|
Warbird posted:Translation for those fond of the ground? Ahem: This is a corrected METAR for KDLF in southwest Texas. Correction issued 0122Z on 4/12. Winds 050 at 15 kts gusting 35. Viz 3 statute miles. Current conditions: Funnel Cloud, Thunderstorm, Rain, Large hail. Clouds broken at 3,000 ft. Temp 25C Dewpoint 21 C. Altimeter 29.55. Remarks: TORNADO overhead. THUNDERSTORM overhead. 1.5 inch hailstones falling. Pressure rising rapidly though  When typed out like that it reads like a description of injuries in dwarf fortress. His head is missing. His left arm is bleeding.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Charles posted:I see the word TORNADO in there Metard e-code 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Wind could be stronger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Spaced God posted:Ahem:  the METAR was originally issued at 0122Z; the correction was issued twenty minutes later at 0147Z Furthermore, the rain began at 17 minutes past the hour, the thunderstorm began at 2 minutes past the hour and ended at 22 minutes, the pressure is rising rapidly, the sea level pressure is 999.6 hPa, and the system requires maintenance.
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Apr 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The kind of climb performance you are asking for is basically only possible - just - with a jet or rocket-powered aircraft in this vintage. Even then, aircraft like the P-80 - which is sort of contemporary with this - could only make 30,000 feet in 10 minutes without the tip tanks installed. The very best piston-powered aircraft of the time could, if they were aerodynamically clean and pushed to the maximum of their performance with no regard for engine longevity, reach 30,000 feet in about 15 minutes. Interesting numbers on the P-80. Looks like P-51H could do 30,000 feet in 9.4 minutes and the Spitfire Mk XI in at least 9.2 minutes. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html I'll do some more digging and see if the requirements could use some tweaking. MrChips posted:Interesting, but there are some issues with performance here, especially with the "no strategic materials" restriction. Nebakenezzer posted:The "economize resources" thing. That cashes out way differently depending on the nation. In Germany that's some asymetrical BnV fighter made from wood and steel assembled by slaves; in America, that doesn't mean much. Also, if defending against these aircraft is a big priority (IE the Nazis are not just trying to freak people out by having four airplanes bomb stuff at random) they you're going to be able to find the fancy metals for turbines and aircraft grade aluminum. Maybe you're trying to limit turbines? I can dig it (I mean, the world *needs* aircraft powered by super-sized napier deltics and wasp majors) though the time period, and especially the new challenges of these sorts of bombers really lends itself to new power-plants, especially as the Starfighter was advanced enough to be deployed to Europe before the end of the war. If you want to limit something, my advice is just wave your hands and just do it. Like "nobody thought of turbines." As I said before, historical accuracy is hard to hew to when your scenerio doesn't really need it. The challenge isn't "no strategic materials", per se. I did want people to think about it for a few reasons: 1) If there's a massive bomber offensive going on, long-range escort fighters and bombers are gonna be competing for resources, even in a country with a relatively well-off war economy. Bean counters are going to be more willing to approve a new interceptor if they don't have to make deep cuts to other aircraft programs. 2) It was real concern during the war that lead to some ... interesting real-life design compromises. 3) It's a fun handicap (my biggest reason for including it as a requirement, tbh). Now, the limit on strategic materials is still a "special" requirement (and less heavily weighted in the judging) for a reason. If someone can figure out how to make an actually functional bomber-buster out of tulipwood, awesome. If someone wants to just ignore the limits and make the best drat interceptor that ever was and use two Wasp Majors, they can do that without blowing any chance of doing well in the contest. MrChips posted:I get that this is alternate history, but at the same time, nobody in the real world designing a fighter aircraft in 1950 would have imagined them being able to carry nuclear weapons; at the time they weren't that far removed from Fat Man in terms of their design, size and shape, and it wouldn't be until the very end of the 1950s and early 1960s that a fighter-sized weapon would be deployed in reality. Manufacturing work on the Mark 7 started in 1952. Given that the world of scenario is a little nuke-happy, I nudged the development timeline on tactical nukes up a hair to fit. Nebakenezzer posted:Criticism of the interceptor: a stalemate in europe, yet the luftwaffe is deploying Amerika bombers in 1945. (I mean the whole point is to create drawings of sick aircraft and everything, I get that. But Amerika bombers are one of those things that the Nazis would have had to win ww2 before they'd be in a position to make them.) You have to assume quite a bit of black gay hitler and a lot of unfuckery to the Nazi aircraft industry just to get to the point where the