|
Is there some advantage to the high-wing, negative-dihedral layout for cargo planes? Seem like every one that in service to day (that isn't a variant of an airliner) uses it.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:There have only been two of these built, and one of them crashed years ago. So....does the Business between the Ukraine and Russia mean an end to Antonov?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Is there some advantage to the high-wing, negative-dihedral layout for cargo planes? Seem like every one that in service to day (that isn't a variant of an airliner) uses it. It moves the wingbox and the associated structure out of the cargo area without increasing the load-height of the cargo floor by putting it underneath. When you mount the wing above the CG you get a dihedral effect, so the anhedral(negative dihedral) prevents excessive stability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
wkarma posted:It moves the wingbox and the associated structure out of the cargo area without increasing the load-height of the cargo floor by putting it underneath. When you mount the wing above the CG you get a dihedral effect, so the anhedral(negative dihedral) prevents excessive stability. Conveniently, it also brings the engines down, closer to the ground, for easier servicing and replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:Is there some advantage to the high-wing, negative-dihedral layout for cargo planes? Seem like every one that in service to day (that isn't a variant of an airliner) uses it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Conveniently, it also brings the engines down, closer to the ground, for easier servicing and replacement. No more so than you can with a low-wing dihedral, though. In fact, for a lot of cargo planes, getting the engines higher up is conducive to unimproved field landings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So....does the Business between the Ukraine and Russia mean an end to Antonov? Russia's not their only customer, but it is their biggest. Other than that, I have no idea. edit: they also make like one of two airliner types that North Korea can feasibly buy, so they have that StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
When I graduated tech school we got to crawl all over the SA-4 static display. I thought some of you might get a kick out of these pictures. http://imgur.com/a/VB0Hb#0 - Album, 40 images 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
SA-4s are serious chunkybutts 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Thems the ones with the ramjet sustainer, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Thems the ones with the ramjet sustainer, aren't they? Correct. 9M8M1 missiles use the four solid booster rockets on the outside for the first 15 seconds then a kerosene ramjet takes over. Quite a bit of detailed info in this 1968 intelligence assesment by the Ministry of Defence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
If anyone's ever "lucky" enough to find themselves on Nellis AFB, try to get into the Petting Zoo. It's a whole ton of Soviet hardware just parked in a walled-in area. SA systems, helicopters, etc. I don't think it's restricted access (it's all old poo poo) but it is on the base proper. Edit: Also, there are a couple of MiG static displays parked outside the Aggressor buildings that have the squadron commanders' names on them. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If anyone's ever "lucky" enough to find themselves on Nellis AFB, try to get into the Petting Zoo. It's a whole ton of Soviet hardware just parked in a walled-in area. SA systems, helicopters, etc. I don't think it's restricted access (it's all old poo poo) but it is on the base proper. Like you said it's still in a fenced compound so it's not like you can just walk up to it if you've got access to base, like the airpark. I'm sure a tour could be arranged with proper planning provided you can get access to base though. But yeah, the MiG statics that are parked outside the AGRS buildings (and I think there's one or two over next to the Green Flag building as well) are out in the open. Also there's a tank (I think it's a T-72 but I can't remember for sure) outside the Green Flag building with half a Maverick poking out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
The petting zoo owns, if only to show you how little of a gently caress Soviet designers gave about ergonomics. And anyone who isn't tiny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
For real, the crew compartment in a BMP looks like some kind of hot box punishment or something. I'm not sure how they can fit eight soldiers in battle rattle in the back of the ind, but it probably looked a lot like when you try to see how many people you can fit into a phone booth at once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The petting zoo owns, if only to show you how little of a gently caress Soviet designers gave about ergonomics. And anyone who isn't tiny. But if they had more than enough people who were able to fit into the hight restrictions, is it really a problem? It is like criticising the K1 for only being able to fit Koreans inside well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
So now that guided munitions are cheap when will tube artillery be replaced completely by rockets?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like you said it's still in a fenced compound so it's not like you can just walk up to it if you've got access to base, like the airpark. I'm sure a tour could be arranged with proper planning provided you can get access to base though. I haven't been there since probably 2009 but I know for a fact we didn't even call ahead, we were driving by and saw it. Walked in the lobby and...I don't remember if we had to show ID cards or anything. I was actually hoping you'd post after me and fill in the blanks, heh. How have you not gone yet? Throatwarbler posted:So now that guided munitions are cheap when will tube artillery be replaced completely by rockets? Not in your lifetime. It'll still be more expensive and more difficult to transport ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So now that guided munitions are cheap when will tube artillery be replaced completely by rockets? Well, you can get smart artillery by having GPS guided shells at a much lower price than a missile/rocket. So probably not any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:But if they had more than enough people who were able to fit into the hight restrictions, is it really a problem? It is like criticising the K1 for only being able to fit Koreans inside well. And then in a fit of black humor, they put the side entries obnoxiously high on the vehicles. And make the entry port so small that it must be an absolute bitch to get any kind of weird-shaped gear through it, like LMGs or RPGs. Throatwarbler posted:So now that guided munitions are cheap when will tube artillery be replaced completely by rockets? This sentiment vastly overstates the cheapening of PGMs and how easy it is to employ them if you don't have very good ISR up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:But if they had more than enough people who were able to fit into the hight restrictions, is it really a problem? It is like criticising the K1 for only being able to fit Koreans inside well. Eh. I can personally testify that Finnish Army mech infantry does not care about height when cramming warm bodies into BMP's and the old Leopard 2a4 emergency reserve T72's did not have any height guidelines in use, either. They told to get our platoons into those BMPs and we had some tall machinegunners with full protective vests, spare ammo and a goddamn PKM. ...in NBC gear. This was three years ago. I can honestly swear that back in the day when russian riflemen were loaded onto those AFV's, no one gave two shits about how tall or short you were. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So now that guided munitions are cheap when will tube artillery be replaced completely by rockets? The US is moving that direction this year. All of the active component cannons above brigade are going away. Granted, rockets are generally better suited to reinforcing fires, but it can probably be thought of as a test for the army as a whole about whether or not rockets can effectively displace tubes. If it pans out, we may see an automortar/light rocket/heavy rocket array within a couple decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
