|
Handsome Ralph posted:Oh yeah, that reminds me. Looks like on the second bounce you can see a quick spark inside the intake: FOD or fan tip rubbing from the sudden shock?
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Now scramble as many B-36s as you can, each with a pair of 25MT hydrogen bombs, and go have some fun. EDIT: Oops, I forgot the B41. Nah, you're good to go. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted: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. External pylons on a B-1? The heck you say. The B-36 holds the record for "largest bomb capacity" and "greatest wingspan for a combat aircraft" to this day. CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, the largest weapon in the US Arsenal was the B53 9 Megaton device. You'll have to make do. e: What about the mk. 17? That was 15 megatons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:e: What about the mk. 17? That was 15 megatons. The B41 made 25 megatons out of three stages. I forgot it was ever in service, because it was so large and every so briefly in service. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The B41 made 25 megatons out of three stages. I forgot it was ever in service, because it was so large and every so briefly used. Good god. Weirdly, the Mk.17 was even bigger. The B-36 was the only bomber that could drop it unmodified - even the B-52 required a modification to kick out the size of the bomb bay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Weirdly, the Mk.17 was even bigger. The B-36 was the only bomber that could drop it unmodified - even the B-52 required a modification to kick out the size of the bomb bay. Yes, the Mk.17 was ungodly huge, but mainly because it was LITERALLY the Castle Bravo physics package crammed in a bomb-like shell almost immediately after its disastrous demonstration. The actual device was tested as the Romeo shot of Operation Castle.  It was rushed into service as an 'Emergency Device' CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Amusingly enough, the B41 was planned to be developed into an RV as well, but at the time, there wasn't a rocket feasible to carry it a useful range, and one can *hope* that even in the mid-to-late 50s, someone at the big table said "25 megatons, guys? *Seriously*?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Amusingly enough, the B41 was planned to be developed into an RV as well, but at the time, there wasn't a rocket feasible to carry it a useful range, and one can *hope* that even in the mid-to-late 50s, someone at the big table said "25 megatons, guys? *Seriously*?" Yeah the ruskies had a 100MT bomb they had to derate to 50MT so a bear could survive dropping one so its really a little light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
bull3964 posted: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. Well, if you want VTOL, a helicopter will be cheaper. If you want speed and VTOL, a helicopter will be faster, and cheaper. If you want range and speed and VTOL, a helicopter to a train to another helicopter will be faster, cheaper and have longer range. If you want range, payload, speed, airlift and VTOL a helicopter to an Antinov to another helicopter will be... If you want speed, an aircraft will be faster and cheaper. If you want speed and range, an aircraft (maybe with a refueling stop) will be faster, cheaper and longer range. I could go on by I think you get the idea. Which part of "Blimps are expensive" is confusing? That big gas cell is a maintenance pig and He is in critical supply, so it ain't cheap. They cost about the same as a Business Jet to buy and operate (per hour), but business jets go ~10 times faster (and hence operate 1/10th as many hours and cost 1/10th as much per flight). They do two things well: Novelty factor and advertising space. And that's what they're used for. But you're right in that as a general rule, ground journeys of under 4 hours are always faster than flying. Last time I did a 900km flight, the average speed door-to-door including taxis, check-in, security, baggage collection etc was about 150km/h (I've driven it and averaged 90km/h) Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:If you don't make your take off time in busy airspace you can be hosed. There are some commercial pilots here who can explain. This is entirely true. Most of the busiest airports in the US are scheduled for the absolute maximum number of arrivals they're physically capable of handling, which means that as soon as you get weather, ATC delays, or any other hiccups in the flow of airplanes, there's going to be periods where the airport has more arrivals scheduled than it can absorb, so something has to be done to slow down the rate of arrivals. This process is what's generally called "flow" or "metering". For airplanes already in the air, ATC will slow them down, give them what are basically S-turns, or have them hold (flying in circles at a specific point) to kill enough time for the rate of arrivals to drop back to an acceptable level. When airplanes are already on the ground at another airport, they'll be given "flow times" which are basically narrow (only a couple of minutes) windows of time in which they need to be off the ground in order for their destination airport to be able to accommodate the flight. When an airplane misses their flow time, they'll have to wait on the ground for another one to be issued, which can be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours later, depending on how busy their destination is. If flow control can't change the arrival rate to an acceptable level, the next step is what's called a "ground stop", which is where any airplanes on the ground heading to a specific airport simply aren't allowed to leave until things get sorted out and the ground stop can be lifted. At seriously congested airports like SFO, LAX or pretty much anything in New York, it's not uncommon to end up with several aircraft with almost identical flow times, going to different airports, with a 30 minute line to get to the runway, which inevitably leads to airplanes missing their departure windows and having to park somewhere on the airport (because the gates they left are now occupied) while waiting for their new flow times, when they may or may not be carrying enough fuel to sit on the ground that long. I'm lucky enough to fly for an airline that goes nowhere near the east coast, so I haven't had any personal horror stories with flow times, but I've heard a CRJ going from Sacramento to San Francisco miss their flow time, and be told that the next available one was about two and a half hours later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
bennyfactor posted: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. gently caress reengining. Six R4360s or go the gently caress home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Six R4360s or go the gently caress home. Yes, the original engines or the ability to get home are indeed the options. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