Nazis fielded modest effective numbers of a strategic bomber, let alone something as complex as an Amerika bomber, which imo would take everybody not America till around 1950, and even America didn't start deploying the B-36 until the late 1940s. I'm glad you pointed this out! In the interests of making things simple, I didn't mention some other points of divergence. Wever was a little more cautious making his pre-flight checks and a lot more forceful arguing with Goering back in the 1930s. For this reason and a few others, German heavy bomber development is a bit further along in the scenario's 1944 than in the real 1944. They still aren't going to have hordes of Ju-390s levelling New York, but there's just enough bombers to cause political and morale problems on the U.S. homefront. (And like you said, I mostly brought in the Amerikabomber so people could design American interceptors if they wanted). Nebakenezzer posted:Two alternative modes for intercontinental bombers: aerial refueling (which would allow something B-29-esque to attack) or for truely mad designs, mothership carrier aircraft and smaller, faster aircraft for launch and recovery by the mothership. Something to keep in mind for the Cold War bomber 
Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 11:45
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Something to keep in mind for the Cold War bomber Ohhhh...........{begins scribbling} e: If I were writing an alt-hist novel, I think "wever survives" would be my first point Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Apr 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:Something to keep in mind for the Cold War bomber In all fairness mothershift aircraft should be the first thing considered for any application in any time period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
quote:Long the dominant force in Australia's skies, Qantas has pared its domestic network and its fleet to the bone beginning this Easter weekend as demand for air travel reaches rock bottom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Two alternative modes for intercontinental bombers: aerial refueling (which would allow something B-29-esque to attack) or for truely mad designs, mothership carrier aircraft and smaller, faster aircraft for launch and recovery by the mothership. Giant wood and leather airships as aerial refueling station in the middle of the Atlantic, smaller planes dropping off them to deliver the fuel to the bombers...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
Munin posted:Giant wood and leather airships as aerial refueling station in the middle of the Atlantic, smaller planes dropping off them to deliver the fuel to the bombers... How about a Pykrete aircraft carrier big enough to refuel heavy bombers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:How about a Pykrete aircraft carrier big enough to refuel heavy bombers? You'd need one hell of a blimp to get that airborne
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Can this become a discussion about aerial refueling and reloading of heavy bombers by smaller, short-range carrier aircraft that attach like parasites? How many corners can you cut in the reloading process, such that reloading and take place in a reasonably short period of time as the bomber loiters over a carrier? I'm assuming that a place to start would be to have the parasite reloader attached from the top of the heavy bomber so that's the loading process doesn't have to work against gravity. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Somebody somewhere must have experimented with bandoliers of bombs. A bomb cage that can drop out the bottom of the bomber after a bomb run; new cage slides in from above manufacturing tolerances in the United States got tight enough by 1942/3 that it ought to be possible without constantly seeing the system jam during reloading Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Apr 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Translation for those fond of the ground? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
rip https://mobile.twitter.com/RobWayTV/status/1249723360445116420
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GregHilburn1/status/1249399643382956033 Monroe got hit harder. That's a pile of cessnas business jets under that shredded hangar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Can this become a discussion about aerial refueling and reloading of heavy bombers by smaller, short-range carrier aircraft that attach like parasites? I'm picturing US refueling booms, except there is two of them, and they slide ordnance down in between the booms
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm picturing US refueling booms, except there is two of them, and they slide ordnance down in between the booms The Western answrr to Dahir Insaat has you covered: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ISolAtiNg
