|
Manny posted:Sorry to quote this again, but it is really cool. Took me a while to figure it out (before I bothered reading the text). It's a really well designed graphic as well.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2011 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
If you read the book there's quite a good diagram of the flight planning inside the front cover. Not taking anything away from yours mind it's a great piece of work. Also, sometimes a comedian flies through the mach loop:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Dang I love the Tornado, it's such a cool airplane. EDIT: VVVV I did a little digging and found a better one. co199 fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
co199 posted:Dang I love the Tornado, it's such a cool airplane. The person tasked with cropping that picture deserves to be shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:Sorry to quote this again, but it is really cool. Took me a while to figure it out (before I bothered reading the text). monkeytennis posted:If you read the book there's quite a good diagram of the flight planning inside the front cover. Not taking anything away from yours mind it's a great piece of work. Thanks. The book version is what inspired me to see if I could make a better version - not sure if I succeeded or not. I do this kind of thing for a living, so this was a little personal project that could maybe go in the portfolio. There's still a few things that are bugging me about it, I think I might make a scaled down web-version as it's designed for A1 print and even on a big screen it's hard to take it all in. I wasn't sure if to post this in the RC cars thread or this one, but I've become really interested in 'multicopters'. The hard part about making these is the electronics to control it all, but someone's designed a circuit board that uses cheap helicopter gyros and so they're much more affordable. I've just bought a tri-copter frame with the aim to build a flying camera platform. It's controlled by 2 fixed motors and a third one which pivots for yaw control. I chose a tri over a quad as there should be less confusion with orientation in the air, and all the motors turn in the same direction, so you don't have to source counter-rotating props, which can be harder to find. Also the wider arm angle means they should clear the camera field of view.   Some more details here: http://quadframe.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
That's loving awesome! Perhaps make a thread in DIY/hobbies? I saw a RC camera platform helicopter at a photo convention a few months ago. It had 3 x 2 rotors I believe, with one camera for live video, one for photos. It even had a high power bluetooth thingie which would follow a person on the ground like an obedient dog, controlled by an iPhone app.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
I was inspired a bit by these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozHoP_YThRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S99O7sKcbBE Manny fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
OHMYGOD holy poo poo there is so much loving fun to be had in the world I don't even know where to begin
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
First thing I saw getting off the plane on my first trip to the USA was a pair of F16s taking off at Tucson. Two things: 1) loving awesome and 2) Holy balls those things are loud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
If you want loud try watching an Antonov AN-124 take off sometime. They land in Fairbanks fairly often on refueling stops and I could hear them from inside my dorm room several miles from the airport with the windows closed. I can only imagine how loud (and awesome) it would be to see a TU-95 flying over. I still prefer the sound of an R-2800 though. There's nothing like the sound of a four engined Douglas, but I'll be darned if I didn't prefer seeing the C-46s fly over. They can't climb as fast as a DC-6 so they'd fly over campus balls-out low enough to count rivets. UNF. Content!: After spending probably millions of dollars designing a mobile control tower system, they put it into a trailer that looks like this? Couldn't somebody have had the vision to stick it into a conex or something? Or is it just so they can install them incognito in trailer parks when the NWO takes over? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
well they had to do something with all those unused FEMA trailers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
The FEMA trailers are/were newer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
It's like the worst Transformer ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Manny posted:I wasn't sure if to post this in the RC cars thread or this one, but I've become really interested in 'multicopters'. You might be interested in this: a R/C company in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan has begun manufacturing remote control surveillance drones for the RCMP: http://gizmodo.com/5167853/the-draganflyer-x6-uav-police-edition Costs around 15K. Also, please let us know if you make a thread about this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
I didn't know if there would be interest, but then I didn't know there was a hobbies forum either! The pro stuff like that dragonflyer costs $thousands and this will be altogether lower budget. Although I've been flying RC stuff for years, I haven't got my hands dirty on the electronics side so it'll be a bit of a learning experience. I'd like to have a go at using a video downlink so you can fly 'first person', but I'm in the process of moving apartments right now, so that kind of money is allocated more for things like furniture. When I'm settled in and the parts arrive from Poland/Hong Kong, I'll see about making a thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