bull3964 posted: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. If your friend lives in Alexandria why wouldn't you fly into National?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:External pylons on a B-1? The heck you say. Yeah, it's a thing. Went away after SALT whatever number though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Amusingly enough, the B41 was planned to be developed into an RV as well, but at the time, there wasn't a rocket feasible to carry it a useful range, and one can *hope* that even in the mid-to-late 50s, someone at the big table said "25 megatons, guys? *Seriously*?" Yeah, even the Russians were like: What the gently caress will we do with a 50/100MT device? Seriously? That is bloody useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
50/100 1MT devices though 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
That's so much nuke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:That's so much nuke.  Thats 5 miles in diameter. The blast was suspended due to its own shock wave bouncing off the ground.  The blast radius of the Tsar Bomba over Paris, You could see the mushroom cloud from 600 miles away and it reached 7 times the height of Everest peaking in the loving mesosphere. The blast wave went around the earth 3 times and blew out windows 600 miles away. It showed up as an 8.1 earthquake on the rhicter scale in loving Finland. Excessive doesn't begin to even describe how big of a bang that was. Preoptopus fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:If your friend lives in Alexandria why wouldn't you fly into National? Doesn't really matter either way. Flights are over $400 so it's a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Estimated 6.89 million casualties.  Estimation over New Delhi is 14 million dead. Goodness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Speaking of 'why' things, this is sort of coming in under the radar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmat
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
At least four diversions that I know of due to weather in Halifax today. Granted it was pretty awful weather (freezing rain), but there's probably a few pilots out there choosing the prudent option of "not a loving chance".
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ Mexico City hits 12 million. Tokyo 13.5 million. Mumbai 13 million. Seoul 11.5 million. It's kind of amazing to think that we have the ability to potentially build something that in a single device, can wipe out that many people in any of the worlds largest cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Mexico City hits 12 million. Go play DEFCON
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Well, if you want VTOL, a helicopter will be cheaper. If you want speed and VTOL, a helicopter will be faster, and cheaper. If you want range and speed and VTOL, a helicopter to a train to another helicopter will be faster, cheaper and have longer range. If you want range, payload, speed, airlift and VTOL a helicopter to an Antinov to another helicopter will be... One also has to consider that other methods of transport aren't as vulnerable to bad weather as airships. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wiJWIfpQMU
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I love this video. Man, the people flying that RC plane have some money though. You see that house?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:One also has to consider that other methods of transport aren't as vulnerable to bad weather as airships. Can you name me one time a modern airship proved vulnerable to bad weather
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Can you name me one time a modern airship proved vulnerable to bad weather Goodyear has lost a couple blimps over the years. Don't remember if there were fatalities, but hull losses
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
I'd expect modern airship flight planning would lean heavily toward Not-Going-At-All if weather was a concern, reducing (though not eliminating of course) the possibilities of weather related mishaps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Goodyear has lost a couple blimps over the years. Don't remember if there were fatalities, but hull losses They've not lost any GZ-20s and those were introduced in 1969. They lost a GZ-19 (Mayflower) in 1978 to 70 mph winds, though. Nearly 40 years is a pretty good record, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:They've not lost any GZ-20s and those were introduced in 1969. Wasn't the loss of Spirit of Akron related to the pilot trying to operate/land in bad weather and high winds? The Ferret King posted:I'd expect modern airship flight planning would lean heavily toward Not-Going-At-All if weather was a concern, reducing (though not eliminating of course) the possibilities of weather related mishaps. Remember that these things fly slow enough that weather can evolve and change drastically between take off and landing. Granted they tend to try to avoid this by having alternate landing sites in case the weather deteriorates en route.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Apparently Goodyear is bringing their next generation up...semi-rigid, heavier-than-air craft built by Zeppelin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Mexico City hits 12 million. What about Indianapolis Monday night. Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What about Indianapolis Monday night. All four people in Indy would be gone. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:
I felt bad for all the animals in the test zone 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:B41 was planned to be developed into an RV  They'd need like a Saturn IB at least. What the gently caress cold war era people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is TWO major hurdle to Hydrogen generation: Its general source is water. Most commercial hydrogen is made from cracking hydrocarbons, not from electrolysis. It's less energy intensive, but you end up with carbon at the end, again. Edit: Yeah, I'm late to the party. Excellent B-36 and Nuclear posts!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Preoptopus posted:
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t=759d8b9616435ae926dd074c6ff22e7a Hmmmmmmm, do we drop one 50MT bomb worth of fissile material or >seven times 1MT for about the same effect on target? e: argh wrong airburst height e: also, mach reflection is a bog-standard nuclear boom feature Koesj fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Apr 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It's kind of like electric vehicles in that way, people THINK 'Oh look how green I am' while ignoring the ecological damage done by the coal or natural gas plant generating their electricity to charge the car. Or the state of the areas where the lithium is mined for the batteries, and the even worse state of the areas where it's then refined into a state where it can be used to make batteries...then take into account safely recycling and/or disposing of them when they've reached their end-of-life state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2015 12:04
|
|