|
And it's getting longer with the nose flying faster than the tail
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
It's just an Australian infographic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 22:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And it's getting longer with the nose flying faster than the tail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 00:13
|
|
|
It can also save time creating charts, apparently
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
I hate you
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
Is the 'feet' axis altitude or distance travelled? Everything about that graph seems reversed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 08:12
|
|
|
Good grief
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 08:22
|
|
|
Shout out to the participants who said "ship it" immediately after 0 minutes when given a no-doubt inaccurate and nonsensical LLM draft, but extra special shout out to the participants who evidently submitted a blank page when starting from scratch. Those two(?) are the true heroes of this experiment(?).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:Is the 'feet' axis altitude or distance travelled? Everything about that graph seems reversed.  why would it be distance traveled?It's showing the do not exceed speed at different altitudes, but for some reason the vertical axis is reversed.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 12:20
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:, but for some reason the vertical axis is reversed. I didn't notice that because I foolishly gave the horrible chart the benefit of the doubt That'll show me
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:
Precisely. It's a bad graph, I just wanted to find out exactly how bad.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 13:02
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:
That's interesting; what's the original contex? It's weird but not unheard of to rotate text 90 deg clockwise. If that infographic was displayed rotated 90 deg clockwise, it's fine. I wonder if it was intended to be viewed that way and then was either presented as a transparency or full page where the presenter/reader might rotate or was "corrected" by an editor or publisher.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
I think it's intended to illustrate your plane dropping out of the sky because you went too fast.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 13:25
|
|
|
piL posted:That's interesting; what's the original contex? It's weird but not unheard of to rotate text 90 deg clockwise. If that infographic was displayed rotated 90 deg clockwise, it's fine. That doesn't fix it because Vne in IAS doesn't increase with altitude, it decreases. Edit: I think the best you can do for "one change to make that chart make sense" is swap the 10,000 and 20,000. May have just been a typo or simple oversight rather than someone not understanding how charts work. With the caveat that maybe there's something I don't understand going on with a high performance WWII fighter that makes it work opposite from a normal plane. Theris has a new favorite as of 14:20 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Theris posted:That doesn't fix it because Vne in IAS doesn't increase with altitude, it decreases. It's still confusing, but the best thing I can think of is that what they're really concerned with here is overspeed in a dive, and the intended audience is a bunch of 18-20 year olds coming out of high school in 1943. So my guess is that it's not actually intended to be read as a graph, but a picture - and they expect it to be read left to right, rather than in x/y coordinates. So the max dive speed under 10,000 feet is furthest left, and then as you look across the page, you get to higher altitudes. I think it'd still make more sense if they had it with lower altitudes lower on the picture, but... Incidentally, there's a fascinating book about the graphics used for training in the Second World War that I highly recommend. Turns out there was a whole lot of thought put into "how do we make this simple enough that some only-mostly-literate teenagers can use and maintain these cutting-edge machines?" Also some quite pretty art!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
Theris posted:That doesn't fix it because Vne in IAS doesn't increase with altitude, it decreases. My bad on the first part. There's definitely something weird going on. I think your guess is a good one. Timmy Age 6 posted:It's still confusing, but the best thing I can think of is that what they're really concerned with here is overspeed in a dive, and the intended audience is a bunch of 18-20 year olds coming out of high school in 1943. So my guess is that it's not actually intended to be read as a graph, but a picture - and they expect it to be read left to right, rather than in x/y coordinates. So the max dive speed under 10,000 feet is furthest left, and then as you look across the page, you get to higher altitudes. I think it'd still make more sense if they had it with lower altitudes lower on the picture, but... That still gives you the opposite of the normal relationship between altitude and do not exceed speed. Blue Footed Booby has a new favorite as of 15:37 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Yeah I was wondering that, normally planes go faster at high altitude cos of lower air resistance. If they don't slow down as they descend the wings fall off. I guess maybe they expect the diving plane to accelerate and that's describing the velocity curve they want you to aim for? In order to be able to safely pull out of the dive or to prevent being over speed by the time you reach the bottom of the dive?