|
I was looking at Wikipedia’s sources for the radial engine article, and it led me to the greatest GIF, depicting Operation Chastise:
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
I’ve heard of short‐handed flight crews, but that’s just ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
The Knee Defender™ comes with this bitchin’ form letter:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Jesus, how much time would that save, say, NYC-Heathrow? Less than twenty minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Mazz posted:On another note, what system is used to name/number runways? Wikipedia explains it better than I could.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:Source please Supposedly Willy Coppens did it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Eej posted:Wait, how did they prevent bullets from ricocheting back into the airframe? Or was that just An Accepted Risk of War before they figured out a not ridiculous way of doing it? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
If only someone would send a submersible down to the alleged wreck. C’mon, James Cameron.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Nazis became distinctly aware that they chased off a lot of their brightest minds around the middle of the war, and were desperate. Von Braun's work was known well before the Nazis arrived, and he would have likely been either arrested and thrown into a concentration camp himself or killed. The Nazi nuclear program didn’t accomplish much and no one seemed to care. We know now that that was a much harder problem than unguided rockets, but I don’t think it’s out of the question that Von Braun could have stalled and gotten away with it. There’s also an argument to be made that the rocketry program had a terrible cost/benefit ratio and helped the Allies by siphoning German resources from conventional armaments. That wasn’t Von Braun’s motive, of course, but in hindsight perhaps it was for the best that he continued his work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
quote:I would assume there would be an offence under the Criminal Code that may fit the bill. That reminds me of of this line from the Larry Walters incident: quote:We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Curtis LeMay's declaration that he wasn't going to put his crews into what amounted to a "loving bomb" probably helped. “Bombs Away” LeMay thought it was dangerous? Lockheed Suntan: less palatable than a nuclear first‐strike on the Soviet Union.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Is that really a thing that Civics used to contend with? No, it is a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Supposedly, five thousand feet is enough for the fuel to disperse at ordinary temperatures. Fuel still isn’t dumped on a whim, but it’s not as bad as one might imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Reengine the A-10, problem solved. Just fire the GAU‐8 and fly backwards.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Setting aside the “how”, why would the test engine be mounted like that? Why can’t one of the existing underwing pylons be adapted? Surely a 747 can safely operate with three full‐size engines while lightly loaded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
The Bartini Beriev VVA‒14 is the ugliest plane. This is not negotiable.  These are its better angles:  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:I think my main beef, and this goes with pretty much all "light" aircraft, is that all you really ever see is an endless cycle of interior/avionics upgrades to airframes that have been around since my parents were toddlers. How you can have super advanced electronics inside an aircraft still flying a wing and engines built with slide rules just blows be away for some reason. While the PC-12 airframe isn't new by any stretch it still gives you a glimpse what is possible in that area of aviation if manufacturers would spend When you put it that way, you make it sound like airframe parachutes are the biggest development in decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rocket is specifically designed to deliver its rated payload while leaving enough fuel for the flyback maneuver. Customers who have a heavier payload can opt to dip into that reserve to get it to orbit, at higher cost (since the rocket will fall into the ocean instead of being reused.) If they’re going to write‐off the first stage, maybe they can use one that’s already flown several times and is nearing end‐of‐life anyway, reliability demands permitting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
You know how some airports have employed falconers to prevent bird strikes? Imagine that, but with drones.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The idea was put into limited practice in WWI with the Davis gun: Now I’m imagining whalers using recoilless harpoons. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Eej posted:So basically like a regular harpoon cannons except everyone has to hide from the backblast. Rocket harpoons already existed. This is a natural improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
So they shut down the wrong engine and by the time they realised their mistake, it was too late?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
That’s what I thought; I was confused by the “failed to restart” language, as if there might be something wrong with engine № 1.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
I’ve never found a 5 mW LASER inadequate for any pointing purpose. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:This was one of the results when I image searched for avenger pics: Load‐bearing ordnance. 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:If we're posting facts like that, the B-29 design program costed more than the Manhattan Project. At least the B-29 was a good plane. It’s a shame the V‒2 wasn’t technically an aviation program, because it also cost more than the Manhattan Project. I’d like to know how much the He 176 and Me 163 cost, but not enough to go digging for a good source.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
I’m a fan of the AD‒1.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Inaugural Virgin flight from Manchester to Atlanta was supposed to include a ceremony involving a water spray-down from a firetruck. At least they didn’t run over anyone this time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
I’m sceptical that battery‐electric planes will take‐off, but kerosene‐electric hybrids might be a different story.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
If fossil fuels are to be shelved, the obvious alternative is biofuels. Even lovely corn‐derived ethanol looks good as aviation fuel when the alternatives are hydrogen via electrolysis or batteries.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
I knew a guy who claimed that the USAF flew him on an SR‐71 to Alaska to fix a critical (and of course top secret) problem. It’s the tallest tale I’ve ever heard, but at least it’s baller.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
 Well that’s one way to fly a plane.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
 Saunders–Roe SR.A/1
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
I have a pretty good idea where Ola’s living room is located now, but I’m just going to keep it to myself. I can confirm it’s in Bergen.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:When my mother refused to risk having her film exposed, the German TSA lady made her take a photograph of her to prove the camera was fully functioning and not an explosive device. What does that prove on a film camera? That the
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, slightly different question: when did people start designing airplanes on the assumption all that nice infrastructure was actually there? For overseas travel, seaplanes dominated pre‐WWII and fell out of favour quite quickly afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Why does a french aircraft under a french airline with a french pilot have a british G-reg ? And where's the damned intake for engine #3 ? I think you mean engine #2. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
One Eye Open posted:Given escape velocity (from Earth) is 40,320 km/h, that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it? Escape velocity is the speed you’d need if it was applied instantly and you just coasted from there, as if you shot something out of an ideal, hypothetical cannon. Rockets need never reach this speed, they just need to make keep making progress against gravity (i.e. have enough thrust to match their weight and some extra to accelerate with). You could escape the Earth while never going more than 1 km/h relative to it, it’s just that such an approach would be incredibly inefficient.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Now give it the B-36 engine arrangement. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh hey, speaking of novel and terrible patents: There’s no way that would pass evacuation tests, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 02:31
|
|