They were probably designed with malnourished Soviet conscripts in mind. See: Best Korea's army.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:They were probably designed with malnourished Soviet conscripts in mind. See: Best Korea's army. Exactly. There's a reason that "NATO length" AK stocks are longer than normal AK stocks, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And then in a fit of black humor, they put the side entries obnoxiously high on the vehicles. And make the entry port so small that it must be an absolute bitch to get any kind of weird-shaped gear through it, like LMGs or RPGs. Oh I am not denying the other atrocious ergonomics of it. But they presumably knew that thier average national high for males between 18-25 is X, desinging for X is fine. I was also primarily thinking of the tanks indtead of PCs too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I tried crawling into a t-72. Nooooope. Couldn't fit. I had an easier time crawling into a panzer mark I.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
But aren't artillery tubes and shells quite heavy relative to the amount of warhead they carry, where as a rocket doesn't need such thick walls and can be launched off a rack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:But aren't artillery tubes and shells quite heavy relative to the amount of warhead they carry, where as a rocket doesn't need such thick walls and can be launched off a rack. Yes. Rockets are also considerably more expensive and larger relative to the amount of warhead they carry, more difficult to transport than tube artillery rounds, and take longer to reload.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
I couldn't fit my shoulders in the commander cupola of a leopard 1 without contorting myself. And then I would not have been able to close the hatch sitting on the seat. But I'm pretty big. The M109 is "roomy" but that'd be hard work tossing 155mm shells around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes. Rockets are also considerably more expensive and larger relative to the amount of warhead they carry Why would they be larger?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Why would they be larger? Heavier warheads need more fuel but more fuel weighs more so you need more fuel. It is a traditional rocket dilemma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yes. Rockets are also considerably more expensive and larger relative to the amount of warhead they carry, more difficult to transport than tube artillery rounds, and take longer to reload. With higher end precision stuff these assumptions are all changing. Miniaturization is very expensive, so having a larger munition (and thus more room for widgets) actually tends to make the projectiles less expensive for a given capability. Conversely payload in absolute terms is becoming less and less important, as we need less explosive to create a given effect if the precision of the shot is improved. Rockets are actually quite a bit easier to transport than are tube rounds; they are less bulky than tube rounds + powder plus they don't have the climate control requirements that powder bags do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Plus rocket storage has to be more controlled than artillery shells. Since we're talking about guns vs missiles, have one of my favourites - the M551 Sheridan fire control video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFGhY88hOnI e: I got ninja'd on that, so I didn't mean it as a direct contradiction. Perhaps I'm out of date, but I watch a lot of the '60s military equipment videos, and that's where I got the notion that to prevent missile fuel degrading you had to take quite thorough steps simplefish fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I watch a lot of the '60s military equipment videos, and that's where I got the notion that to prevent missile fuel degrading you had to take quite thorough steps [Ask] your friendly neighborhood chemist about unsymmetrical dimethlyhydrazine and red fuming nitric acid. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Or you can read his memoirs. It's fictional, but I also like this story about the time the CIA came up with the best/worst rocket design possible and leaked it to the Soviets. Burning dimethylmercury in FOOF, that's a recipe for a fun Saturday night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Or you can read his memoirs. It's fictional, but I also like this story about the time the CIA came up with the best/worst rocket design possible and leaked it to the Soviets. Burning dimethylmercury in FOOF, that's a recipe for a fun Saturday night. Any two compounds which have earned places on the magical blog Things I Won't Work With do not belong in the same rocket. I'm vaguely disappointed that chlorine triflouride, which resulted in the following glorious citation of Ignition! didn't make an appearance in the design. ”It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that's the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Since we're talking about guns vs missiles, have one of my favourites - the M551 Sheridan fire control video: Every time I read up on the Sheridan ,Starship, or the M70 I can't help but wonder how close they were to making a working and functional design/concept that we're only now beginning to consider for ground force vehicles; multi-function high precision launch platforms. Only now instead trying to get a working missile to fire out of cannons, they're getting cannon rounds to act like missiles. Edit: I spotted this gem in a image search for the Sheridan, what is it? The host page doesn't work but the imagine description says it had a 75mm autocannon of all things.   VVV Definitely wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one these things, I wonder why they were never produced in limited numbers for testing; seems like a sound enough concept, have a light and mobile AA platform that could double as an AV(AT?) platform if required. Back Hack fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
It's a GI Joe toy made real that's what that is. Called the HSTV(L) http://tanknutdave.com/the-american-hstvl-tank/ Or actually the RDF CAT/LCV in that variant http://jedsite.info/tanks-romeo/romeo/rdf_series/cat-lcv/cat-intro.html (don't think any of these went into production) priznat fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jul 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Plus rocket storage has to be more controlled than artillery shells. You can't bring up the Sheridan without bringing up its MBT, Shillelagh firing, cousin the M60A1E1 (later known as the M60A2);  
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Eh. I can personally testify that Finnish Army mech infantry does not care about height when cramming warm bodies into BMP's and the old Leopard 2a4 emergency reserve T72's did not have any height guidelines in use, either. CV90 supremacy.  Although the BMP has the advantage that the infantry will charge anything after being released so they don't have to go back into the box.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 08:34
|
|
