Didn't the opposite happen with Novichok
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
47 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
499 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
My favorite part about that story is how the US built a fighter that could actually do everything needed to counter what we thought the Soviet plane could do. It was a massive flex that happened by accident.
Is this some form of Beetlejuicing?
I learned about this from this amazing video: https://youtu.be/RmlWmDokzGg?si=uL9QX9eICFPd3C0z
Mustard is a treasure.
You know or that was all a tactic of the military-industrial complex to justify its projects.
How terrible. I sure hope that never, ever happens again.
As a kid I couldn't decide whether the F-14 or F-15 was the most fucking awesome thing in existence. I mean, just look at them! Those planes are what sexy feels like before you're old enough to know what sexy even means.
I mean, if you ignore the f4, the f14/15 are the sexiest aircraft ever. But, c'mon, the f4? That's jizzing pants territory.
To me it was F14. F15 is cool and all, but... I definitely saw Top Gun while way too young.
I mean, even without watching Top Gun the retractable wings were the coolest thing ever for a kid. It was the aviation equivalent of Mad Max flipping on the supercharger on the V8 Interceptor.
(I know, I know. You can't actually spin up a supercharger like that, but it's still fuckin cool.)
Funny story. Nowadays you could feaseably run a dual forced air like turbo and super charging and use an electric clutch to disengage the super. But the intake would be convoluted with some way to bypass the stupid charger or the turbo depending on rpm. it just makes it not worth it.
In real life conversation I'd laugh and pretend I understood that. I'm glad the internet makes ignorance more comfortable.
Imagine you're breathing through a big straw, and at the other end of the straw is a device that pumps air faster whenever you're breathing faster, say when you're running fast. If you turn off power to the pump, you can't breathe through the straw anymore because the pump isn't spinning, so you'd need a second straw that opens up only when the pump is off.
You are the engine, and the pump is the supercharger. When the engine doesn't need to breathe fast, turning off the supercharger would conserve energy use at the expense of power output. But the design of the pump doesn't let air bypass it when it's off, so you'd need to engineer something (overly complex) to do it.
(I know, I know. You can’t actually spin up a supercharger like that, but it’s still fuckin cool.)
Technically you could design a supercharger with a clutch (like the one for the car's A/C compressor) , but it'd be dumb because there's no good reason not to have it active all the time.
Superchargers come with massive parasitic losses, in many cases 10-20%, and there’s a decent handful of cars with clutches on the supercharger pulley. The MR2 is one.
Not running the extra 20kg or whatever of rotating blower mass would increase efficiency for cruising. A supercharger doesn't have a good way of doing active bypass when you don't need boost like a turbo wastegate so just turning it off can save some mpgs.
If the size of the turbo on my VW is anything to go by, I think the rotating mas of an automotive supercharger would be more likely on the order of 2 kg, not 20 kg. In my mind, that has two implications: (a) the gain from bothering to disable it is perhaps not actually all that significant, and (b) the additional mass that would come with attaching a clutch to it might be large compared to the total mass you're trying to control, so maybe it wouldn't be worth it. Then again, the Previa supercharger the other reply gave (which certainly wouldn't be a very large supercharger) might be a counterexample...
Turbos spin far faster than (Roots-type) superchargers, and can therefore be much smaller.
Besides that, I don't think rotating mass is really the issue. Yes, more inertia is like having a bigger flywheel so the engine will be slower to spin up/down, but that doesn't consume much energy, especially in steady-state cruising.
Superchargers compress air - that takes energy. You then restrict it through the throttle body, because you're not cruising with a wide-open throttle. That throws away all the compression.
You also have pumping losses and bearing/gear/belt losses.
I guess this refers to MiG-24 vs. F-15. Wikipedia writes:
The appearance of the MiG-25 sparked serious concern in the West and prompted dramatic increases in performance requirements for the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, then under development in the late 1960s. The capabilities of the MiG-25 were better understood by the West in 1976 when Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected in a MiG-25 to the United States via Japan. It turned out that the aircraft's weight necessitated its large wings.
The MiG-25 will never not be cool though.
From the title I assumed it was going to be about the F-104 Starfighter AKA Widowmaker AKA Lawn Dart AKA Aluminium Death Tube.
the starfighter looks so sexy though
I concur. Missing half of the wing area never looked better. X15 is a close 2nd.
My understanding is that the 104 was great at the tasks for which it was designed. Unfortunately those tasks no longer exist, and the auxiliary tasks is where it was truly horrible. Tasks that may not be the primary role, but are still critical to the operation. You know, such as landing, slow flight, maneuvering, etc.