this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
153 points (98.1% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6564 readers
598 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
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The guy with no railings above a rotor is the underdog, at least.
What are those projections underneath?
If I had to guess at a glance, the pipe-looking things are to guard the rotor against striking the ground. If you mean the things hanging off them, I'd guess that they're inflatated bladders to spread out the time of impact when landing.
EDIT: Rotor guy is apparently flying a de Lackner HZ-1 Aerocycle, and yeah, that's apparently what they're for:
EDIT2: The other one is apparently the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee.
Hmm. I guess that sounds lighter than springs. Do other aircraft have air-based shock absorbers?
Edit:
Lol, so that guy isn't even a pilot, either. RIP
Maybe even during a war they weren't able to find any pilots wanting to use those things.
According the the article linked it didn't even pass the testing phase, because surprise-surprise guys kept crashing. That was the 50's in peacetime, and the whole thing probably started because helicopters were the hype of the era and there was a lot of funding.
Depends on the aircraft if it has gas or hydraulic shock absorbers. Some lightweight aircraft just have torsion based shock absorption.
How would hydraulic ones work? The entire concept there is that liquids are almost incompressible.
Glancing at Wikipedia, all hydraulic shock absorbers seem to use pneumatic compression. The oil is mostly a mechanical linkage, lubricant, and heat sink. I expect a liquid-only design could work, in a coilover monotube, but the spring would be taking all the compression, while the loose piston moving through oil simply resists change and smooths out the motion. There's just not much reason to avoid adding a floating piston and some gas at the bottom of that. Underwater applications, maybe.
Ah! That makes sense.
It is done by allowing fluid to flow through passages between chambers separated with a piston. Your car's shocks and struts work the same way. There are also ones with external reservoir that may allow for more travel or that can be pressurized to alter resistance.
You'd still need some kind of restoring force. Visibly, some cars use metal springs for at least part of that.
The fluid pushes on a reservoir of nitrogen that keeps the plane from bottoming out. It is a progressive pressure system, so it gets harder to move the more force is applied.
Ah! Yes, you didn't mention the pneumatic component. I thought you just meant between two bodies of oil, which would only provide damping and some added moment.