Comic for Friday July 01, 2022

[Darth Fluffy 302]

Comic for Friday July 01, 2022

How does a giant space turtle from far away know about the local magic clog?

 

 

[mlooney 3,417]

Giant space turtle is from this side of the universe.  Might have magic flow sensing powers and noticed the massive amount of magic energy that Moperville has, saw the blockage and fixed it.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

So the Space Turtle got rid of the school uniforms?  

It makes perfect sense.

[mlooney 3,417]

 

Well it is hard for a space turtle to wash whites.  They really don't understand the "separate your whites from your colors" aspect of washing.  I suspect it has something to do with how they see colors and "white" is actually several colors based on how it reflects either UV and/or IR light.

[ijuin 572]

2 hours ago, mlooney said:

Giant space turtle is from this side of the universe.  Might have magic flow sensing powers and noticed the massive amount of magic energy that Moperville has, saw the blockage and fixed it.

Yes, but why does he insist upon meeting Edward in New Mexico instead of somewhere closer to Moperville?

[Darth Fluffy 302]

4 hours ago, mlooney said:

Giant space turtle is from this side of the universe.  Might have magic flow sensing powers and noticed the massive amount of magic energy that Moperville has, saw the blockage and fixed it.

"Giant space turtle is from this side of the universe." - Seems likely.

"Might have magic flow sensing powers" - Also seems likely.

"... and noticed the massive amount of magic energy that Moperville has ..." - This is the part I had trouble with. As HHGttG infoms us, “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” We are just barely starting to be able to image planets in other star systems at all, and even that is mind  boggling.

"...saw the blockage..." - Once he gets to Earth, this makes sense, assuming he had a reason to come in the first place. Edward knew to expect the space turtle, has met the space turtle before; it is possible that the space turtle came for some other reason, and then noticed the buildup, and derived the good news.

"... and fixed it." - Who am I to doubt turtle powers? If it works for Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo why not for this space turtle.

[mlooney 3,417]

53 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

"... and noticed the massive amount of magic energy that Moperville has ..." - This is the part I had trouble with. As HHGttG infoms us, “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” We are just barely starting to be able to image planets in other star systems at all, and even that is mind  boggling.

I was assuming that they were in earth orbit when they noticed the problem.  

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

I was assuming that they were in earth orbit when they noticed the problem.  

Edward would not have time to fly to New Mexico, would he? Still it makes more sense than spotting over vast distances. Most of Dan's space pictures with earth are from pretty far out. Mmm, making sense. Space turtle was somewhere between geosync to lunar and came in. That also makes more sense than 'Traveled vast distances in a week'.

[Don Edwards 548]

7 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

That also makes more sense than 'Traveled vast distances in a week'.

Gotta be careful about those vast distances, high speeds, and quick stops.

I recently read a story where an aircraft flying at mach 4.5 came to a stop over a distance of 1000 feet, preparatory to a vertical landing. I posted a comment complimenting the quality of their inertial compensators, which are good enough that nobody on board was injured during that 400-G deceleration.

[mlooney 3,417]

I would have trouble with the idea of a mach 4.5 aircraft doing a vertical landing.  Obviously it's a sting ship from Honor Harrington's universe, where everything has inertial dampers and anti-grav, to include some buildings.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

8 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Gotta be careful about those vast distances, high speeds, and quick stops.

I recently read a story where an aircraft flying at mach 4.5 came to a stop over a distance of 1000 feet, preparatory to a vertical landing. I posted a comment complimenting the quality of their inertial compensators, which are good enough that nobody on board was injured during that 400-G deceleration.

It is easy to do a 400+ G landing once, but not one where you will walk away from. Hope someone brought a mop.

3 minutes ago, mlooney said:

I would have trouble with the idea of a mach 4.5 aircraft doing a vertical landing.  Obviously it's a sting ship from Honor Harrington's universe, where everything has inertial dampers and anti-grav, to include some buildings.

Vertical landing is a severe design compromise. Somewhere, you are giving up a lot for the capability. Helos at least focus on it, and have their roles in that regard.

[mlooney 3,417]

Vertical landing is less of a compromise than vertical take off.  

[Darth Fluffy 302]

9 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Vertical landing is less of a compromise than vertical take off.  

I cannot think of an aircraft that does that, but I believe you are technically correct, which as Hermes pointed out, is the best kind of correct.

OTOH, landing an unpowered helicopter is said to be a bitch, I have this on the authority of a USAF helicopter instructor pilot in Albuquerque around 1980. All of the trainees had to do it, it was in case you lost power in flight, you would know how to land safely, apparently it is one of the most difficult maneuvers. Bear in mind that the anti-rotation devices, like tail propellers, are also no longer functional. You have essentially a glider with rotary wings. It does sound tricky.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

10 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I cannot think of an aircraft that does that, but I believe you are technically correct, which as Hermes pointed out, is the best kind of correct.

To the best of my knowledge the F35B can't take off vertically but lands that way.  I could be wrong, but it's normally listed as a STOVL aircraft.  <google>  Apparently it can, just that's not it's normal means of taking off.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

5 hours ago, mlooney said:

To the best of my knowledge the F35B can't take off vertically but lands that way.  I could be wrong, but it's normally listed as a STOVL aircraft.  <google>  Apparently it can, just that's not it's normal means of taking off.

