Yeah, I’ll take this one. The funny thing is I saw this at the same time as a similar reply for an entirely different thread: I guess only knowing English is also an American stereotype, just like a certain date format
If you think cleaning is picking up after yourself you haven’t actually cleaned. If I had just a tiny bit more disposable income I’d love to spend it on someone properly cleaning the apartment.
Between two full time jobs, commute, and a toddler there is not much time, much less energy, to clean beyond a quick vacuum, and wipe down of the bathroom once a week.
This is the funniest damn wiki entry I’ve ever seen.
…different uses of the suffix, such as the merging of “Margaret Thatcher” with “-ussy” to create the portmanteau Thatchussy.[2] Other examples include clussy (clown and pussy) and grussy (Grinch and pussy).[2]: 6
79,000 rpm/88 guns = 897.7 rpm/gun, but Wikipedia has the PPSh-41 rate of fire listed as 1250 rpm, which would make this 110,000 rpm.
But, that drum magazine only has 71 rounds, so you could get 110,000 rpm for about 3 seconds (71 rounds/1250 rpm = 0.057 min = 3.4 sec) … and then what? Fly back to base so you can swap out 88 individual drum magazines? And also do maintenace on any of the guns that jammed?
It’s safer than putting 88 people in the line of fire with the same circumstances. Theres the whole it’s less accurate angle, but its safer, man power not put in line of fire could be used to reload and swap magazines.
The biggest reasons this straight sucks are: identification of friendlies/civilians from the air, not getting blown up at extremely low altitudes, how crazy spread out everything in real life combat
The spread of an explosive bomb is WAY more than a bullet. So you only bomb places you know there are no friendlies unless you’re using forward facing guns
It’s ww1 thinking. Aerial darts were fairly effective, not really damage wise but fear wise. They imagined the save idea but it doesn’t have the same effect since they aren’t that loud and visually don’t make a s much of an impact as seeing you homeboy suddenly turned into a gruesome pincushion.
Just for fun: Assuming they are firing perfectly staggered, 110,000 rpm at the top speed of 528km/h (1,833rps at 1,466m/s) gives us a dispersion of 1.25m/bullet. Not bad at all. If a person is standing in this line, there’s a 14.4% chance of being hit (18cm head diameter). If they were crouched or lying down it would be even higher, up to 100% if they were unfortunate enough to lie in the direction the plane is traveling.
Also, if the plane is traveling at 1466 m/s it will cover 4984m in 3.4s. So that’s about 1.25 bullets for every linear meter of travel (6248 rounds), but we have to account for the width of the targeted area which would depend on the spread at the distance from the muzzle (dependent on the altitude). Let’s assume it’s a strip 5km long by 10m wide for simplicity… and we’re looking at like 1 bullet for every 8 square meters… that’s going to be mostly miss. If the infantry have any cover at all it’s going to be a very futile exercise.
You’d probably be better off dropping hand grenades out of the plane than dealing with that ridiculous contraption.
Also worth noting that flying low enough to be in effective range for the mounted firearms means that the plane will be in effective range for firearms… which is not really where you want to be in a bomber giant target. I wouldn’t want to fly this mission.
Also wrong. If you compare two otherwise identical vehicles, the one with more power will both accelerate faster and have a higher top speed, assuming it has the gearing to use that power.
Stop getting all your vehicle knowledge from old top gear episodes.
To accelerate a vehicle we need to put kinetic energy into it and Power is the measure of how fast we can do that.
From a technical capability standpoint, torque is a useless measure. With a motor of a given power you can always gear it up or down to whatever torque you need (assuming a lossless transmission system).
If we take two identical trucks with 10k lb trailers on them and one's a 800ft-lb diesel and one's a 300ft-lb gas, both with 400hp, they sould realisticly accelerate and climb a hill at the same rate. The diference is the gas engine will be screaming at 6/7/8000 rpm and guzzling gas. (This also assumes no other factors like heat cone into play, the gas may not be able to maintain as much power due to cooling system designs or other factors).
Torquey-er engines also tend to feel better from a driveability standpoint but that's not representative of capability.
What? Torque tells you what force can be applied at what distance from the center of rotation. Acceleration is a function of mass and force. Of course more torque is going to get you to accelerate faster.
slrpnk.net
Oldest