• @gravitas_deficiency
      link
      English
      177 months ago

      This is precisely the top-tier content I come here for. Well done.

      • @ramius345
        link
        English
        147 months ago

        It was a post earlier this week by someone else. I linked it, throw them an up vote too!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        I’m still surprised theres not a gunship version, thing could carry a fuckload of dakka.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          67 months ago

          The B-52 is designed to fly high-altitude at high subsonic speed. And they’re not very maneuverable. They’re meant to fly straight to a target, drop a payload, and GTFO.

          Gunships fly low and slow, banking in a circle to keep their guns on target. For a B-52 to do the same maneuver, it’d have to be higher and much further away.

          This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber because it could carry a lot of bombs. Like yeah, it could, but there’s better options.

          • 𝙣𝙪𝙠𝙚M
            link
            fedilink
            English
            157 months ago

            This is like saying we should make a Chinook bomber

            Fuck yeah. Do that too!

          • @shifty51
            link
            English
            87 months ago

            Chinook bomber variant you say?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            57 months ago

            It depends on what kind of gunship you want, lots of guns can fit on a b52 that can’t on an ac130. A series of 155s or bofors 40mk4s, mk38 bushmasters or stripped down 5" guns all of which fire rapidly, automatically and at ranges the ac130 could not touch with significant increases of time on target.

            It doesn’t need to be maneuverable, gunboats don’t go in without air superiority anyway. That said they’re way more maneuverable and controllable then you’d imagine. It wouldn’t need to be one or the other, you could have both running counter pylon turns covering up for the gaps in each other’s capabilities.

            https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-usaf-b-52-strategic-bomber-did-a-fly-by-below-the-flight-deck-of-uss-ranger-aircraft-carrier/amp/

            Notably many people said the ac130 was not a useful idea.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    277 months ago

    Anyone else yearn to live in a fantasy setting where they could get a plane like this and go from airfield to airfield living as a traveling trader?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      167 months ago

      😂 I think that’s a cool idea; but I reckon the running cost in fuel alone, without maintenance, would make this implausible.

        • @Slagius
          link
          English
          107 months ago

          You could easily make enough money to do it. So long as the things you’re trading aren’t legal! Haha

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        107 months ago

        There’s a Mr. Fusion on board to power the retrofitted pulse engines. Which is a good thing, since all the nanobots that nonstop repair the airframe take about half the energy produced (the engines taking the other half, of course).

        Just remember to chuck a couple Cyberdyne Model-101 skeletons in the fuel chamber and you’re good for another year or so.

      • @shifty51
        link
        English
        57 months ago

        That’s the part of tale spin that breaks the immersion for me, the fuel costs!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      Is this like a high fantasy setting or a more sci-fi one. I’ve had this for the former. Though with a number of different vehicles.