|
Cun/T Cor/K In other news, diva cups are p good
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
and gets Kil/D
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
I didn't even notice the proximity of Cor/K. Good eye. Oh, and I can't remember who it was, but someone in here mentioned that they saw the Lego Saturn V at the Boeing Store near the Museum of Flight about 2-3 weeks ago. Thanks for that - I was able to make another goon (and one of my best friends) really loving happy (and also slightly annoyed, evidently) by getting it for him - not only that, the store had a 20% off sale going. Oh, and for some reason Jerry Holkins (of Penny Arcade) was on AS956, and got *really* loving paranoid when I recognized him. If you wanna blend in and not have internet people recognize you, don't have a valet standing behind you at the baggage claim, dude. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Oh, and for some reason Jerry Holkins (of Penny Arcade) was on AS956, and got *really* loving paranoid when I recognized him. I'm pretty sure that's default Jerry behavior anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I'm pretty sure that's default Jerry behavior anyway. Well, I probably didn't help matters by saying "hey, Tycho" to him (casually, not creepily - Dulles is a nightmare for pickups and I wanted gone). That got a poo poo-eating grin out of 'his guy,' so  says he probably mentioned something to him about how he never gets recognized or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Minutes before you arrived: Dude1, "Everyone thinks I'm this Tycho guy from some website." Dude2, "Tycho? Nah, I've met him you don't look like him at all." Dude1, "No, seriously, everywhere I go, "Hey Tycho!", I'm loving sick of it." Big Headline, "Hey Tycho!" Dude1, *grumpy face* Dude2, *smirk*
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Minutes before you arrived: Pretty much.  It definitely was Jerry Holkins, though. 100%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Sure sounds like him. First time I met him I didn't realize who he was (on an escalator at PAX East 2010). Hard for me to miss that shiny head now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That JSTARS video, goddamn. The I-153P was the best troll-plane ever in Il-2 1946 It looks like a lovely little biplane, and indeed it is quite slow and fairly fragile. However, as a biplane the I-153 can out-climb and out-handle much more powerful monoplanes in the low-altitude envelope that most multiplayer Il-2 matches take place in...and the -P model is armed with a pair of 20mm cannon and eight unguided rockets  Hella fun to take off at 40 knots, point the nose straight up, and blow up a passing Bf-109 that thinks he's safe with a half-second snap shot burst, then unload your rockets into the smug rear end in a top hat flying a He-111 who thinks he's immune to fighters
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The I-153P was the best troll-plane ever in Il-2 1946 It is (or was) a monster in War Thunder and the horrible game World of Warplanes. It earned me 15,000 gold in the latter, though. drat that little cutie was a loving beast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Yeah in war thunder there's a version with a gazillion MGs and it's just the best for sniping pilots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:I'm pretty sure that's default Jerry behavior anyway. Yeah, and the only reason I even did the "Hey Tycho" thing is because he was alone, save for the valet. If his wife and/or kid were there I'd not even have made decent eye contact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Was the I-153 ever any good in real life? A cursory glance on Wikipedia indicates that they did not have a firewall between the fuel tank and the cockpit so had a tendency to burst into flames. Also the engine only lasted 60-80 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Was the I-153 ever any good in real life? A cursory glance on Wikipedia indicates that they did not have a firewall between the fuel tank and the cockpit so had a tendency to burst into flames. Also the engine only lasted 60-80 hours. Pretty sure the logic behind all Russian warplanes is pretty much this: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
It was a good fighter when it was introduced. It could tangle with the first generation mono-plane fighters that had fixed landing gear; gave up speed but had better maneuverability. Not having a firewall and the short engine life was bad but many of the fighters it might have fought at that time had similar glaring weaknesses. I'd compare it to the French fighting the Great War with the Lebel rifle. Both were as good as their basic concepts (biplane fighter, tube-magazine bolt action) could be, which meant the alternative (monoplane fighters, clip-fed box magazine rifles) had advantages and room to improve further. But in the specific moment, the new type hadn't quite been optimized so the old tech was only marginally worse and not automatically going to cost you a conflict with smart use. The real danger is that you can't improve the design further, so if the enemy starts making improvements to their equipment, you've got to make a whole new design to keep up. Which is what happened to the French. Of course, the Soviets really screwed the pooch by keeping the I-153 in service way past the point it was obsolete. It could fight Ki-27s on more or less even footing. It had no hope against Bf-109s and Fw-190s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Courtesy of PACOM      
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
I went to the airshow at Andrews on Sunday, got some photos.                                
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Courtesy of PACOM BOnes will never not look like ridiculous geese flying [whatever direction] for [whatever season].
