|
Phanatic posted:The absolutely loving terrifying one is when someone seriously proposed dimethylmercury as a propellant. "Safe? Oh yeah, that stuff's safe. No problem." The author called up Kodak to order some and Kodak said "What the gently caress? Do you know how insane that is?" There's a short passage where he describes a NERVA motor as "an impressive little gadget".
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
CMS posted:Thank you for the link! I've been hunting for this book for a long time. So have I...but it doesn't display correctly for me. I only get a few pages, max.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:18
|
|
Phy posted:There's a short passage where he describes a NERVA motor as "an impressive little gadget". He describes liquid propellant artillery guns as suffering from "engineering problems". I suppose random catastrophic explosions are engineering problems, yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Even not having read this book, it sounds like being a chemist working on rocket propellants redefines your definitions of 'problems' and 'dangerous'. e: wait I'm an idiot Sumatra.pdf works fine. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:He describes liquid propellant artillery guns as suffering from "engineering problems". Well, he's right. The problem isn't one of chemistry. He's a chemist. As far as his work is concerned liquid propellents are perfectly suitable for artillery projectiles. Squirt a bit of 'splody liquid A in the chamber with a bit of 'splody liquid B, get boom, launch shell. Now, how one safely delivers the precise amount that is required into a carefully regulated pressure vessel in such a way that it reliably ignites - and does so only precisely when you WANT it to ignite - well all that is a question of how the gun should be built. In other words, an engineering problem. See also: the Me 163. It wasn't the chemists fault that the binary rocket fuels liked to blow some of the airplanes up on landing. Not their department, take that poo poo to the airplane designers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Hmm. Apparently the next COD game should be aimed at british audiences with this plot because I am hard as hell right now I always thought the games were sorta aimed at Brits, what with all of the main protagonist being Brits saving American asses while they all die in a pile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:What video games do have a Falklands component? FWIW The Project Reality mod for Battlefield 2 has a Falklands spinoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Thump! posted:I always thought the games were sorta aimed at Brits, what with all of the main protagonist being Brits saving American asses while they all die in a pile. I just thought that was the attempt at making a realistic war game
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 02:40
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Well, he's right. It's just amusing how cavalier he is about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
That is the beauty of the entire book, how cavalier their attitudes were to insanely dangerous compounds. The monopropellent chapter was particularly holy loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:What video games do have a Falklands component? I remember the ancient Strike Fleet having Falklands missions that really showed off how awful the British ships' AAW capabilities were, but that's the only one to come to mind, and that came out pretty close to the conflict itself. A couple of grognard games and Harpoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Fleet Command has a hypothetical Falklands v2 scenario called Nuestras Malvinas. It was annoying because harriers have no goddamn stamina and no legs so you had to micro the strikes and CAP like hell. Also beacuse your long range capabilties is precisely one sub with TLAMs and subs are pretty bugged, insisting on submerging (and thus becomming incommunicado untill the next comms window) after launching two missiles and that is usually not enough to saturate defenses. Oh, and the Sea King early warning radar platform, the helicopter carrier usully starts too far away from the carrier for effective CAP IIRC, so you have to evade Argie fighters with a drat sea king or go without decent sensor coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Caconym posted:It was annoying because harriers have no goddamn stamina and no legs so you had to micro the strikes and CAP like hell. Welcome to Sandy Woodward's world. Seriously, unless it was way over exaggerated (like the Harriers could only fly for 2 minutes or something) all that stuff sounds pretty much completely accurate for what the Task Force had to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Last of the Il-2 Sturmovikians  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9VZSkVZI0
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Welcome to Sandy Woodward's world. The hilarious part was that the British Harriers were given AMRAAMs in order to make them remotely capable in that game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
MantisClaw posted:The hilarious part was that the British Harriers were given AMRAAMs in order to make them remotely capable in that game.  Double lol if they were FRS.1s. \/ I'm saying in the game...I'm not familiar with it so for all I know it could be a "Falklands War part 2" scenario that takes place in 1998 or something. As far as the war itself, those were all FRS.1s and it was a huge deal that they had all-aspect Sidewinders, much less AMRAAMs. \/ iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Bunch of sources says the 51 and 2 only got delivered in 88, soooo......
