How to annoy pedants
-
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
According to some random website Google found, a B-52 has a takeoff distance of 4000 meters. The USS Abraham Lincoln is about 330 meters long. The best-case outcome of trying to fly a B-52 off of an aircraft carrier would be to turn a good airplane into a very bad boat. A not-best-case outcome will include significant damage to the aircraft carrier in the process.
To say nothing about the wingspan having a problem with the tower...
-
@dcon said in How to annoy pedants:
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
According to some random website Google found, a B-52 has a takeoff distance of 4000 meters. The USS Abraham Lincoln is about 330 meters long. The best-case outcome of trying to fly a B-52 off of an aircraft carrier would be to turn a good airplane into a very bad boat. A not-best-case outcome will include significant damage to the aircraft carrier in the process.
To say nothing about the wingspan having a problem with the tower...
That was my first thought, too. The overall beam (width) of the USS Abraham Lincoln is 76.8 m, considerably wider than the B-52's 56.4 m wingspan, but I didn't find any information on the available width on the deck, so I went with a more definite deficiency.
Yes, it is.
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
But there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
Note how the article you quote says that it is "carrying" them, not that they're flying from it.
(see thread title)
-
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
To say nothing about the wingspan having a problem with the tower...
Island, not tower.
That was my first thought, too. The overall beam (width) of the USS Abraham Lincoln is 76.8 m, considerably wider than the B-52's 56.4 m wingspan, but I didn't find any information on the available width on the deck, so I went with a more definite deficiency.
The deck of a modern aircraft carrier isn’t anywhere near rectangular, but it would probably have enough room:
(That’s a crude drawing of the Nimitz, but the Abraham Lincoln is of the same class and so won’t differ much.)
You wouldn’t even be able to use all of the deck length to take off from, though, because a B-52 has small outrigger wheels near the wingtips to prevent those scraping the ground, meaning the rear part of the deck is unusable.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
But there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
Note how the article you quote says that it is "carrying" them, not that they're flying from it.
(see thread title)
Aircraft on a carrier come and go under their own power. And if is really does have one on there it would take up enough deck space to shut down fixed wing flight operations.
-
@boomzilla That's all true. But none of that prevents the aircraft carrier from "carrying" them, though.
Clearly you haven't read the thread's title properly.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla That's all true. But none of that prevents the aircraft carrier from "carrying" them, though.
Clearly you haven't read the thread's title properly.
That's one theory. But consider: the picture does not show any bit of a B-52 and the caption says there are multiple being carried. Even from the slightly depressed angle I'd expect to be able to see part of a B-52.
-
@boomzilla Does the picture even show Abraham Lincoln?
If so, I would have expected something more like:
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
Does the picture even show Abraham Lincoln?
I admit that I cannot distinguish carriers by site well enough to say.
-
@boomzilla Also, you're grammar is defective.
-
@remi she's not defective she's dead.
-
| m | a | I a n | m | -------------------------- | f t s | o r o | r u r | loss l r | y y y | o | u | r
-
@remi ugh
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
Aircraft on a carrier come and go under their own power.
One of the Quora answers I read last night — probably to a question linked from the link @dcon posted — referred to aircraft that are undergoing maintenance and not flyable being transferred off the carrier by crane when it's in port. I'm not sure that would be feasible for a plane the size of a B-52.
-
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
Aircraft on a carrier come and go under their own power.
One of the Quora answers I read last night — probably to a question linked from the link @dcon posted — referred to aircraft that are undergoing maintenance and not flyable being transferred off the carrier by crane when it's in port. I'm not sure that would be feasible for a plane the size of a B-52.
If they couldn't fly we could argue that they aren't currently nuclear capable.
-
@HardwareGeek what about: B-52 suffering from a serious fault (but which doesn't impact its immediate airworthiness). The nearest base/friendly airport is too far for it to reach, the only option is a US carrier. In such a scenario, would it be possible for the B-52 ti land over it, or would they just instruct the crew to jettison everything, launch away and let the plane crash into sea? Has something of the sort ever happened?
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
If they couldn't fly we could argue that they aren't currently nuclear capable.
It says "nuclear capable", not "capable of blowing up other people's shit with teh nucular"
-
@admiral_p said in How to annoy pedants:
@HardwareGeek what about: B-52 suffering from a serious fault (but which doesn't impact its immediate airworthiness). The nearest base/friendly airport is too far for it to reach, the only option is a US carrier.
