RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:28:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Very true Bama. It is, or was, an accomplished fact and they were a great plane.

Yes they were, but the B-24 was better for the pacific, more range. Not sure how many 24s were in service at that time.
Checked it, at that time the B-24 was primarily used by the RAF




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:30:22 PM)

I just read that empty, they had a possible range of about 3,100 miles, which I would say would give them plenty of range.




BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:34:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I just read that empty, they had a possible range of about 3,100 miles, which I would say would give them plenty of range.

The 17?




thompsonx -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:35:20 PM)


ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Not that hard mr. mensa eligible.Simply plot a great cirlcle course from washington to pearl duuuuhhh "

They didn't have to refuel to do that ? Where could they refuel ?

Doubts here.


Great circle distance from Hamilton field, novato california where they took off to pearl is 2081 nm.
The range of a fully loaded b17 is 2000 nm. These were not loaded with bombs or their defensive armamament.



http://sawyeraviation.com/what-is-the-longest-over-water-route-of-flight-with-no-alternatives/




BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:36:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I just read that empty, they had a possible range of about 3,100 miles, which I would say would give them plenty of range.

The 17?
That makes all this gibberish just that gibberish.





Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:39:22 PM)

Yes, the B-17 B had a possible range of 3,100 miles when empty, according to what I was just reading.




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:41:24 PM)

That would have left them about 400 miles to play with on a direct flight I guess. And if they had favourable tail winds, who knows ?




thompsonx -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/3/2016 9:43:53 PM)


ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

That would have left them about 400 miles to play with on a direct flight I guess. And if they had favourable tail winds, who knows ?


3100-2081=1019[8|]




BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 8:23:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

That would have left them about 400 miles to play with on a direct flight I guess. And if they had favourable tail winds, who knows ?

Thanks for looking that up.
Now he just has to explain why people were willing to get killed to carry out his conspiracy.




Termyn8or -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 4:15:48 PM)

FR

This "if empty", umm, I heard they had a bunch of bombs on board.

T^T




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 4:27:42 PM)

I heard they were full of helium so they could stay in the air even when their gas ran out. Yep, I am being silly again, but why would they make a flight that was around the limit of their range and then carry a few tonnes of excess weight too ?




BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 5:52:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

FR

This "if empty", umm, I heard they had a bunch of bombs on board.

T^T

You heard wrong, they didn't even have guns.
Why are you still debating this, They did it so obviously it was possible.




BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 5:53:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I heard they were full of helium so they could stay in the air even when their gas ran out. Yep, I am being silly again, but why would they make a flight that was around the limit of their range and then carry a few tonnes of excess weight too ?

Right, there was no reason for them to have bombs.




dcnovice -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 6:59:24 PM)

quote:

I heard they were full of helium so they could stay in the air even when their gas ran out.

Helium's no problem.

Hydrogen on the other hand . . . [;)]




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 7:01:20 PM)

If it was hydrogen, they would be one HUGE bomb !!!! A spectacular, one-off, firework display the first time anybody lit a cigarette.




epiphiny43 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 7:33:15 PM)

Hydrogen (H2) like any flammable substance, is only flammable when mixed with an oxidizer in appropriate proportions. Too lean or too rich, nothing. Edges of good ratio, not spectacular effects. People carry flammables, liquid or gaseous, in Containers, not in vague clouds onboard. Which would be Dangerous with unshielded old time switches everywhere arcing when used. H2 can be dangerous.
The Hindenberg fire was supposed to be a H2 leak and accidental ignition (they couldn't get He2, the US being the only source world wide, and embargoing Germany), maybe from static charge built up during the flight. More likely it was political sabotage, the Third Reich had a few enemies by then. Most fail to note, Most passengers got out and survived!
Gasoline is worse. WWII Avgas (And current car gasoline) is about as unsafe as fuel gets, other than corrosive stuff like the self-igniting (hypergolic) fuel used in control vernier rockets on large space launch vehicles. Hydrazine and Peroxide were used in the Nazi rocket interceptor, and later on early US ICBMs. Either one kills on contact if substantial. Together, a major 4th of July event.
The most powerful conventional explosive (Non-nuclear) air delivered weapon in the US arsenal was a gasoline vapor bomb, last time I checked. Delayed ignition lets sociometric air to fuel vapor develop over about a foot ball field area, then the ignitor goes off. Flame front speeds may reach several thousand meters per second in ideal conditions. Don't be there.

Long distance ferry flights during WWII, till today, are stripped down planes if necessary. Additional internal or external fuel tanks added when required. Pilots and responsible supervisors tend to obsess on the calculations. Planes are expensive, incredibly valuable resources in questionable outcome combat events, and air crew training often is more expensive in both money and time. Despite the scepticism bleeding over from political policy discussions and widespread use of 'reasonable doubt' tactics to confuse any issue, almost all technical personnel actually do know what they are doing, even Government Workers. Forgotten today, many of the long distance over-ocean ferry flights during the war were by female pilots, only now being allowed military honors burials in national cemetaries.




Dvr22999874 -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 7:48:05 PM)

There would be the possibility of that mix if there was any kind of leak between what the crew were breathing and this hypothetical hydrogen though *smile*.
I always thought it might be a good idea to bring airships back. Not as they were but obviously a much more modern version of them of course and filled with helium or similar, not hydrogen. I know that Manchester Liners were thinking of building a fleet of them back in the 60's or 70's but that got shelved and I have heard no more about it................................Possibly huge container ships coming into their own at about that time, might have had something to do with that. They would certainly have made for a different and more leisurely form of travel though for those who weren't in a hurry but wanted something faster than a ship.




dcnovice -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/4/2016 7:58:52 PM)

quote:

I always thought it might be a good idea to bring airships back.

You might enjoy "The Airships" on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Hz9p5yq_Q




Termyn8or -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/5/2016 4:46:49 AM)

I thought it was from static electricity.

You know a helicopter CANNOT set you down on the ground because of the several thousand volt charge generated by the prop. You have to drop.

Whatever happened to the Hindenberg, it had to involve electricity. Nothing else would do it. Hydrogen is not like fulminate of mercury which goes off upon physical disturbance. Something has to ignite it. I have seen several suppositions on just exactly how it happened but, well, static electricity comes out as the most likely.

Maybe I am wrong.

T^T




mnottertail -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (7/5/2016 5:31:54 AM)

I expect the lightning storm had a small part at Lakehurst that day.




Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875