benzman Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 On 3/6/2021 at 8:23 PM, Gargamel said: I was just assuming it was one of the rare cloth skinned spitfires. Expand Early Spitfires had cloth covered ailerons, elevators and rudder. The fuselage and wings were always metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 As in most ww2 movies with fighters in them, I constantly want the pilots to pull more lead, and/or to unload the stick before shooting. I suppose their poor shooting is actually more realistic, as even the best pilots only ever fired their guns in anger rarely (vs flying 10 gajillion hours in combat flight sims (with no consequences for mistakes ) to the point you can hit someone at several hundred yards with a snapshot pretty routinely) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacke Posted March 7, 2021 Share Posted March 7, 2021 (edited) On 3/6/2021 at 4:47 PM, Gargamel said: Spitfires do not glide like that. Nothing glides like that. Maybe gliders do.... but not spitfires. Expand Funny you should say that. I know the Spitfires prior to getting the wingtips squared in the later Marks had for its time ridiculously good transonic performance (when the airflow at some point on the fuselage gets to the speed of sound and shock waves and serious wave drag starts building) with a high transonic onset Mach Number. It had to came from a lower drag profile in the design. So I did a bit of digging. 2017 Aug 05 Sat usual Reddit discussion on the long glide from "Dunkirk" including unsupported comments that it had a good glide ratio, 13 to 15 'Course, being a low-drag high-speed design, that best glide ratio is going to be at a high speed, likely so high the pilot would have to have a bit of confidence and good knowledge to trust that it was the best glide speed. 2017 Aug 03 Thu New Statesmen article with a bit of critique of "Dunkirk" both as a story and its physics and hopefully better supported info 2017 Aug 22 Tue AVweb article talking about how the "Dunkirk" flying scenes were made also touching on other air combat films including 1969's amazing "The Battle of Britain" 2016 "The Aerodynamics of the Spitfire" a paper with real numbers and formulae talking about the design and drag of the Hurricane and the Spitfire I think that paper had the numbers to calculate the glide ratio, but in my skim of it seemed to never touch on it. And I couldn't recall the formula nor wanted to look it up right now. I leave it as an exercise for the reader. Edited March 7, 2021 by Jacke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 2, 2021 Share Posted April 2, 2021 I know TV procedurals are not known for accuracy, and this is more about the procedure than the science, but this was so freakin glaring that even my wife knew it was just wrong... The latest episode of Chicago Fire had a five-ton truck with a cargo of that was smoldering. They knew it would burst into flames when the door was opened. Hoses were charged and ready to spray foam when the door was opened (minor nitpicking: maybe start spraying before opening the door? idk). At any rate, the hose teams had their helmets on, but no face shield, probably not needed for them. But the guy that opened the door, with his hands (another point: maybe use a stick or similar to open, to be able to stand to the side? still not the main headshaker) had the rest of his turnout gear on, but no face shield, and not even the helmet. A beanie toque, sure, but maybe a soaking wet towel over his head would have been good, but no. Summary: Let's stand in front of a roll-up door known to have a smoldering cargo behind it, with no facial protection at all, and open it. Like, c'mon, seriously? yeah, I know, CF (and other TV procedurals) is chock full of things done just plain wrong if not stupidly, for the sake of the story and/or to add drama, but in this case it added nothing. They really need to lay off the stuff where even a layman has to facepalm. An old elevator rescue scene in that show also comes to mind. Mind you, I suppose there is a science to using the proper procedure, often learned the hard way.