|
I love the SM. 79. It's so goofy looking, yet so awesome looking, and that skul-gun!
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I love the SM. 79. It's so goofy looking, yet so awesome looking, and that skul-gun! I wonder how many pilots ended up stone-deaf from having a 20mm cannon firing less than a foot from their heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
That is a new thing to me, and checks quite a few of my boxes. However, "A Cant 506 became famous, among the Allies, because it was the only plane hijacked by prisoners of war on the Western Front (it was then used by the RAF from Malta)". How does that square with Bob Hoover jacking an FW 190? Was that not Western Front?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
It's a technicality. For it to be a hijacking, you have to steal it while it's in transit. Hoover's FW 190 misses on that because it had been grounded for spare parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I wonder how many pilots ended up stone-deaf from having a 20mm cannon firing less than a foot from their heads. It was a Breda .50 typically or a mockup. So it probably sounded like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWLTnqMicWI&t=8s
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It's a technicality. For it to be a hijacking, you have to steal it while it's in transit. Also Italy was part of the MTO rather than the Western Front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I wonder how many pilots ended up stone-deaf from having a 20mm cannon firing less than a foot from their heads. All of them - the engines took care of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Me, too, Airplane. Me, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It was a Breda .50 typically or a mockup. So it probably sounded like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWLTnqMicWI&t=8s Well, dang. When I was young I had a book that described it as a 20mm. I'm a little sad now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
 It has the face of a golden retriever you just asked to go for a ride in the car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
I always liked that Italian bomber.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Their aircraft really match the whole Italian manufacturing effort during WW2. They could come up with designs as good - sometimes better - than what the Germans and Allies had. But their industrial base sucked so they couldn't make the good designs in any numbers, so stuck with the semi-obsolete ones they could build.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I always liked that Italian bomber. Check out the Piaggio P.108.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Italian fascism has a really interesting and specific relationship with its aviation industry. Il Duce based a lot of his personal mythology on his WWI fighter career, in particular portraying his survival of a crash as a Christlike resurrection—a replica of his plane rammed nose first into a mound of dirt and garlanded with Italian flags formed the centerpiece of major exhibitions of Italian nationalist art and technological progress. The Air Ministry was the showpiece of the government and run as a model fascist utopian workplace, with 'innovations' that mostly amounted to seeing exactly how far one can go in micromanaging employee time (stringing pneumatic tubes so no one has to do anything as inefficient as getting up from their desk to confer with others, for example). Much the way that Triumph of the Will and Hugo Boss left indelible marks on the aesthetic of power, we still mostly carry forward what 1920s Italian fascists thought was cool for our cultural depictions of airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Italian fascism has a really interesting and specific relationship with its aviation industry. Il Duce based a lot of his personal mythology on his WWI fighter career, in particular portraying his survival of a crash as a Christlike resurrection—a replica of his plane rammed nose first into a mound of dirt and garlanded with Italian flags formed the centerpiece of major exhibitions of Italian nationalist art and technological progress. The Air Ministry was the showpiece of the government and run as a model fascist utopian workplace, with 'innovations' that mostly amounted to seeing exactly how far one can go in micromanaging employee time (stringing pneumatic tubes so no one has to do anything as inefficient as getting up from their desk to confer with others, for example). They were also notably good at it. Air Marshal Italo Balbo leading a flight of a dozen SM.55's from Rome to Chicago for the Century of Progress fair was a major big deal. They re-named 7th street in Chicago after him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
I'm actually pretty sure there have been some effort posts on Balbo in this thread somewhere, though they're not in the OP masterlist. My knowledge of the subject comes from this book, which is primarily looking through an art history lens, but went into enough detail on the personalities and politics to paint a picture of a beautifully, tragically dysfunctional industry that mostly died with its brilliant turbonerd originator, Balbo. (As an aside, the absolute frequency with which Italian ministers of state smuggle hand grenades into important government meetings, just in case, is one of my favorite things about fascist Italy)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:(As an aside, the absolute frequency with which Italian ministers of state smuggle hand grenades into important government meetings, just in case, is one of my favorite things about fascist Italy) Wait, is this not standard practice? poo poo, my briefcase is about to get a lot lighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Check out the Piaggio P.108. It's a fair point; who would have thought the Italians could build a four-engine heavy bomber and the Germans couldn't? The Germans, that's who   Similarly, Another airplane that CANT designed is this one: the CANT Z.511. Built originally for commercial uses in South America, the single prototype was drafted for war. The second aircraft was never completed. Still, the largest floatplane?   
