Youtube link: 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain

This was a fantastic sight and sound, as sixteen Spitfires flew in formation, to mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, after the flypast the Spitfires broke off and the sky was filled with warbirds tail chasing.

More here: 16 Spitfires at Duxford's 70th anniv of BoB

Great find. May the old Krauts piss themselves in rememberance

Tres cool.

Nice.

None of my characters have ever managed to have that many hp

Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

SomeAmerican: Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.


In Norfolk, we had a festival last week including tall ships, and you're right, they were very cool.

I'm going to go find some old reruns of Black Sheep Squadron to watch now.

michaelgvh: I'm going to go find some old reruns of Black Sheep Squadron to watch now.



Approves

/hot like a Double Wasp Radial

they're all de-rated to around a total of 17,000hp.

I've watched three C-130 fly by at full power. That's 4200hp per turboprop. You do the math.

Thanks Subby!

I don't get it I didn't see any computers at all!

Braggi: Thanks Subby!

Ditto

A Spitfire is a beautiful bird.

SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.



Not a Tall Ship but it does sport 2,000 hp.

Screw the hp, what's the farking THAC0?

superdave386: Screw the hp, what's the farking THAC0?

That video made my tackle all tingly.

rooftop235: superdave386: Screw the hp, what's the farking THAC0?

[img.photobucket.com image 300x375]

It's an (outdated) D&D joke referring to the stat, THAC0 (To Hit Against Armor Class 0), that determines how effective a character is at hitting things.

For some reason, I tried picturing the current generation of texters and facebookers attempting to fly one of those things into combat. My brain couldn't wrap its head around the concept.

kingoomieiii: rooftop235: superdave386: Screw the hp, what's the farking THAC0?

[img.photobucket.com image 300x375]

It's an (outdated) D&D joke referring to the stat, THAC0 (To Hit Against Armor Class 0), that determines how effective a character is at hitting things.

Cool find subby! It was like a Pink Floyd video

/Spitfires are awesome, take that Göring!

Blink: For some reason, I tried picturing the current generation of texters and facebookers attempting to fly one of those things into combat. My brain couldn't wrap its head around the concept.

i prefer the 109e-4. better armament and faster.

lazyguineapig33: i prefer the 109e-4. better armament and faster.

What? The 109E-4 was BoB era and the Brits were mostly flying the Spit Mk V, which was 4 x .30 cal + 2 x Hispano 20mm, which was definitely superior to the E-4's 2 x .30 cal and 2 x MG FF 20mm. The Hispano had a much higher muzzle velocity than the MG FF which made it better in general, but also made it ballistically much more similar to the .30 cals, and therefore the Spit had a much larger envelope where it was possible to hit with all guns.

Nice video, submitter. I had a ridiculous smile on my face the whole time.

vossiewulf: lazyguineapig33: i prefer the 109e-4. better armament and faster.

What? The 109E-4 was BoB era and the Brits were mostly flying the Spit Mk V, which was 4 x .30 cal + 2 x Hispano 20mm, which was definitely superior to the E-4's 2 x .30 cal and 2 x MG FF 20mm. The Hispano had a much higher muzzle velocity than the MG FF which made it better in general, but also made it ballistically much more similar to the .30 cals, and therefore the Spit had a much larger envelope where it was possible to hit with all guns.

well obviously you have to compare contemporary planes. 109f-4 is hands down better than spit V. faster, better turning, better climbing, smaller. and centerline armament, and meingeschoss. but if we are gonna go there id choose a 190A. the best plane in the air during the midwar years

That was cool. Pretty good camera work.

You said E-4. Yes F-4 was a much better plane but the armament still compares even worse to the Mk. V, it had 2 X 7.97mm in the cowl and a single 20mm MG 151 firing through the prop hub. Considerably less weight of fire than the Spit although yes it gets some benefit from all center line armament. You want heavier armament than allied fighters you have to go with FW-190A, but it wasn't until the A-6 when it got the four wing mounted 20mm MG151s, the A-2, 3, and 4 had just two plus 4 x .30 cal making them roughly equivalent to the Mk. V.

smiles smiles smiles for miles, thanks subby!


That loop was just unbelievable.

Came here looking for a video of Severilus, Gorenaire, Trakanon, or some other 32000 hp dragon. Leaving disappointed.

That photographer toward the end looks enough like me that I had question whether I was at this event. But my 500 is Nikon, not Canon.

prjindigo: they're all de-rated to around a total of 17,000hp.

I've watched three C-130 fly by at full power. That's 4200hp per turboprop. You do the math.

I watched your mom kick start her dildo. What's the math on that?

"You can always tell the difference between theirs and ours. Ours have a steady reliable British 'um, rather like a 'omely ol' bumble-bee. Theirs, on the other hand, 'ave a sort of horrid intermittent whine, like a ghastly foreign mosquito"

//Damn right that's obscure.

What 32,000 HP flying low also looks like.....

SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

I'd really like to know how the f*ck they converted horsepower to thrust.
seriously.

Cabbage crates over the briney?

relcec: SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

I'd really like to know how the f*ck they converted horsepower to thrust.
seriously.

Some formula involving tonnage and speed?

SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

Only had 4 when I saw them, tons of fun to watch though

new window

I see that kind of hp fly by in diablo 3 every day

KiplingKat872: relcec: SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

I'd really like to know how the f*ck they converted horsepower to thrust.
seriously.