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:It's still confusing, but the best thing I can think of is that what they're really concerned with here is overspeed in a dive, and the intended audience is a bunch of 18-20 year olds coming out of high school in 1943. Yeah, that's probably why it's given as a single speed for 10,000ft segments rather than a graph with a continuous curve. I found the equivalent chart for the P-51:  Based on that, and assuming there isn't something weird about whatever plane's training that chart is from (P-61 I think?) that doesn't also apply to the P-51, I stand by my theory that the chart is intended to be read the way most people would intuitively and the 10,000 and 20,000 are simply swapped by mistake. Edit: to be clear I mean literally the text "10,000" and "20,000" are swapped, not the entire blocks they're attached to. Edit 2: OwlFancier posted:Yeah I was wondering that, normally planes go faster at high altitude cos of lower air resistance. If they don't slow down as they descend the wings fall off. Planes can - generally and up to a point, I'll get to that - fly faster at higher altitudes in terms of true airspeed thanks to the thinner air. But indicated airspeed decreases with altitude for the same true airspeed, also thanks to the thinner air decreasing the pressure of the air entering the plane's pitot tube. IAS generally decreases faster than the max TAS increases. Once you get high enough the plane's maximum *mach* becomes the limiting factor. As the speed of sound decreases with altitude, that maximum mach gets slower in terms of true airspeed. For a fast prop plane like a WWII fighter the maximum mach is the speed where the propellor tips risk breaking the sound barrier. In a dive that's going to be the limiting factor for it at pretty much any altitude, which is why the max TAS decreases with altitude on the P-51 chart. Theris has a new favorite as of 16:28 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Theris posted:Yeah, that's probably why it's given as a single speed for 10,000ft segments rather than a graph with a continuous curve. You're correct - the text 10,000 and 20,000 are swapped, as the accompanying text makes clear. Bad typo! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
An answer! Thank you. Someone probably changed it in photoshop or something because they thought they knew better.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
Ah yes, the classic numerical scale, 30% - 190%.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
The math works out. If the nitrogen content is at 90% and the CO2 at 10, the rest can be at 0. If the nitrogen content is at 20%, hydrogen could be at 50, CO2, oxygen and methane all at 10% and it would also add up to 100. And the same with any other amounts in between. Also, 50% hydrogen, 10% oxygen and 10% methane would make for an explosive mixture.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
I think that might make a truly fantastic AV
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
Thirty minutes after filming ends on any Ordinary Sausage video
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Captain Hygiene posted:Thirty minutes after filming ends on any Ordinary Sausage video BUT WILL IT BLOW?!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GMomurder/status/1789049624143228999
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 14:00
|
|
|
OK but come on, if we'd put the axes to the same scale you'd barely be able to see any of the data on the right! You want me to make my chart illegible??
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
I like the date range for the data.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
hooah posted:I like the date range for the data. I'd assume it's to counter the point that things started in october instead of trying to hide the post-october increased retaliation, but I could be wrong
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
 I'd ask if they were trying to publish in a journal but that looks like an ML paper and I know those only have page limits
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 02:39
|
|
|
The guy who drew this - Franklin Veaux - has written books about polyamory. You'd think an expert in the field would draw a more accessible chart of his interests, instead of this nonsense
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 08:43
|
|
|
I like how joining Hugh Hefner's harem is mysteriously not commerce
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 10:38
|
|
|
I assume commerce is just sex workers, possibly with regular clients.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
There's gotta be a word for the mindset of presenting miscellaneous thoughts in the most complicated way possible as a facade for meaningful insight.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
Microplastics posted:The guy who drew this - Franklin Veaux - has written books about polyamory. You'd think an expert in the field would draw a more accessible chart of his interests, instead of this nonsense I don't know, I think it does a fair work for making some sense of a complex jungle of definitions. You get some overall picture of the paradigm and casual descriptions. Also I would have expected that cheating was the most common form of non-monogamy!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 12:43
|
|