It's a little hard to imagine what sort of fault could create this situation. A B-52 has a range of 8000–10000 miles without refueling and unlimited with in-flight refueling, so still airworthy but "too far for it to reach" seems unlikely.
In such a scenario, would it be possible for the B-52 ti land over it, or would they just instruct the crew to jettison everything, launch away and let the plane crash into sea?
Planes that land on carriers use a tail hook (on the plane) and arresting cables (on the carrier) to stop the plane in the short distance available on the carrier deck. B-52s have no such hook, because they're not designed to land on carriers, and the airframe is not designed to withstand the high deceleration involved in such a landing; if you could somehow rig up a hook, and if it actually worked, it would tear the plane apart.
In emergencies, say, when an incoming plane is damaged and unable to deploy its tail hook, the carrier can deploy a barrier — they used to be made of something like nylon webbing; I don't know what they use now — that the plane can essentially be crashed into. Think of it like a giant football (soccer) goal across the deck of the carrier. The relatively small, light fighters that normally land on carriers may survive the impact with minimal damage. The B-52 is unlikely to be anywhere near so lucky. Even if the crew survives, the plane is likely to be in small fragments.
Has something of the sort ever happened?
I don't think so. The record for the largest plane to land on an aircraft carrier is held by a C-130 (technically, a KC-130F; the KC... is a refueling variant), which is a 4-engine cargo plane designed for short-field takeoffs and landings. Note that the wingtip cleared the carrier's island by less than 15 feet (4.6 m), and its wingspan is 132 feet (40.2 m) compared to the B-52's 185 feet (56.4 m). This was on the USS Forrestal, which is a bit smaller than more modern carriers, but there is still going to be a clearance problem, even if it were possible to stop within the length of the deck.
-
@HardwareGeek Yeah, seriously, the B-52 carries like 90 tons of conventional or nuclear bombs. It would take a rocket or nuclear powered engine to get it up to flight speed on an aircraft carrier runway. And then the steel wings would have fallen off just because of the moment of inertia.
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
Aircraft on a carrier come and go under their own power.
Since this is a pedantry thread anyway … They tend to go not really under their own power but like this (unless they’re VTOL or VSTOL or something similar, of course):
They do come down under their own power, of course. Full power, in fact, and then this happens:
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
nuclear capable
-
@Applied-Mediocrity If only Vista had been capable.
-
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
@Applied-Mediocrity If only Vista had been capable.
It was. Of annoying people.
-
@dcon True, but that's not saying much. Even good OSs do that.
-
@kazitor said in How to annoy pedants:
@Gąska Somewhere, somehow, you have completely missed the purpose of pedantry.
Not being constructive isn't an inherent part of pedantry. It seems to be more of a WTDWTF specific subset.
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
Not really funny but it fits the thread title:
It took me a while to understand that "(sic)" is part of the sentence.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
| m | a | I a n | m | -------------------------- | f t s | o r o | r u r | loss l r | y y y | o | u | r
@remi That wasn't funny the first 6,000 times around. Paging @pie_flavor
-
-
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
But there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
I'm curious what they actually meant, though. The off-by-one nuclear aircraft would be the B-2, but while smaller that's still pretty wide and it's always deployed directly from the US.
-
@topspin said in How to annoy pedants:
I'm curious what they actually meant, though
I suspect they meant the B-52s are attached to the carrier group. Someone done Englished bad.
-
@dcon Or simply thought, "Aircraft are being deployed. Aircraft carrier is being deployed. Therefore, aircraft are on the aircraft carrier." Which kind of makes sense, if you don't know anything about aircraft carriers and B-52s. One would hope that a reporter reporting on military actions would know something about military actions, but in this age of "nothing but clicks and left-wing agenda matters" reporting, I'm afraid that's a lost cause.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
| m | a | I a n | m | -------------------------- | f t s | o r o | r u r | loss l r | y y y | o | u | r
*checks source*
Okay, it is actually blue and yellow; it's not just some vivid persistence of the McCollough effect.
-
@HardwareGeek said in How to annoy pedants:
In emergencies, say, when an incoming plane is damaged and unable to deploy its tail hook, the carrier can deploy a barrier — they used to be made of something like nylon webbing; I don't know what they use now — that the plane can essentially be crashed into. Think of it like a giant football (soccer) goal across the deck of the carrier. The relatively small, light fighters that normally land on carriers may survive the impact with minimal damage. The B-52 is unlikely to be anywhere near so lucky. Even if the crew survives, the plane is likely to be in small fragments.
