5 ms·

Rain doesn't fall all at once like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkV64GJihA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkV64GJihA

jimmaswell 8y ago
That doesn't look like any single point gets that much force on it. Wouldn't be surprised if you could safely stand under it.
- keytarsolo 8y ago
  Give it a shot and report back to us.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
- holtalanm 8y ago
  I sincerely hope that was a joke.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
- tomswartz07 8y ago
  Water has a mass of ~8.3 lbs per gallon. A DC-10 Air Tanker carries 12,000 US gallons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker All said, that's 45.4 metric tons. Go ahead, stand under one and let us know how it goes.
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    Here's somebody standing right under one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY You people are all being ridiculous today.
    - knowaveragejoe 8y ago
      This video doesn't prove your point. Not only are they actually not directly under that, but this is spread over a much larger distance than trying to target the cathedral would be. They configure their release to spread over a larger area than that.
      - jimmaswell 8y ago
        It proves you can effectively firefight with water from a plane without even snapping tree branches, thus there'd be no reason the same pressure couldn't be used on a building.
        knowaveragejoe 8y ago
        You're clueless, sorry.
        jimmaswell 8y ago
        I think I found out the reason everybody is going so crazy over this - a controversial figure from the wrong tribe apparently mentioned flying water tankers. Thus even neutral debate over the subject is wrongthink and has to be extinguished. Why don't you step back for a moment and just admit that given the premises -Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees -Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours That it must follow -Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it Otherwise you are the clueless one. This is absurd. At least you downvoters (who are ignoring the site guidelines) are letting me see some aesthetically pleasing upvote configurations again when it goes back up, so I appreciate it.
- knowaveragejoe 8y ago
  Here's a little more visceral example of what they're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg
  - jimmaswell 8y ago
    That's much more volume at once in any one area and much closer to the subject (so less time to dissipate) than any of the actual flying water tanker videos that have been posted.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jimmaswell 8y ago

That doesn't look like any single point gets that much force on it. Wouldn't be surprised if you could safely stand under it.

keytarsolo 8y ago
Give it a shot and report back to us.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
holtalanm 8y ago
I sincerely hope that was a joke.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
tomswartz07 8y ago
Water has a mass of ~8.3 lbs per gallon. A DC-10 Air Tanker carries 12,000 US gallons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker All said, that's 45.4 metric tons. Go ahead, stand under one and let us know how it goes.
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  Here's somebody standing right under one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY You people are all being ridiculous today.
  - knowaveragejoe 8y ago
    This video doesn't prove your point. Not only are they actually not directly under that, but this is spread over a much larger distance than trying to target the cathedral would be. They configure their release to spread over a larger area than that.
    - jimmaswell 8y ago
      It proves you can effectively firefight with water from a plane without even snapping tree branches, thus there'd be no reason the same pressure couldn't be used on a building.
      - knowaveragejoe 8y ago
        You're clueless, sorry.
        jimmaswell 8y ago
        I think I found out the reason everybody is going so crazy over this - a controversial figure from the wrong tribe apparently mentioned flying water tankers. Thus even neutral debate over the subject is wrongthink and has to be extinguished. Why don't you step back for a moment and just admit that given the premises -Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees -Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours That it must follow -Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it Otherwise you are the clueless one. This is absurd. At least you downvoters (who are ignoring the site guidelines) are letting me see some aesthetically pleasing upvote configurations again when it goes back up, so I appreciate it.
knowaveragejoe 8y ago
Here's a little more visceral example of what they're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  That's much more volume at once in any one area and much closer to the subject (so less time to dissipate) than any of the actual flying water tanker videos that have been posted.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]