|
insta posted:We could talk about your posts, but goon buttholes probably have less poo poo caked all over them
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Do aircraft have brakes in their undercarriage? Was wondering if the pilot could have thrown the equivalent of a parking brake before the jet rolled off the ramp since it was obvious it wasn't going anywhere but into the drink. Kinda looks like they already left the parking brake on and tried to take of through it  https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_r3e4xtcmwr1qigfjt.mp4 https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_r3ejotzK8o1r0uzl6.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
Ornamental Dingbat posted:Don't those things have VTOL? Yes, the version used by the USMC and the RN does, but it can only VTOL with minimal fuel and payload. If you're using a ramp to take off then you're doing it because you want to take off with enough stuff that VTOL won't work. Son of Thunderbeast posted:Only the Marine model RN uses the same model as the Marines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
Short takes offs like on those cute UK carriers will use the fan duct, just at STOL intensities instead of VTOL. VTOL is such a pain in the rear end it's reserved for dumb poo poo like you're stuck on Guadalcanal with a bombed out runway. Most carrier runway problem solutions are full throttle, see you later, deal with it later. That it's rolling down the runway leisurely is a sign the whole things hosed up, so good luck doing any dynamic breaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
It's VTOL but they can't take off vertically with a useful amount of fuel or weapons, so a rolling takeoff with a ramp is much more practical. As for why American ships that carry the Marine F-35s (and Harriers before them) don't have ramps like that, I'm pretty sure the US Navy thinks they're ugly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Only the Marine model
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Wasn't the issue with e F35 that they left a cover on it? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/24/raf-f-35-jet-crashed-sea-plastic-rain-cover-left/
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Spinz posted:One of the happiest times of my life was when I lived with 3 guys in their twenties in a big giant party house. I get the feeling that I don't miss the chaos of being a 20 something with dirtbag friends as much as I think I miss it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Theo Jansen phoning it in these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Only the Marine model The others don't have the VTOL but still have all the disadvantages of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:It's VTOL but they can't take off vertically with a useful amount of fuel or weapons, so a rolling takeoff with a ramp is much more practical. american carriers have catapults. this is the ideal way to get a plane off a ship because you just yeet that fucker out there and its in the air, ready or not catapults are expensive beasts though. older carriers use a steam catapult, which means in the era of nuclear powered carriers you've got to have a whole separate steam generation system just to power the catapult, as well as steam technicians and all that upkeep. its worth it though because catapults are just that much better than not-catapults there are ongoing efforts to make electromagnetic catapults which would be a lot easier for everyone involved but the tech isn't quite there yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YpBdVjnaT0 if you can't afford the catapult system in terms of money or space, then you've got to have the "ski ramp" to get that last little push to get craft airborne. ski ramp isn't a bad solution, it just looks dorky
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:catapults are expensive beasts though. older carriers use a steam catapult, which means in the era of nuclear powered carriers you've got to have a whole separate steam generation system just to power the catapult, Don't nuclear reactors produce vast quantities of steam as part of normal operation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The fact that I cannot get off the pier (due to having no legs) is definitely complicating this. I bet you are shedding some tears over that easy gold now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Don't nuclear reactors produce vast quantities of steam as part of normal operation? yes, but i dont know if you can bleed that steam off like you could in an old oil-fired ship which would have steam lines running all over the place anyway. a nuclear engine uses the reactor to heat water into steam to generate electricity, but iirc it's a pretty closed loop and you don't normally want to be taking that steam out of the power generation cycle. you could have a separate steam generator attached pretty easily next to the electrical generators, which may be what the navy does because the steam catapults are highly refined if old school technology and they're worth putting up with the hassle
