|
Zero One posted:You need ANC and something to listen to. Sixty gigs of podcasts and music on my first-generation Zune, and Koss earbuds with silicone cushions. Can't hear the Second Coming with them screwed into my coconut. That & effective eye darkening got me through ten days in hospital in a shared room, as well as 7-hours PHL-CDG.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
I think a lot of consumer-level noise-cancelling headphones have dead zones around the range of human speech so you can hear people speak. I have no actual evidence of this except for the fact I can't hear a goddamn thing with my A20s, but I can with my normal noise-cancelling headphones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
ANC was a game-changer for me the first time I tried them. Absolutely always packed whenever I fly now. Found this short tour/info video on the B1B. Brief discussion about lots of things that I never knew, like fuel CG management, swing wing positioning, etc. https://youtu.be/1U-s1tCxzHY
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
I skip the ANC and use custom fit IEMs. They’re the best ear plugs I have ever used, and they play music better than any headphones without any bleed. For what some headphones costs these days, it isn’t really that expensive to get ear canal molds and a custom set built.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think a lot of consumer-level noise-cancelling headphones have dead zones around the range of human speech so you can hear people speak. I have no actual evidence of this except for the fact I can't hear a goddamn thing with my A20s, but I can with my normal noise-cancelling headphones. I don't think it's entirely on purpose , but yeah ANC doesn't work against stuff like talking super well. Your noses probably don't, either, but aviation headsets also run much higher passive cancelation than consumer headphones and I think it's that part that's doing the work against voices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
ickna posted:I skip the ANC and use custom fit IEMs. They’re the best ear plugs I have ever used, and they play music better than any headphones without any bleed. For what some headphones costs these days, it isn’t really that expensive to get ear canal molds and a custom set built. shilling for KZs for free. ridiculously cheap, very good audio and every pair i have (yes, i have multiple) have a great fit. used them on my last flight and it was great
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:I think Alaska's card only really makes sense if you use the companion fare every year since that's where you can save a few hundred, definitely more than the annual fees. Any solo travelers, why bother, ever? The companion pass is extremely difficult to use on DL anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
I’ve not had issues but I’m guessing that strongly depends on where you’re going and flying from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
marumaru posted:shilling for KZs for free. ridiculously cheap, very good audio and every pair i have (yes, i have multiple) have a great fit. KZs are real good, I’ve got a pair of their top end ones with the bajillion balanced armatures and they sound amazing for the price
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:That would be the 10 hour flying from LHR to YVR, with a toddler *screaming* for about 8 hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Norwegian AF has started a thing of doing a "Christmas star" formation. I guess it refers to a tree with the lead plane being the star, could be wrong. Better pic of the formation here. So I left the home office and found a good vantage spot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niZscYR26AE I was looking pretty hard for them, in the right direction even. Perhaps I was a bit distracted, but they were really close before I noticed them. Couldn't really hear them before seeing them either. Very low speed and throttle settings of course, but once they had passed you could definitely feel the thrust of 12 big pipes pointing at you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Formation looks like a Sukhoi
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
I was kinda thinking an XB70
