>>46054 True but special materials/additives are used against time, for example concrete/cement reaches near-peak performance 28 days after being dried/cured, it can be worked on after 7 days (if workers cure it well after it starts "sweating" the hot water), now the thing is some companies or situations don't have 7 days so they use special additives to cut time and thus all the lateral costs like insurance, machinery and such. In domestic civilian cases it usually helps with the payment of workers, for example having 3 dudes taking care of a concrete roof or cement floor for 7 days can be cut down to even 2 days only if you add a strong drying chemical, that's a good chunk of savings although if the construction boss is a jew/dumb he will have the workers do nothing or very little for the next 5 days so you get charged more for the same thing. The trick with cutting time is using the savings to work other stuff like walling or detailing curbs and such, this taking into consideration they won't have to detail the concrete/cement thing because, for example, a cement floor without any additives will take a while to dry but the sweating of the hot water and dusty particles can be used to create a natural polish which can be also painted and extra polished with acid, that detailing cannot be done with added chemicals; if they decide to not use then they will have to remove that excess liquid. As a side note, just like bricklaying, the art of polishing cement is being lost because construction workers are some of the most retarded members of society, they are hard working no doubt but they forget techniques and do not care at all to nurture themselves with knowledge; as long as something can be done quicker and without breaking their backs they will use it, and the construction masters who rather hide those cheap details with expensive masonry or wood rather than use the well-worked structural material itself as ornament. >at least 100 square meters of space taken up by building material That's really not much for construction, it is a big house for a civilian and probably would need 3 dudes working on it if most of it has air surface (aka floors or roofs) now imagine cutting down half the wages of 3 or 4 guys if you dare to pay for a couple of bottles of drying material. Even small-sized grinded gravel can work wonders with time in things like columns or beams, you shouldn't support something on top of those until 7 days have passed but small-gravel makes it stronger and you can put shit over it after 4 or 5 days. Some croatian anon posted very good info time ago in i don't remember well, i think it was /fascism/, he had good experience in the construction area and had a better idea around time and costs. The biggest enemy in construction costs is time... and the client trying to jew the structural costs and cheaping out on materials. >>46051 >giant inflatable bladder serves as the support for a formed pour of concrete onto it >pour I think you can save more money using shot concrete than pouring the cream on top, also it depends on the dome: There's thick and or irregular domes that need a strong rebar structure and then there's ultra-thin domes on catenary forces that need retarded amounts of beams and top-tier workers to build those. For example a rebar hemisphere can have some concrete poured into it but shot concrete, as in a high-pressurized hoses that splurts cement, is much more effective as it can save time and material but it needs the machinery and someone who knows what they are doing, nowadays they can be found small enough and most concrete workers know how to use it or know someone who does so you will almost always save money hiring a shooter and fixing a thin rebar than planning a perfect structure and finding a bunch of dudes who are not dumb and also are masters of jenga... only for the thing to be taken down after 14 days.

>>46054 That's literally nothing dude. It's not just still less than traditional materials, it's still less than 1/10th the price of the land. Having a house go from 110k to 140k is a drop in the fucking bucket when the land is 1.6mil

>>46060 That's gotta be a European thing, because unless the land is already developed it's pennies here in burgerland compared to the price of construction and permits. I think land outside of city limits goes for like $3,000-$4,000 per square acre (about 4000 square meters), but you gotta bribe all the officials so the house construction will run you $300k-$700k easily.

Another one bites the dust.

>>54859 What were the zogbots up too?

>>42643 F-10X Nice. Prettiest full production jets the US has ever made.

>>54861 They were up to the ground but for shorter time than they anticipated.

>>54859 good riddance aahahahahahahahah

>>54859 This is what happens when you trade competence for compliance.

>>54859 >>54869 >>54874 They should have adopted the Convair Pogo instead.

>>54869 >>54874 The people defend this by saying that Osprey has 3 times less crashes than Blackhawk. Are helicopters just deathtraps?

>>55031 >Are helicopters just deathtraps? I thought that that was the general consensus, yeah. Looking briefly at statistics, in the US EMS heli crash rates are staggeringly higher than general aviation and happen mostly while en-route, so I assume that whatever factors lead to that apply at least as much to military birds.