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:(As an aside, the absolute frequency with which Italian ministers of state smuggle hand grenades into important government meetings, just in case, is one of my favorite things about fascist Italy) In case for what? Its a grenade. In a room. Almost any other weapon would be better. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:In case for what? Its a grenade. In a room. Almost any other weapon would be better. If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me, presumably. Literally this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3dl32LaOls
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
I know this is probably a huge topic with lots of theory, so I don't mind being linked to a good resource to teach myself - but how do you choose how many blades your propellor should have? What is the decision between 2, 3, 4, or more based on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I know this is probably a huge topic with lots of theory, so I don't mind being linked to a good resource to teach myself - but how do you choose how many blades your propellor should have? What is the decision between 2, 3, 4, or more based on? How much power you're making versus desired maximum propeller diameter, engine redline (especially for fixed-pitch props,) and also noise concerns. If you're making 100hp, you're good with a regular 69" two-blade prop. Going to a 130hp engine with that prop and no other changes is going to result in the engine over-revving at WOT, so you might go to a 72" prop. A 200hp engine might also have a ~72" prop, but it's probably going to have three blades. An engineering team working on a 750shp per-side turboprop twin might go from an old-school four blade straight prop to a seven blade scimitar-blade prop of a lesser diameter to reduce noise. This is a heinously complicated topic, but that's the gist of it. There's much more, in terms of the exact blade design, blade washout, controllable or constant-speed, propeller pitch, etc etc. it's just as complicated a topic as engine design, if not more so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
The Italians apparently built six of those four-engine bombers a year which is pretty the_whole_problem_with_the_Axis_war_effort.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:This is a heinously complicated topic, but that's the gist of it. There's much more, in terms of the exact blade design, blade washout, controllable or constant-speed, propeller pitch, etc etc. it's just as complicated a topic as engine design, if not more so. My naval architecture teacher used to joke that ships are designed from the propeller out; I assume it's the same for airplanes. Propeller science is ridiculously complex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The Italians apparently built six of those four-engine bombers a year which is pretty the_whole_problem_with_the_Axis_war_effort.txt By the time the Italians launched their last battleship, the other three battleships they had were almost always stuck in port because there was no fuel for them. Italian-German cooperation in general too was amazingly terrible compared to the Allies. Consider: the Germans could have told the Italians, had they asked, that the British were putting radar on their warships. Along with ULTRA, radar was the main advantage the British held over the Italians throughout the war. Meanwhile, the Italians had done a poo poo ton of work on radar pre-war, and where much more advanced than the Germans, using magnetron based sets. The Germans never learned about this, because they were all "Italians cannot match our superior Aryan science" without so much as bothering to check that. On the other hand, the Mediterranean theatre was kind of a weird theatre in that everyone (even the Italians) were always taking resources away from it to send elsewhere. This is partially why every side had multiple reverses in fortune. Positive for the Italians, the British defending Malta for a long time were using older types of aircraft. Early Mark Hurricanes and Bristol Blenheim. This meant that even its last biplane fighter could hold its own and be a threat. e: flighter, a good word Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Britain and America had closer cooperation than the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
The USSR and the Western allies had closer cooperation (with the exception of a small weapons project run by some guy named Oppenheimer) than the SS and Heer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:My naval architecture teacher used to joke that ships are designed from the propeller out; I assume it's the same for airplanes. Propeller science is ridiculously complex. Getting it precisely right is complex but basics like number of blades, diameter, and even twist are a relatively simple matter of Blade Element Momentum Theory. You're going to have a maximum diameter from the beginning due to either clearance or keeping tip speeds down. Mathematically you can make a propeller of any diameter with any number of blades absorb the power you need it to, but if you're designing a two-blade prop and the model says you need an 18-inch chord at some point, then you know it's time to add more blades or adjust gearing if you've got the overhead for more prop speed. Then you run the model through CFD, find out everything is wrong and just pull things out of your rear end until it works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:My naval architecture teacher used to joke that ships are designed from the propeller out; I assume it's the same for airplanes. Propeller science is ridiculously complex. hadler?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Crosspostingmlmp08 posted:MiG-35 pictures:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Crossposting Got enough weapons pylons, bro?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Arishtat posted:Got enough weapons pylons, bro? Nope 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Nope
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
david_a posted:Are some of those pylons canted or is it just lens distortion? I forget which plane, but there is at least one where canted pylons are required to ensure a clean release.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Arishtat posted:Got enough weapons pylons, bro? No wingtip pylons? Shame. Platystemon posted:I forget which plane, but there is at least one where canted pylons are required to ensure a clean release. The Super Hornet. Probably a consequence of trying to pretend it's a normal Hornet, just Super, instead of using a new aerodynamic formula.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Regular hornets have 'em canted too I think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Super Hornet. Probably a consequence of trying to pretend it's a normal Hornet, just Super, instead of using a new aerodynamic formula. Speaking of Super Hornets: http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/mattis-names-super-hornet-possible-alternative-f-35 quote:Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has ordered separate reviews of both Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and Boeing’s Air Force One replacement in an effort to significantly reduce the cost of both programs, and in a blow to Lockheed has named Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet as a possible alternative to the U.S. Navy’s F-35C 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Yeah that's great and all but the time to do that was ten years and a trillion dollars ago, not now when all the development work is done and the first squadrons are finished and the things are (shakily, cautiously) taking flight. Trying to switch to a different airframe now just makes it literally wasted money instead of figuratively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Yeah that's great and all but the time to do that was ten years and a trillion dollars ago, not now when all the development work is done and the first squadrons are finished and the things are (shakily, cautiously) taking flight. This is the US military you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 20:42
|
|