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Hi Aeronautical Insanity, So sometime when the great quar slouched over on all of us, I wrote a thing that was a appendix to my last Amerika bombers post, all about the guidance of the A4. Research was a little hard for a guy who was pretty reliant on the internets for books, and it turns out quite a few good writers kinda gloss over this particular subject, and in particular would often write contradictory things about it, like for example, if the system used two or three gyroscopes. My other big ambition was to get a relation of mine to do a few simple illustrations to make things clearer. I was, and still am, gobsmacked by how you make a rocket guidance system with early 1940s technology, and I realized in addition to being amazing, the A4's guidance system did a lot to explain why the Nazis missile program would have been impossible to expand in any sort of plausible scenario. But I never heard back from my relation (the great quar slouches on us all), and after I finished the text I just forgot about it. So here it is. It's something that is probably more aprop for the spaceflight or Milhist thread, but I thought I'd leave it here, as this is where my effortpost roots are. ---------------------- The Obvious, Stated When writing the post on the V-2/A4, I fell down the rabbit hole, learning how the A4's guidance system worked. I ended up learning some good stuff, but couldn't really work it into that post, as it was already way too long, and a tangent to Amerika bombers. I write this, friends, because the details I learned are pretty cool and I want to share, and also to back up a claim I made: that the guidance system was a hard limit on the Third Reich's missile ambitions. While in theory later missiles could have been developed with the A4's motor, the guidance system would have to be completely redone, a development project that it's difficult to imagine the historical Third Reich ever finishing. I know quoting the dictionary is a hoary old cliche, so let me just say my research made me reflect on the phrase "guidance system". Before I started, I assumed a kind of black box that did the guidance thing. But once I got into it, I realized that "system" implies a bunch of mechanisms doing guidance: working, but not necessarily unified. This is the first thing about the A4 guidance: it was a whole series of disparate systems working to bring the A4 to a meaningful definition of guided. The next word I ended up contemplating was "analog." The A4 development saw one of the early digital computers created, which Peenemunde engineers used to confirm trajectory calculations, but all systems on the A4 would be run by analog electronics. Digital electronics do everything with binary signals, the on/off function acting as a zero and one. Analog control systems are an entirely different kingdom, the fungi to digital’s more familiar plants, and like fungi, analog covers a staggering array of stuff that can get astonishingly weird. Fortunately for this at least there was a starting point: auto pilots in aircraft were common by the late 1930s, and they worked by analog processes to keep an airplane on the level. After that, I found myself going to a high school physics textbook to learn about inertia. Inertia is an object's resistance to changes in velocity, and is a supremely useful force in the analog era, as it can be measured quite precisely - usually with a machine called a gyroscope. Inertial guidance systems use inertia to get basic information about the aircraft in flight. Gyroscopes in particular are useful in guidance systems, since their rotation can govern control signals, electric waves at the heart of the A4's guidance. Still, it takes a slightly different mindset to get into analog, as something trivially simple in digital (like the holding of information) becomes its own custom problem in analog. Because of the bespoke nature of problems in analog, systems become very specific to application. There's one more pre I'd like to amble out: in the last post, I mentioned it took 100 men and about thirty vehicles to set up an A4 for launch. Despite this, engineers prelaunch only had to give two variables to the missile: an azimuth bearing, and a precalculated precise time for engine shutoff. Back to the dictionary and the physics textbook one more time: 'ballistic missile' as it turns out tells you very well how the missile flies, and the cornerstone of its guidance. In fact, 'ballistics' (the study of projectiles) would be perfectly familiar to artillerymen of Napoleon's time. The Deadliest Motherfucker in Space This is a parabola. [drawing] Issac Newton postulated that anywhere there was gravity, projectiles would fly in a parabolic curve. A bullet shot from a gun completely level would fly as if it had been shot from its highest point in a parabola. [You can see this demonstrated in a Mythbusters episode, where they demonstrate that a bullet shot from a gun and a bullet dropped from the same height of the gun barrel hit the ground at the same time.] As Newton was pretty good with math, he soon worked out some simple equations for figuring out the parabola of a given projectile. These were seized upon by gunners and artillerymen the world over, who soon had collected a lot of empirical data on explody projectile flights. So the math about projectile weight, the energy applied to it, and its resulting curve, mathematical or real, was settled into the science of ballistics. To get back to Earth, the A4's engineers were going to use ballistics as their guidance system. Instead of a single shove via explosive, the motive energy was being released over time, but the basics and the results were identical: a weight, a quantity of energy, and the resulting