|
mlmp08 posted:This pales in comparison but was in related videos. Two and a half minutes of kind of mild disinterest, and then a payoff that had me laughing my rear end off. How many P-51 vs Zero fights could there even possibly have been? And I'd be all sorts of surprised if that was ever the outcome.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
I don't think P-51s actually encountered Zeros (meaning actual A6Ms). At the end of the war they were flying escort for B-29s, but the Japanese pilot corps was utterly shredded already and the carrier-based and island-deployed A6Ms were underwater. Ki-84s were "common" and very capable if the pilot had the slightest idea what he was doing...not as fast/powerful as a P-51 but they could outturn one. If P-51s and A6M did actually meet, it was a rarity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
They kept building Zeroes until the very end, though, they were part of like the last fighter mission the Imperial Japanese Navy flew in the whole war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Have fun getting investigated by the DoE. Homebrew nuclear weapons research is something I'd stay well away from. They would have jurisdictional issues, I believe, but probably little reason to investigate anyone without the resources of at least a third rate juche dictatorship/a few suitable nuclear reactors to hand. Without fissionable material you aren't getting anywhere, and it's why detailed plans of the initial fission weapons put together by dudes like atomic john exist. No large publishers wish to sell his book, but it is available for sale, and contains near enough perfect plans for your own nuclear weapon. The british government had most of the plans for the first "operational" fission bomb sat in the open archives for a few years- the cat is firmly out of the bag, and has been for some time. We aren't all dead yet because refining nuclear material to weapons grade is costly and very hard to do secretly. Oh, and luck. MrChips posted:other ways you can deal with that lovely Canadian pop-punk band yeah, but sometimes you gotta be sure about things, and from a garage over the road has less uncertainties than from orbit
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 10:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If P-51s and A6M did actually meet, it was a rarity. One of the first deployments of the Mustang was to the China-Burma theater. The awesomely named Air Commando Groups used A/B models, and I think even the A-36 (dive bomber version never actually used as a dive bomber). I think they had several encounters with early A6Ms,
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AA%9C%E8%88%87%E5%B9%B3 This guy shot down one of the early Mustangs in a Ki-43, then got shot down by one the next day or so and lost his leg. He later flew a captured p51 against other pilots to help in training. http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/Japan/Japanese%20Captured%20P-51%20Mustang.htm
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Haven't seen this posted: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/game-changer-combining-lockheed-martins-f-35-aegis-missle-17695 quote:The United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps have successfully tested the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter with the Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air (NIFC-CA) battle network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:They kept building Zeroes until the very end, though, they were part of like the last fighter mission the Imperial Japanese Navy flew in the whole war. Sure, but they were also building Ki-43s and Ki-84s each in equal numbers. And the 84s were the only ones really effective at B-29 altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Sure, but they were also building Ki-43s and Ki-84s each in equal numbers. And the 84s were the only ones really effective at B-29 altitudes. How you gonna skip over the whale-bodied beast, the N1K? Much lower numbers, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
And let's not forget the Ki-61 that gained much glory by repeatedly ramming Superforts. So, let's say you get assigned to a "ram the B-29" unit. And you go and you actually successfully ram a B-29. And you miraculously survive. Your reward is...to get sent right back up to ram another B-29. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:And let's not forget the Ki-61 that gained much glory by repeatedly ramming Superforts. Well, it's certainly one way to take your mind off of starving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:Just gonna paste this right here War thunder is getting weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:War thunder is getting weird. that was my second thought, right after "The Koreans made a BF1942 movie?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Sure, but they were also building Ki-43s and Ki-84s each in equal numbers. And the 84s were the only ones really effective at B-29 altitudes. Reaching B-29 altitudes was a major problem for most of the Japanese fighters, yeah. If you look at the experimental designs they were trying to bring into production at the end of the war it's all three-stage superchargers and turbos. (And an imported Me-163 clone, which Japan's surviving pilots were lucky to have avoided.) They were also running out of aluminum, so they worked on versions of the Ki-84 in wood (apparently pretty successful in flight tests) and steel (not so much.) StandardVC10 fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Once you're putting late war Japanese pilots in a domestic me163 you really need to just make a manned SAM and get it over with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Once you're putting late war Japanese pilots in a domestic me163 you really need to just make a manned SAM and get it over with. Instead of the Wasserfall, make a variant called the Wassermann. Genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Once you're putting late war Japanese pilots in a domestic me163 you really need to just make a manned SAM and get it over with. They were already doing manned torpedoes, wouldn't have been much of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
That’s air‐to‐surface. Artist’s conception: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
fair point
