[QUOTE=Drasnus;44864044][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5MVhH-GpoA[/url]
(embedding was disabled)[/QUOTE]
just remove the s in https
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5MVhH-GpoA[/media]
[QUOTE=da_maul;44864768]just remove the s in https
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5MVhH-GpoA[/media][/QUOTE]
[t]http://puu.sh/8UI9k.jpg[/t]
i always wondered how they kept the b2 from side-slipping, due to having no vertical surface... at all.
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;44865124]i always wondered how they kept the b2 from side-slipping, due to having no vertical surface... at all.[/QUOTE]
That's a really interesting question, and one I didn't know the answer to, so I had a look around. I'm not sure if I missed something and there are other factors at play, but it seems its ability to fly is owed largely to the on-board flight computers. As with most (all) modern planes the pilot's input is nothing more than a declaration of intent to the flight computers, which then go on to execute the requested maneuver to the best of their abilities without flipping the aircraft out.
tl;dr It seems that computers are to thank for its ability to fly without a vertical stabiliser.
[QUOTE=BackwardSpy;44865346]That's a really interesting question, and one I didn't know the answer to, so I had a look around. I'm not sure if I missed something and there are other factors at play, but it seems its ability to fly is owed largely to the on-board flight computers. As with most (all) modern planes the pilot's input is nothing more than a declaration of intent to the flight computers, which then go on to execute the requested maneuver to the best of their abilities without flipping the aircraft out.
tl;dr It seems that computers are to thank for its ability to fly without a vertical stabiliser.[/QUOTE]
Most military aircraft are built aerodynamically unstable, so computers are needed to keep anything from falling out of the sky. A better answer for the B2 is that engine thrust plays a large part in pitch and roll, as well as control surfaces on the wings.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;44865766]Most military aircraft are built aerodynamically unstable, so computers are needed to keep anything from falling out of the sky. A better answer for the B2 is that engine thrust plays a large part in pitch and roll, as well as control surfaces on the wings.[/QUOTE]
Not really true, its just flying wing type designs that don't have tails or rudders are incredibly unstable. They're kept stabilized via computers. Almost every flying wing project (prior to flight computers) was scrapped because of their instability and inability to recover from stalls.
[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/9a63da9c4aadee26daf9d1ca7cb9b500/tumblr_n1zw08iGdP1qb3yxoo1_1280.jpg[/IMG]
Check that vortex.
[IMG]http://37.media.tumblr.com/f84950401c36fc14b050335926629b98/tumblr_n5it8iLg4C1to3eouo1_1280.jpg[/IMG]
Some cool screen from top gun.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44866344]Not really true, its just flying wing type designs that don't have tails or rudders are incredibly unstable. They're kept stabilized via computers. Almost every flying wing project (prior to flight computers) was scrapped because of their instability and inability to recover from stalls.[/QUOTE]
Which part isn't true? I'm not debating that flying wings are unstable, that's somewhat obvious. But look at the Nazi Ho 229, it wasn't kept up by computers. Inboard and outboard spoilers helped control it in addition to it's jet engines. During testing it showed minimal lateral instability.
All I said was that computers help control everything these days, and that saying computers keep it in the air isn't necessarily wrong, it's just vague, like saying someone's brain is what keeps someone standing. Yeah it's true, but I figured a more in depth answer would be better. The computers adjust thrust and control surfaces like your brain sends signals down your nervous system to coordinate parts of your body to keep you standing.
The Ho 229 didn't get into service because it was too much of a design challenge.
Also, fighters are designed to be unstable because they can turn, roll, etc faster than a stable aircraft. A stable aircraft will resist anything you order it to do and return to stable flight.
[editline]21st May 2014[/editline]
That's why the F-4 had those downwards pointing horizontal stabilizers, because it was too stable.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44868671]The Ho 229 didn't get into service because it was too much of a design challenge.
Also, fighters are designed to be unstable because they can turn, roll, etc faster than a stable aircraft. A stable aircraft will resist anything you order it to do and return to stable flight.
[editline]21st May 2014[/editline]
That's why the F-4 had those downwards pointing horizontal stabilizers, because it was too stable.[/QUOTE]
The Ho 229 didn't enter service because the first prototype was flown in 1944. It showed promise, they just ran out of time. It was actually the most stable of all flying wing aircraft at the time.
Yeah, the first fighter produced like that was the F-16. It's called relaxed static stability, because of it the F-16 can pull up to a 9G turn, which is nuts. Interesting about the F-4 though.
[editline]21st May 2014[/editline]
The Ho 229 was the inspiration behind the development of the B-2
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;44868858]The Ho 229 didn't enter service because the first prototype was flown in 1944. It showed promise, they just ran out of time. It was actually the most stable of all flying wing aircraft at the time.
Yeah, the first fighter produced like that was the F-16. It's called relaxed static stability, because of it the F-16 can pull up to a 9G turn, which is nuts. Interesting about the F-4 though.
[editline]21st May 2014[/editline]
The Ho 229 was the inspiration behind the development of the B-2[/QUOTE]
The g number of a turn isn't reliant on how stable it is, it's to do with airframe loading limitations, the computers limited the aircraft to 9 g turns.