parabola. By timing the engine cutoff, the distance traveled could be modified. {pic: #1 pic with overlay: an A4 tracing a shorter parabola with a shorter marked boost phase] Working out HOW to get that timing right was more involved. Initially in flight testing, the shutoff signal was broadcast by a device that used the Doppler shift of the rocket on radar to time the broadcast signal. This first timing system would be used in tests and quite a few operational launches, but when the A4 was being developed, it was always assumed to be at best a stop-gap system, as it would be vulnerable to enemy interference. The permanent solution was the creation of a sensor known as a PIGA [Pendulous Integrating Gyroscope Accelerometer.] This sensor measured the inertia of the A4's acceleration and would be set to engage engine shutoff once a preset point was reached. There's one more thing you need to make this system conceptually work. You need to know the precise distance between the launch point and the target, so you know how big a parabola to make. Fortunately, this was once again very simple. The A4 was road-mobile, and used concrete pads for launch. These pads were surveyed precisely when constructed, which made it simple to calculate the distance between the launchpad and the target. So, you have one-half of an aiming method for your 1940s ballistic missile. Now, you need the other half: the rocket must be able to hold an azimuth bearing, IE a direction on the compass. You also need (small note here) to make the rocket able to fly autonomously through its flight. To do these things in the 1930s and '40s, you need a gyroscope. Gyroscopes are frequently used in Second World War era electro-mechanical magic: they are simple machines that measure angular momentum. What's more, because they spin round and round, gyroscopes can also be used to generate analog control signals. That's a mouthful, so let me explain. The heart of a gyroscope is a rotor that spins at a set speed; like a top, it resists movement at a 90 degree axis to its spin as it possesses angular momentum. This resistance allows very precise measurement, as force in the measured axis either speeds up the revolution of the rotor, or slows it down; usually measured by the rotor making an A/C electrical wave as it spins. The control gyroscopes of the A4 spun at 20,000 RPM, generating a control frequency of 333 Hz. [img: gyro ball and wave signal, created by ball revolution, imposed on a V2 flying straight up] Along its axis of measurement, movements in one direction would increase the frequency: [img: gyro ball and wave signal moving in one direction, adding 3 Hz to signal, V2 points left.] While a shift along the other would subtract from the signal: [img: gyro ball and wave signal moving in one direction, subtracting 3 Hz to signal.V2 points right] These analog signals are then used by the control surfaces to correct against the detected movement, which exerts the opposite force, thus bringing the signal back to 333 Hz. Just to add a little more confusion on this point, the A4 had two different gyroscope control sets. One used two gyroscopes, with one measuring yawl and roll, and the other measuring pitch and tilt. The other used three gyroscopes; a gyro for each axis. An additional gyroscope was used to set the azimuth bearing. This is something that would be done while preparing the rocket for launch. As mentioned before, while V-2 launch sites were simple, they were carefully surveyed, so the precise distance and direction to a target was known. Like the other gyroscopes, it would hold a control signal, and inertial shifts would create a modified signal. And we're still not done! All the control inputs passed through a device which the German called a mischgerät, a mixer. The mixer took signal inputs and if necessary modified them for additional variables. Then the corrected control signals we sent along to the actual control mechanisms, which took these signals and translated them into actual motion. The missile would also have other tasks in flight: for stability the rocket rotated, so that would have to be maintained. As well as that, the shift in the center of gravity thanks to propellant tanks emptying and variable air resistance would have to be accounted for. The A4 actually had two sets of control surfaces: graphite vanes next to the engine for control during initial acceleration, and the control fins themselves thereafter. I'm guessing all variables were programmed into the mixer. So, what can we learn from all this? First, understanding this stuff does a lot to explain why A4 improvement was not really in the cards in the Third Reich Planning horizon, and why all Aggregat models post A4 were half-baked at best. The most difficult job of the A4 program was arguably the creation of this analog control system and then testing it till it worked. Essentially a clockwork computer, it was not built with easy modification in mind. Still, the Germans did try. Since internal mods were out, they attempted