passive receiver to home night fighters in on bombers using it. Wow, Germany, you did something competen— quote:On the morning of 13 July 1944, a Junkers Ju 88G-1 nightfighter equipped with Flensburg mistakenly landed at RAF Woodbridge. Now that’s more like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Wow, Germany, you did something competen— This was a bad thing for the Luftwaffe all around; that Ju 88 had the later air radar their night fighters used, and it wasn't long before the Allies were deploying countermeasures against it. The crew were new, and thought they were flying to a airbase in Germany from the Netherlands (?). Flying at night, they flew in precisely the opposite direction they meant to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
Lol, just realised how heavy the F-35 was compared to similar-sized jets, and how much lower the MTW was...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
With regard to the radar topic, I found it hilarious when I learned that Britain and Germany independently and more or less simultaneously invented chaff, and neither used it in fear of the other side stealing it and using it against them. Better save that ace in the hole for when it really counts!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Lol, just realised how heavy the F-35 was compared to similar-sized jets, and how much lower the MTW was... Those numbers don't really match any other document I can find. It cuts the F-35A's MTOW to about 2/3 of what is most often reported.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I cannot stress this enough: a B-2 looks mind bending in person. Positively alien. This has always been one of my favorite comparisons of the B2 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:This has always been one of my favorite comparisons of the B2 Has anyone done one of these in planform?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
My bad for the F-35's MTOW, I read the wrong line (loaded weight) instead. The actual wikipedia figure for MTOW is 31800 kg.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
vessbot posted:With regard to the radar topic, I found it hilarious when I learned that Britain and Germany independently and more or less simultaneously invented chaff, and neither used it in fear of the other side stealing it and using it against them. Better save that ace in the hole for when it really counts! For a while at least, the Brits used 'Window' from 1943 on. quote:Although the metal strips puzzled the German civilians at first, German scientists knew exactly what they were because they had developed Düppel themselves but had refrained from using it for exactly the same reasons as Lindemann had pointed out to the British. Thus for over a year the curious situation arose where both sides of the conflict knew how to use chaff to jam the other side's radar, but refrained from doing so fearing that if they did so the other side would 'learn the trick' and use it against themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)#Second_World_War Good article. Ola fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
CBJamo posted:Has anyone done one of these in planform? The Peregrine is slightly less area ruled.   Although that said they're more broadly similar than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
     ???  ???
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
 Or, 
vessbot fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Triggered by this pic I started looking for some pictures of the intakes of the B-1A to see the differences and where they fit the doors so the thing could top M2, and found that instead of just simplifying them for the B-1B they gave it S-duct inserts to reduce the radar crosssection. Neat! Shamelessly stolen from here I remember reading on here that one of the problems they had with the original B-1A was the (acidic?) moisture from insects damaging the leading edges of the wings in low altitude high speed flight. I wonder if someone remembers that story or where I can read more about the original B-1A.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Look what you made me do:           [error: file not found]   Now I want to build a model gannet painted like a gannet
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
pic related;
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't mean to offend, but is there something very wrong with you? I'm sorry, I meant keep your mouth shut if you're in Saudi Arabia so you don't get beheaded. I didn't mean don't insult Saudi Arabia when you're not there. I am not remotely offended by people saying Saudi Arabia sucks  SyHopeful posted:Reminder that Mortabis misses good ol' Rhodesia and has called people criticizing Dick Cheney hippies. I don't think I've done either. About the only thing I've defended about Dick Cheney on here that I can remember was cancelling the A-12. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Yeah, but almost everyone in here probably found it believable, so the "why" might be worth pondering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Its contract competitor: How would I find the accident report for the Heliostat crash?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Groda posted:How would I find the accident report for the Heliostat crash? Helistat. (Heliostat is a sun-following device) http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001213X34293&key=1 - I found it linked from the Wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
A post I made in the spaceflight thread without realizing, because the conversation took me there: This is is actually interesting because there was a mainstream strain of thought in the early days, that water was the natural environment for launching and recovering planes, since it's a fluid with nearly infinite extent, like air is their environment while in flight. You have vast amounts of "runway" available for takeoff acceleration, so you can set a high prop pitch for cruise performance without worrying about takeoff distance. You can land in any direction so you don't have to worry about crosswinds. It's like the "big grass field" argument but on steroids. And all of this is already provided by mother nature, so there is no need for big infrastructure projects to build runways that are still bound to be constricting. Jacques Schneider was a believer in this and started the Schneider Trophy races for seaplanes only, which led to a huge amount of development prior to WWII. And of course we know about the Pan Am Clippres. But the big bomber bases of WWII set the grooves for the course of history thereafter.      Army guy beats Navy in water race lol    An interesting entry that tried to eliminate draggy floats by replacing them with hydrofoils and a floating fuselage. It was supposed to accelerate with a water propeller, and shift to the air propeller once it was riding high enough. It didn't work. vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Yeah that tiny aft prop was really gonna get it up to speed. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I wonder if you could get it to work with a more modern pump-jet design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah that tiny aft prop was really gonna get it up to speed. It's not that small as naval props go, is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah that tiny aft prop was really gonna get it up to speed. Just turn on the main prop anyway, what's the worst that could happen? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
vessbot posted:
How do you land? Dead stick? Hydroplane and then cut power?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah that tiny aft prop was really gonna get it up to speed. Well duh, that's just the sustainer propeller that keeps it going once it's airborne. The front propeller sticks into the water to provide thrust during takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Bit late, but thought I'd say that this is a pretty nice story to read today. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah that tiny aft prop was really gonna get it up to speed. Water is 800 times denser than air, you have to move less of it to make an equivalent amount of thrust.  No problem getting airborne for this guy. About same relative size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Boats, the only thing that can be as expensive as flying planes as a hobby. Combining the two is probably the fastest way on earth to spend money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Water is 800 times denser than air, you have to move less of it to make an equivalent amount of thrust. Well, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Water is 800 times denser than air, you have to move less of it to make an equivalent amount of thrust. I wonder how they keep from overspeeding their drivetrains on boats like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:I wonder how they keep from overspeeding their drivetrains on boats like that. I'm sure software could do it now, but in offshore racing there is one guy steering and one guy throttling. Throttling back on jumps is too much work to do it while steering as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Water is 800 times denser than air, you have to move less of it to make an equivalent amount of thrust. You beat me but I was gonna paste one of the hydrofoils which is very similar to what that plane would be doing.  (note the prop) Those things are nuuuuuts. They flip in most impressive ways. Truly aeronautical insanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
So, I'm not sure if this is considered aeronautical insanity but hydrofoil chat led led me to find that Go 3 racing started campaigning a twin turbo Allison V-1710 boat last year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yllSvTxsq1A http://bangshift.com/bangshiftxl/cant-get-enough-twin-turbo-allison-v12-hydroplane/
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 06:52
|
|
