scarier

12 ms·

121.
by scarier 6y ago
Avionics have certainly changed a lot, but basic aircraft structures and controls have been almost stagnant for decades (and most of the places they aren't static are largely related to electronics--even if you're lucky enough to
122.
by scarier 6y ago
Yeah, I worry that a lot of the use cases are in the most complicated and dangerous flight environments (mountains, big cities), even before you consider things like weather, airspace management, power margin at altitude... >Also, I find
123.
by scarier 6y ago
I'm curious if there will be a market for this--plenty of current production aircraft can work perfectly well as air taxis, but the service has only caught on in niche markets (island-hopping float planes, some helicopter services, arg
124.
by scarier 6y ago
A few of the other comments have covered good reasons why this is a poor analogy. One thing to remember: wing muscles are the most well-developed muscles on birds, while human arms are extremely weak compared to our legs. A better analogy w
125.
by scarier 6y ago
To be fair, aluminum isn't typically case-hardened, at least for this application. While I lament the loss of the strength benefits from forging, they may be able to make up for a lot of them by using more material around the wrist pin
126.
by scarier 6y ago
For what it's worth, neither bullets nor helicopters are propelled by explosions. While the distinction is somewhat technical, gunpowder doesn't explode--it just burns really fast. This is less important for small arms than for, s
127.
by scarier 6y ago
Fires on a ship can spread scarily fast, which is one reason sailors devote so much time underway to cleaning--I've heard anecdotal stories of at least one lethal fire spreading through a ship's ventilation system due to the amoun
128.
by scarier 6y ago
This is a perennial problem in aviation. One of my favorite examples relates to flaws in our assumptions about anthropometrics: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
129.
by scarier 6y ago
That's a good question! For something very similar to Trophy, I'd generally say low for at least 3 reasons (weight/size/complexity, issues from moving 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than armored ground vehicles, and the
130.
by scarier 6y ago
For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure Diesel has met a few fighter pilots. It's not a monolithic culture--there are plenty of pilots out there who are exactly as you describe, but also a number who not only can explain why a t
131.
by scarier 6y ago
Oversimplified for sure, but I think "extremely wrong" is unfair. I think the jury is still out on whether or not a stealth-on-stealth fight (or a more conventional fight in an ECM-heavy environment) inevitably devolves into a WVR
132.
by scarier 6y ago
Heh, I guarantee you that Harriers in the Falklands used "viffing"... as an administrative maneuver. The Harrier family has a whole menagerie of weird and wonderful TVC party tricks that are notoriously difficult to pull off, need
133.
by scarier 6y ago
A supermaneuverable U-2 would be... interesting. I wonder if that would reduce pilot workload or increase it? The engineer in me would suggest a robust automatic flight control system system instead, although considering how insane the proc
134.
by scarier 6y ago
This is interesting! Do you have any more in-depth articles on it? The Pantsir can be a pretty beastly threat...
135.
by scarier 6y ago
There are advantages to look-up and look-down depending on the tactic you're employing. It might work well against a radar with a known vulnerability to this type of maneuver, although I'm not sure I would employ it as a general t
136.
by scarier 6y ago
Maybe. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. That said, if I had to choose between fighting someone who employs this tactic as a part of their standard game plan or someone who doesn't, I'd choose to fight the
137.
by scarier 6y ago
100% agreed, but we're firmly within the realms of operations and strategy now, rather than tactics. That said, it's a good exercise to expand your scope of "kills" from weapons, rocks, and gas to include things like mai
138.
by scarier 6y ago
This made me smile. I really don't recommend actually doing this in real life for a number of reasons, but how totally epic it would be is very much not one of them.
139.
by scarier 6y ago
In the sense that the advantages you get from using it could be outweighed by the risks you incur by using it. All else being equal, supermaneuverability is great to have, but when you start looking at design tradeoffs (e.g. canards being g
140.
by scarier 6y ago
I agree that there are conceivable circumstances where this kind of maneuvering is useful. One thing to consider: fights are rarely 1v1, and even if it works perfectly against the guy you're fighting at the moment, one of his buddies w
141.
by scarier 6y ago
Why do you need to turn your nose that far that fast in a BVR fight? It may not even be possible in the flight regime you're in. There are a lot of other potential issues with this kind of maneuvering. I agree that there are some poten
142.
by scarier 6y ago
To be fair, the same systems that enable supermaneuverability typically enhance "normal" maneuverability as well. I don't think the Russian engineers were designing these systems specifically for awesome-looking airshow maneu
143.
by scarier 6y ago
...and if your hail-mary shot misses? In a big furball, the only reason to do this is if you're willing to risk being shot down in exchange, and trading planes 1-for-1 is generally a poor way to win fights.
144.
by scarier 6y ago
Maybe they'll start adding certain neck mobility requirements in the anthropometric screening? It's a brave new world...
145.
by scarier 6y ago
I think I've seen a handful here...
146.
by scarier 6y ago
Are we talking F-pole/A-pole tactics or WVR stuff?
147.
by scarier 6y ago
>The only benefit would be to get an IR missile off when you've already realized you are losing and he's behind you. Bummer the Raptor driver doesn't have JHMCS...
148.
by scarier 6y ago
To be fair, even non-supermaneuverable Russian jets have good unimproved-field performance--old-school tech like intake screens plays a much bigger role here than fancy thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire controls. But they absolutely are a pr
149.
by scarier 6y ago
This is a really interesting topic for debate. Possibly the most recent employment of modern air-to-air tactics we've seen in actual combat was in the early '80s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_C
150.
by scarier 6y ago
To add on, supermaneuverabillity looks really cool and is an impressive technical achievement for sure, but its utility in combat (at least for the time being) is likely low to negative. Among other reasons, the more players in a fight, the

More ›