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Dannywilson posted:BOnes will never not look like ridiculous geese flying [whatever direction] for [whatever season]. East for fall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It was a good fighter when it was introduced. It could tangle with the first generation mono-plane fighters that had fixed landing gear; gave up speed but had better maneuverability. Not having a firewall and the short engine life was bad but many of the fighters it might have fought at that time had similar glaring weaknesses. Wasn't it introduced in 1939? It was supposed to be a frontline fighter. In comparison, the Hurricane was introduced late 1937. the first generation bf 109 came about in 1936. the Grumman Wildcat is from 1940. The russians doctrinally stuck with biplanes due to experiences in the Spanish civil war, where maneuverable biplanes had an edge on the opposing monoplanes, at least according to wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
catfry posted:Wasn't it introduced in 1939? It was supposed to be a frontline fighter. Not entirely a fair comparison as the I-153 is an improved I-15, which itself predates the 109 and Hurri. But yeah the Soviets weren't exactly cutting egde.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't say they weren't capable designwise. The laGG-1 and mig-1 are about contemporary. The l-153 is just a divergent strategy that in hindsight was based on outdated experiences I'd say. Things were moving fast in the interwar period and decisionmakers didn't quite keep up before the war was already in full swing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
catfry posted:Wasn't it introduced in 1939? It was supposed to be a frontline fighter. Yeah, the low-altitude combat in Spain played to the strengths of last-generation biplanes, which could out-climb and out-turn first-generation monoplane fighters like the Bf109 and the I-16. They could easily intercept the trimotor bombers and even the early tactical bombers like the He111 and the SB. The Italians learnt the same lesson from the success of the Fiat CR32 and kept developing biplane fighters on the assumption that what a monoplane gained in speed it lacked in agility. But as Comrade Gorbash said up-thread, it was a case of the ultimate development of the biplane meeting the first step in the development of the monoplane. The former had nowhere to go (the Gregor FBD-1 probably represented the ultimate 'high tech' for a biplane fighter and was still nowhere near good enough to match 1939-generation monoplanes) while the latter was still in the white heat of development. Wasn't the I-153 partly due to Soviet doctrine which foresaw I-153s being used to intercept bombers (where their superior climb rate was an advantage for interception and their restricted top speed didn't matter) and I-16s being used to deal with fighter escorts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
I love the decision to try adding jet engines to a biplane. https://thelieutenantknows.net/main/2015/5/28/the-ussrs-jet-powered-biplane
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I love the decision to try adding jet engines to a biplane. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I love the decision to try adding jet engines to a biplane. I already had a 'thing' for last-gen biplanes as the final gasp of a once-potent technology that sometimes managed to be effective against the odds (plus they tend to be very good-looking) but I'd never heard of the Jet-Chaika. It's perfect!  It's even better than the Fiat CR42 they fitted with the engine from a Bf109E, which had an estimated top speed of 323mph!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
That's a GREAT air show displays, if you ever have the chance to see it. One of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:That's a GREAT air show displays, if you ever have the chance to see it. One of my favorites. Yeah, it is very cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Gripen in aggressor camo is  https://twitter.com/Saab_US/status/910156606322741248
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Yeah, the low-altitude combat in Spain played to the strengths of last-generation biplanes, which could out-climb and out-turn first-generation monoplane fighters like the Bf109 and the I-16. They could easily intercept the trimotor bombers and even the early tactical bombers like the He111 and the SB. The Italians learnt the same lesson from the success of the Fiat CR32 and kept developing biplane fighters on the assumption that what a monoplane gained in speed it lacked in agility. But as Comrade Gorbash said up-thread, it was a case of the ultimate development of the biplane meeting the first step in the development of the monoplane. The former had nowhere to go (the Gregor FBD-1 probably represented the ultimate 'high tech' for a biplane fighter and was still nowhere near good enough to match 1939-generation monoplanes) while the latter was still in the white heat of development. On paper it makes sense. The Soviets, not altogether unreasonably, expected that most of their opponents would be fielding the relatively large number of late biplanes and early monoplanes they already had in inventory, which the I-153 could feast on. And then when the cutting edge fighters tangled, the Soviets would have the advantage because they could support their top-line aircraft with large numbers of a less capable, but still dangerous, fighter. This actually more or less played out against Japan, Poland, and Finland. What the Soviets missed, and the Germans immediately realized, was that with only a little improvement in design and doctrine, all-weather monoplane fighters would completely outclass any biplane design. It helped that the Germans didn't have a ton of older aircraft in inventory anyways, but they made a concerted effort to replace all of those designs with new ones and relegated what biplane and early monoplane designs they kept to secondary roles. So when Operation Barbarossa kicked off, the Germans didn't send any old designs into air-to-air combat at all, and fielded way more top-of-the-line fighters than the Soviets had planned for, even if it meant a smaller air fleet in raw numbers. The I-153 was a solid concept for the war the Soviets thought they would be fighting in 1938, but after making those plans, they failed to keep apace of developments and ended up in a very different war in 1941. The I-153 was a decent fighter for the world it was introduced into. The problem was it showed up just before that world disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I went to the airshow at Andrews on Sunday, got some