to use external systems to improve guidance, and settled on creating radio guidance beams for the rocket's ascent phase. The Third Reich contracted electronics giant Lorentz to work on this, a move that made sense. In the early 1930s, Lorentz did something fairly amazing: it developed a blind landing system. Since radar was not a thing yet, how it worked was two guidance beams would be broadcast on either side of the runway. The landing aircraft has a radio set receiving both signals. When out of alignment it'd produce noise, but when in the approach path, the two signals would create a continuous tone. So a system very similar to this was built to improve V-2 guidance. Two signals broadcast into the sky from modified trucks 15 or so kilometers behind the launch site. A receiver on the V-2 plugged into the mischgerät corrected guidance to keep the missile in the center of the guide beams. This control signal also seems to have adapted the first guidance system (the radar doppler shift auto-signal)In order to achieve an accuracy of 250m CEP at a distance of 250 km, "the speed at burn stop had to be 0.5% exact." One thing I couldn't find: if this system meaningfully made the A4 more accurate. So this accuracy assist system appears to be completely done, ready for production in the end of 1943. But fortunately, it took an entire year for the equipment to be manufactured and issued to missile units. As it happens, it was only the SS's missile unit, SS Abteilung 500, who was issued the equipment. This unit would attempt the most credible tactical attack with A4s during the war, when in early March 1945 it was ordered to destroy Ludendorff Bridge, a bridge across the Rhine accidentally left intact. The resulting bombardment only saw one missile land within a mile of the bridge, but the US Army post-war reckoned it was an impressive performance in what was after all a contrabassoon solo. Despite the fact I'm kicking dirt on the notion the Nazis could have improved guidance, don't mistake that as a problem of analog systems generally. Inertial guidance systems would see lots of research post Second World War. This interview with a former Indian MiG-25 pilot has the interesting detail that the MiG-25 Foxbat had an inertial autopilot that could be programmed to fly an entire reconnaissance mission, minus takeoff and landing. Another fun example is Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere. The last purely inertial ICBM guidance system built in America, it gave an accuracy of tens of meters over thousands of kilometers, and looks like a scifi prop to boot. There are now also solid-state electronic inertial tools like this ring laser gyroscope. Instead of a rotor, it uses light to measure the shifts of momentum along a given axis. I'd tell you more, but the last time I read it my brain exploded and I'm still finding little bits of it in odd corners when I sweep up. There's one more thing I'd like to add. In the process of researching this stuff, I started reading Rockets and People, a four volume series of memoirs by Soviet rocket engineer Boris Chertok. Available for free via NASA, the books tell the story of the Soviet Rocket program. There are many good stories, but the story from the Soviets raiding the defeated Germany for rocket technology to the launching of Sputnik via the R-7 should be read by anyone who wants to know how much work is needed to build a functional space rocket/ICBM. The Soviet experience is especially relevant, as their missile program stuck with the Nazi propellants of ethanol/water and LOX through to their first ICBM. While the R-7 didn't last long as an ICBM, but would go on to be the most successful space launch rocket in history, amazingly still in use today. This program also took twelve years, had the full material support of the USSR, and was aided greatly by the USSR being the only other people on earth who had a liquid-fueled rocket research program in the 1930s. That said, postwar Soviet research revealed some interesting things about the A4; namely how hard the design had been locked down. The A4 was from the middle of 1943 one of the Third Reich's top military projects, along with jet turbines. The A4 was deployed in the fall of 1944, far too late to have a serious effect. And the A4 only made it to deployment that quickly with some serious bugs unaddressed. The first of these the Soviet rocketeers discovered for themselves while still in Germany. Messing about with A4 engines on test stands, they discovered that the A4 design had considerable thrust reserves untapped. Once optimized, the A4's engine could make an extra 10 tons of thrust, an increase of 40%!! This is especially notable as it would have doubled the A4's maximum range to 600 km. Actually making a missile that could use this extra potential was more complicated; to the point that even the Soviets decided just to roll these changes into a new design rather than modifying the A4. From there, testing moved in 1947 to the Soviets first missile test range at Kapustin