I hope you do, I'm suddenly smitten by interest in this. I don't really care about regular RC stuff, not that I don't think it's great fun but just haven't tickled me. But a cheap, DIY, stable rc rotorcraft that could serve as a camera platform for taking breathtaking photos and videos...now we're talking. Can you get stuff like barometric pressure gauges, GPS station keeping, autopilot, hover hold and stuff like that in the same, DIY, modular manner? And how the hell does it even work? Do the gyros send data back to the thing in your hand or do they directly control the motors or what? (see, enough of a derail already to justify a thread)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Manny posted:I didn't know if there would be interest, but then I didn't know there was a hobbies forum either! The pro stuff like that dragonflyer costs $thousands and this will be altogether lower budget. Although I've been flying RC stuff for years, I haven't got my hands dirty on the electronics side so it'll be a bit of a learning experience. I was looking at building a quad with friends, to get a stable camera platform/General Purpose lift platform also. The reason we didn't go with a tri-rotor is the control laws would be a touch more difficult. The camera we were thinking of was one of the new Elec. viewfinder/Interchangeable lens so it could be aimed with a through the lens view. The main problem is weight for us, We're looking to have 5kg of payload, including a flight cam and a high quality camera. Ola, pressure gauges are easy, they're a 3 lead part, if I remember from the cansat. GPS stationkeeping may be a little more difficult, as gps can be imprecise, and slaving it into the controls would probably require kalman filtering. hover hold's been done. Check out the Parrot AR Drone. http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/ Once you get a feed from the gyros, you have the control law hold the angles when it's hands off. That's also a very basic autopilot. Edit: Definitely enough of a derail for a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Ok fine, I will make a thread in DIY. Good thinking on the camera, a Panasonic GF2 with the 20mm or 14mm pancake lens should provide excellent coverage, live video output at low weight. But perhaps we can brainstorm some sort of parachute system so you don't get this (from here):
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
I'm still a bit of a beginner at stuff like this, but I'll try to explain best as I can. The FPV flyers use onscreen display modules, which act like a HUD. With the GoPro HD camera, I believe you can both record to SD card and send a video out signal simultaneously, by using a homemade wiring harness. The video out goes through the OSD module where you can add in more modules such as GPS and compass. You can do clever stuff here like mark your 'home' position, and it'll tell you how far you've gone and which direction you need to go to fly back, and with autopilot options you can even make it return to base on its own. There's also stuff like station keeping and waypoint following. That kind of stuff is way over my head right now. Then the video is sent through the onboard transmitter to a lcd screen or video goggles. The special controller board controls all the motors through standard speed controllers, and in the case of the tri-copter, the 'tail' motor pivot too. The idea is that you use a standard rc transmitter, and the controller board interprets your inputs and then adjusts the motors and motor pivot accordingly. The 3 gyros are mounted at special angles so they can measure rotation in all 3 axis. The gyros are there to stop all the massive control coupling that will happen with aircraft of this type For example, if you were to throttle up, as all the motors spin in the same direction, so you'd have an opposite torque reaction and it would start to yaw, the yaw gyro would detect this and the controller would pivot the yaw motor to counter it. However doing that would decrease the lift on that corner, which would be detected by another gyro, so the controller would throttle that motor up to compensate, and so on etc. At least that's how I *think* it works, I haven't flown one yet to find out  Edit: For me the breakthrough for this recently has been the KK controller boards, which have provided a way of doing this on a smaller budget, and without needing to know how to program circuit boards. Another budget method people have found are taking the pcb out of the Wii Motion Plus controllers which have 3 neatly packaged gyros, and then connecting that to another board, acting as a controller. Manny fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Feb 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3386779 Manny and Snapshot, do you mind crossposting your lovely stuff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, this thread is really making me rethink my tax return.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Hey guys, are we talking about turbine awesomeness?!? My first ship, the USS San Jacinto (CG-56), powered by 4 General Electric LM2500s, each putting out 21,500 HP. When all 4 were online and at full power, we put 1.5 MILLION foot/pounds of torque to the water.  We were capable of moving 9500 TONS of ship through the water at almost 45mph. I like my turbines a lot!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
brickswereshat posted:Hey guys, are we talking about turbine awesomeness?!? A bit of trivia about the LM2500; it is the marine/industrial derivative of GE's CF6 aero engine, found on early versions of the Boeing 747 and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10, amongst others. I imagine that ship's fuel consumption at full power is nothing short of astronomical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