photos. I like the livery on this thing, but I can't imagine the US President ever used it as Marine 1 or whatev Thanks for the replies on the I-153. I guess aeronautical science was advancing really fast even before WW2 started, huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:I love the decision to try adding jet engines to a biplane. Everyone knows you have to design jet biplanes from a clean slate, like the Belphegor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I like the livery on this thing, but I can't imagine the US President ever used it as Marine 1 or whatev Those aren't antiques, they fly them every goddamn day over the skies here in DC. And I don't think they're part of VMX-1 or whatever the presidential flight squadron is. Incidentally, since Trump took office the number of helicopter flights over DC has tripled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Those aren't antiques, they fly them every goddamn day over the skies here in DC. And I don't think they're part of VMX-1 or whatever the presidential flight squadron is. Yeah, it would be Air Force One if the President hopped a ride in one, but VMX-1 is always ready to move the President, so I can't see it happening. I visited the US Army Aviation Museum last month, and they have a former Army One, back from the early days when the Marines and the Army traded the job off.  Pretty swanky for an S-58. The UH-1 replacement program for the Air Force has been a procurement disaster. The Air Force wants one helicopter that does everything and is massively suffering from requirements creep. They want a helicopter to service the missile silos (long range required), that is suitable for VIP transport (low operating cost, nice interior options), and has survivability equipment typically seen on combat aircraft. Oh, and by the way, it should be able to mount weapons on external hard points, because the USAF might want to use it as a platform to test weapon systems. They were supposed to purchase a COTS replacement, but the requirements disqualify almost everything on the market. The considered the UH-1Y, but apparently it doesn't hold enough crew for the requirements. Lastly, the Army is surplusing H-60A and L models, which do meet the requirements, but industry is kicking and screaming that it's not fair to bypass the normal acquisition process and the USAF claims they're too expensive to operate (and doesn't really want the Army's hand me downs). In a reasonable world, they'd pick up some surplus H-60s for the small number of jobs that really require a medium-lift militarized utility helicopter, and buy COTS (maybe even more UH-72s, God forbid) for the rest of the work of shuttling Generals around. And they'd drop the flare launchers and jammers for helicopters that are only going to be used domestically. In our world, we're going to get some extremely expensive new build modification of an existing expensive helicopter, probably an H-60 (HH-60U) or AW139 (MH-139) at this point. Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Gripen in aggressor camo is Goddamn that's gorgeous. The Gripen is one of my favorite aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
hey if any structural engineers hate their livers, I'd really like to know what kind of materials would be needed to build a wingbox (and plane) which has a 3200 ft wingspan and carries a payload of 1 Nimitz-class carrier. By which I mean it is a flying aircraft carrier. bonus points if you can figure out how to get it airborne and stay there, but really one step at a time if you think this sounds like it's coming from a dumb internet discussion, you're right! but it's in good spirits, mostly
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Psion posted:hey if any structural engineers hate their livers, I'd really like to know what kind of materials would be needed to build a wingbox (and plane) which has a 3200 ft wingspan and carries a payload of 1 Nimitz-class carrier. By which I mean it is a flying aircraft carrier. Well, first the question is "how can we make it lighter" Is the goal to have independent flying for years? or just "get 1/4 mile of runway, and 100 planes into the air" EDIT: More importantly, is the goal to fly 100 planes and recover them? and have all the aircraft carrier facilities? Or is the simple answer "lift an aircraft carrier" And.... there are some other things to consider. Wheels? what can this land on? Water? What sort of air, and sea states? Speed of flight? ... Oh god, i'm about to open up the raymer spreadsheet... Nerobro fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Point of interest: the chaff and flare systems currently in use (on the HH-60) are bolt on accessory frames that can literally be installed and removed in under 20 minutes, and are left off for civil applications. The IR spoofing is about a 30 minute install or removal. The IR detection and radar warning systems are hard mounted, but neither system weighs very much, and they can be removed and blanking plates installed on their mounting points. The weapons pintle-mounts are another story as far as quick removal/installation, but take up very little space and are made of composite, so they don't weigh much. Honestly, where the most weight on a 60 comes from is the aerial refueling system and associated probe, piping, and pumping systems. Other weight comes from legacy avionics that haven't been updated in 25 years, IE 35lb TACAN receiver, 35-40lb legacy block 3 GPS receiver, standalone ancient 35-40lb Honeywell INU, ancient video symbology display system (VSDS) that altogether probably weighs 120lbs, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Please don't do that to yourself. It's from Ace Combat 6, which should tell you all you need to know about real world possibility. But it's a flying aircraft carrier with facilities (embarked air wing of Su-33s, among others) and also carries a large number of cruise missiles in a VLS, a full weapon suite including flak and missiles, only needs to refuel every three days from six KC-10s, and has 24 engines (despite only needing 6 to stay airborne because of course it's an ace combat boss fight) so no nuclear power, apparently. I wasn't really seriously asking. Psion fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Psion posted:hey if any structural engineers hate their livers, I'd really like to know what kind of materials would be needed to build a wingbox (and plane) which has a 3200 ft wingspan and carries a payload of 1 Nimitz-class carrier. By which I mean it is a flying aircraft carrier. Why a single thirty-two-hundred-foot wing? Why not distribute the lift? Platystemon fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:43
|
|