Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Rotary engines are far more insane than radials. I don't mean those silly triangle engines, I mean the ones where you hold the crank still and spin the engine around it.

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/oberursel-engine/oberursel-ur-ii-rotary-engine-build-history

# ¿ Mar 13, 2010 03:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:26

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

VikingSkull posted:

Also I get the A-1 love, but seriously the A-10 is doing that exact job right now. A prop plane might be cheaper, but you're gonna lose a ton of them to rifle fire.

How would a prop make a plane more susceptible to rifle fire? The A-1 is an inferior craft compared to the A-10 because it's 20 years older, not because it has a prop. The cruising speed of an A-10 is still well below the limit for prop driven aircraft.

A turboprop has a much lower infrared signature than a turbofan, which is good for close ground support where you'll be seeing shoulder fired heat seeking missiles. They are also less susceptible to debris damage, but more likely to kill ground crew.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2010 23:04

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

VikingSkull posted:

It's not inherently more dangerous because of the speed, more like it's easier to lose a prop and a heavy machine gun can do that easily.

Besides, when the A-10 exists and is filling the role already, it's doubtful any prop based program is going to gain traction in the Pentagon. Wouldn't the A-10 carry more weapons and loiter longer than a prop plane that isn't ridiculously big?

I've never heard of an airplane getting it's propeller shot off. The closest I could find was a B-17 that had a prop come apart on landing after taking a flak hit.

The argument is moot because they're already planning on using the f-35 as a replacement for the A-10. It will be worse at the job in basically every way and cost several times more to buy and operate.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2010 23:42

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

silversiren posted:

http://www.precisionintermedia.com/color.html

Pseudo-psychology of color.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2010 05:22

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Nebakenezzer posted:

Also, I have no idea what those giant-winged planes are in the center of the picture.

These are driving me nuts. I want to say B-57, but the wing shape and nose shape are wrong.

edit: RB/WB-57F, the high altitude recon/weather version. Only 21 built.

oxbrain fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Mar 22, 2010

# ¿ Mar 22, 2010 10:20

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

VikingSkull posted:

Both are ugly though and the Airforce needs at least one sexy intercontinental bomber. It's in the Constitution.

Bombers are so 20th century. :rolleyes:

Re-start project Thor. :black101:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

# ¿ Mar 22, 2010 23:23

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

jandrese posted:

You know, even though I've seen the pictures, if I'm ever in a 787 that has wing loading like that, I think I'm going to freak out.

If they're hitting wing loading like that, you should be freaking out because you're pulling something like 7g and are probably about to crash.

# ¿ Mar 31, 2010 18:20

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Why didn't they just make the tankers able to refill off the huge tanks?

# ¿ Apr 4, 2010 07:49

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Delivery McGee posted:

I actually used the slide rule on my watch while taking pictures of the Hornet -- somebody asked how much gas it carried, pilot gave a figure in pounds (because that's what they use in the military), I did the math and told the kid what it was in gallons.

Rule of thumb so you can do it in your head next time, 150 gallons for every 1000 lbs. They're rounding the pounds figure anyway, so the inaccuracy doesn't matter.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2010 17:27

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

InterceptorV8 posted:

I've always figured 7 pounds per gallon with #2 when scaling out.

Dividing by 7 in your head is more difficult.

Say the plane takes 12,000 gallons. Divide by 10 for 1,200, divide by 2 for 600, add back to the 1,200 for 1800 gallons. JetA is 6.79-6.84 lbs per gallon, which would be 1,754-1,767. It's not a perfect number, but it's good enough.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2010 18:49

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Those are superchargers.

# ¿ May 12, 2010 01:31

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

You don't need rockets to do that. :smug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeMLQNe57E

# ¿ May 30, 2010 18:02

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Crop dusting looks like a lot of fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZvlr8ngwOE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWufkTHbj8

# ¿ Jun 6, 2010 06:10

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Octoduck posted:

G suits provide maybe 1g of protection. I was thinking they hadn't really thought of anti-g straining medically yet.

Mostly it was the seats. Tunnel vision and greying out are caused by the eyes being in front of the heart and losing blood flow before the rest of the head. A 10 degree seat back puts your eyes roughly straight over your heart. Older planes had nearly upright seating for the pilot, and didn't always even have a backrest for the navigator/bombardier. Here's an example of the Ju-87 cockpit.

Click here for the full 699x825 image.

Modern fighters recline the seat 20-30 degrees. At 30 degrees the pilots have neck problems otherwise they'd recline further. Laying flat on their back, people have taken 17g for several minutes without blackout.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2010 21:17

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

In a plane that small I'd expect that simply leaning forward would have a noticeable effect on CG.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2010 18:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:26

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

What kind of climb and descent rates do airliners normally use?

If you're 40' from the center and the plane banks to 45 degrees(30' vertical movement) in 5 seconds, that's a climb/descent rate of 360ft/min. Of course maneuvering requires more rapid small corrections to roll, but I don't think would be any worse than turbulence.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2011 17:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances