|
An An-12 from "Cavok Air" just overflew Northern Virginia at 26,000 feet and it sounded like it was at 2,000. drat, Russia/Ukraine, you noisy.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Finally found something that actually explains what the boundary layer control system on the Shin Meiwa flying boats does and how it works. The Wikipedia article is absolutely useless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh8mn0DeKSs
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Naval aviators trained to toss nuclear bombs in single engine props, that seems like nothing in comparison. lol this is a good point! Also, I don't have any first-hand knowledge of anything, I just read stuff on the Internet, but it occurs to me that there have been plenty of broken arrow incidents but I'm pretty sure there haven't been any accidents with nuclear weapons that actually caused a nuclear explosion, so I think there's reasonable evidence that nuclear weapons are safe (in that respect  ).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:lol this is a good point! US nuclear arsenal only became one point safe after the Cold War ended (mainly because we decommissioned a bunch of stuff). Hell, the Goldsboro crash went through 5 of the 6 steps for detonation and was only saved by a prearming 28 volt switch made by the lowest bidder. quote:Before the accident, the manual arming pin in each of the bombs was in place. Although the pins required horizontal movement for extraction, they were both on a lanyard to allow the crew to pull them from the cockpit. During the breakup, the aircraft experienced structural distortion and torsion in the weapons bay sufficient to pull the pin from one of the bombs, thus arming the Bisch generator. The Bisch generator then provided internal power to the bomb when the pullout cable was extracted by the bomb falling from the weapons bay. The operation of the baroswitch arming system, parachute deployment, timer operation, low and high voltage thermal batteries activation, and delivery of the fire signal at the impact by the crush switch all followed as a natural consequence of the bombing falling free with an armed Bisch generator. The nonoperation of the cockpit-controlled ready-safe switch prevented nuclear detonation of the bomb. The switch in question had previously been triggered accidentally to READY in 30 other incidents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Meh, not so bad, not even 5000. 36,285 died on the road in 1961, it would increase with more than one accidental 4 megaton explosion in 1963 when 41,723 died (not sure if that includes motorcade assassinations). A surface burst and a southerly breeze would make for a very unfortunate fallout area through... fake edit: OF COURSE the internet has this information: https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KGSB/1961/1/24/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Goldsboro&req_statename=North%20Carolina Winds from the west that day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Finally found something that actually explains what the boundary layer control system on the Shin Meiwa flying boats does and how it works. The Wikipedia article is absolutely useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:There'd be a larger 'pucker factor' landing on a carrier with a conventional high-explosive bomb still attached than there would be with a loaded-yet-unarmed B61 slung underwing. I know the US used to have a doctrine of flying real nukes everywhere 24/7; but in French service it's absolutely forbidden to carry a real nuke on an aircraft (unless you have presidential orders to use it in anger). So when they fly off with one, it's either a complete dummy that's there just to simulate carrying one, or the warhead is replaced with instrumentation if a test launch is scheduled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The easiest way to understand all those systems is to understand that control surfaces can be stalled independently of the wing when their AoA creates too great a pressure differential. The BLC injects air in the low pressure zone to counteract that. Thought the thread might like to meltdown over this idea (quoting from the OSHA thread):
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Eh, that's only a good idea if it's also a solar road.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
That just seems wrong on so many levels. I mean, I can imagine an emergency touch and go when you're not level would be a lot more dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Thought the thread might like to meltdown over this idea (quoting from the OSHA thread): Holy balls. Meltdown commence. The circle will have 3.14 times the diameter worth of tarmac. If you save the .14 and instead put three straight, diameter length runways intersecting in the middle, you'll never have more than 30 degrees of crosswind. If you land along a one diameter long arc, it'll cover a length of 2 radians, or ~114 degrees change of direction. It's a bad idea to float. If you're into the wind over the threshold, you have 57 degrees of crosswind at the middle pushing you towards the terminal, with maybe some some rotor effect fun over the banking as well. It'll only work if the runway revolves like a merry-go-round against the direction of landing. vvv Exactly. Ola fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
So a circular runway on a treadmill is the way to go, then? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
I really, really dislike this trend of showing someone's proposal with some lovely music over it, literally zero analysis other than the person pimping their idea unchallenged, and ending. Also I thought lifehacks was bad, but now we get worldhacks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
That would be so ludicrously space inefficient I can probably demolish any claims of benefits just by calculating out the fuel burn from taxiing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:The switch in question had previously been triggered accidentally to READY in 30 other incidents. One of the axioms in fault tolerant computing comes right out of Terry Pratchett. One in a million chances always happen. Part of the problem is that people look at a problem and say, "Ahh, that will never happen." and don't do the analysis to show that either it's not that rare or that a semi-related fault now puts that probability from 'almost never' to 'yeah, probably'. An example is 'smart' interstages (or routers) re-calculating CRC at every hop, a basic premise of CRC is that errors are un-correlated but decoding and re-encoding introduces an opportunity for correlated errors to occur and now determining the actual probability of an error is much more difficult but has been shown to be much more likely than if you had never touched it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:Thought the thread might like to meltdown over this idea (quoting from the OSHA thread): "We can always land into the wind to eliminate crosswind.' 30 seconds later: "It's more efficient since you can land multiple planes at once and land from any direction." I guess that works if there's a small hurricane directly over the airport. e: also genuinely curious to see what the ILS for that monstrosity looks like. And approach lights normally extend out a good distance ahead of the runway, so does this just have a massive spiraling field of lighting everywhere? Wingnut Ninja fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:
This sounds rad as gently caress not gonna lie
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
The closest we've come to an accidental nuclear detonation other than a Goldsboro was when a B-52 caught fire during an alert in Grand Forks in 1980. The Thule crash in 1968 is probably the third, but the greater risk there was that if the plane had crashed on the base and knocked out the radio. There's also the slightly lateral move to the Castle Bravo test, which was set off on purpose but was about five times more powerful than expected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
New drone rules for Canada announced and effective immediately. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-drone-regulations-marc-garneau-1.4027486 Highlights: quote:The rules, which are effective immediately, mean recreational users will face a fine of up to $3,000 if drones weighing more than 250 grams are caught flying:
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
So... if you flew at 80m would you be allowed to overfly buildings? Is it a dome of 75m or a cylinder of infinite height? I also think you glossed over "animals", does a squirrel count? Will you be fined if a bird flys into the airspace? bull3964 fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:So... if you flew at 80m would you be allowed to overfly buildings? It's probably an application of their normal VFR rules so it'd be a dome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I also think you glossed over "animals", does a squirrel count? Will you be fined if a bird flys into the airspace? Seems dangerous to try and control a tiny .5lb drone from 75 meters away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Murgos posted:One of the axioms in fault tolerant computing comes right out of Terry Pratchett. One in a million chances always happen. Hell, my late-2014 CPU has 1.4 billion transistors being operated up to 4.2 billion times per second. Obviously not all of them operate every cycle, but it seems like if I'm maxing it out even things in the "one in a quintillion" range at the transistor level would be basically guaranteed to have happened multiple times while I typed this sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
At least now I can grass on the guy who flies his drone around Toronto harbour within 200m of the active approach to YTZ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Fast RC jets or hell even a good scale P-51 or something will usually have the operator flying it out 600-700 meters easily within line of sight and controllable. I guess putting a number on it is better than "visual line of sight" because it's non-negotiable and fixed, but my guess is that nobody is going to report the P-51 pilot flying a gas plane 600 meters away but they will indeed report the Phantom pilot flying at 10m altitude in his back yard for "spying on them."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Essentially, it seems like the rules are structured to be able to charge someone with something if they cause (or are going to cause) an incident. On the whole, they seem pretty arbitrary and unenforceable as routine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
The problem with legislative overreach is it affords some Dudley Do-Right (or corrupt cop) slapping fines on Slidebite for flying his quadcopter in a local park within 75m of a squirrel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
My drone is gonna have my personal contact information laser etched at microscopic levels between two layers of the composite laminate. Also it will have a mass of 4kg but a weight of 249g.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Essentially, it seems like the rules are structured to be able to charge someone with something if they cause (or are going to cause) an incident. On the whole, they seem pretty arbitrary and unenforceable as routine. Which is pretty much the point. Are you being a fuckhead? Is someone likely to report you being a fuckhead? Are you still being a fuckhead when the police arrive? Look at it like a traffic violation. Did you make an illegal left turn? Did you nearly hit a pedestrian? Did you do it in front of the police?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Look at it like a traffic violation. So "are you nonwhite?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So "are you nonwhite?" That's the final clause in both examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Can someone show me how to make this drone take off? No, no I don't need to know how to land it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:The problem with legislative overreach is it affords some Dudley Do-Right (or corrupt cop) slapping fines on Slidebite for flying his quadcopter in a local park within 75m of a squirrel. When making laws in Canada that don't exclusively involve the super rich, legislative overreach is the norm. You can see that in Canadian weapon laws, where literally anything can be legally construed as a "weapon" for some reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
If you don't see how something, anything, can be used as a weapon, you lack imagination. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Before the accident, the manual arming pin in each of the bombs was in place. Although the pins required horizontal movement for extraction, they were both on a lanyard to allow the crew to pull them from the cockpit. During the breakup, the aircraft experienced structural distortion and torsion in the weapons bay sufficient to pull the pin from one of the bombs, thus arming the Bisch generator. The idea of arming a nuclear weapon by yanking on a string you draped from your cockpit to the bomb bay is hilarious to me for some reason. If this had been in Dr. Strangelove I would've found it a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Bisch generator sounds like an EDM group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The idea of arming a nuclear weapon by yanking on a string you draped from your cockpit to the bomb bay is hilarious to me for some reason. If this had been in Dr. Strangelove I would've found it a bit much. Unfortunately those little foil piece started corroding and nobody knew until a few decades later when they were decommissioned and it was realized that the mechanism would not work and the foil would not be pulled out and the nuke would not go off. It affected a huge percentage of the US arsenal and would have rendered them all complete duds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:There was also the opposite problem that was explained in Command and Control; a few types of bombs had a little foil strip inside the core that acted to absorb neutrons and stop a nuclear detonation. There was some clockwork-like springs and a mechanism that wound the foil strip up and pulled it out of the core when it was to be armed and used. Galvanic corrosion? Rookie mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
I should re-read Command and Control. The Dead Hand is pretty good too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I should re-read Command and Control. The Dead Hand is pretty good too. Both of those books are fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