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:yes, but i dont know if you can bleed that steam off like you could in an old oil-fired ship which would have steam lines running all over the place anyway. a nuclear engine uses the reactor to heat water into steam to generate electricity, but iirc it's a pretty closed loop and you don't normally want to be taking that steam out of the power generation cycle. you could have a separate steam generator attached pretty easily next to the electrical generators, which may be what the navy does because the steam catapults are highly refined if old school technology and they're worth putting up with the hassle A steam turbine generator is what turns the steam into energy. Nuclear heats water, makes steam, drives energy. There isn't a separate 'steam' generator and 'electric' generator. In a gas fired plant you will have a combustion turbine which MAY have a steam turbine on the back end of it for increased efficiency--this might be what you're thinking of? This would seem to indicate that there are applications for nuclear cogeneration facilities. https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-electric-applications/industrial-applications-and-nuclear-cogeneration I've never dealt with them, but seems like it's something you CAN do--generating power and utilizing the steam/heat for other applications as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:yes, but i dont know if you can bleed that steam off like you could in an old oil-fired ship which would have steam lines running all over the place anyway. a nuclear engine uses the reactor to heat water into steam to generate electricity, but iirc it's a pretty closed loop and you don't normally want to be taking that steam out of the power generation cycle. you could have a separate steam generator attached pretty easily next to the electrical generators, which may be what the navy does because the steam catapults are highly refined if old school technology and they're worth putting up with the hassle That’s why heat exchangers exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:american carriers have catapults. this is the ideal way to get a plane off a ship because you just yeet that fucker out there and its in the air, ready or not Catapult steam would be branched off the secondary loop, just like the electricity generators and main propulsion turbines. They just have to run pipes all the way from the engine room to the catapults at the front of the ship. Steam pipes are fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo7JRfzGRoI
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Do aircraft have brakes in their undercarriage? They have brakes, but they're a lot smaller and less effective for the size of the vehicle compared to a car. They're not good at stopping the aircraft quickly once it's going any appreciable speed. Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:yes, but i dont know if you can bleed that steam off like you could in an old oil-fired ship which would have steam lines running all over the place anyway. a nuclear engine uses the reactor to heat water into steam to generate electricity, but iirc it's a pretty closed loop and you don't normally want to be taking that steam out of the power generation cycle. you could have a separate steam generator attached pretty easily next to the electrical generators, which may be what the navy does because the steam catapults are highly refined if old school technology and they're worth putting up with the hassle The reactor on a nuclear carrier isn't just generating electricity, the propellers are driven by steam so it's not a huge deal to tap some off to run the catapults as well. It's actually one of the reasons why it would be hard* to install catapults on a Queen Elizabeth class carrier; they're powered by huge-rear end gas turbine generators and are pretty much all electrically powered, so there's no major steam generation capability to power catapults. They would either need to install some kind of inefficient electric-to-steam generator, or more likely use an EMALS system that can be electrically powered. * like, "cheaper to design and build a completely new ship" values of Hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
Plane crash in south america. At one point they had passengers open the right escape door and throw their luggage out to try and get light enough to stay in the air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2jE0zFqPo
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:american carriers have catapults. this is the ideal way to get a plane off a ship because you just yeet that fucker out there and its in the air, ready or not The USMC carriers have neither ski jump nor catapults. They have a different mission and the USMC has been unwilling to give up the deck space that a ski jump would take up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
I like that these air crash youtube channels have started using Flight Simulator 2020 for their accident recreations. Much prettier than the older CGI
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:Catapult steam would be branched off the secondary loop, just like the electricity generators and main propulsion turbines. They just have to run pipes all the way from the engine room to the catapults at the front of the ship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:american carriers have catapults. this is the ideal way to get a plane off a ship because you just yeet that fucker out there and its in the air, ready or not Not the ones the USMC's VTOL F-35s (and Harriers before) operate from. I was joking about the "Navy thinks they're ugly" part, I'm sure the Navy has studied putting ski jumps on its LHDs and found some real reason not to. They may have to reconsider if they keep using the things as little carriers, though. FuturePastNow fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Dec 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:there are ongoing efforts to make electromagnetic catapults which would be a lot easier for everyone involved but the tech isn't quite there yet How much of the delay is due to our previous genius president deciding he wanted to go back to steam for no good reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:How much of the delay is due to our previous genius president deciding he wanted to go back to steam for no good reason he had a good(ish) reason, the EM catapults aren't yet as reliable and have some real teething issues. they're close enough to where we're not going to rip them out of the new class of carriers and replace them, but they aren't yet as good as the old steam catapults president two scoops must have picked up on this in a briefing somewhere, focused on it as being something he can actually comprehend, and then directed the navy to replace them. or maybe he didn't, who knows, he was just yelling about it in a speech one time. his executive style is just barking orders at random and the one grace about a leader like this is that you can just agree with them and do nothing until they forget and move on to the next genius brainwave