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:The Western answrr to Dahir Insaat lockmart?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Mike Sparks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, that’s the Berlin Airlift Historical Society’s C-54 mashed into a hanger at the end of that video.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Can this become a discussion about aerial refueling and reloading of heavy bombers by smaller, short-range carrier aircraft that attach like parasites? Lots of reasons. You're gonna send a bomber and crew over the target, bring them part of the way back, reload them in the air, and send them right back in? First off, that's hosed up and the crews won't appreciate it. Second, that's probably a stupid-long mission duration and you're bumping hard against human endurance. Probably aircraft reliability, too. Basically, you're trying to use a plane to bomb the inside of another plane, but not have the bombs go off the first time. Only the second time. This seems questionable. From a technical standpoint, I'm not sure how plausible it would be anyway. You're going to drop what, a 4-pack of 500 lb bombs into a B-17? So that's 2000 lbs of bombs SLAMMING into place. First off, hot drat that's gonna be a structural challenge to build an airframe to survive the impact. Second, it has to not explode...sure, safeties will probably work most of the time. If they don't, that's at least two planes and crews you just lost. Third, it has to not jam after that. Next point: you're going to have to build a nearly B-17 sized aircraft to carry a B-17's bomb load to reload that B-17. And train a crew. And you're going to need a plane and crew FOR EVERY bomber you've got out there. If you can do that, you're much better off just building more B-17s and sending them downrange on more missions, or in greater numbers per mission to improve the odds of hitting the target. If you're sending 250 bombers downtown, then bringing them 2/3 of the way home, rendezvousing with 250 MORE planes to reload the bombers, then turning back for a second run at the target or to another target, you've drastically increased the complexity of the mission and your logistics. It would be far easier and more practical to just send 500 bombers downtown at once, or 250 now and 250 a few hours later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
So you're saying reloading the bombers is not anime enough? I agree 1000%. Make the bombers shoot lasers too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
Don’t reload bombers, refuel cruise misses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
electric bombers refueled by a NKC-10
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
I'd imagine that a parasite bomber reloader capable of bombing the bomb bay of a gigantic bomber would also be capable of dropping replacement crew in through a hatch with a rope ladder; the old crew can just parachute out and try not to die aiming for the carrier deck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
You're needlessly complicating things once you have a flying hanger and an ability to launch and recover aircraft, you can just fly resupply to the mothership if needed
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'd imagine that a parasite bomber reloader capable of bombing the bomb bay of a gigantic bomber would also be capable of dropping replacement crew in through a hatch with a rope ladder; the old crew can just parachute out and try not to die aiming for the carrier deck. Aerial refueling is hard enough. This is just insane, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: As Described
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
When your Flying Monkey runs out of flying power, simply dispose of Flying Monkey and put in a new one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Aerial recrewing: the final frontier
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Aerial recrewing: the final frontier  "The concept, which included a complementary 747 AWACS version with two reconnaissance "microfighters", was considered technically feasible in 1973"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
I was always curious about exactly how much fuel a 747 could reasonably carry and distribute among 12 little planes when it's also gotta carry its own fuel and run its own engines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
You just have another 747 refueler following the 747 carrier and 747 AWACS around. Its 747s all the way down!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You just have another 747 refueler following the 747 carrier and 747 AWACS around. [img-Operation-Black-Buck.svg]
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:
This is wonderful and I love it because I'm convinced I had roughly the same concept when I was 8. Except mine was a bitching long plane with a runway on top so you'd just land normally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
If the carrier is fast enough, you shouldn't need much of a runway at all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:This is wonderful and I love it because I'm convinced I had roughly the same concept when I was 8. So it was not a problem in airships  But what shape works best for aircraft launching / recovery? Real world attempts often run into "this is so hard thanks to airflow and turbulence that even our test pilots in ideal conditions have trouble docking" PS> PT6A lol that avatar
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Wish I loved anything as much as Neb loves airships.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
outrageous fantasy airship competition with the right scenario to make someone draw up a flying airship/airstrip when?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2020 18:55
|
|
