|
Godholio posted:I'm a sick gently caress who'd play a game like that if it came out. Knock yourself out
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Planning a trip in November that involves a round-trip Transpacific flight. Who's sky miles program should I sign up for, or should I just sign up for all of them just in case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
I had the best tea break at work yesterday - nearly had a coffee at the Museum of Army Flying at Middle Wallop yesterday, but got a bit distracted... First thing I noticed was a lineup of current helis sitting just inside the airfield boundary - there was some sort of graduation event going on earlier in the day (lucky me!) Apache  Bell 212  Gazelle  Squirrel  Then on into the museum proper... Sopwith Camel from the RFC days  Some old helicopters... SARO Skeeter  Westland Scout  Bristol Sycamore, with DHC Beaver behind  Something from one of the minor Armies of the western world...   The venerable Chipmunk  DHC Beaver again...  Auster AOP.9  Cessna O-1 Bird Dog  Large display of WW2 gliders - The Hotspur  Horsa  Hadrain  And some other odds and sods... Helicopter Jeeps  Armoured cars  and a ZSU-23  Lots of other displays and exhibits round the museum, easy to kill an hour, even easier to kill 3 or 4!! Now to see if I can get some jobs up round the RAF Museum...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
That Horsa is in rough shape. Any info on it? I reenact as a British Airlanding regiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Planning a trip in November that involves a round-trip Transpacific flight. Who's sky miles program should I sign up for, or should I just sign up for all of them just in case? The obvious answer of course is whichever carrier you're on. US flagged transpacific will be Delta or United, both of which have extensive code share agreements in east Asia and have a hub at Tokyo Narita.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That Horsa is in rough shape. The board in front was just a general history of the type - there was nothing specific I can recall about the exhibit itself...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
reddeathdrinker posted:The board in front was just a general history of the type - there was nothing specific I can recall about the exhibit itself... Google suggests there are 2.5 Horsa airframes at that museum, 2 Mk IIs, and 1 cockpit from a Mk I. The cockpit and 2nd airframe appear to be in much better condition based on image searches. However, an image search also suggests that that rust-red airframe is one that has previously been displayed based on it's action on D-day, so that probably explains why it's on display despite being in not-too-good condition. The museum's most WTF worthy exhibit is one I'm surprised you didn't include a photo of...  An artillary shell *caught near the highest point of it's ballistic curve, while almost stationary, at 8000 feet* by a WW1 airborne spotter. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Google suggests there are 2.5 Horsa airframes at that museum, 2 Mk IIs, and 1 cockpit from a Mk I. The cockpit and 2nd airframe appear to be in much better condition based on image searches. However, an image search also suggests that that rust-red airframe is one that has previously been displayed based on it's action on D-day, so that probably explains why it's on display despite being in not-too-good condition. Balls of steel to reach out and grab it. Motherfucking steel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:An artillary shell *caught near the highest point of it's ballistic curve, while almost stationary, at 8000 feet* by a WW1 airborne spotter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
To see it within arms reach would be the most surreal loving thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Lufthansa to allow falcons on Airlines with certain restrictions. http://www.today.com/money/lufthansa-gives-falcons-seat-upgrade-1D80347940
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
My mom took a nice photo of this dude's falcon chilling just next to her at a gate in DXB a month ago, and the bird was completely chilled out on the flight to Doha too, so hey so why not. Predators on a plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Wait, didn't shells back then have a timed fuse so they would explode over the ground and shower the area with shrapnel?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Eej posted:Wait, didn't shells back then have a timed fuse so they would explode over the ground and shower the area with shrapnel? Not neccessarily. Different shells for different uses-shrapnel for infantry, impact for fortifications, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Could you tell just by looking at them? It feels like that shell grab could've easily just led to a plane exploding in mid air for seemingly no reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Eej posted:Could you tell just by looking at them? It feels like that shell grab could've easily just led to a plane exploding in mid air for seemingly no reason. In theory, yes, the fuse and shell would be colour coded just like the different types of round are today. If you knew the german coding you could tell what