Some formula involving tonnage and speed?

even tho i hate you. lets do it!



thrust is a force.
hp is power.
power = (force)(distance) /(time). so take the force and multiply by speed to get power but we arent gonna use imperial measurements because we arent barbarians.

from wikipedia F/A-18 produces (2)(97.9KN)=195.8KN
max speed is (1.9Mm/h)(1hr/3600s)=527m/s
(195.8KN)(527m/s)=103187KW

(103187KW)(.00134102209 hp/1W)(1000W/KW)=138000hp

yay science! some tell me if i farked up tho.

lazyguineapig33: KiplingKat872: relcec: SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

I'd really like to know how the f*ck they converted horsepower to thrust.
seriously.

Some formula involving tonnage and speed?

even tho i hate you. lets do it!

[i1172.photobucket.com image 277x182]

thrust is a force.
hp is power.
power = (force)(distance) /(time). so take the force and multiply by speed to get power but we arent gonna use imperial measurements because we arent barbarians.

from wikipedia F/A-18 produces (2)(97.9KN)=195.8KN
max speed is (1.9Mm/h)(1hr/3600s)=527m/s
(195.8KN)(527m/s)=103187KW

(103187KW)(.00134102209 hp/1W)(1000W/KW)=138000hp

yay science! some tell me if i farked up tho.


ah, you use max speed.
that's what I couldn't figure out.

what makes that a strange concept is if you had a special f18, say one with a big reconnaissance or EM pod that was particularly unaerodynamic and your drag coefficient therefore went up significantly your special f18 would have a much lower top speed.

a lower top speed would mean a lower kw power number and lower horsepower figure. so you could have two f18 derivatives with the exact same engines, putting out the same exact thrust, but one registering a lower power quotient because of the poor aerodynamics.
and it feels like a weird kind of measurement that would lower power output for a purely aerodynamic flaw. know what I mean?

relcec: ah, you use max speed.that's what I couldn't figure out.what makes that a strange concept is if you had a special f18, say one with a big reconnaissance or EM pod that was particularly unaerodynamic and your drag coefficient therefore went up significantly your special f18 would have a much lower top speed.a lower top speed would mean a lower kw power number and lower horsepower figure. so you could have two f18 derivatives with the exact same engines, putting out the same exact thrust, but one registering a lower power quotient because of the poor aerodynamics.and it feels like a weird kind of measurement that would lower power output for a purely aerodynamic flaw. know what I mean?

I have no idea how these figures are actually calculated, but I agree that seems an odd calculation above.

Apart from wiki-ing it, because I'm too damn lazy, I would use the above calc but instead of speed of aircraft, I would measure the speed of the jet's exhaust when the jet was in a test stand.

relcec: lazyguineapig33: KiplingKat872: relcec: SomeAmerican: VictoryCabal: Are you kidding? I live in Virginia Beach, I see that kind of horsepower fly by every single day. Usually it's in the form of a few F/A-18s.

Made me curious as to how much horsepower a F/A-18 had, given that the Blue Angles did an airshow yesterday over Baltimore with five of them. Answer seems to be 12,800 hp per airplane.

So we had 64,000 horsepower over our heads yesterday. But the coolest part wasn't the jets overhead, it was the eight tall ships in the harbor. That was pretty wild.

I'd really like to know how the f*ck they converted horsepower to thrust.
seriously.

Some formula involving tonnage and speed?

even tho i hate you. lets do it!

[i1172.photobucket.com image 277x182]

thrust is a force.
hp is power.
power = (force)(distance) /(time). so take the force and multiply by speed to get power but we arent gonna use imperial measurements because we arent barbarians.

from wikipedia F/A-18 produces (2)(97.9KN)=195.8KN
max speed is (1.9Mm/h)(1hr/3600s)=527m/s
(195.8KN)(527m/s)=103187KW

(103187KW)(.00134102209 hp/1W)(1000W/KW)=138000hp

yay science! some tell me if i farked up tho.


ah, you use max speed.
that's what I couldn't figure out.

what makes that a strange concept is if you had a special f18, say one with a big reconnaissance or EM pod that was particularly unaerodynamic and your drag coefficient therefore went up significantly your special f18 would have a much lower top speed.

a lower top speed would mean a lower kw power number and lower horsepower figure. so you could have two f18 derivatives with the exact same engines, putting out the same exact thrust, but one registering a lower power quotient because of the poor aerodynamics.
and it feels like a weird kind of measurement that would lower power output for a purely aerodynamic flaw. know what I mean?



yeah it can be a mind fark sometimes. i think the confusion is coming from a misunderstanding between force and power.

the thrust is a force and can be measured in lbs or newtons. F=ma
in order to produce energy a force must act over a distance. E=Fd
power is energy per unit time. P=E/s

imagine that you were trying to push your car while the brake was on. you would be producing a force on the car but there would be no energy because the car wouldnt be moving. take off the brake, and with the same amount of force you would suddenly be giving the car energy because the force is producing movement. divide the distance moved by the time and you get power.

but the power of the piston engines is calculated differently. it is the power transferred to the shaft of the prop.

lazyguineapig33: yeah it can be a mind fark sometimes. i think the confusion is coming from a misunderstanding between force and power.

the thrust is a force and can be measured in lbs or newtons. F=ma
in order to produce energy a force must act over a distance. E=Fd
power is energy per unit time. P=E/s

imagine that you were trying to push your car while the brake was on. you would be producing a force on the car but there would be no energy because the car wouldnt be moving. take off the brake, and with the same amount of force you would suddenly be giving the car energy because the force is producing movement. divide the distance moved by the time and you get power.

but the power of the piston engines is calculated differently. it is the power transferred to the shaft of the prop.


I wonder about the comparison between the spitfire and hornet if we measure by the spitfires top speed instead of the horsepower it can deliver to the shaft. maybe I'll give it a shot later.