Ouch, you make it sound even lamer than it already seemed. Just my opinion, but that aircraft is going to be retired before it sees any real use. Maybe there's a role that justified sticking a ducted fan in the middle of your aircraft, but I'm not seeing it.

[mlooney 3,417]

The USMC seem to love it.  Of course the USMC has it's own view of air power and what aircraft it should use.  Take, for example, them adopting the MV-22 nine years before the USAF did.

[Don Edwards 548]

In general, ground troops (Army, Marines) want to whack the enemy that's practically right in front of them, while the Air Force wants to whack the enemy that is way. Over. There.

That's why the Air Force neglects the A10s and tries to phase them out at every halfway-reasonable opportunity - and would rather have a multi-mission plane that does none of its missions (include close air support) well, than have a dedicated close-air support aircraft that does the job really well.

And why I've suggested a few times that the A10s be reclassified as "high-speed tanks" and handed to the Army and Marines. Who would then - since the A10s are all old - be free to start writing specs on a proper replacement.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

In general, ground troops (Army, Marines) want to whack the enemy that's practically right in front of them, while the Air Force wants to whack the enemy that is way. Over. There.

That's why the Air Force neglects the A10s and tries to phase them out at every halfway-reasonable opportunity - and would rather have a multi-mission plane that does none of its missions (include close air support) well, than have a dedicated close-air support aircraft that does the job really well.

And why I've suggested a few times that the A10s be reclassified as "high-speed tanks" and handed to the Army and Marines. Who would then - since the A10s are all old - be free to start writing specs on a proper replacement.

The Air Force is the right ones to operate the A-10, but they need to embrace it. It is far more effective at ground attack than anything with a handful of anti-tank missiles.

The Air Force knows how to back up it's air assets and protect them, the ground forces treat them as attrition pieces. The A-10 is too valuable for that.

 

5 hours ago, mlooney said:

The USMC seem to love it.  Of course the USMC has it's own view of air power and what aircraft it should use.  Take, for example, them adopting the MV-22 nine years before the USAF did.

That really isn't surprising. The Air Force has long runways because the Air Force needs long runways. Most Air Force assets are optimized for some aspect of flight regime, not for how they start and stop. They don't (mostly can't) land on a ship. Air Force and Navy pilots take off and land differently. VTOL would be way down the list of Air Force priorities.

The Marines are constrained by their traditional historic role of seaborne assault and their modern role of first wave shock assault troops. The aircraft like the Harrier and F-35 fit the seaborne role, but with so much excess hardware do not fit the Air Cap role hardly at all. (The Navy planes do that well for them, so not a great concern) They do interdiction, and can get on station faster than a helo, but I'd say don't perform any better. If the A-10 is an option, I'd rather have that soften up the target area, then follow up with assault helos as the battle develops. Not sure what more a jet that can hover brings to the table.

The Osprey in particular, I'm surprised the Air Force has any. Reading the Wiki article, it does not look like they were happy with the few they had.

 

[Don Edwards 548]

10 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The Air Force is the right ones to operate the A-10, but they need to embrace it.

I would absolutely agree that an Air Force which embraces the A-10 and its mission would be the right place for the A-10.

Thing is... they don't.

An Army or Marine Corps that embraces the A-10 might be a better place for it than an Air Force that treats it like the ugly foster child.

[mlooney 3,417]

The A-10 is an old design and has, even for it's time, a "limited" avionics suite. During Desert Storm, A-10 pilots were using the Maverick missile as a their IR/FLIR sensor pod. 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I would absolutely agree that an Air Force which embraces the A-10 and its mission would be the right place for the A-10.

Thing is... they don't.

An Army or Marine Corps that embraces the A-10 might be a better place for it than an Air Force that treats it like the ugly foster child.

That is a fair point, you are not wrong. They are embarrassed by it's success into keeping it. Sad, because they have good infrastructure for the plane and the gun. If they don't get their shit together, it could happen.

 

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

The A-10 is an old design and has, even for it's time, a "limited" avionics suite. During Desert Storm, A-10 pilots were using the Maverick missile as a their IR/FLIR sensor pod. 

How fortuitous then that to follow-on is rolling out.

It may be old, but it is still top notch successful. And as you point out, there was a reasonable work around for the specific deficiency. During Desert Storm, it tore up the opposition.

What is amazing is that no one has bothered to copy it.

[mlooney 3,417]

58 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

How fortuitous then that to follow-on is rolling out.

You mean the A-10C? and the later "Common Fleet Initiative"  as far as I can tell those have been applied to the whole fleet.  The Super Warthog is still in planing.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

You mean the A-10C? and the later "Common Fleet Initiative"  as far as I can tell those have been applied to the whole fleet.  The Super Warthog is still in planing.

Oh? That's kind of sad. I saw an article an thought it was further along, probably conflated it with something about the 'C'.

I have a question, though. Would consideration of which aircraft work well with carriers be considered 'Contemplating your naval'?

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I have a question, though. Would consideration of which aircraft work well with carriers be considered 'Contemplating your naval'?

/me gets out The List.  Adds a star and an elder sign.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

Just now, mlooney said:

/me gets out The List.  Adds a star and an elder sign.

I suppose that is appropriate, since I am elderly.

I looked up the C model upgrades, and I am impressed, although as y'all say, the USAF is jonesing to dump the Warthog. (In favor of the F-35; that I really don't get, see previous).

Super Warthog information seems to be sparse, supporting your planning stage claim. Oh, bother.