FWIW, here's a video of a plane with a landing gear malfunction landing with such a barrier in 1987. There was a fair amount of damage to the plane, but how much of that was due to the barrier and how much was due to the lack of landing gear, I couldn't say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRURB7FdsII
-
@HardwareGeek I love how at 15:16 it segues into a clip from a random sitcom (I guess). I want to imagine that this is the official tape from the aircraft carrier (not some later recording of that clip), and that the officers in charge really did put any random video tape in the recorder...
-
@topspin said in How to annoy pedants:
I'm curious what they actually meant, though. The off-by-one nuclear aircraft would be the B-2, but while smaller that's still pretty wide and it's always deployed directly from the US.
Could be they confused nuclear weapon designations with bomber aircraft designations. Things like the B-1, B-2 and B-52 are bombers, but ones like the B61 and B83 are nuclear bombs dropped from aircraft — unless you’re already clued into these sorts of things, the lack of a dash after the B is unlikely to be easily noticed.
-
@topspin said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
But there is no way you're going to fly B-52s off of it.
I'm curious what they actually meant, though. The off-by-one nuclear aircraft would be the B-2, but while smaller that's still pretty wide and it's always deployed directly from the US.
???
-
How does the support connect to the bottom of the Rubik's cube?
Only if one of its sides has something other than a 3x3 grid of keys.
-
@Zecc said in How to annoy pedants:
How does the support connect to the bottom of the Rubik's cube?
Only if one of its sides has something other than a 3x3 grid of keys.
That would be 45 keys, not 54.
-
@Zecc said in How to annoy pedants:
How does the support connect to the bottom of the Rubik's cube?
By a centre square. They all stay fixed relative to each other, only rotating.
-
@kazitor said in How to annoy pedants:
@Zecc said in How to annoy pedants:
How does the support connect to the bottom of the Rubik's cube?
By a centre square. They all stay fixed relative to each other, only rotating.
So the support itself has a key?
-
@Zecc said in How to annoy pedants:
@kazitor said in How to annoy pedants:
@Zecc said in How to annoy pedants:
How does the support connect to the bottom of the Rubik's cube?
By a centre square. They all stay fixed relative to each other, only rotating.
So the support itself has a key?
Yes, just depress the whole cube to press that key.
Alternatively, the connection uses some kind of magnetic link so that you can position it on any key of the cube and it still works. That would actually be kind of neat, a data cable that works as long as it touches the two objects to connect in any place...
-
@Zecc awkwardly grab the frame and push in into the cable, obviously
-
@topspin said in How to annoy pedants:
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
Not really funny but it fits the thread title:
It took me a while to understand that "(sic)" is part of the sentence.
Same here, for reasons easily explained by the crucial difference between their post and yours.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
That would actually be kind of neat, a data cable that works as long as it touches the two objects to connect in any place...
So exactly the opposite of USB.
-
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
That would actually be kind of neat, a data cable that works as long as it touches the two objects to connect in any place...
Ultra-short-range radio transceiver?
-
@PleegWat said in How to annoy pedants:
@remi said in How to annoy pedants:
That would actually be kind of neat, a data cable that works as long as it touches the two objects to connect in any place...
Ultra-short-range radio transceiver?
Although I guess it's pointless to keep a wired technology in that case, just get rid of the cable altogether.
A couple of years ago, I would have said that a cable was still needed to transfer power, but now that wireless charging is definitely a thing, I think a fully wireless low-power device would work better than an any-position-works cable. A freely positionable cable wouldn't be much more than a novelty item now. Or maybe it would work just as a tether to ensure the object stays close enough for the wireless stuff to work?
-
@topspin said in How to annoy pedants:
@pie_flavor Thanks for linking to a page that adds advertisement and "social media" buttons to Wikipedia.
Is that's what's supposed to be there?
At first I read that as "Spoilered Content" and tried clicking on all the boxes.
Then I read it again and mentally d.
-
@pie_flavor said in How to annoy pedants:
mobile Wikipedia is already pretty good.
So why didn't you link that?
-
@boomzilla said in How to annoy pedants:
USS Abraham Lincoln is carrying nuclear-capable B-
52 bombers.