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted April 4, 2021 Share Posted April 4, 2021 (edited) On 3/6/2021 at 4:47 PM, Gargamel said: Spitfires do not glide like that. Nothing glides like that. Maybe gliders do.... but not spitfires. Expand A U2 managed to glide from Tennessee to Arizona (or vice versa. Call it 2500km if you aren't familiar with American geography). Of course you could claim that a U2 was a glider with a jet engine. Then there's the Pelan/Perlan 2. How does it soar? How about higher than said U2. U2 (I think the story involves a SR-71) to flight control: "request clearance for FL600" (60,000 ft, call it 18km) Air Traffic Control: "(joking) it is yours if you can get that high" U2: "descending to FL600" Probably mythical, as I don't think 60,000 ft is controlled airspace (modulo notice to airmen around rocket launch sites). Edited April 4, 2021 by wumpus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfox Posted April 4, 2021 Share Posted April 4, 2021 Not saying it proves anything for what happened in the movie, but I do wonder how the spitfire compares with the shrike in terms of L/D ratio? A quick google shows the spit’s L/D max out around 13 at best glide... nothing found for the shrike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 (edited) For All Mankind season 2. The Director of JSC and the Pentagon liaison to NASA are talking. The Soviets, in this alternate timeline, have built a cosmodrome on Sakhalin. Buran will launch from there for its first flight. The Pentagon liaison then shows stolen drawings of Buran to the JSC director. He asks if it can be armed (KAL 007 just happened and tensions are high, while the Americans are planning to put "missiles" on their own Shuttle II known as Pathfinder. More about that later). The JSC director then remarks how Buran is an "identical copy" of the space shuttle, down to the SRBs. Here is where alarm bells begin to ring. But Wikipedia states that despite their reservations, the Soviets briefly considered using SRBs. So maybe its ok. The real offense is this- the drawings are of the real life Energia-Buran with the LRBs. Now for part 2- Pathfinder apparently uses a nuclear thermal rocket engine instead of SSMEs. On a Space Shuttle. Edited April 5, 2021 by SunlitZelkova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 For All Mankind: When Marvel Starts Writing The History. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 On 4/5/2021 at 10:13 AM, kerbiloid said: For All Mankind: When Marvel Starts Writing The History. Expand Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum". On 4/5/2021 at 9:13 AM, SunlitZelkova said: The JSC director then remarks how Buran is an "identical copy" of the space shuttle, down to the SRBs. Expand There's this one self-gratifying NBC article by an ex-CIA type that gets reposted all over the place. I imagine they used it as the sole source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 On 4/5/2021 at 1:17 PM, DDE said: Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum". Expand They will next season. But with all the sci-fi errors, I'm still kind of enjoying the show. The storylines are fun, if not a bit campy, and the actors are all pretty good. Just don't expect to learn anything accurate from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 On 4/4/2021 at 7:00 PM, wumpus said: A U2 managed to glide from Tennessee to Arizona (or vice versa. Call it 2500km if you aren't familiar with American geography). Of course you could claim that a U2 was a glider with a jet engine. Expand Yeah, but that's a glider with engines . This fighter was at low altitude and speed to start with, glided the length of a beach, made a hard turn, lined up on and shot an enemy, then glided back up the beach the way he came, for quite some distance. In at least one of the directions the wind would not have been helping him. I'm not saying that a Spitfire didn't run out of fuel, down an enemy to to protect the troops while gliding, and then glide to a landing on the beach, just that how they showed it doesn't work in reality. Not even the shuttle flying upside down has that good of a glide ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 It looks like fat cessna for me. Maybe 12. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FАэродинамическое_качество%23Аэродинамическое_качество_некоторых_летательных_аппаратов_и_птиц Reveal hidden contents Aerodynamic quality of some aircraft and birds The country Firstflight LA k Flight mode A type 1966 "Union" 0.25-0.3 flight in the atmosphere Descent vehicle 1968 "Apollo" 0.368 [2] flight in the atmosphere Descent vehicle 1981 Space shuttle one on hypersound Reusable spacecraft 1988 "Buran" 1.3 [3] on hypersound Reusable spacecraft 1952 Mi-4 1.55 [4] on autorotation , 50 km / h Multipurpose helicopter 1997 Wingsuit 2.5 [5] Fabric wing suit 2010 HTV-2 ru en 2.6 [6] on hypersound Experimental hypersonic glider Sparrow four Passerine bird 1981 Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk 4 [7] Max. Tactical stealth strike aircraft 1964 MiG-25RB 4.2 [8] supersonic flight, M = 1.5 Generation 3 Scout Bomber 1969 Aerospatial-BAC Concorde 4.35 on landing Supersonic passenger aircraft 1981 Space shuttle 4.5 landing Reusable spacecraft 1952 Mi-4 5.0 [4] on autorotation, 120 km / h Multipurpose helicopter 1988 "Buran" 5.6 [3] subsonic Reusable spacecraft 1915 Fokker E.III (Eng.) Russian. 6.4 [9] Max. Fighter-monoplane PMV 1902 Wright glider (Eng.) Russian. 6.5 planning Early LA 1915 De Hevilland DH.2 7.0 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV with a pushing propeller 1917 Junkers DI (English) Russian. 7.0 [9] Max. First all-metal monoplane fighter 1969 Aerospatial-BAC Concorde 7.14 M = 2 Supersonic passenger aircraft 1917 SPAD S.XIII С.1 7.4 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1917 Albatross D.III 7.5 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1964 MiG-25RB 7.6 [8] max., M <0.82 Generation 3 Scout Bomber 1916 Sopwith F.1 Camel 7.7 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1917 Hoth GV (Eng.) Russian. 7.7 [9] Max. Heavy biplane PMV 1929 Dornier Do X 7.7 [9] Max. 1930s heavy flying boat 1916 Nieuport 17 7.9 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1917 Fokker Dr. I 8.0 [9] Max. Fighter-triplane PMV 1918 Fokker D.VII 8.1 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1918 Fokker D.VIII (Eng.) Russian. 8.1 [9] Max. Fighter-monoplane-parasol PMV 1916 Airco DH.4 8.1 [9] Max. Light biplane PMV 1917 Capronis Ca.42 (Eng.) Russian. 8.2 [9] Max. Heavy bomber-triplane PMV 1912 Royal Aircraft Factory BE2c 8.2 [9] Max. Biplane PMV 1932 Boeing P-26 Writer 8.3 [9] Max. 1930s fighter 1958 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II 8.58 [9] Max. Third generation carrier-based fighter 1917 Sopwith 5F.1 Dolphin 9.2 [9] Max. Fighter-biplane PMV 1954 Lockheed F-104G Starfighter 9.2 [9] Max. Second generation jet fighter 1970 Su-24 9.5 [10] max, M <1 Front-line variable sweep bomber 1915 Handley Page O / 400 (Eng.) Russian. 9.7 [9] Max. PMV biplane bomber Herring gull ten Gull seabird 1947 An-2 10 [11] Max. General purpose biplane 1959 Northrop F-5E Tiger II 10 [9] Max. Light jet fighter 1968 Aero L-39 Albatross 10 [12] planning Jet combat trainer 1972 McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 10 [13] M = 0.9 4th generation multirole fighter 1917 Junkers JI (English) Russian. 10.3 [9] Max. All-metal attack aircraft PMV 1955 Republic F-105D Thunderchief 10.4 [9] Max. Jet fighter bomber 1977 MiG-29 10.4 [14] max, M = 0.75 Front-line fighter of the 4th generation 1956 Conveyor B-58A Hustler 11.3 [9] Max. (without suspension) Long-range supersonic bomber 1955 Cessna-172 11.6 [9] Max. The most massive general purpose aircraft 1977 Su-27 11.6 [13] Max. 4th generation heavy fighter 1935 Seversky P-35 11.8 [9] Max. 1930s fighter 1983 Boeing 767-233 ( Glider Gimli ) ~ 12 planning Wide-body passenger aircraft 1940 Martin B-26F Marauder 12.0 [9] Max. Medium bomber WWII 1925 Supermarine S.4 (eng.) Russian. 12.1 [9] Max. Racing plane 1956 Conveyor F-106A Delta Dart 12.1 [9] Max. Tailless supersonic fighter 1967 MiG-23ML 12.1 [15] max, M <1 Generation 3 fighter 1942 Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat 12.2 [9] Max. WWII carrier-based fighter 1940 Curtis SB2C-1 Helldiver 12.4 [9] Max. Deck dive bomber WWII 1935 Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress 12.7 [9] Max. Long-range bomber WWII 1955 Vout F-8H Crusader 12.8 [9] Max. Deck supersonic fighter 1939 Consolidated B-24J Liberator 12.9 [9] Max. Long-range bomber WWII 1939 Lockheed P-38L Lightning 13.5 [9] Max. WWII heavy fighter 1953 North American F-100D Super Saber 13.9 [9] Max. The first supersonic fighter 1952 Tu-16 ~ 14 [16] Max. Long range jet bomber 1949 Be-6 14.4 [17] Max. Patrol seaplane 1963 IL-62M 14.5 [18] Max. Narrow-body passenger aircraft 1940 