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s air‐to‐surface. Is that the same artist George Lucas later hired to design the X-Wing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s air‐to‐surface. That's a rather grimdark origin for Speed Racer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Different question: what is left when it comes to "additional sanctions" against North Korea? Closing down all those overseas restaurants they have? Yes. "The United States and South Korea had already started quietly trying to persuade host countries to stop allowing in North Korean guest workers, according to people who work in both governments. That drive is likely to accelerate now that North Korea has shown that new sanctions imposed this year have failed to dissuade it from pursuing nuclear weapons." Concordat fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
So that ground collision thing . Does it automatically fire anytime the plane reaches a certain set of parameters? Like what if you're in an intense killer dogfight and your diving to avoid a missile or kill the bad guy or something and you know what you're doing ? Does it have some sort of dead stick parameter built-in or will it always pull up when it thinks it needs to
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So that ground collision thing . Does it automatically fire anytime the plane reaches a certain set of parameters? Like what if you're in an intense killer dogfight and your diving to avoid a missile or kill the bad guy or something and you know what you're doing ? Does it have some sort of dead stick parameter built-in or will it always pull up when it thinks it needs to Based on reports from the near-release version, it does, but you really have to deliberately decide to override it by either hitting a paddle on the stick or deliberately using 19 pounds of force. At first any input was an override, but they found humans so slow compared to the computer that they were going hundreds of feet through the pre-set floor even with alert pilots at the stick. The floor can be set based on mission set. So a trainee practicing BFM at 20,000 feet won't have the same floor as low-flying strike fighters. More details here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article8.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Setting that up in a way that is safe and doesn't keep the fighter from fightering sounds like a really cool design challenge. Also  quote:When the flight path is pointed above threatening terrain, the Auto-GCAS disengages and announces, "You got it!" "Try not to gently caress up again, big boy!" e: quote:Even test pilots met their match when flying this test point during the development effort. None of the program's pilots would go lower than a 100-ft. MDA. 
aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Setting that up in a way that is safe and doesn't keep the fighter from fightering sounds like a really cool design challenge. Lawndarts gonna dart
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
The description of little corrective bumps when doing 200 foot or 50 foot MDA profiles is cool as hell. Pretty sick that it will keep you from bird-striking a nest in a pine tree without popping you up into the air for enemy fighters and air defense systems to see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Oh ye of little faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Oh ye of little faith. Anyone else hear this in HAL's voice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
Godholio posted:Oh ye of little faith. Possibly one of my favorite YouTube videos of all time http://youtu.be/lW5Dxizy4ZE
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:"Try not to gently caress up again, big boy!" "Uplifting Ursula," the "Bitchin' Betty" for millennials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Remember those "combat ready" F-35s they rolled out a few weeks back? They're grounded: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ling-insulation
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:Remember those "combat ready" F-35s they rolled out a few weeks back? They're grounded: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ling-insulation Seems obnoxious, but not that big of a deal, honestly: quote:According to the Norwegian MoD the issue has been traced back to cooling lines manufactured by one particular provider that have only been installed in the wing fuel tanks of 15 aircraft – 13 US and 2 Norwegian. However, an additional 42 aircraft currently on the production line have received parts from the same provider (including the three Norwegian aircraft scheduled for delivery early next year). Parts suppliers are sometimes lovely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Seems obnoxious, but not that big of a deal, honestly: Oh yeah, I'll agree, it's more of a PR mess/another embarrassment than anything. If it had happened to any other project that wasn't the F-35 it'd be a non-event.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Seems obnoxious, but not that big of a deal, honestly: Best quote from that article: quote:In July, Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, the head of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, said in an interview he had faith in the aircraft and that he was “very, very confident it is going to continue to exceed our expectations.” But he warned that declaring the plane’s “initial combat capability is just the beginning. We still have work to do on the airplane, and it will continue to get better.” "Continue to exceed our expectations." Are there any expectations the F-35 has exceeded that aren't negative ones? I guess it's burned less fuel than was expected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
It exceeded the expectations of Lockheed Martin's quarterly targets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Seems obnoxious, but not that big of a deal, honestly: Oh, it's not a design flaw, but it could delay testing and stuff even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Livestream of B-21 naming announcement, if anyone is THAT excited to see if their suggestion got chosen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rrSbCFc8aU edit: it's "Raider"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
 not awful, just meh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:30
|
|