>>54991 I can't believe America tried to make their own version of the Triebflügel.

>>54859 Pretty sure I located the problem, Strelok. >Captain Eleanor LeBeau, 29 www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66643240 The absolute state

>>55031 >Are helicopters just deathtraps? Helicopters were much harder to first engineer than airplanes and they're much harder to control. The Dead Man's Curve really hits helicopters hard, as well as any other hovering VTOL type aircraft as well. Somewhat ironically autogyros are relatively safe.

>>55071 >Somewhat ironically autogyros are relatively safe. I would presume this phenomenon is related to the fact that -- by definition -- autogyros can never get outsite the 'autorotation flight-envelope' regime? Whereas powered-rotor aircraft (AKA helicopters) easily can.

>>55087 Pretty much, yeah. The only thing that could cause a helicopter-like disaster with an autogyro would be catastrophic rotor failure. Beyond that I think autogyros are actually safer than normal airplanes. Now I don't know whether they're inherently safer or if it's mostly just a statistical thing due to there being comparatively few auto gyros out there.

>>55092 Chinese army has a gyrocopter now. Maybe they are onto something? Larger helicopters will get shot down by AA either way so the only reliable way to use them now seems to be as a air jeep .

>>55093 >Chinese army has a gyrocopter now. That's kind of neat, That's the first new military autogyro in quite a while now isn't it?

>>55093 >>55095 Speculation I've seen thinks they're intended as a terror weapon against civilians, quite likely their own. The official payload (which is very optimistic) limits their ability to transport equipped men in any meaningful quantity, but it's perfectly capable of dropping nasty stuff on civilians without rapid firing rifles. The alternative theory (which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive) is to pad the military's number of air vehicles/helicopters on paper with a bunch of cheap shit.

>>55098 >pad the military's number of air vehicles/helicopters on paper with a bunch of cheap shit. Alternatively, the so-called 'cheap shit' in general is much more durable, much more reliable, and -- importantly -- much more replaceable, than the Globohomo-tier (((expensive))) shit. The latter typically take a mountain of jewgold to even operate nominally, along with a small army of men involved in maintenance and logistics (typically even for a single advanced vehicle). As the Soviet Union has shown the world repeatedly, quantity has a quality all it's own.

>>55100 Quantity only maters if there's any use for it. It can only lift 560 kg (1235 lb), which the fuel, pilot, second seater, their possessions, and any weapons count against. They're so slow and highly visible the official purpose of mounting anti-tank stuff is dubious because they lack the armor or agility to not die to a co-ax or aimed fired from accompanying infantry. They're too low capacity to use as a ferry, let alone true transport. Scouting is better and cheaper done by drone, satellite, etc. . Dropping supplies to isolated troops sound nifty: ~32,351 rounds of intermediate ammo in ammo cans (going by 5.56 and US cans) or ~576 MREs. The problem is there's no way to mount pic related on one, even if it nominally has the lift capacity.

>>55101 >doesn't really anwser the primary point Ehh, this concept of 'cheaper, and a shit-ton more of them' is the way forward, as drones have clearly shown. These little tincans will find their proper place in Jew War III well-enough. Recon is the most likely IMO, with the 2nd seat operating swarms of drones from the 1st-person high overview seat. And, since they're so simple/cheap, upgrades will come incredibly-quickly once hot metal starts flying.

>>55098 You make COIN aircraft sound like something bad. >>55101 I bet you could find a way to tie it below the hull. Also the copter can be obviously niggerrigged into a drone. Imagine half a tone of explosives on a drone.

>>55117 >Imagine half a tone of explosives on a drone. Or you could put gunpods on it and strafe whatever you want without worrying about losing anything important. A grenade launcher or a pair of heavy machine guns and a few hundred kilograms of ammo should be pretty good for hunting small groups of enemy infantry moving alongside tree lines, and you could also destroy enemy trucks and crew-served weapons with it. I'm not sure how noisy a gyrocopter is, but I can see it working as a ”terror weapon” that draws the enemy's attention away from more important things.

>>55036 I mean it could have been really crazy.