Also the Ho 229 didn't inspire it, it was the YB-49. The designer of the YB-49 saw a mockup of the B-2 before he died, which was his life dream, just that the tech never became mature enough until it was too late in his life to see it fly.
you can move the wheel in any way you want either right or left!
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//65.gif[/img]
the a and b squares colours don't change, and yet your eyes get fooled somehow
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//126.gif[/img]
those are only circles,not a spiral
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05/1741-620x.jpg[/img]
covering the middle with your hand hallway speeds it up, covering the sides slows it down
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//18dn39iws7gdzgif.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44829981]first meeting of the Mickey Mouse club
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2Ra3meM.jpg[/IMG]
1930ish[/QUOTE]
It's creepy, but is it bad that the kids all look the same or am I just imagining that?
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/4aqQbNT.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44869081]you can move the wheel in any way you want either right or left!
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//65.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
The trick to changing the direction on this one is tracking your eyes all the way along the top instead of just looking at either side, if that makes sense.
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;44868349]Which part isn't true? I'm not debating that flying wings are unstable, that's somewhat obvious. But look at the Nazi Ho 229, it wasn't kept up by computers. Inboard and outboard spoilers helped control it in addition to it's jet engines. During testing it showed minimal lateral instability. [/QUOTE]
It showed promise in it's HANDFULL of tests and never actually saw any combat. Combat conditions and test flight conditions are 2 incredibly different things.
And keep in mind, that during those tests they claimed that the 229 outflew a 262, which is probably bullshit.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44869081]
covering the middle with your hand hallway speeds it up, covering the sides slows it down
[img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//18dn39iws7gdzgif.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
This did nothing for me.
[img]https://31.media.tumblr.com/66c98091d01714392cdfd9d00bb384ce/tumblr_n580n6FCi81qdlh1io1_400.gif[/img]
[editline]21st May 2014[/editline]
Oh, did somebody post this already? My bad.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44869081][img]http://www.distractify.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads//2014/05//18dn39iws7gdzgif.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Its so weird how our brain does weird shit like this
Unused Dark Side of the Moon covers
[IMG]http://zumic.zumicentertainme.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover-art-face-paint.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://zumic.zumicentertainme.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover-art-text.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://zumic.zumicentertainme.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover-art-great-pyramid.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://zumic.zumicentertainme.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pink-floyd-dark-side-of-the-moon-cover-art-pointillism.jpg[/IMG]
And this thing
[IMG]http://art.ngfiles.com/images/289000/289079_indeeperdreams_skull-face-forest.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Ermac20;44871273]Its so weird how our brain does weird shit like this[/QUOTE]
I dont really see that one as an illusion, the candles are actually moving faster on the sides than in the middle. So when you block the middle, you only see the candles at their highest speed, its no different than watching cars drive by on the road while looking through a paper towel tube.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;44871357]And this thing
[IMG]http://art.ngfiles.com/images/289000/289079_indeeperdreams_skull-face-forest.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Half Life, anyone?
[QUOTE=~ZOMG;44871865]Half Life, anyone?[/QUOTE]
It's supposed to be a wolf :v:
Come on!
[IMG]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090328052916/half-life/en/images/6/6b/Gargantua.jpg[/IMG]
You don't see that!?
damn,tokyo makes you feel insignificant
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/CApkyLV.jpg[/thumb]
it's like that time when hubble focused on a small spot in space wich looked entirely black to our eyes, only to find gazillions of galaxies/suns/planets...
when you zoom in on this photo, you see a condo wich was bearly perceivable, and then you realize there's some thousands or more people living there, each with his own story and daily struggles.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Hampel_and_Chetnik.jpg[/IMG]
Commander of SS-Handschar, SS-Standartenführer Desiderius Hampel confers with a Chetnik commander – Summer 1944
[img]http://i.imgur.com/lzoDcZm.jpg[/img]
there's more [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts"]here[/URL]
welcome to 2014, millenials.sorry it's not such a great place to be...
It's not like the 20th century was any different or the 19th was any different. Only difference is is we can have a more exact kill count because of modern technology.
the kill count is actually less, but that doesn't justify any of those conflicts...
but i guess that's just how the world is, we have people working on molecular biology/quantum physics/ space science.perhaps in our lifetimes there will be breakthroughs like life-prolonging meds, fusion energy...others wich have not even ben imagined, and at the same time places where brutality is the guiding rule and suffering the norm.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44877024]the kill count is actually less, but that doesn't justify any of those conflicts...
but i guess that's just how the world is, we have people working on molecular biology/quantum physics/ space science.perhaps in our lifetimes there will be breakthroughs like life-prolonging meds, fusion energy...others wich have not even ben imagined, and at the same time places where brutality is the guiding rule and suffering the norm.[/QUOTE]
"Killed at the age of 62..."
"Wow, he died so young!"
:v:
[editline]22nd May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44876866]It's not like the 20th century was any different or the 19th was any different. Only difference is is we can have a more exact kill count because of modern technology.[/QUOTE]
For some odd reason, people seem to assume that the nature of man has somehow changed and improved over time along with it's technology. We always have and always will be, greedy and stupid - the two strongest causes of just about every human action. Our moralities of what's right and wrong may fluctuate but it's yet to actually change what we actually do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.