type of ammo it was. TBH the whole story is dodgy as gently caress, but I'm not gonna accuse the british army of lying 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:TBH the whole story is dodgy as gently caress, but I'm not gonna accuse the british army of lying Was going to say... quote:*caught near the highest point of it's ballistic curve, while almost stationary, at 8000 feet* ...any projectile on a true ballistic arc doesn't slow down enough to be considered anywhere close to stationary. Not unless the artillery guys were shooting nearly vertical anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/caught-on-tape-ual-flight-lands-at-dia-after-blowing-tire-on-take-off Dash 8 with issues? What a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the ballistics of the artillery of the day. Could it have been almost stationary relative to an airplane on the right vector?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:I don't know anything about the ballistics of the artillery of the day. Could it have been almost stationary relative to an airplane on the right vector? No, because even at the peak of the arc, the projectile would maintain its speed, it would just no longer gain altitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, because even at the peak of the arc, the projectile would maintain its speed, it would just no longer gain altitude. Relative to the airplane would be the key part in that question, if the horizontal speed and direction were sufficiently similar to that of the airplane it would be technically possible. Seems like it would be struck by lightning while winning the lottery level odds, but less likely things have happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Geoj posted:...any projectile on a true ballistic arc doesn't slow down enough to be considered anywhere close to stationary. Not unless the artillery guys were shooting nearly vertical anyways. You mean like a WWI trench mortar? I don't recognize the shell though, so I don't know what fired it. But they did a lot of improvising. wolrah posted:Seems like it would be struck by lightning while winning the lottery level odds, but less likely things have happened. Actually, in-flight artillery shells were so thick that they posed a serious hazard for pilots. During major bombardments the trenches were no-fly zones because it was very likely you would eat a shell. I still call bullshit on it too though Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
To reach that height at a 45 degree launch angle, the projectile would have to have a muzzle velocity of around 310m/s. Given those parameters it would have an horizontal velocity of about 219m/s (310 * cos(45)), or 788km/h, not even remotely in the flight envelope of a WWI aircraft. This is discounting drag but it would make enough difference to be plausible. To be plausible it would need a trajectory of at the very least 75 degree as that translates to a 200km/h horizontal velocity. But that gives you a range of of 2700 meters. No WWI mortar had that kind of range as far as i know and normal artillery is incapable of firing at that angle. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Kafouille, you're not accounting for atmospheric drag, which is substantial at that velocity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Actually, in-flight artillery shells were so thick that they posed a serious hazard for pilots. During major bombardments the trenches were no-fly zones because it was very likely you would eat a shell. Being in the same place as a shell at the same time is different from having one travelling so close to the same speed and direction as to be catchable by a human. The shell had to be in the supposed catcher's general area for a few seconds to have this happen. Let's say within 2.5 feet horizontal for 3 seconds That's just a number I pulled out of my rear end, so no argument if it turns out I'm wrong there. Anyways, going with that and since I'm too lazy to do the math trusting Kafouille's speed number of 200 km/h, it would have to be within reach for about 500 feet, so that makes for a heading within 0.28 degrees of that of the plane. Combine that with having to hit the same altitude as the plane within about the same tolerance and it's orders of magnitude less likely than the shell simply hitting a plane somewhere along its trajectory with enough force to cause damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Utopian Mind posted:http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/caught-on-tape-ual-flight-lands-at-dia-after-blowing-tire-on-take-off Landing gear issues? In my Dash 8? It's more likely than you think!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Let's clarify something though: as a museum exhibit that thing does a fantastic job of putting an image in someone's head. The normal person isn't going to give it two thoughts, until you explain a pilot caught that at the top of its ballistic arc as a loving artillery shell next to an airplane. Much better then "hey people shot that thing at someone else 90 years ago" Sometimes it's better to sidestep the science and enjoy the craziness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Edit: I'm a dumbass