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
 blackbird pilot selfie
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
All other selfies became meaningless after that one, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
Did they have Sparrows or something of that nature?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Did they have Sparrows or something of that nature? No only the 'winders and the original Ferranti radar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
Pretty sure that's from Sled Driver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
I just noticed. Is he wearing eyeglasses?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Looks like it. It's more common than you'd think; needing glasses isn't an automatic disqualification on a flight physical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I just noticed. Is he wearing eyeglasses? Yeah, it's Brian Shul. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Yeah, it's Brian Shul. That's a cool hands-free opti-grab he's got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Looks like it. It's more common than you'd think; needing glasses isn't an automatic disqualification on a flight physical. I hear the RCAF is relaxing their requirements on that due to so few qualified pilots available. Things like RAF pilots moving here with less than perfect vision. It bummed me out I was a little nearsighted starting in high school so my plan to fly C130s was ruined 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
priznat posted:I hear the RCAF is relaxing their requirements on that due to so few qualified pilots available. Things like RAF pilots moving here with less than perfect vision. In the US Military at least, it's been that way for a while:  Jeff Feinstein, WSO, Ace, next to his F-4 at Udon RTAB
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
What are the vision requirements? My friend's dad had to get a waiver to be a BUFF nav, and he was an academy graduate in '78 or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I didn't apply, I went in and talked to a recruiter when I was in HS, like 15-16 I guess and my eyesight wasn't good enough. I forget if it had to be 20/20 or even better but I had a slight prescription (like -3) and he said it was not gonna happen. Also I was already p drat tall at 15 so I probably wouldn't fit in most planes anyway. My dad's cousin is 6'3" and he was right at the limit for the CF-104 (he survived!) Being tall is not really advantage for just about anything in the military I think. I could barely fit in the CF leopard 1 that was at a defense contractor co-op job I worked at, sigh. Tanks are also pretty cool. And lol ships/submarines!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Is it true you can't be a pilot if you have that thing where looking into bright light makes you sneeze?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
No, you're thinking of not being able to lick your elbow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
fuf posted:Is it true you can't be a pilot if you have that thing where looking into bright light makes you sneeze? Doesn't everybody have that??
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:Doesn't everybody have that?? Nope apparently only 18-35%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_sneeze_reflex Article says it's dangerous for pilots, but doesn't say it excludes anyone from being a pilot. I definitely read that once though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
It is indeed a "part 2" with upgraded radars, can't remember in what year it's supposed to be set. Did the harriers ever get AMRAAMs? You really don't want anything to get within sidewider range in that game, assuming that's also pretty realistic.  The air to air aspect of the game is pretty much "Tomcat with phoenix > all", so being "stuck" with AMRAAMs in a scenario feels like being gimped, much less only sidewinders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Caconym posted:It is indeed a "part 2" with upgraded radars, can't remember in what year it's supposed to be set. Yeah the F.2 did, wiki says the upgrade dates back to '88 but I distinctly remember reading about them finally getting AMRAAM in AFM or something in the mid/late 90s. Sounds like Fleet Command is as hilariously broken as Harpoon is with regards to shooting AIM-54s. You could plink Su-27s flying low over Norwegian Fjords in that game  Not that I didn't get back at the USN in the mirror scenario by sinking all of their carriers with a closely coordinated multiregiment Backfire strike. Which I'm sure the AVMF couldn't have pulled off even in their wildest dreams against anything but a stupid video game AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
joat mon posted:That's a cool hands-free opti-grab he's got. Pilots going cockeyed is no joke. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
You can always suffer through PRK if your vision is bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:You can always suffer through PRK if your vision is bad enough. Guessing that wasn't an option for sled drivers
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Guessing that wasn't an option for sled drivers Probably not, I'm not even sure how long PRK has been around. My sister just had it done because she is thinking about flying helicopters if she can get a spot. She said it was awful, basically out of work on pain meds for 5 days during the recovery. LASIK is a no-go for vision correction apparently because of the chance of a flap coming off. This is also pretty cool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn6CgKEuB-M
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:24
|
|