Vanagandr
-
Posts
1,051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Vanagandr
-
-
-
I also can see no link
-
-
-
LMK if anyone wants dick pics
-not pierre sprey
-
Hi, this is definitely not pierre sprey
F35 sucks and our next gen aircraft should have been turbojet retrofitted p51s. F16 should have never had radar. The future of air combat is WVR gun fighting
-not pierre sprey
-
-
Yeah, well when your battlefield doctrine is 'we will win because we are the ubermensch' you don't consider things like making sure identical parts from different factories are actually interchangeable
-
2 pages of cool discourse, and then 5 pages of word vomit broken up only by a cool picture of a cam timing abomination
Neato
Did German fighters have trim? WT sim doesn't seem to think so. Half a plane's performance is pilot interface but it'd fit their track record
Edit: Also I realized some time last night that it doesn't have valves or true cams
-
-
There's not a whole lot of surviving documentation on WWI aircraft, but supposing the Fokker Dr.1 represents engine horsepower (at 110HP as one source cites) of WWI aviation engines in general, I'd guess the biggest issue would be cooling. Advances in engine design, engineering processes, and material technology allowed rated power on engines to soar by the time we reached WWII. While it's possible to dump more fuel and air at once into larger and more numerous cylinders, thermodynamics aren't on vacation and you need to dump the waste heat overboard if you don't want your pistons to take a forever break. The Wright 1820 which saw use on B17s developed something like 700 rated HP depending on your model. I'm not sure waste heat scales linearly to HP but it seems intuitive to say it should, and at any rate that's a lot more waste heat than you saw in WWI planes in which could probably get by on a single cooling intake for both engines without a huge increase in front profile. So the issue for me seems to be that you just need more space in your frontal profile for cooling, which is made easy by having a full pod for each engine. There are some ways to mitigate cylinder heat, like running rich of peak and having oil coolers, but you can only mess with your F/A ratio so much before your engine can't burn fuel anymore, and oil coolers still take up some of your front profile so you're still canceling out some of your lift to cool the oil.
Some other things could have had an impact as well; assuming your design doesn't have the crank running through the rear of the engine so that both propellers are powered by the same engine (which means you've lost the HP of an extra engine), you need more engines, and more cylinders means the engines need more cooling air. You could run ducting for ram air into the nacelle , but that means a bigger nacelle, which probably already got bigger when you stuffed the second engine into it. Push engines in push pull configurations already lose some efficiency from operating in the disturbed airstream from the puller props, and the efficiency you gained by losing an engine pod is rapidly being reclaimed by the inescapable tendency of this world to hate fun. I'm not sure where the lines cross and whether you've gained or lost efficiency, but I'd guess the complexity you add to the system makes it easier, if not more efficient to just make the thing with four nacelles after the previous downsides have already been added up.
A few other possibilities; a lot of WWII bombers were conventional geared and their props already came fairly close to the ground; with the pusher props located behind the pullers, there could have been some risk for prop strikes, which would probably be the easiest engineering hurdle to fix. The mounting points would have had to have been reinforced to probably slightly less than twice their original strength to hold the new engine and all of its accessories, which may have been too much put at one location on a spar with WWII engineering (decent chance that this is bullshit!).
Of course the easiest answer is that push pulls were unconventional and they may not have wanted to push something untested into production when the convention was already well tested.
-
On 11/5/2017 at 6:01 PM, Xoon said:
Not to discredit you or anything, but "the" does not exist in Scandinavian languages.
"En" means specifically one, singular, only one. In Swedish/Norwegian/Danish "En bil" translates to "One car" or "A car" in English.
However, "The car" translates to "Bilen".
And because we Scandinavians hate consistency, this does not even necessarily carry over to other words. Example: "Bilen, døra, huset, dama, og hode" translates into "The car, the house, the lady (or girlfriend), and the head"
And to make matters worse, we have loads and loads of dialects. Oslo-, Østlendings-, Telemarks-, Agders-, Stavangers-, Sørlendings-, Bergens-, Sogner-, Sogn og Fjordanenes-, Sunnmørs-, Ålesunders-, Moldensers-, Nordals-, Trønders-, midtlendings-, Nordlendings-, and immigrant speak dialects.