Yar, east of Moscow on the Russian Steppe. The Soviets had laid down a methodical testing program, which started with firing actual A4s, then moving on to Soviet copies of A4s [the R-1], as a test of the Soviet design and building capacities, before moving on to indigenous designs [the R-2, the first missile to be of indigenous design, fixing flaws identified in A4 testing.] Two further flaws in the A4 were identified. The first was its long-standing 'random explosion' problem; the second was that the guidance system sometimes failed badly. The random explosion problem was that approximately 10% of A4s launched would explode on their downward trajectory. Soviet and German scientists soon identified the cause: Peenemunde engineers had underestimated the heat buildup on the front of the rocket. These 'exploding in a bad way' A4s were exposed to enough heat that their warheads were evaporating into gas, which being highly pressurized, would quickly make a rupture somewhere, which would cause catastrophic failure. Adding more thermal isolation solved the problem. The other problem was guidance-based. Test A4s would sometimes hit their X coordinate fine, but miss their Y coordinate to an almost ludicrous degree: sometimes 100 km off in a 300 km flight. This problem was handed to the German engineers on site. (The Soviets in their race for captured Third Reich technology had captured an almost complete missile train, that is, a rail mobile A4 launcher. In an extremely canny move, they completed the train and then ordered a second copy constructed. These two trains would be the field offices of the missile researchers in the 1940s.) The scientists, Dr. Kurt Magnus and Dr. Hans Hoch, quickly found that on a test rig they could create noise on the control signal line with certain frequencies of vibration. Magnus and Hoch then whipped up a line filter between the gyro and the mixer from spare parts on hand which completely solved the problem. This greatly impressed the Soviets, who gave the two engineers a cash bonus and an entire jerry can of A4 rocket fuel, IE 75% ethanol. That's a lot even for all the Germans at the site, so it was shared with the Soviets that night in a particularly memorable party. I bring all this up to underline how much had been ignored to bring the A4 to production, and even as it was it was a sort of freestanding miracle that it was deployed at all. Using that timeline to estimate the deployment of a Black Gay Hitler ICBM is...not ideal. The Soviet copy of the A4 would be called the R-1, and would enter Red Army service - entirely as an exercise in training Red Army units and as a manufacturing trial. The Soviets considered the R-1 essentially useless as a weapon. Quick aside: it was with Newton and his contemporary, Johannes Kepler, calculating the orbits of celestial bodies that natural philosophers (later known as scientists) began to realize that a projectile fired high enough and with enough energy would never hit the ground. If the curve of the parabola was higher than the curve of the earth, the resulting projectile would orbit the earth. The magic number for low earth orbit is about 8 kilometers per second, or 28,080 km/h. To escape the earth's gravity entirely, you need another magic number: 11 kilometers per second, or 40,269 km/h. I mention this as it is why orbiting was a non-starter for most of the hypothetical Nazi space program, and why the Silver Bird had its particular method of flight. Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Psion posted:I think Alaska's card only really makes sense if you use the companion fare every year since that's where you can save a few hundred, definitely more than the annual fees. Any solo travelers, why bother, ever? Yeah I'm in Seattle so use Alaska usually but found the card to be a waste of the fee. Don't care about companion ticket much and I forgot what the other benefits are supposed to be but it'd be a money losing proposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Quick aside: it was with Newton and his contemporary, Johannes Kepler, calculating the orbits of celestial bodies that natural philosophers (later known as scientists) began to realize that a projectile fired high enough and with enough energy would never hit the ground. If the curve of the parabola was higher than the curve of the earth, the resulting projectile would orbit the earth. The magic number for low earth orbit is about 8 meters/second, or 28,080 km/h. To escape the earth's gravity entirely, you need another magic number: 11 m/s, or 40,269 km/h. I mention this as it is why orbiting was a non-starter for most of the hypothetical Nazi space program, and why the Silver Bird had its particular method of flight. This is great, but gonna be the pedant here: kilometers per second, not meters per second. 8 meters per second is about 18 mph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