Barnsy fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Kafouille, you're not accounting for atmospheric drag, which is substantial at that velocity. Alright, then lets account for drag. The projectile in question seems rather comparable to it so lets use the French modele 1897 75mm howitzer. Going from Wikipedia, it had a max elevation of 18 degrees and a range of around 8500m. To reach that range at that elevation you need an average velocity of 380m/s, reaching an apogee of 700 meters, giving us a traveled distance of about 8610 meters . Muzzle velocity was 500m/s. That gives us a loss averaging 14m/s per kilometer (This is a rather rough approximation but it still gives us a ballpark) so lets scale that to our problem. Our theorical projectile has an apogee of 8000 feet as per the story, or 2.43 kilometers, giving an approximate 11 kilometers traveled. That gives me an average loss, for the same projectile, of around 9,2 m/s per kilometer. Half the distance traveled is 5.5km, so thats a total drag loss up to the apogee of 50m/s, or a muzzle velocity of 360m/s. And having done all this i realise it's completely useless since air drag would only alter the shape of the trajectory, the velocity at the apogee would be the same since its the midpoint of travel energy wise, not range wise. But whatever  at least i have a ballpark MV for my made up gun that fires at 45 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Muzzle Velocity is velocity at the muzzle of the weapon. In-flight v is just that, velocity. At the end of the day, it's a cool story. Also, you're still not accounting for 1 in a million poo poo like elevation controls failing, 1 in a thousand poo poo like powder charge being a dud, etc. There's a few hundred ways that this could've happened-all of them are unlikely as all hell, but that's why there's the one shell in a museum, and not a proud history of WW1 fliers intercepting artillery barrages by snatching em out of the air. E: Or, poo poo, an ammo magazine getting hit and a round going vertically from a cook-off. Or a dud shell taking a weird bounce, etc. Naturally Selected fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
A Qantas aerial display for the F1 Melbourne Grand Prix a short while ago:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:
Or a pilot grabbing a shell out of the armory before going flying so he can come back with a badass story. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
I prefer to believe the airplane probably got hit by the shell, which wedged between the pilot's legs. After making GBS threads himself (blame the Castor oil), he landed very gently, and handed it to the wide-eyed ground crew. When asked where he got it, he replies "why, I plucked it straight out of the air, old chap!", and shuffles off to the debriefing room to pass out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
This.Wingnut Ninja posted:Or a pilot grabbing a shell out of the armory before going flying so he can come back with a badass story. Or this. Linedance posted:I prefer to believe the airplane probably got hit by the shell, which wedged between the pilot's legs. After making GBS threads himself (blame the Castor oil), he landed very gently, and handed it to the wide-eyed ground crew. When asked where he got it, he replies "why, I plucked it straight out of the air, old chap!", and shuffles off to the debriefing room to pass out. Still an awesome story though
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
drunkill posted:A Qantas aerial display for the F1 Melbourne Grand Prix a short while ago: Makes me wonder how cool it would be to see a very low pass of some huge gently caress like a A380 or 747 at full throttle. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I prefer to believe the airplane probably got hit by the shell, which wedged between the pilot's legs. After making GBS threads himself (blame the Castor oil), he landed very gently, and handed it to the wide-eyed ground crew. When asked where he got it, he replies "why, I plucked it straight out of the air, old chap!", and shuffles off to the debriefing room to pass out. This is completely believable, since the whole "hit an airplane and got stuck without exploding" is exactly how the Russians ended up copying the AIM-9 Sidewinder into the AA-2/K-13.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This is completely believable, since the whole "hit an airplane and got stuck without exploding" is exactly how the Russians ended up copying the AIM-9 Sidewinder into the AA-2/K-13.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I prefer to believe the airplane probably got hit by the shell, which wedged between the pilot's legs. After making GBS threads himself (blame the Castor oil), he landed very gently, and handed it to the wide-eyed ground crew. When asked where he got it, he replies "why, I plucked it straight out of the air, old chap!", and shuffles off to the debriefing room to pass out. That I could see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:This is a story that needs to be told. I'm guessing Vietnam? Earlier than that. Taiwan Strait Crisis, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Tsuru posted:This is a story that needs to be told. I'm guessing Vietnam? Good guidance, poor fuzing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 18:07
|
|