|
This is a one way to get a plane out of water. Segelflugzeuge landen auf dem Schwanenteich
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:No injuries either! I wonder if the flying club that owned that airplane will tighten up their maintenance standards Alternate Air? Haven't had a chance to lookup the N # yet e. Alternate. And no they won't
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:No injuries either! I wonder if the flying club that owned that airplane will tighten up their maintenance standards tell me more
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Did any official statement come out of that Chinese place crash from a few months ago? I know they were leaning towards it being deliberate. the official reports are not complete, but off the record sources have said it was deliberate
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
Psion posted:tell me more Every other word on their website is how cheap they are and how there’s no limit on how many days you can rent the plane for- they had a 172 nosewheel collapse at Burning Man with four people on board, and another 172 has been out for a long time with a prop strike. recently, their only remaining 172 got the fire trucks at Boeing rolled on it three times in a day- I was on freq for the first one and they started getting a rough running engine while doing pattern work. the problem cleared itself for a bit so they kept doing pattern work the subsequent two emergencies in a day were both also engine trouble, because the airplane didn’t get grounded for a serious inspection after that first flight. didn’t see it for a few weeks after that day but it does fly frequently now
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks. Sounds like a lovely operation for me to never give money to, then. Cutting too many corners, the classic business mistake. e: i'll admit the fire trucks three times in a day and still going is a little bit beyond 'classic business mistake' but also, unfortunately plausible Psion fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
A400W(et) edition... https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-07-airbus-successfully-tests-firefighting-kit-on-a400m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9u5ZA3GP7k There's a slight chance it makes sense. The UK has a limited aerial firefighting capabilities but 20 A400Ms, and buying a bunch of ROROs plus training seems like a much more likely step for the UK Government to take. It quotes 20 tonnes which is about 20,000 litres, which from the list on wikipedia is the 5th largest capacity. Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Isn't this quite similar to the C-130 kit that the ANG uses?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Isn't this quite similar to the C-130 kit that the ANG uses?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
I've finally got me mitts on a copy of a very, very AI (in both senses) book: The Secret Horsepower Race by Calum E. Douglas. It's AI in both senses in that Douglas is an engineer who's done a lot of F1 engine development work, and one thing that spurred him to start pestering archives is that the race to develop hi-power aircraft engines for World War 2 is very similar to race engine development. Often the processes are very similar with the big caveat without anything like we'd call a computer, engineering problems had to be explored theoretically, IE doing a ton of math. British engine development in the 1930s has been very interesting, because they were looking at what Schneider trophy aircraft could do, and then trying to work out how to do that in mass production engines that wouldn't last only a few hours. That said, the researchers in Britain who were among the best in the world, made three mistakes. Engine builder Bristol made the Hydra, which had a single flaw. Rather than fix that single flaw, Bristol abandoned the design, and let Italian and Japanese makers discover how much power you could get out of Bristol-inspired designs. The Second flaw was that the British examined extensively fuel injection. They did a lot of tests and built many test rigs, and the tests conclusively showed that mechanical fuel injection was superior to carburation, especially in fighters where certain maneuvers could starve the engine of fuel. But the Chief engineer at some point drew a line under it saying the research was going nowhere. The British were also not impressed by the idea of Jet turbines, but then again, the Germans were initially into them because they could burn kerosene. PS> When Rolls-Royce was initially testing the merlin, they found they needed to run four more Merlins so they could generate the operational wind-speed that the carbs would experince. The Italians did not do this, and this is partially why the Italian M.C. 72 didn't win the Schneider trophy, but would later set a seaplane record of 709 km/h (440 mph) : O Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've finally got me mitts on a copy of a very, very AI (in both senses) book: The Secret Horsepower Race by Calum E. Douglas. It's AI in both senses in that Douglas is an engineer who's done a lot of F1 engine development work, and one thing that spurred him to start pestering archives is that the race to develop hi-power aircraft engines for World War 2 is very similar to race engine development. Often the processes are very similar with the big caveat without anything like we'd call a computer, engineering problems had to be explored theoretically, IE doing a ton of math. This youtube guy has recently gotten some success by basically reading that book out loud with pictures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOFn0eTgdE8 I think the author C.E. Douglas earlier videos shows up in the recommendations too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm4SaAnPtYI ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
If you, SA Aeronautical Insanity posters, ever think 'I wanna ride on a B-29'... pay the money for the good seat. Really, any seat on the flight deck is good. You will not regret your decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
Dr.Smasher posted:If you, SA Aeronautical Insanity posters, ever think 'I wanna ride on a B-29'... pay the money for the good seat. Really, any seat on the flight deck is good. You will not regret your decision. How much extra to bomb something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Warbird posted:How much extra to bomb something? I would have spent the money to do it. Even if they just shoved a case of watermelons on each bomb shackle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
You mean especially if they shoved a case of watermelons on each bomb shackle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
I'll bet some random dude would be just as accurate with a Norden bombsight as someone who was fully trained on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
I remember watching a documentary on The Bomb in high school, and one of the bombardiers in testing would miss his target because he'd get excited and stick his rear end in the air before releasing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhjDplnlGJg Got recommended a 40 minute video on blimps from a semi edgy comedy youtuber, immediately thought of this thread. Honestly a pretty nice video overall!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
