|
A fragmenting AA shell should rip it open in fairly short order. Put the AA gun on a truck bed and you could probably stay in hot pursuit.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Ola posted:A fragmenting AA shell should rip it open in fairly short order. Put the AA gun on a truck bed and you could probably stay in hot pursuit. There was a Zeppelin that actually survived having a AA shell explode in one of its lifting cells. (And by 'survive' I mean 'crash land' shortly after.) Other Zeppelins sometimes had AA shells pass through their fuselages, and would be able to make it back to a friendly base. That said, shooting down a Zeppelin is really hard until you get your incendiary ammo sorted, then it's really quite easy if you can intercept with an aircraft. With an additional 20 years of technology, it doesn't need too much figuring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
VT baby
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
And guys, got some odd flocking behavior here:
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
I mean, today, wouldn't all you really need to do is strap a blowtorch to a Mavic Pro Max and have it bump up against a lifting cell?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I mean, today, wouldn't all you really need to do is strap a blowtorch to a Mavic Pro Max and have it bump up against a lifting cell? I'm thinking those flame thrower equipped quad copters from the China special of Grand Tour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
The ultimate anti-Zeppelin has to be some device that cuts through the envelope, but then remains inside it, while dispersing oxygen and igniting. I bet some YouTube crew could cook up something amazing with an oxygen flask and a lever on the valve, but with some military engineering you could probably get an oxidizer in powdered form. Maybe you have to start thinking about the ensuing boom and collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:And guys, got some odd flocking behavior here: Ugh, I'm down in town, I've wanted to see an IL-76 since reading Outlaws, Inc
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
St_Ides posted:Ugh, I'm down in town, I've wanted to see an IL-76 since reading Outlaws, Inc There’s frequently one parked on the cargo ramp at IAH  They’re big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:forward firing aircraft rocket As per usual I'm not sure how dumb this question is why is it necessary to specify the direction it's firing in? e: is there a chemical compound that binds gases really fast so instead of pushing gas out the back you could make a rocket that sucks gas in through the front? I guess it'd get heavier and heavier as it went so that's not ideal. aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:There’s frequently one parked on the cargo ramp at IAH That's an AN-124, I managed to get lucky enough to see one of them landing a little over a month ago. Wish I could have gotten closer. IL-76 isn't as big, but I love the glass nose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Ola posted:The ultimate anti-Zeppelin has to be some device that cuts through the envelope, but then remains inside it, while dispersing oxygen and igniting. I bet some YouTube crew could cook up something amazing with an oxygen flask and a lever on the valve, but with some military engineering you could probably get an oxidizer in powdered form. Maybe you have to start thinking about the ensuing boom and collateral damage. I'm going to say a 5" WP shell and a fuze delay set to a rough approximation a bit short of the range of the Zeppelin would probably put the thing up like a torch on the first shot. An interesting question would be with the number of patrols in the Atlantic in '44 how far could a Zeppelin expect to get before the probability of encountering a 5" DP gun equipped vessel approaching unity would be? Like a day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:As per usual I'm not sure how dumb this question is why is it necessary to specify the direction it's firing in? If there is one institution which loves acronyms it is a military institution. Now in this case I believe it's just a mistake, because FFAR stands for folding-fin aerial rocket and not forward-firing? e: now I'm getting fond memories of sniping tanks with unerringly precise Hydra 70s in Gunship 2000
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Psion posted:If there is one institution which loves acronyms it is a military institution. "Ok, prepare to fire BFARs!" "Ready! Wait a sec...what does BFAR stand for aga..." "FIRE!"  Ola fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:
Ocean's pretty big and mostly empty. They could probably make it within sight of New York more often than not. Where, presumably, VT shells from the coastal defenses would turn them inside out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:As per usual I'm not sure how dumb this question is why is it necessary to specify the direction it's firing in? i suppose you have downward-firing rockets and upward firing rockets a la schrage musik but it does seem a little silly FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Psion posted:If there is one institution which loves acronyms it is a military institution. The US military actually had two different rockets called FFAR, one being an acronym for Forward-Firing Aircraft Rocket and the other a Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket.  (if you want to be really technical they had three, because the Forward-Firing FFAR came in two different sizes)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Really? I had no idea. This acronym reuse is out of control!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Can you tell what kind of jet this is from a crappy tablet picture? Flying into SeaTac about 6:45 last night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Charles posted:Can you tell what kind of jet this is from a crappy tablet picture? Flying into SeaTac about 6:45 last night. From that nose shape i'd say 747. You're in Seattle, shouldn't you be able to recognise Boeing planes instinctively?  https://www.flightradar24.com lets you view the last 7 days of radar tracks for free. If it doesn't show up on there it basically either was a privately-owned aircraft or a military flight. meltie fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
it's got four engines and the wings are pointier than an A380 and you aren't in Russia so it's pretty much guaranteed to be a 747.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it's got four engines and the wings are pointier than an A380 and you aren't in Russia so it's pretty much guaranteed to be a 747. And the A340s will never fly again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
I guess I couldn't see the kinda squarish hump between the wings that I'm used to. Delta used to paint it and made it kind of obvious. Looks like it was a China Airlines cargo 747. I should have tried Flightradar on desktop first, I tried it on my phone and thought history was paywalled. Most flights right now join the flightpath in further south now so there's hardly anything to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
meltie posted:And the A340s will never fly again. Don’t some governments operate them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Charles posted:Can you tell what kind of jet this is from a crappy tablet picture? Flying into SeaTac about 6:45 last night. 747-400 cargo https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ci5261 e: this is what I get for not refreshing, you already looked that up! Sagebrush posted:it's got four engines and the wings are pointier than an A380 and you aren't in Russia so it's pretty much guaranteed to be a 747. Boeing used to charter some An-124 flights into SEA so they're in one of the few cities where "you aren't in Russia" doesn't disqualify planes like you think it would I forget why, now, maybe delivering fuselage pieces when there was something that blocked train routes? Psion fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
Psion posted:I forget why, now, maybe delivering fuselage pieces when there was something that blocked train routes? Powerplant delivery from/to Ohio I believe. GE-9X's be huge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:As per usual I'm not sure how dumb this question is why is it necessary to specify the direction it's firing in? Well, for one thing we're talking about an era here (WWII) where a lot of aircraft had turrets and other gun mounts that could shoot in a lot of directions other than forward. You still see the term a lot in helicopters to differentiate between "weapons aimed via pointing the aircraft and fired by the pilot" and "dude firing a crew served weapon out the side".
