|
Jealous Cow posted:Anyone else get a Half-Life vibe from the 2nd video, looking at the plane through the fog? Totally - all that mist and fog, with the plane's empennage sticking up in the air was pretty creepy-looking in a cinematic sort of way. In other news: Here, have some nerdball probable goon shoot video of two jets getting popped by lightning here in Seattle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dEilm29JhA
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
One use I can see for airships is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chpOgJwqBXU I've also seen helicopters used to build power lines across difficult terrain -- forested hills, mountain slopes, etc. There too an airship could work as a crane-in-the-sky like helicopters do. Then there's the niche area of transporting heavy cargo in areas that are not easily reachable by boat, plane, or even trucks. They're also good platforms for observation. Watching over a beach for swimmers in trouble, or over a ski resort, etc. The downside is that the hangar to shelter them in bad weather is much larger than for a helicopter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:One use I can see for airships is this: Wouldn't the utter lack of agility inherent in a football field-sized airship pretty much kill off the construction angle? From what I've seen, helicopters get used in those types of construction a lot because they can get into and next to places nothing else will fit. I don't know dick about it aside from watching videos/reading the random article, so I could be off the mark. I sure as poo poo wouldn't want to try maneuvering that behemoth within a few feet of live high-voltage lines, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:This looks like fun Looks like somebody did the same thing as this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUYCjbCjbg Start calling the pilot Captain Nosewheel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 11:54
|
|
|
Well, tell you what you ain't going to be doing in a blimp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5zrfpim-I see about 4 mins and onwards. But the question was hybrid/electrical aircraft. Unless you're telling me cargo jets and helicopters are going to be electrical any time soon, electrical zeppelins like the air dick will be the only realistic option for purely electrical cargo/passenger hauling. There's not a loving chance in hell they'll outperform jets, helicopters or cargo ships, who's even putting that on the table? That would be ridiculous. Would be a neat alternative for private use though, small electrical zeppeliners for recreational use and personal transport. Pretty safe alternative to those tiny prop planes that seem to be dropping out of the sky like rain. E: Well the aeroschlong isn't electrical, but you get my point. Nebakenezzer posted:Stereotypes. The language of hate. I know. I was being an rear end. I understood what you meant. Still though, put the words "hydrogen" and "blimp" together and I can imagine any kind of agency like the FAA taking one look at it and going "noooooooope" [DENIED]
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I look foreward to my nuclear powered aircraft This is so ugly it's triggering me Those engine pods shouldn't be there. That's not right. Please stop. e: the more streamlined your design the better. that's a simple rule
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Inacio posted:This is so ugly it's triggering me Look at this guy who's unbelievably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Inacio posted:This is so ugly it's triggering me It was designed to fly to the USSR non-stop, which was kind of unheard of for the 1940s. Either way, it was a fairly terrible design, but a beautiful aircraft, a marriage of 1940s thinking with 1950s technology. But it did manage to carry a fairly chunky nuclear reactor 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:Look at this guy who's unbelievably wrong. I like the A380, so I should probably say my tastes are... singular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I like the A380, so I should probably say my tastes are... singular. Glorgnole posted:Look at this guy who's unbelievably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Example of a plane doing big engine pods and still looking sexy as all gently caress:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Is this the only B-36 that has a nose/cockpit like that? It looks notably less goofy than the normal ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I look foreward to my nuclear powered aircraft Ya this is so Fallout. I can't help but adore it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Example of a plane doing big engine pods and still looking sexy as all gently caress:  That's how progress works? But the B-52 was going to look butt ugly originally too:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
david_a posted:Is this the only B-36 that has a nose/cockpit like that? It looks notably less goofy than the normal ones. Yes, the convair X-6 had the weird cockpit, and I'm pretty sure it was converted back to a regular B-36 cockpit somewhere before the end of the program - although I can't find a NB-36H pic without the funky cockpit now. Part of the reason for it being different was the shielding, it was essentially a lead-lined removable pod: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
An oldie but a goodie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSK2gLDpOYY Part 2 3 4
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I was wondering if there might be a market for blimps for regional mass transit since high speed trains seem like a thing that will never happen in the US. I mean, there are regional airlines as well, but those are priced more for business customers. Basically, I'm looking for some way that it's more economical (in time and money) to move people in the 200-300 miles range without driving. For example, it takes me 4 hours to drive to my friend's place in DC from Pittsburgh. A 100 mph airship could do that in 2 hours. Granted, I could fly to DC in 1 hour, but it would also cost me upwards of $200 to do so whereas gas for a round trip is only like $40. Not to mention by the time I got to the Pittsburgh airport, go through security, have the inevitable flight delays, and then fight my way out of Dulles to get to my friend's house in Alexandria, I'm probably looking at close to 4 hours anyways. It would really depend on how economical they could make them and if they could streamline the departure and arrival process to make it more mass transit like. It would be far simpler to have trains, but I don't see anyone making that capital investment anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Maybe the US Forestry service might be interested in an airship as well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY Hopefully it goes better than it did in the past. Looks like a hell of a configuration...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Apart from being a tandem layout rather than abreast, I think the XB-52 looked better 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Okan170 posted:Maybe the US Forestry service might be interested in an airship as well? Honestly, the way it failed makes it look like lovely engineering versus bad design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