And this is only the few most commonly known ones. I could probably write a page or two.
Most likely, if you learn Norwegian, you will learn the Eastener dialect and bokmål, the governments most used written language. You might learn nynorsk, which is more akin to a compound of the dialects of Norway, and if you are a hipster, you could learn blandingnorsk, which is a mix of both. But you might end up with a "foreigner dialect" since many people that try to learn Norwegian without speaking with Norwegians end up with no dialect, making them sound very stale.
I dunno how close Germans and Dutch are, but Norwegians and Danish share basically the same written language, since those bastards only wanted danish to be though at universities and to be used by the government, and since the Black death pretty much killed everyone, wiping out Norse. Our verbal language is closer to Swedish though, so we can easily communicate, though with some errors. Danish is a bit harder, and but we can still understand each other if we have to, but most of the time we prefer English. Icelandic is a bit harder, which is old Norse. Takes a bit for me to understand, but I still understand them.
The finish sounds like this for us" Hakka paka, pelite mitrta makke", basicly a lot of "akka, pelite", same goes for Sami.
When it comes to German, we can communicate very basically.
And English you may ask? Well, pretty much every kids past primary school speaks and writes English as well as a American.
That's some pretty absurd semantics to claim that 'the' doesn't exist in Scandinavian languages because it appears at the end of a noun instead of as a separate article
"Bilen" translates more or less perfectly to "the car" in English, and the pattern fits for about anything else you "noun-en"/"noun-et", and the exceptions prove the rule; it's the reason that "noun-en" is taught to mean "the noun"
Icelandic distinguishes the indefinite article by context, in which case it almost makes sense to say that it doesn't have a definite article except "maðurinn" still translates to "the man"
Like let's not reinvent Wittgensteinian linguistics because it's pointless, a beetle is a beetle, alright? -
-
Video post, to be expanded incrementally as I determine the order of interestingness
-
Here is the full album for the pictures I took at the airshow that I never ended up uploading
Stand by while I figure out how to upload the videos
-
-
Is that the one with pregnant Snape?
-
Working an air show, will post pictures when I'm done overnighting at the airport
-
http://www.fritzthefox.com/f35_vs_spitfire.html
For everyone's triggering needs
-
Well he's finally done it
-
Ah shit I was gonna post that
-
Saw Dunkirk, found out Spitfires have no need of an engine, only a crankshaft, because the propellor is evidently powered by pure British fury.
Overall wouldn't really recommend.
Spoilers
Unsurprisingly it was a Hollywood 'war is terrible and to prove it we're going to show someone dying horrifically every two minutes and also the Brits lose a destroyer every two minutes because their AA crew are completely deaf and have cataracts' try hard wankfest. Why the director chose to have three different timelines running through the movie instead of one coherent narrative is beyond me (just kidding the director is pretentious as fuck)
The movie depicts an evacuation of Dunkirk, I don't know how accurate the movie is to the actual evacuation of Dunkirk, but it feels like a lot of liberties were taken, specifically with regard to how helpless the British navy was made out to be -
Thought it was probably an M114 but didn't see any M114s with the similar hatch. If anyone did make modifications to it, it didn't last. Oil sump got stuffed full of rocks and candy wrappers. Everything not welded down was torn off, no glass remains intact. It would have been cool to bring it back to service but I think it's screwed
-
It has seen much neglect. I'm told that the markings are for the veteran's hall in town, not actual army markings
Ukrainian Civil War Thread: All Quiet on the Sturgeon Front
in Open Discussion
Posted
This is not true. I am fascinated and would love to speak at length with this person. The posting implies a toddler with exceptional spelling ability, the registration date implies at least 5 years of age. How can this be?
I cannot conceive of any circumstance where I would willingly associate myself with this post, but someone else has. No drug could be more disassociating than to have the briefest glimpse into a mind that believes this is a good post. This is what I lust for.