this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
974 points (96.0% liked)
Comic Strips
12936 readers
2651 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You'd be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.
oh cool we're just fucking, lying now. That's the sound level of the f35 at altitude.
"F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off"
"F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db"
"F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph"
(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you're wondering)
btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that's literally because it's the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.
1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You've never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they're operating 12,000 feet or higher. I'm wondering if you actually know what "at altitude" means?
You also "ummmmm ACHTUALLY'd" your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we're even talking about.
to be clear, i wasn't the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.
i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. "operational altitude" for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that's irrelevant here, we're talking about the ground.