>take F-35 >remove weapons bay and mount floats instead >you can hang missile from wing, F-35 is stealth so Putin will neber know >now either add torpedo mount to floats for traditional anti-cartel operations or make the floats partially retractable so plen can go transonig under full afterburner >when engine flameout near 尖閣諸島 or South China sea plane not sink but swim, no loss >no need for airfield, carrier or reinforced pad, only body of water and pier >reduced airspeed irrelevant becuase stealth On a scale from Ukrainian aid package #666 to F-20, how hard would it be to sell this to Congress in CY+8? It worked for the Japanese in WW2 and they know best how to fight the Chinese.

>>55270 Well they are seemingly moving away from f-35, so maybe if you make it a NGAD variant.

>>55568 >F-35 Thank God it wasn't a good plane that was lost.

>>55572 The entire western doctrine stands on this fucking plane being capable of taking on the entire russian and chinese air defense system all on its own. We are so fucked it is insane.

>>55572 You are behind the times, saying bad things about the F-35 is doubleplusnotgood and turns you into literally Putler. The new angle is that the datalink is just so fuggen fantastic that it doesn't matter if catapulting can euthanize a small guy or that putting a touch screen instead of buttons is retarded even in a civilian car, let alone in a military plane. But my favourite part is that there is the Ghost Bat now, which is described by some as an F-35 without a pilot, because it has the same datalink and can use the same missiles. In other words, it should be just as effective at chucking missiles at targets hundreds of kilometres away while being cheaper and safer. And yet the plan is that a single F-35 should be escorted by 5 or so of these drones. I mean, that can make some sense if you want to project force out at the ocean without having any ships in the area, but that seems to be a rather niche application. Against Shina you could just populate the island chains with bases that also have ground control stations and swarm the skies with Ghost Bats. Or better yet, play Macross with missiles launched from the bases. Or am I missing something?

>>55574 >Or am I missing something? They just wanted to build impossibly expensive kamikaze drones to force NATO and allies to have to spend funny money on an endless amount of worthless planes to make the F35 look good before it falls into the ocean on its own dude to a software bug.

>>55573 TBH the F-20 Tigershark with link capability would be a better choice as the workhorse of the air forces backed by more specialized planes to back it up. Surprisingly the VVS still won't go for a single engine fighter. Not sure why other than maybe they are worried about engine failures. The only prototype single engine I can think of was the SR-10 trainer. Probably just the good old nepotisim network. Surprised there's been no use of the Yak-130 in a light fighter role.

>>55611 I think its due to the difficulty in making good high end rocket engines, its a terribly difficult process and there are like 3 factories in the entire world that can make the good stuff. So using two engines lets you use something with lower specs.

So the plane was found, crashed into a field. Official reason for ejection? Bad weather. Yeah the weather was so bad that the pilot ejected and the plane traveled for a good while on autopilot. So, what could be the problem here? Diversity is not an option, that plane has 1/3 chance of decapitating you on ejection even niggers are not so dumb as to risk it for seemingly no reason.

>>55706 One possibility I've read in a random comment section is that maybe the pilot wasn't getting enough oxygen, possibly due to a scrubber malfunctioning. In that case it makes sense that he ejects, as passing out while trying to land a plane doesn't sound like a good idea. And yes, if this happened then someone somewhere most likely fucked up something.

>>55706 >bad weather Where there any thunderstorms or cumulunimbus clouds in the area? A DOT&E report from ~2017 prohibited F-35s from operating in a 20 mile vicinity of thunder. This might've gotten "fixed" but the DOT&E reports also mention engineering&supply chain issues due to all those retroactively applied patchwork fixes making both prototypes/test planes and individual production aircraft too distinct from one another. Atmospheric scrubber or other life support problems are just as likely though since the F-22 has encountered those issues a number of times.

>>55714 Looks like there were. Jesus Christ what a disgrace.

>>55716 Just like how the Hotchkiss Portative was not a nighttime gun, the F-35 is not a thunderjet.

Why do aircraft always have the pilot cockpit above the center of mass and not under it? It's only a few hundred pounds but wouldn't it make more sense to have the pilot underneath the aircraft to act as a counter-weight and for better visibility? Planetard so maybe I'm just missing something simple.