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The USMC carriers have neither ski jump nor catapults. They have a different mission and the USMC has been unwilling to give up the deck space that a ski jump would take up. While LHDs and LHAs might be called marine taxis, I wouldn’t call them Marine Corps carriers. And considering the America’s design, I’d question how much input the marines actually had in an amphibious assault ship having no well deck. Adding a ski jump to maybe allow a larger payload on F-35s or AV-8Bs probably isn’t worthwhile when your squadron detachments have far more helicopters. I wonder how many deployments have more than a few STOVL aircraft, the one I went on we only had 4 harriers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 07:23
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The USMC carriers have neither ski jump nor catapults. They have a different mission and the USMC has been unwilling to give up the deck space that a ski jump would take up. So you're saying they need all-new longer carriers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
I feel like this was probably already posted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Cb9x70gYQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
this is my favorite part of the RDR2 map
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 11:12
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:It's VTOL but they can't take off vertically with a useful amount of fuel or weapons, so a rolling takeoff with a ramp is much more practical. Wow i agree with the navy about something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Why solve a problem with a simple machine like a ramp when you can solve it with a much more complicated machine like a catapult? Its the same reason the United States has superior zero G space pens for its astronauts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Its the same reason the United States has superior zero G space pens for its astronauts. Are people still repeating this as though there's any truth to it? Fisher funded the pen themselves. And NASA didn't use pencils because lead breaks and is conductive, and having floating pieces of conductive material in your space craft full of switches and circuit boards is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Why solve a problem with a simple machine like a ramp when you can solve it with a much more complicated machine like a catapult? A working catapult is better than any ramp. For any tradeoffs of using a catapult, ramps do not solve the same problems catapults do, and they create limitations of their own. So yeah, and the more I'm reading this I think you may be in on it, we use catapults for the same reason we use zero g space pens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Flash Gordon Ramsay posted:Are people still repeating this as though there's any truth to it? The only thing worse than pencil lead to a spacecraft is a cat. A little nibble here, a little nibble there, and you're flying backwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Maguoob posted:While LHDs and LHAs might be called marine taxis, I wouldn’t call them Marine Corps carriers. The LHDs and LHAs are just about as big as any non-US carrier except France's. quote:Adding a ski jump to maybe allow a larger payload on F-35s or AV-8Bs probably isn’t worthwhile when your squadron detachments have far more helicopters. That's exactly their stated justification: putting a ski jump on surrenders 3 helo's worth of deck space. That's what I meant by different mission: the point of the USMC is to project force ashore, it's not to control thousands of square miles of battlespace. If they're doing anything where the ski jump would make a meaningful difference then there's going to be a full-size carrier with catapults in support, obviating the need for one. The UK etc do not have that luxury. haveblue posted:How much of the delay is due to our previous genius president deciding he wanted to go back to steam for no good reason EMALS specifically and concurrent development generally turned out to be awful ideas, and Trump was 100% right about what garbage the system is. Turns out that, just like with the F-35, you should probably try to get all your new gee-whiz high-tech working as separate systems *before* you integrate them all into one big platform. You know that bit at the end of Top Gun where all four catapults fail because the screenwriters really needed to have Maverick and Iceman as the only two pilots up in the air? With EMALS that turns out to be a reasonable possibility instead of winning the Bad Luck Lotto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/KSSGtCh.mp4 Oops, my bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
two of the three stooges are up in the cab fighting over the controls
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
the 2021 failure rate of emals is about 0.5%, so it's a hell of a lot closer to proper reliability than previously. steam is around 0.02%, so it does have a ways to go. the benefits will be worth it in the end even if the development process was a mess. steam catapults are ancient tech at this point so such a good reliability number better be expected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/FERPo1K.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2021 20:14
|
|