North American P-51D Mustang 14.6 [9] Max. The main US fighter in WWII 1935 Douglas DC-3 14.7 [9] Max. Most massive passenger / transport aircraft 1936 Pe-8 14.8 [17] Max. Long-range bomber WWII 1967 Boeing 737 15 Max. Narrow-body passenger aircraft 1975 Yak-42 15 [19] Max. (for small M ) Regional passenger aircraft 1953 Martin B-57B Canberra 15 [9] Max. Medium jet bomber 1947 North American F-86E Saber 15.1 [9] Max. First generation jet fighter 1960 Grumman A-6E Intruder 15.2 [9] Max. Deck jet bomber 1957 An-12 15.3 [20] Max. Heavy military transport aircraft 1971 IL-76T 15.5 [21] Max. Military transport aircraft 1966 Yak-40 15.5 [22] Max. Regional passenger aircraft 1964 General Dynamics F-111D 15.8 [9] Max. Variable Wing Tactical Bomber 1943 Lockheed L.1049G Super Constellation 16.0 [9] Max. Long-range passenger aircraft 1947 North American B-45C Tornado 16.3 [9] Max. Medium jet bomber 1957 IL-18 16.3 [23] Max. Long-range passenger aircraft 1968 Tu-154M 16.5 [24] Max. Narrow-body passenger aircraft 2003 Aeros Combat L 16.7 Max. Mastless hang glider 1942 Boeing B-29 Superfortress 16.8 [9] Max. Long-range bomber WWII 1969 Boeing 747 17 Max. Wide-body passenger aircraft 1952 Avro Volcano 17 [16] Max. Strategic bomber 1959 An-24 17.2 [25] Max. Narrow-body passenger aircraft - T-4MS 17.5 calculated Strategic bomber project 1976 IL-86 17.5 [26] Max. Wide-body passenger aircraft 1944 Lockheed F-80A Shooting Star 17.7 [9] Max. The first production jet fighter of the United States 1989 Tu-204 18 [27] Max. Narrow-body passenger aircraft 1982 An-124 Ruslan 18 Max. Heavy long-range transport aircraft 1956 3M 18.5 [16] Max. Strategic bomber 1963 Tu-134A ~ 18.5 [28] Max. (for small M ) Short-haul passenger aircraft 1974 Rockwell B-1 Lancer > 19 [16] Max. Strategic variable wing bomber 1988 An-225 19 Max. Super-heavy long-range transport aircraft 1981 Tu-160 > 19 [16] Max. Strategic variable wing bomber Albatross twenty Seabird of the order of petrels 1947 Boeing B-47E Stratojet 20 [9][ clarify ] Max. Strategic subsonic bomber 1952 Boeing B-52G Stratofortress 21.5 [9][ clarify ] Max. calculation. Strategic subsonic bomber 1984 Rutan Aircraft Voyager 27 [29] Max. Experimental aircraft for record flights 1935 Göppingen Gö 3 28 at 72 km / h Glider 1967 Lockheed U-2 ~ 28 cruising. Strategic subsonic reconnaissance 1956 LET L-13 Blahnik 28.5 at 85 km / h The most massive glider 1982 M-17 ~ 30 [30] planning High-altitude aircraft 1988 M-55 ~ 30 [31] planning High-altitude aircraft 2005 Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer 37 [29] Max. Experimental aircraft for record flights 1993 Schleicher ASH 26 fifty Max. (at 85 km / h) Serial glider. 2005 Schleicher ASG 29-18m 52 Max. Serial glider. 1986 Schleicher ASH 25 57 Max. Double serial glider. The country Firstflight LA k Flight mode A type Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 (edited) On 4/5/2021 at 1:17 PM, DDE said: Now-now, they haven't broken out "fusion" and "quantum". There's this one self-gratifying NBC article by an ex-CIA type that gets reposted all over the place. I imagine they used it as the sole source. Expand I'm not sure they did much research at all on the Soviet side of things. When the astronauts for Apollo-Soyuz arrive in Star City (which is happening in 1983) they are greeted by five soldiers with AKs, and then immediately subject to a pat down. Even during the Reagan-Andropov era I doubt they would receive such a cold welcome. Also their point of divergence is fairly implausible. Just 30 minutes of scrolling through pages on astronautix will show anyone that even if Korolev survived his surgery, and even if the N1 worked, the Soviets were not going to beat the US to the Moon. Edited April 5, 2021 by SunlitZelkova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 They would not "arrive and be met", they would be "delivered" by dedicated officers, no soldier would get harmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 On 4/5/2021 at 11:29 PM, SunlitZelkova said: they are greeted by five soldiers with AKs, and then immediately subject to a pat down. Expand That's just how things always are in Hollywood Soviet Russia. Different kind of bad, just as widespread. Reveal hidden contents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 For all man kind, s02e09. It's pretty fun to Reveal hidden contents shoot from space AK at the windows of the command center (btw, why do they need so many windows there?) but Reveal hidden contents 1) It's much better to first take away the antenna (like the insidious American spy Steve /Brewst-ner/ idk how should this be written in English does in the Interception movie, 1986, or like the insidious American spies do in U-571 to the destroyer) 2) It's not need to break the windows standing in front of it because the debris can hit you, and because they immediately understand what happened. Any hole would unpressurize the module, it's not armored anywhere. 