I remember the most plausible idea for the Nazis inflicting a mass casualty event on the US was a plan to carry Sarin (which back then was unitary only) across the Atlantic and vent it at a shallow depth (or through specialized snorkels) to catch on the sea breeze and gas the coastline of a major US city. I think the chief reason it was shelved was that a core of the Reich convinced Hitler that there was no way the Allies *hadn't* figured out nerve agents and they'd be retaliated on in kind. I'd also like to think that the Admiralty took one look at the plan and sent the most polite  reply they could.There was also a plan to drag a V-2 behind the U-Boat in a self-contained launch apparatus that still would've required technicians who drew the short straw to fuel it before launch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
Carry a bunch of nerve gas across the ocean in my air tight submarine? Where do I sign up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hi Aeronautical Insanity... Great stoff as always. Really appreciate it. One little nitpick, > 8 meters/second, or 28,080 km/h are we missing a factor of 1000 here? I think that we're looking for 8km/sec 8m/s * 3600s/hr = 28,800 m/hr HawkHill fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 07:43
|
|
|
HawkHill posted:Great stoff as always. Don't get all hypergolic on him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 07:58
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Don't get all hypergolic on him. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:This is great, but gonna be the pedant here: kilometers per second, not meters per second. 8 meters per second is about 18 mph. Thank you friends, this is most def the time and the place for pedantry
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Thank you friends, this is most def the time and the place for pedantry An amazing post! I always love your writing, and when I see an effortpost from you I pause everything and grab a cup of tea to enjoy it  Just to pendantairly help out: Nebakenezzer posted:The other problem was guidance-based. Test A4s would sometimes hit their X coordinate fine, but miss their Y coordinate to an almost ludicrous degree:  ) analogy here. X/Y come from a cartesian coordinate system, which these rockets did not use. From your writing it sounds like the A4 used a polar coordinate system. Using the polar terms θ and r in this paragraph would make much more sense. In your post you've already done most of the work of explaining polar coordinates - you just missed explicitly naming it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_system#Polar_coordinate_systemNebakenezzer posted:One used two gyroscopes, with one measuring yawl and roll, Nebakenezzer posted:The permanent solution was the creation of a sensor known as a PIGA [Pendulous Integrating Gyroscope Accelerometer.] meltie fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
It should also be noted that the British used double agents and press censorship to convince the Nazis that V‐2s were overshooting London, selectively reporting on any damage on the far side of London and hushing up shits to the centre and south of the city. This lead technicians to tweak the engine cutoff to happen earlier, resulting in the rockets falling well short.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:The resulting bombardment only saw one missile land within a mile of the bridge, but the US Army post-war reckoned it was an impressive performance in what was after all a contrabassoon solo.  Nebakenezzer effortposts continue to loving rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
In Diemen, the Netherlands, there is a museum with a truly amazing collection of WW2 german electronics technology. It's highly tech centered; i could not sense any ideological involvement when i was there, at a meetup about radar systems. They have one of the gyroscope units from a V2 or V1 rocket. Their web site is as bad as their collection and technical knowledge is good. Here's something about the Mischgerät: https://www.cdvandt.org/archive_3_displays_5.htm Their youtube channel has a lot of demonstrations of the meticulously restored equipment, but is only numbered. It doesn't have the names or type numbers of the equipment in the video titles, annoyingly enough. But probably a concious effort to avoid neonazis from going all 'Yay look at how awesome the 3rd reich was'. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS8Ky5mQTG_tnhJrTklOskw/videos Here's a german paper from the late 1980s on the guidance system of the V2: https://www.cdvandt.org/v2__computer.htm Here's their V1 gyroscope system: https://www.cdvandt.org/2013001V1.pdf They also have a metric fuckton of radar equipment, including some that uses diëlectric antennas, the technology that makes the super tiny antennas in cellphones possible. Here's a page about someone else's collection of nazi electronics: https://www.cdvandt.org/beck_collection.htm  And there you can see actual V2 gyroscopes. Seeing that stuff in real life is chilling. Both because many of those things are technological masterpieces, as well as because they were all used to occupy my country and kill my 'kind' of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