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Charles posted:I guess I couldn't see the kinda squarish hump between the wings that I'm used to. Delta used to paint it and made it kind of obvious. Looks like it was a China Airlines cargo 747. I should have tried Flightradar on desktop first, I tried it on my phone and thought history was paywalled. Most flights right now join the flightpath in further south now so there's hardly anything to see. It's pretty distinctly visible in your photo—you can really clearly make out the flat, even shadow under the wing box versus the two-tone half-and-half split between shadow/light on the rounded fuselage fore and aft of it. AI:  https://youtu.be/ZVguDg14uuo?t=190 The 'Fly-Wurm' was a 'cyclonic lift craft:' the engine drives a belt which spins the large drum, which has screw-threads on the inside and can theoretically rotate through 90 degrees to vertical. Midway through the first tethered engine run-up the yoke holding the engine shattered and the massive flywheel cratered right through the (unoccupied) pilot's seat. San Diegans may recognize the test field there; the machine was the creation of a local small-time conman who had experience designing frostee machines for movie theaters and was chased out of town when he attempted to finance repairs through some less-than-aboveboard scheme HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
meltie posted:And the A340s will never fly again. The A340 was a pretty one--especially the 600. What a ridiculously long airplane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:The A340 was a pretty one--especially the 600. What a ridiculously long airplane. Looking forward to the A322-neo long jet is long
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
It looks like the A350-1000 and 777-9x both carry on the tradition of the Big Long
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:It looks like the A350-1000 and 777-9x both carry on the tradition of the Big Long I had only seen the A350-1000 from some of the front on angles and had to look it up... yeah thats some 757-300 or A340 levels of long jet right there 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
meltie posted:And the A340s will never fly again. Wait what did I miss
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Lufthansa grounded all of theirs, at least for now...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
Charles posted:Lufthansa grounded all of theirs, at least for now... I thought that was true of the 600s but they still had some 300s going
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
Ola posted:The ultimate anti-Zeppelin has to be some device that cuts through the envelope, but then remains inside it, while dispersing oxygen and igniting. I bet some YouTube crew could cook up something amazing with an oxygen flask and a lever on the valve, but with some military engineering you could probably get an oxidizer in powdered form. Maybe you have to start thinking about the ensuing boom and collateral damage. You absolute fool. Everyone knows the only way to take down a zeppelin is with an even larger zeppelin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Wait what did I miss Over the last 10 years or so, airlines have been moving away from the A340, since the 777, 787, and A350 can carry similar numbers of passengers over almost the same distance as the A340, with significantly lower operating costs. Outside of a few niche markets that require extremely long range, the A340 struggles to compete with twin engine aircraft (although oil prices tanking recently probably helps a bit), so airlines are using the current global depression as an excuse to offload their A340 fleets. During the Great Recession, Airbus was desperate to sell A340's, so they guaranteed buyers a certain resale value on the airplanes (with Airbus making up the difference if the customer got less than a specified amount when the airplane sold), so they were possibly on the hook for $1-2 billion when oil got expensive a few years ago, but I'm not sure what ended up happening with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
How does the MD‐11 compare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:During the Great Recession, Airbus was desperate to sell A340's, so they guaranteed buyers a certain resale value on the airplanes (with Airbus making up the difference if the customer got less than a specified amount when the airplane sold), so they were possibly on the hook for $1-2 billion when oil got expensive a few years ago, but I'm not sure what ended up happening with that. Beluga XXXL?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:How does the MD‐11 compare? 45 feet shorter than an A340-600, if that's what you want compared? Wiki claims the proposed MD-XX Stretch was 32 feet longer than an MD-11 so it'd still be shorter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:18
|
|