'What If' posed to Elon Musk

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

gumbyk said:
Its not a new technology, or an error... It's called a rotary inverter, used as a mechanical means of converting DC power to AC.
Click to expand...
Currently, here in California, our electric grid is aging and woefully overburdened, leading to rolling blackouts.
Add to that "planned power shutdowns" during high wind events in rural areas, to avoid a source of wildfires or extreme weather (like heavy snow).

We use generators sometimes for a days on end, in some cases for close to two weeks.

A battery powered "generator" is good for low-demand appliances or for a weekend camping trip, but not for what most Californians need - which is why it's the brunt of a joke.
 
I can't even comprehend regular rolling blackouts in a first-world country, or a system that isn't resilient enough to handle regular weather events.
Hell, even NZ's biggest earthquake since 1930's only knocked power out for less than a day
 
gumbyk said:
I can't even comprehend regular rolling blackouts in a first-world country, or a system that isn't resilient enough to handle regular weather events.
Hell, even NZ's biggest earthquake since 1930's only knocked power out for less than a day
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous, to be honest.

One of the major problems, is that California's explosive population increase from the 70's onward was not matched by infrastructure.

Our aquaduct system (which is completely inadequate today) was originally intended for California's vast tracts of agriculture starting at the turn of the century (1900's) and has not grown as fields were plowed under and replaced by metropolitan centers.

The power grid's growth and upgrades have been near non-existant while several nuclear power stations ha e come and gone over the years, leaving us with a few hydro-electric, gas-fired and "alternate" sources.
The alternate sources are solar farms in the desert (which obviously have limitations) and our wind farms are situated where winds occur (but aren't a constant).

It's an on-going political mess and every single election year, is always a key part of a candidate's campaign promise to "fix" - but, here we are all these years later...
 
But, to be fair, it's not only California, as I understand it, the whole US grid is beyond its design life.
Compare that with Europe, where most countries are all tied together and able to support each other
 
Just Schmidt said:
I won't get near my two pages on the I-185 for at least a week, so I'll call on your expertise. wasn't it unstable as heck?
Click to expand...
No, the I-185 was quite aerobatic and received high praise from the pilots who flew it.

Problem is, the La-5 entered production before it and it would have cimpeted for resources.
 
GrauGeist said:
No, the I-185 was quite aerobatic and received high praise from the pilots who flew it.

Problem is, the La-5 entered production before it and it would have cimpeted for resources.
Click to expand...

If the Soviets manage somehow to series-produce the M-71 engine (tone down the production of the M-88 instead), the 'La-5-71' gets made, so the I-185 has M-82 available?
Although the I-185-71 (an 18 cyl engine on a wing that is smaller than what Bf 109 had) gives a whole new meaning to the "as big engine on as small airfame as possible" idea
 

It actually goes to the state of technology. The Bristol fighter used a 275hp engine so the two seat fighter had the speed and climb of most of the German single seat fighter (most of which had about 185hp). It also depends upon the actual speed margin. A 130mph plane has a pretty fair speed margin over a 110mph fighter. about like a 390mph fighter vs a 330mph fighter as an example.
 
Those speed margins have gone from 20mph to 60mph. Gun technology did not improve between the wars. The guns got bigger, but they continued to be dumb, ballistic devices, aimed by optical sights. In WWII, fast clumsy aircraft used hit and run tactics. They would not have gotten out of range in time in WWI, and they would be hit by AAMs today.
 
I have problems with long range escort fighters.

If I build a single engined fighter with a long range, either I install big, explosive fuel tanks in it, or somehow I design a technologically superior airframe that makes up for the extra size, weight, and blow-up-ability. A well designed interceptor fighter will be smaller than an escort fighter. For a given level of technology, the interceptor can be faster, more manoeuvrable, and better armed. Any plan that involves you developing better technology, assumes that the enemy won't.

In the real war, the Germans and the Japanese failed to design two-stage supercharging systems. Rolls Royce developed two-stage blowers for their Merlins. The USA developed and installed turbochargers in their heavy bombers and in the P-47s. North American did a remarkable job with the P-51. American daylight bombing forced the Germans to climb to altitudes that grossly favoured P-47s and P-51s.
 
The Bristol used a single Vickers gun firing at 600rpm, unsynchronized
Even the Japanese were using 2 Vickers guns firing at 900rp, unsynchronized for triple the rate of fire in a Nate.
While a few WW I planes used optical sights the majority used ring a bead.
Quite a few planes an optical sight based on the Aldis sight.
Reflector sights were also an improvement.
Both started in WW I but most countries did not get them until WW II.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Bristol used a single Vickers gun firing at 600rpm, unsynchronized
Click to expand...
Andrew McKeever and his gunner shot down over thirty German aircraft during WWI. I would not expect this with an unsynchronized gun shooting through the propeller. I assume the gunner's Lewis gun was unsynchronized.

WWII guns were mostly more numerous, and mostly bigger. The distance at which they were aimed did not increase much.
 
Aircraft (and it's related technology) of 1938 was far more advanced than aircraft (and related technology) of 1918.
Aircraft of 1918 were far more advanced than aircraft of 1899.

That 20 year interwar period was a huge leap of advancement.

Not sure about the "explosive fuel tank" thing, though. Even aircraft of today have that same feature...
 
My apologies. I was referring to the firing rate of the Vickers guns.
The WW I British gun fired at 600rpm in it's unsynchronized state.
The Japanese guns in WW II fired at 900rpm in the unsynchronized state.
Both guns will fire at a somewhat lower rate.

WWII guns fired much quicker, yes they were more numerous and yes the size increased.

However the distance at which they were aimed did increase. Sometimes very little or not at all and sometimes by hundreds of yards.

It is one reason that it often took so much ammo to kill or damage an aircraft. A good pilot could fire a short burst and get a lot of hits. A poor pilot could fire thousands of rounds and not much of anything.
A MK I Hawker Hurricane carried over 4 times the ammo that a Sopwith Camel did. It fired about 8 times as many rounds per second.
Few WW I pilots were firing at 400-600yds. Most WW II shouldn't have been firing at such ranges but they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
A
What if the Germans had radar proximity fused AA shells?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
Snautzer01
A
What if - Four-Power Pact 1933 is confirmed
Replies
3
Views
848
Zmauky
Z
What if the Luftwaffe gained air superiority during d-day?
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
6K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register