Salami Surgeon posted:I remember watching a documentary on The Bomb in high school, and one of the bombardiers in testing would miss his target because he'd get excited and stick his rear end in the air before releasing. Upon reading this sentence several times I've come to the conclusion that it makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
He shifts his position relative to the bomb sight and looks at it through a different angle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:He shifts his position relative to the bomb sight and looks at it through a different angle? The bombsight's position, relative to the seat, is kinda awkward. It doesn't seem like it would be comfortable to use it. What's neat is that the bombardier can take over the turrets. The B-29s had an analog computer system with this machine gun sight computer system, and there's a gunsight off to the right that the bombardier can be use, presumably, either before or after the bombing run https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJExsIp4yO8 Dr.Smasher fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jul 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
There were all kinds of cool analog computers in WWII. Except for the Norden bombsight. They claimed it could drop a bomb into a pickle barrel. But if that were true, why were they still doing carpet bombing that hit way more than the intended target?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
It was dramatically less accurate than claimed. The Luftwaffe actually ended up with a bombsight through an industrial espionage opportunity and concluded that it was fine--great, even--but not quite worth reverse engineering and forking away from their own sight developments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
I belive the conventional TLDR is "The Norden is great if you're flying straight and level with no one shooting at you and you're testing it over the cloudless skys of the mid-west". None of which apply in it's actual combat operations in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
And were even less relevant to Luftwaffe campaigns than they were to the USAAC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 10:00
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:I belive the conventional TLDR is "The Norden is great if you're flying straight and level with no one shooting at you and you're testing it over the cloudless skys of the mid-west". None of which apply in it's actual combat operations in Europe. also assuming that there are no changes in wind speed or direction between where you are, in the sky, and the target
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
B-29s encountered insane high altitude winds which scattered sticks of bombs all around the intended site. They eventually moved to doing faster low level passes. Typically the lead aircraft in a formation sited for his formation. Throw that guy off, the entire formations bombs are off target. Catch-22 gives pretty hilarious summaries of this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
There's only so much you can do with dumb bombs. You drop them they go where inertia and wind carry them. I mean in theory you could have done better. AFAIK the German cruise missiles used gyroscopes for navigation so you could more or less throw them across the channel. Presumably you could also fit similar systems to bombs so that they would try to compensate for winds. But for the hundreds of thousands of bombs they were going to carpet cities with? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
We did try the remote controlled bomber full of explosives that killed JFKs older brother. Out of context that’s a weird sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:We did try the remote controlled bomber full of explosives that killed JFKs older brother. The fact that Joe Jr died means that Aprohdite was almost certainly a net benefit for the United States even though it didn't achieve its objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:We did try the remote controlled bomber full of explosives that killed JFKs older brother. Really it’s hard to look at the history of that family and not start up on conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:He shifts his position relative to the bomb sight and looks at it through a different angle? Yeah. You hunch over the bombsight to use it, he would basically lock his legs straight as if standing up. This video shows how the bombardier should be seated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeL-TitKuo&t=500s Cojawfee posted:There were all kinds of cool analog computers in WWII. Except for the Norden bombsight. They claimed it could drop a bomb into a pickle barrel. But if that were true, why were they still doing carpet bombing that hit way more than the intended target? The Norden bombsight is still a really cool analog computer. The Norden marketing team is not so cool. The US Norden and Sperry, British SABS, and German Lotfernrohr bombsights are all similarly cool examples of the same concepts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Salami Surgeon posted:Yeah. You hunch over the bombsight to use it, he would basically lock his legs straight as if standing up. And all for the sake of high altitude bombing, when it turns out low altitude bombing with planes built out of wood could do the job and be more accurate, more survivable, getting results faster, and for a 1000th of the effort when you factor in not only developing the B-29 but also the P-47s and those god-awful looking Mustangs who really only are any good up high. And then all it took was one barely glorified accountant McNamara going "jee golly, you hit better when you're closer! Wow" to nullify it all
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:And all for the sake of high altitude bombing, when it turns out low altitude bombing with planes built out of wood could do the job and be more accurate, more survivable, getting results faster, and for a 1000th of the effort when you factor in not only developing the B-29 but also the P-47s and those god-awful looking Mustangs who really only are any good up high. A mosquito isn’t dropping a nuclear bomb Or getting anywhere near the Japanese islands, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:A mosquito isn’t dropping a nuclear bomb Nobody should be dropping nuclear bombs at all, so this seems moot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:A mosquito isn’t dropping a nuclear bomb The development costs of the B-29 didn't come from the fuel load.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
The B-29 wouldn’t have the range if it couldn’t fly at very high altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Yes it would. High altitude low density air isn't the only possible solution to make an airplane fly far. You both want to keep doing this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Yes it would. High altitude low density air isn't the only possible solution to make an airplane fly far. You both want to keep doing this? I’m intrigued by your ideas here
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
I got one
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2022 01:16
|
|