LimaBiker posted:In Diemen, the Netherlands, there is a museum with a truly amazing collection of WW2 german electronics technology. It's highly tech centered; i could not sense any ideological involvement when i was there, at a meetup about radar systems. That is neat as poo poo, definitely looking that place up when in The Netherlands next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
I always love your effort posts nebakenezzer New Air safety institute video dropped, haven't watched it yet. https://youtu.be/8PBUVMCbmFQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
If I didn’t know any better I’d say those gentlemen set out to fly into a mountain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History dropped a new episode. Look who's joining: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1469875780901609472 I was never as conflicted as I am now as to whether I should download an episode or not. LimaBiker posted:In Diemen, the Netherlands, there is a museum with a truly amazing collection of WW2 german electronics technology. It's highly tech centered; i could not sense any ideological involvement when i was there, at a meetup about radar systems. That bottle of T-Stoff rings all my  bells. I think that's one half of the fuel they used in their Komet rockets. It would combust violently when getting basically in contact with anything. If that rocket fuel got on a person, it would just keep burning essentially melt the person down. When I was a kid I was dragged to a bunch of old museums in East Germany. One of the more memorable things was going to the Island where they used to have the testing facilities for, among other things, the V-rockets. I think they even had a real one just standing there. It was really ominous, knowing that where the museum was now, not even a lifetime ago people were spending day and night to improve a death machine that would kill tens of millions and depopulate entire countries. Normally, the Third Reich museums are very focused on the cruelty of the Third Reich. With those, eventually you get blunted on the sheer scope and size of it all. You just can't process one murder after another, and another, and another, literally millions of time, it's incomprehensible. But you can process it just fine when you look at artifacts like these. or take a look at the interior of a u-boat, or just what they wrote down, or other tangible things. It really brings home that the people who brought the world to the brink of the abyss where people with banal job descriptions. And you wonder how many of them are there right now, and what they're building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Dan Carlin's Hardcore History dropped a new episode. Look who's joining: Lol, never felt better about dropping that podcast years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Hardcore History is amazing. I'll give him the benefit and listen to it but it will be months before I clear my existing backlog. His latest 6 part series on the Pacific Theatre wrapped up a few months ago and was epic. But I'd listen to Dan interview Charles Manson too, so 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Dan Carlin is the worst pop historian there is, and that is a crowded competition. The man is a crime and his listeners deserve better 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
I was displeased to see his name in the title and I made it about five minutes in before I dropped it. Two people who know gently caress about poo poo yammering about aeronautics. Maybe I missed old muskman slobbing on Messerschmitt's knob but I guess I'll never find out.
Midjack fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Dec 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Dan Carlin is the worst pop historian there is, and that is a crowded competition. The man is a crime and his listeners deserve better Giving Musk yet another soapbox may not be everyones cup of tea (not mine either) but I hardly think I'd stop listening to him due to that. slidebite fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
 What is this? Saw it at Bell in ft.worth on google maps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:
L-39?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Really hard to tell with the shadows and pixelation, but it could also be a T-38/F-5? I'd put money on L-39 first though. edit: looking at the empennage closer I think its not a t-38. I somehow found this picture with an L-39, T-38, F-16 and F-15 from below that makes the tail/elevators/engine area clear, definitely saying L-39. 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
Looks like an L-39 that's had those smoke-dispensing "missiles" put on the wingtips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Wings are too straight to be a T-38. L-39 looks right to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 21:11
|
|
