|
TheFluff posted:The Swedish datalink system for transmitting radar targets from ground installations to fighters did so with 103-bit data packets transmitted over a 3000 bits/second tone signaling system, starting in 1962. The packets were addressed to a specific fighter, so a single link controlling 30 fighters would have enough bandwidth for one update per second for each of them. It was completely unencrypted but had simple jamming and spoofing resistance in that the receiver antennas on the aircraft could be set to a directional mode focused to the rear, the idea being that the interceptor would almost always be between the ground installation and the approaching target. For the love of god, do iiiit
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
~Coxy posted:It's OK, there's another guy I know with the same hoodie and he carries a Camelbak. When I need a drink, I walk behind him and grab the mouthpiece and take a long draw. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The Swedish datalink system for transmitting radar targets from ground installations to fighters did so with 103-bit data packets transmitted over a 3000 bits/second tone signaling system, starting in 1962. The packets were addressed to a specific fighter, so a single link controlling 30 fighters would have enough bandwidth for one update per second for each of them. It was completely unencrypted but had simple jamming and spoofing resistance in that the receiver antennas on the aircraft could be set to a directional mode focused to the rear, the idea being that the interceptor would almost always be between the ground installation and the approaching target. Sounds like a bespoke Swedish version of Link 4. I could do a write-up of Link 16 to go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:New fashion trend from Akihabara: Why did both guys change to women when the wings were deployed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Variable geometry is powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Variable geometry is powerful. Guess they raised the gear after takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Variable geometry is powerful. bull3964 posted:Guess they raised the gear after takeoff. nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Hazmatt. Matt the hazmat guy was Hazmatt.
vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jan 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:Sounds like a bespoke Swedish version of Link 4. Id be interested in hearing Link 16 from your perspective. Dont you guys only have a MIDS LVT though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Hazmatt. The hazmat guy was Hazmatt. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
I’d give them an engine rich exhaust after gear retraction
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The Locator posted:If you include all the airport bullshit at both ends, the airplane time factor isn't that much different on short air hops. Yeah, it feels quicker to go from London to Paris by undersea train than fly LHR to CDG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Id be interested in hearing Link 16 from your perspective. Dont you guys only have a MIDS LVT though? That's only the E-2D. Charlies use JTIDS Class 2 terminals. Same functionality though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
JSTARS had MIDS JTRS
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:JSTARS had MIDS JTRS Wingnut Ninja posted:That's only the E-2D. Charlies use JTIDS Class 2 terminals. Same functionality though. Still interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
I've talked about ConnAir before, and konw the family. There's a lot in this incredibly short 'history' article that I was never told. The article in my mind is garbage and seems half finished but thought the thread would like it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-13/hopes-to-remember-connellan-airways/9326730 EDIT COS NO NEW POSTS: Just been chatting with the Conn family and doing a surpise visit in 2 months. I went to school with Ed who was named after the founder. The museum supercharged Heron is a loving aviation rarity in Australia. Funnily enough, If I wasn't such an rear end in a top hat I would be married into the family via a sister already :/ Ed does this poo poo daily (yes Ive posted the vid before) so I might have to strap a few cameras on when we joyfliy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xogzeJD6cGg Humphreys fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:New fashion trend from Akihabara: Want to buy so hard, but Japanese larges are like American smalls  Pls make sizes for us large American aerospace weebs thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
Subtuna posted:Want to buy so hard, but Japanese larges are like American smalls
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Holy hell. I'm always surprised that this is the absolutely top thread in the entire forum for pitch black morbid humor. Only because GiP Current Events reboots every month
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
What did the SA app just do to me??
