Page 1 of 1
Nerdy snowboard aircraft talk
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:44 am
by WRXWagon2112
avriette wrote:What is
with everyone and the F-117? It's a largely unremarkable aircraft. Sure, it's black and pointy, but it's got the avionics from a P-3. It's not supersonic, it has limited payload, its efficacy as a "stealth" aircraft is roughly zero as of the
Balkan conflict during the
Clinton administration. I don't dig the shape, the stupid "fighter" moniker, and can't understand why anyone would use it as the (obvious) inspiration for the form of said snowboard. So, the snowboard is neat. Okay. Can we maybe take off the Batman shit, and just, you know, have a
snowboard?
Even Lamborghini got on board the everything-should-be-a-flying-triangle (although I think they said their "inspiration" was a Tornado) with the
Reventón. It's kinda sad. It makes me nauseated, but I can't tell whether it's because they chop up LP640's to make them, or because they're raiding the DeLorean parts bin, those hideous tail lights, or the my-god-those-are-hideous 1984 gauge cluster. Barf.
Maybe the fellow on that one-wheel-skateboard thingie (also on endgaget via the link above) should market it as the "overhyped, underperforming, and overpriced, but still cool" skateboard replacement. At least it
is a new design instead of an iterative step down one direction.
Easy there, Tex. The F-117 was a ground-breaking aircraft that ushered in a whole new generation of aircraft as well as introduced a new design aesthetic - even if that was due to the limitations of the computers at the time. I agree that the "fighter" designation is ridiculous but I know
why they did that. Can't fault them for that. As for the snow board - you never know. The ideas may translate into a better snowboard once the Chinese start making cheap copies.
--Alan
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:23 am
by zaxrex
WRXWagon2112 wrote: The ideas may translate into a better snowboard once the Chinese start making cheap copies.
--Alan
Hehe, interesting considering the technology used to develop the 117 was taken from the Russians. Can you call them Russians if you are referring to historical events in the past predicated by the former Soviet Union?
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:24 pm
by WRXWagon2112
zaxrex wrote:Hehe, interesting considering the technology used to develop the 117 was taken from the Russians. Can you call them Russians if you are referring to historical events in the past predicated by the former Soviet Union?
True. But if they don't see the potential in their own mathematical theorems, that's their loss. And yes, I'd still call them Russians. After all, Russia was the primary "influence" within the U.S.S.R. Or just call them "Soviets".
--Alan
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:30 pm
by Osiros
In Soviet Russia, stealth plane snowboards you!!!!
I know...I suck. Couldn't resist.
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:59 pm
by Mr Kleen
i thought the F117's shape was dictated by the limited "stealth materials" technology not computer limitations. but i could be wrong.
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:05 pm
by complacent
Sorry, I couldn't see the article from all the NERD TALK going on about aircraft.
Re: the Lamborghini of snowboards
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:25 pm
by zaxrex
Mr Kleen wrote:i thought the F117's shape was dictated by the limited "stealth materials" technology not computer limitations. but i could be wrong.
1960 a book/paper named "Method of Edge Waves In The Physical Theory of Diffraction" came out and sat on the shelf for 15 years in Soviet land.
In it were calculation methods for predicting radio energy reflection and propagation patterns off of 3-D edges. Computers came along and a LockMart dude wrote a program using the formulas to develop the original Have Blue flying diamond shape.
At the time, processing power did not support the calculations for blended edges and integrating the original calculations over smaller and smaller slices gave bad results. Additionally, the thought was the fire guidance radar emitter would be near or integrated into the receiver. The calculations were set for the energy to not reflect BACK to the transmitter. Which it doesn't.
But like Alex says, if you have a network of dislocated emitters and receivers, the diverted reflections can be picked up and data combined to get a pretty good location fix.
Re: Nerdy snowboard aircraft talk
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:53 pm
by ThaABomb
I've definitely gotta side with the F-117 here. Perhaps it failed as a stealth aircraft at the time of the Clinton administration, but by that point it was 10-15 years old so technology from the rest of the world was able to catch up to it. And say what you will about it's avionics, but it was so unstable due to it's shape that it had to have several computers running at all times just to keep it in the air, so it had some pretty advanced electronics on-board. And I'm sure the drag on that thing goes through the roof in the transsonic and supersonic flight regimes, so going supersonic probably would've been horribly impractical.
Re: Nerdy snowboard aircraft talk
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:30 pm
by Cereb Daithi
I'm also jumping in the F-117s corner. It was the poster-child for a new kind of warfare. No matter how you cut it it's a 28 year old plane (Even older if you count the development phases). Holding it up to today's standards is just silly. With only ONE recorded combat loss it can hardly be considered a failure. It opened the doors to new technologies and designs like the F-22 and now the F-35.
Why should people be persecuted for emulating it's design? It's a universally recognizable look with a strong association to the imagery of a new age of warfare and technology. Why WOULDN'T you capitalize on something like that? Besides. I think most of us agree the "stealth" look is still cool