I think that if the question is "what good are airships" this document from NASA is a good answer. https://www.scribd.com/doc/112127368/Airships-101
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was designed to fly to the USSR non-stop, which was kind of unheard of for the 1940s. Either way, it was a fairly terrible design, but a beautiful aircraft, a marriage of 1940s thinking with 1950s technology. https://www.google.com/maps/place/EBR-1/@43.5116513,-113.0056353,168m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xb620d5f1e7deb68 The 2 reactors are on the right, and the one above that is a train car reactor(?) If you are ever in the middle of absolutely nowhere Idaho, then stop here because the museum is awesome. Just don't do what we did and get there 15 minutes before it closes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Speaking of Nuclear Reactors and Flight, 50 years ago today the first Nuclear Reactor in space was orbited and tested as part of the SNAPSHOT program: http://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/04/03/50-years-ago-today-the-first-nuclear-reactor-in-orbit/    There's our old friend Atlas, that thing is used to launch everything  It produced 500 watts of power for one year before an unrelated voltage regulator failed and the reactor shut itself down. It is expected to remain in orbit, 700 miles in altitude, for 4,000 years. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
While looking through NB-36H images I came across this USAF image of a B-36F ferrying a B-58 fusalage.  And have some video of it too... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxrwpur_Op8
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:While looking through NB-36H images I came across this USAF image of a B-36F ferrying a B-58 fusalage. Holy poo poo that size contrast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Holy poo poo that size contrast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
david_a posted:At the Wright-Patterson museum they are parked right next to each other. I had no idea the B-58 was so small until I saw it in person; it looks more like a souped-up fighter than anything. It had the roughly the same role and bomb load as the F-111 and F-15E so souled up fighter is about right. It does look much larger in pictures because you can't imagine the engines being that tiny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
For the past two months I've been working on a infodump for **my blog** on the B-36. ('My Blog' being very similar to **MY GIRLFRIEND** in that it's basically impossible to even mention it without sounding douche-y. I've come to accept this, though I gotta apologize at the same time.) Anyway, the most impressive thing I've found round the net that you might not have seen before is this: a propaganda short on the B-36. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V9CWQNZRF8 The opening shot is positively amazing and could have inspired the famous shot of the Star Destroyer in the first Star Wars. It also has a shot of the hydraulic turrets deploying, and the (once again) Star Wars-like aiming device the gunners use with the turrets. The plane being shown is apparently a late model B-36, as it has jet engines, quick-opening bomb bay doors and the "pointy brassiere" rear radar dome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Gonna cross-quote this, just for one of the shots in the gallery:MadBimber posted:A very TFR Album: http://imgur.com/a/LAdE3?gallery  FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUCK I really wish there was video of that, cause I'm pretty sure that blows away most of the super low passes out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
 I'M OUT SUCKERS  
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
"And, for the Sunday punch - [nuclear explosion.avi]" man, the early Cold War. Nice find, thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:
Oh yeah, that reminds me. AV-8B Harrier doing an emergency landing without the front gear lowering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhefke0Q9Y
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Psion posted:"And, for the Sunday punch - [nuclear explosion.avi]" I love the inappropriately cheerful music over that bit
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8zqPJvzs7U They really tried (try?) anything to maximise every air-frame. The videos that this user uploaded is a treasure trove of cold war videos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I posted this over in the Cold War thread, but I figured it'd fit here too: Pictured: An F-35A... doing a Cobra? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:For the past two months I've been working on a infodump for **my blog** on the B-36. ('My Blog' being very similar to **MY GIRLFRIEND** in that it's basically impossible to even mention it without sounding douche-y. I've come to accept this, though I gotta apologize at the same time.) Anyway, the most impressive thing I've found round the net that you might not have seen before is this: a propaganda short on the B-36. I wish there were enough of these airframes still around so that some heritage org (or a ridiculously rich idiot) could fit one with some RR-T06s and modern landing gear and fly it around. So enormous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:For the past two months I've been working on a infodump for **my blog** on the B-36. ('My Blog' being very similar to **MY GIRLFRIEND** in that it's basically impossible to even mention it without sounding douche-y. I've come to accept this, though I gotta apologize at the same time.) Anyway, the most impressive thing I've found round the net that you might not have seen before is this: a propaganda short on the B-36. That bombing run 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
brozozo posted:That bombing run Gah. The explosions just keep going. Also, those smart little black caps the flight crew wear seem more than a little similar to the caps the Imperial Navy guys wear in Star Wars too... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Gah. The explosions just keep going. The bomb load of ten B-17s. A single B-36 has the same combat strength as a B-17 squadron. Now scramble as many B-36s as you can, each with a pair of 25MT hydrogen bombs, and go have some fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:39 |
|
|
They're just baseball caps. Edit: The B-36 had a higher max payload than any of the current bombers, unless the B-1 can loads up the internal bay and the external pylons. The 36 can carry more internally, though.
Godholio fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 04:56
|
|