>>55721 Multiple reasons. >Cockpit on top allows Pilot to see upwards. Cockpit on bottom would require Ace Combat tier COFFIN display arrangement to look up, and much of the Pilot's lower visibility would be obstructed by legs+instruments unless the Pilot is in a prone position. >Cockpit on top makes safe ejection mechanism design 6 trillion times easier unless you're Lockheeb. >Cockpit on bottom makes bellylanding due to landing gear failure very difficult to walk away from. >Counterweights aren't strictly needed on the bottom when relaxed stability FBW exists. What might be sensible would be putting the Cockpit inside the plane for maximized aerodynamics and stealth, but this would then entail more Ace Combat autism with the Pilot being wholly dependent on external cameras+sensors for basic navigation but in a traditional COFFIN layout with 360° screens there'd be no need for a heavy F-35 helmet so less risk of neck injury and the ejection mechanism would also be more complicated.

>>55721 Anon grab some crayons and draw me how you want to put a chair in down facing cockpit. And also you would lose visibility and carry space so also draw me how you want to put missiles above the wings. That said there were some bombers with 2ndary downward facing cockpit for better aiming, where the spotter was sometimes even lying flat. Glass nosecones won though

Planelet #2 here, is this? = https://web.archive.org/web/20230910200052/https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a43907928/darpa-x-65-plane-maneuvers-using-only-blasts-of-air/ a complete meme or the next wundertech or just something useful that is overblow?

>>55755 If I understand the physics correctly, it's not really a meme but it's also not really wundertech. It's taking advantage of the B-2's "gliding" mechanics but in a package that's harder for conventional radar to spot. It's a slow-moving aircraft meant to be unmanned but hard to see. The compressed air directional controls allow it to perform maneuvers that would either be disorientating or create too many G's for a meatbag pilot. In theory it could serve as a prototype for a super-high-altitude drone down the line because of how it generates thrust. What will really make or break it is the price point. If the thing costs as much as a traditional jet than it's memeware, but if they can keep the costs low, say comparable to a low-end missile, then they will make perfect "disposable" loitering fighter/recon aircraft with some bomber capabilities.

>>55725 I could make a 3D model but it would take too long. Basically something where the pilot is integrated into the "frame" of the aircraft with a slight dip below the aircraft for the legs. The front would consist of a partial viewport on the front and angled sides for upward viewing, and a small dome on the bottom for majority-viewing, and then angled mirrors around the wings or munitions would allow the pilot to see above-and-behind from the top viewports and below-and-behind from mirrors positioned at the pilot's feet. It would be initially disorienting but the weight distribution should be more even and it would give the pilot a more "full" field of view of anything that isn't directly above-and-behind him. The chair could either be secured through a baseplate mounted to the lower nose where the piloting controls + center console are, or through suspension tethers so that the pilot is partially free-floating to adjust for G-forces. The seat could then eject from the lower-dome disconnecting and letting gravity "drop" the chair through the lower viewport for safer and simpler exit rather than trying to be faster-and-higher than the aircraft post-ejection. I dunno it makes sense from a physics standpoint but >>55722 raises good points about landing.

>>55725 I mean that weapons mounted on strongpoints under the wing will reduce visibility. Sorry for being so confussing. >>55755 Aside from potentially reducing planes profile it needs to be pointed out that this shit can be used for control in low orbit or even void. So this shit is for dropping satelites.

>>55760 >The compressed air directional controls allow it to perform maneuvers that would either be disorientating or create too many G's for a meatbag pilot. So you're saying that if a pilot not clued in to the program happened to see one manoeuvring, then he'd see an unidentified object flying in a way inconsistent with and far beyond the manoeuvrability of conventional aircraft? Sounds familiar.

Wait, it would remove vertical control surfaces meaning there is nothing that could obstruct hardkill APS mounted on such a plane, meaning end of dominance of missiles and return to dogfighting Shit would be so cash.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=9K5v3Jwz89w >the US Navy used kamikaze drones during ww1 >maybe even before the Japanese themselves started using kamikaze planes