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Crosspost:facialimpediment posted:https://twitter.com/ABC/status/952567059426226178
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Crosspost: BBC says it's a 737-800. I go look, expecting the worst, and it's actually a 737-800. I'm pleasantly surprised today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Yeah, I just recently got it for XPlane and in 4 flights I've successfully landed once, though the once was after blowing out the flaps on approach. how much harder is it, compared to fsx? how much harder can it even be anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
So I've been spergin' about cargo planes in the milhist thread. Bewbies gave me a good suggestion: that I should make some formula for expressing the cargo haulacity for evaluating designs. After screwing around a bit with my calculator, I think I found the Transport Efficiency Aggregate formula, or TEA. [payload / MOT] * range = TEA The TEA of the C-47 is 494. TEAs of German aircraft: Ju 52 = 155 Me 323 = 560 Ju 88 A-4 = 243 Ju 290 = 689 BV 222 = 910 He 177 = 578 Bombers have payloads and ranges that are easier to find than transports. B-17 = 293 B-24 = 203 B-29 = 464 B-36 = 2255 C-130H = 1103 An-124 = 1333 An-225 = 1250 C-17 = 1309 Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Go get laid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So I've been spergin' about cargo planes in the milhist thread. Bewbies gave me a good suggestion: that I should make some formula for expressing the cargo haulacity for evaluating designs. After screwing around a bit with my calculator, I think I found the Transport Efficiency Aggregate formula, or TEA. Does MOT stand for Mass Of Transport? Would that be total weight of the aircraft and fuel? What are the units?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Go get laid. What do you think I'm...oh nevermind Hermsgervørden posted:Does MOT stand for Mass Of Transport? Would that be total weight of the aircraft and fuel? What are the units? Max weight on takeoff. Payload is in kg, as is max weight on takeoff. Distance is in km.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What do you think I'm...oh nevermind Isn't that normally written MTOW? Might make things less confusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Max weight on takeoff. Payload is in kg, as is max weight on takeoff. Distance is in km. Nebakenezzer posted:[payload / MOT] * range = TEA Fix the acronym for clarity! Edit: include a factor for rocket assisted take off. TEAR 
Hermsgervørden fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Carth Dookie posted:Go get laid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
1) Whatever measure you choose, ditch MOT. It's universally called MTOW. 2) What is range? Is it zero-payload range? Is it range at max fuel @ MTOW (i.e payload is reduced to be able to fill the tanks)? Is it range at max payload (ie fuel is reduced so extra cargo can be carried)? Payload-range diagrams are rather complex. Imagine the payload as range increases. At 0km you have no fuel weight and max payload. As range increases so does fuel with payload a constant, until you hit MTOW. Then as fuel increases payload must decrease to maintain MTOW until you hit max fuel capacity. Then as range increases fuel is fixed so payload decreases fast to lighten the aircraft, until you hit max range which is all fuel and zero payload. Range is a difficult thing. eg: (B748F)  I would calculate a performance metric by what payload/range maximizes the area in a payload/range plot? That would give you units of kgkm, and is the same as asking how many flights are required (allowing for fractions of flights, infinitely divisible cargo and unlimited refueling stops) to move eg 100,000kg of payload eg 100,000km? Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:1) Whatever measure you choose, ditch MOT. It's universally called MTOW. The problem Nebakenezzer is going to have is that a lot of the aircraft they are writing about are pretty obscure and poorly documented with few airframes. So that plot probably isn’t there in many cases. Use whichever range number is largest because that will make the final number bigger and bigger=better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a total kludge. A properly done metric would rely on data I just don't have, and probably use calculus as well. This is just a number for comparison using similar data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Requesting C-5M, B-52A & H, and Tu-4 & 95.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
A) Go get laid; B) Your metric is not taking volume into account, and other incidental factors. A 737 original has a payload similar to a C-130, but both aircrafts have their roles. C) Seriously go get laid. I know people who charter cargo aircrafts for a living, that's what they'd tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So I've been spergin' about cargo planes in the milhist thread. Bewbies gave me a good suggestion: that I should make some formula for expressing the cargo haulacity for evaluating designs. After screwing around a bit with my calculator, I think I found the Transport Efficiency Aggregate formula, or TEA. Add a modifier for fleet reliabily. A cargo plane that's AOG isn't very efficient at moving cargo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Add a modifier for fleet reliabily. A cargo plane that's AOG isn't very efficient at moving cargo. AOG aircraft are pretty efficient at creating a need for movement of cargo in a hurry!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
I think as a quick and dirty tool for comparison purposes it is fine. The most important thing is that the input figures are comparable, as captain postal mentioned. There is no such thing as just a "max range" figure. Another thing to be aware of is that planes with different puposes will have different design criteria that can influence range performance. Cargo planes designed for soft field performance will probably have worse payload fraction and worse range, due to relatively heavier landing gear and shorter wingspan, for ground maneuvering at austere fields. So restrict your comparison to only be between planes with similar roles. I also suspect that you will get some weirdness comparing very different sized planes, due to the square-cube law. catfry fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
All of you need to go get laid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:31
|
|
