/k/ - Weapons

We will find out what the most exotic plane flying today is in 30 years when it's declassified, I suspect it's a hypersonic scramjet with active aeroelastic wings.

>>620497

>First pic

If you somehow have the guro sprite animation where a grill got the same fate as the 3DPD please post it By the way might as well post Dutchko if you wanna see 2D operating animu grills get gore'd. what an oddly specific fetish eh?

>>620497

You think /k/ gives a shit about gore? We share combat footage.

sage for double post.

All of you need to leave. There are no faggots allowed on this board.

>>620507

>>620497

This but unironically

>>621397

The loudest operational aircraft is the Tu-95, which can be heard by submarines hundreds of miles away.

Imagine a thunderscreech-like aircraft where the blades are actually supersonic, but which also has counter-rotating propellers so each time the blades pass one another there are 3x supersonic booms slapping against 3x supersonic booms at the exact same moment, making the sound equivalent to 6x supersonic booms.

This would produce about 220 decibels, but at only about 300hz. However if you had more than 66.6 of these props, you could tune them to produce a sound above 20KHz, which is the frequency used to melt bone cancer and kidney stones.

Basically an airfleet of a few hundred of these aircraft could fly above enemy territory and kill anything under them without firing a shot.

>>620497

MOM LOOK, I POSTED THE GORE AGAIN!!!

>>621435

That would kill everything AND the pilots.

>>621511

Couldn't you shield the crew compartment somehow?

>>621511

>That would kill everything AND the pilots.

Vibration proofing isn't that hard.

>>621523

> the Tu-95's props actually rotate very slowly in flight.

That's an optical illusion, they go so fast there is a image persistence giving the impression they go fairly slow.

>>621523

The supersonic blades are the Thunderscreech, Tu-95 was only mentioned because of the loudness of counter props. That's the entire point, spoiled bacon flag.

>>621660

>>621520

>>621511

Just make it a cruise missile or a drone which just circles enemy towns until everything is dead, occasionally slamming into any fortifications and exploding.

Fuck urban combat.

>>621399

Do you happen to know of any folks that appraise german aeronautic memorabilia?

I've managed to reach out to circles in regard to prototype models that were crafted during the war for information..

But I can't seem to find anyone that will give me an idea of the value.

>>621844

>Using missiles that costs Millions of $$$ for the (((Industrial Military Complex)))

>When you can just deploy thermobaric rockets, firebombs, WP to flamethrowers to literally smoke out the defenders

Hell it'll probably be cheaper too, you don't have to put any guidances in it, just point-and-shoot at any building that has a remote chance of housing a shady looking badman. If the spaces are cramped enough, you might get lucky and they all die of suffocation instead of burning to death.

>>621927

The only way to improve that for civilian/commercial use would be to find a way to run the props on electricity rather than fuel. You would have problems with the weight of batteries involved for the same range, but as we don't need supersonic flight for civilian transports RIP Concorde the reduced costs could be very significant.

>>622016

That idea seems to be sensible, and hippies would love it. Are there any other memetechnologies for propulsion? The only other thing that comes to mind is the coal-powered ramjet of the Lippisch P.13a. Or would the flying wing design in itself offer anything (from an aeronautical point-of-view) if you used "standard" jet propulsion?

>>622053

The Coal jet is probably overkill, depending on how many passengers you need on each plane (and the prices they pay for tickets) to make it profitable. I don't think that the average air passenger is likely to accept a price rise, but even if you can make it about as economical as jet fuel the amount of green tax breaks you should be able to swindle out of the state could probably make it a successful business in and of itself.

>>622053

Yes, flying wings do have their uses. The US mostly used them as stealth vehicles, but the flying wing also has no surface that isn't used to generate lift, meaning there is no surface that just has parasitic lift. You can build very economic planes with the design, but the main problem is that they are absolutely not turbulence friendly, as the wings can't really flex as much as they can flex on the conventional design, since you're housing passengers in them.

For more ideas on that subject, one of the Horten borthers fled to argentina after the war and continued to mees around with flying wings there. He said that, as long as the wings were clean, the subsonic flying wing was superior to any other design due to it just generating more lift. As soon as they got rain or other impurities on their surfaces, the airflow would get messed up though.

So in the end, I'd say that flying wings are an option for Cargo, but not passengers.

>>623886

*parastic drag. The wing has no surface that has only parasitic drag.

>>623886

So it's not good for passengers because turbulence would make them feel too unconfortable?

>>621403

so, how does it land?