3) Why climb into the window when you can just shoot off the door? 4) Why stand the four of them in front of the door inside the station instead of ducking an hiding? 5) Why keep the helmet and rifle lights on in the dark interior? Couldn't they just use the helmet face highlight like others do, if they want to be more visible in the darkness? I can't believe that a Russky Superspacetrooper can do that. It's clearly a provocation. 1) Why do the heavy boxes fly around, but the crew still keeps breathing and crawling? Heroic faces can give two minutes of emergency bonus and a spiderman skill? 2) Why are all internal doors opened? Didn't they watch any movie about submarines? The fact that they don't have a persicope doesn't mean they are not in a submarine. 3) Why are the station windows not equipped with caps? Even Cupola has seven of them. 4) Nobody tries to close the first broken windows with something enough big. They are jumping around. Any emergency training before the flight? 5) Why are the windows so thin? So few seconds, so many questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 Also the AK and M16 are air cooled. According to a scene in an earlier episode, apart from being painted to "prevent them from melting in their hands" nothing has been done to modify the rifles (except the scopes). I don't think they would do too well in a vacuum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 (edited) A water-cooled Lunar Maxim Gun. They can use lunar ice for it. "Cool even on the Moon." Reveal hidden contents (Who cares about its 30 kg weight? On the Moon it's just 5. You can hold it in hands on the gunner deputy back.) Edited April 17, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 On 4/16/2021 at 7:08 PM, SunlitZelkova said: Also the AK and M16 are air cooled. According to a scene in an earlier episode, apart from being painted to "prevent them from melting in their hands" nothing has been done to modify the rifles (except the scopes). I don't think they would do too well in a vacuum. Expand A right and proper moonblaster? Reveal hidden contents I know that's for forced air cooling. Humor me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 (edited) On 4/17/2021 at 1:44 PM, DDE said: A right and proper moonblaster? Expand As they were hiding in a jumbo fuel tank, it was also about a wet workshop. Reveal hidden contents Btw, a shovel and a kettle are very necessary in the lunar spacesuit, to save the captured colleague from a dust trap. P.S. And that's the movie which they watch before every Soyuz launch, btw. It's about the Moon, see the regolith and the 3d-printed structures on the background. Edited April 17, 2021 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 It atmosphere NERVAs..... sigh.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 On 4/17/2021 at 4:33 PM, Gargamel said: It atmosphere NERVAs..... sigh.... Expand The only NERVAs actually operated were in the atmosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 On 4/17/2021 at 4:58 PM, tater said: The only NERVAs actually operated were in the atmosphere Expand Yes.... but they weren't spaceflight capable.... just.... ehhhhh.... I watch it for the story more than the science... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 Where has that fancy Sea Dragon gone? I can't recall it since the end of s1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 On 4/17/2021 at 6:40 PM, Gargamel said: Yes.... but they weren't spaceflight capable.... just.... ehhhhh.... I watch it for the story more than the science... Expand I saw the actual Space Shuttle in the season 2 trailer and decided from that alone not to watch season 2 at all, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.