The old diesel carriers were something like 12 ft/gal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
It's been a few years since I spent a midwatch staring at gauges, but the number 930 Gal/Hr comes to mind. Trail shaft or split plant was MUCH more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
Well I just answered my own question with some Google and some math...full power fuel consumption for that ship should be about 32,000 lb. per hour; this translates into about 4800 gallons per hour, assuming of course that she burns kerosene and not bunker fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
She burns DFM, or Diesel Fuel, Marine. It's diesel fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
brickswereshat posted:She burns DFM, or Diesel Fuel, Marine. It's diesel fuel. Would it build up enough compression for it to self-ignite, or would you have to fire an ignition system during start up, and just use diesel because it's a reasonable tradeoff of availability and energy per unit mass?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:The old diesel carriers were something like 12 ft/gal.  Man thank god for nuclear powered ships.Has anyone ever made a nuclear powered car and put it into service? Some testing car just to see how long it would last under normal conditions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Ford Nucleon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Ford Nucleon Were any actually made though? I know the concept has been floating around for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Ford Nucleon That is basically the most  thing of all time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
Howdy posted:That is basically the most No, that would be the XB-36, the nuclear-powered nuclear bomber. And no, nobody ever built an actual nuclear car. Reactors at the time were WAY too big.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No, that would be the XB-36, the nuclear-powered nuclear bomber. That was never nuclear-powered, it only carried a reactor (that they did light off to see if it would work without crashing the plane). If we're going to go for most project, I nominate Project Orion. They calculated around one fatal cancer from fallout for every liftoff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
This is kind of interesting 60th birthday of Dassault Aviation, and a picture of a healthy selection of everything they ever sold. I like the Mirage IV, looks just like every other Mirage delta fighter, but is twice as big, and designed to carry nuclear warheads internally as a supersonic deep-penetration bomber.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Would it build up enough compression for it to self-ignite, or would you have to fire an ignition system during start up, and just use diesel because it's a reasonable tradeoff of availability and energy per unit mass? At 1100 RPM, a a series of ingiters spark the fuel. After that it's a continuous flow of compressor gasses, swirl-cup atomized diesel fuel and annular combustion, just like any good jet engine. The high speed turbine uses some of the combustion energy to keep the turbine spinning while the low speed turbine uses the remaining energy to spin a shaft connected to a triple-s (Synchronus Self-Shifting) clutch that engages into a double reduction, double helical, lock-trained and articulated reduction gear (biggest fracking transmission you've likely seen. The largest gear inside is @17 feet across). The reduction gear leads to the propeller shaft! In the engine room I worked in, the shaft was 174 feet long, and twisted 1 1/2 times from the torque of the engines and the resistance of the water.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 09:56
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Love the Rafale...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
Lilbeefer posted:Love the Rafale... Me too, tis a beautiful looking thing. I just think it's astonishing though that the French pulled out of the Eurofighter programme because "their needs were different" only to built an almost exact replica for twice the cost. Speaking of French Aeronautical Insanity, what happens when you take one of these:  And one of these:  And get them drunk? Sirs, I present to you the SNECMA Coleoptere: %20VTOL.jpg) It was an attempt at a French vertical take off fighter. Similar in concept to some of the early US designs, this differed in that it had an "annular wing". The cylindrical part on the lower end of the airframe that looks like a housing for a turbofan is in fact the wing. This thing flew in horiztonal flight about as well as you'd think (not very), and had the same problems inherent in all of these types of design in that landing by balancing on a single engine exhaust is incredibly taxing even for a test pilot. The whole project was abandoned when Hawker Siddley started development of the much more promising Kestrel (later to become the Harrier), which solved the problem using vectoring thrust front front and rear parts of the engine so that it was inherently stable in the hover. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No, that would be the XB-36, the nuclear-powered nuclear bomber. NB-36. It should be pointed out to the God-bless-america-from-the-heathen-communist brigade that the USSR Build and flew a nuclear powered aircraft, the Tu-119. A modified Bear also with a reactor in the bomb bay and with the inboard engines replaced by nuclear powered turboprops. But their crews had much lower survival rates. Godholio posted:And no, nobody ever built an actual nuclear car. Reactors at the time were WAY too big...
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Captain Postal posted:NB-36. poo poo, I knew I should've checked the wikipedia page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2011 14:51
|
|