How were they even allowed to fly? I'm not familiar with aviation laws in Canada, but in the US, a working fuel gauge is required (14 CFR 23.1337b). I can't believe the pilot's were given an award for causing an avoidable accident. It doesn't matter that the ground crew improperly fueled the plane, it is always the pilot's responsibility to verify that the plane is airworthy before takeoff.

According to the wikipedia article the fuel gauges weren't working, wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I’m sorry, how the hell does this actually happen?

Do planes seriously not have a fuel gauge? I would hope there is a nit more of a warning system than the engines shutting off.

I am amazed they could even take off, frankly.

I work with Indigenous tribes & Indigenous activist groups throughout the west and midwest, everyday. They can be confrontational, no doubt. But, I also don't actually fault these brats. They just remind me of all of the jock ass ignorant privileged scum I grew up with in PA being confronted with something they aren't prepared for.

Not to mention the fact that we are now fully in a digital age of Google algorithms that basically give a person exactly what they are looking for and nothing else (an internet search used to be research in the 90's, siphoning through a lot of info). People are growing up in very insular bubbles; and ignorance breeds from that. One should also fault the educational system; but in a place like Kentucky, I'd imagine the social media bubble is fueling these kids' education more than their public schools are; there's always college (hopefully).

Even a conservative can produce something with enough hate, bigotry and ignorance fueling them. Don't sell yourself short Bob.

Home made miniature air fuel bomb?!
It's all fun and games until someone gets severe barotrauma.

When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.

It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.

The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)

Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.

Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.

History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.




Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.

-scheherazade

Awwwww....Bob.....I like you too, even though we rarely agree and I often detest your position or means to an end.
I must give you credit for having the spine to voice your opinions knowing they'll be unpopular. I'm glad you stick around, this place could easily become an echo chamber without you and a few others. Your stances, if nothing else, are good fuel for spirited debate.

I can be swayed....but I admit even Sisyphus would grow weary in the effort in most cases. ;-)

I'm a little skeptical now that I'm older, but a few decades ago I read that the SR-71's wings actually had a small gap that fuel leaked out while at low speed/altitude. Once it got up to speed, the metal heated up, expanded, and closed the gap.

What I mean is that space debris travels at speeds up to 17,500 mph or slightly more, depending on what height it is orbiting at. If you place this device in the path (or near it) of a known mass of debris, it is going to have to adjust and fire that net at a speed relative to the debris. If you have the device speed up or slow down to try and match the debris speed, it is going to rise or drop it's orbit height comparatively to the adjusted speed.

That is what I am wondering, will this device be able to catch something travelling at that speed? I'm assuming it would have to try without excessive movement changes or it would require too much fuel.

Wait...it clearly says it is not a flame thrower. Why was there even a need for a wrap up? It clearly was what it claimed to me. Not that I didn't like seeing real flame throwers in action. Would have been interested if they revealed the fuel mixtures, seems like the old one was mixed with oil.

Starting/stopping the new engine in my Mustang takes about 4 hours of fuel. Not four hours idling my car, four hours idling a cruiseship. Four hours idling in my car would require 3 fillups.

God I love this engine...

Your video, How Much Fuel Needed to Idle or Turn OFF / ON, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Conservatives: FAKE DATA. NASA is just saying this to make money [but the denial stuff is all sponsored by the fossil fuel industry who somehow isn't biased]. Climate change is fake. If you think about it, CO2 is good for plants [most are doing their max exchange, and it makes them have less nutrition... plus most of the globe isn't green, it's blue or desert... would be one thing if there was a way to keep that CO2 where the plants actually were and down where they were], its what they breath. It's a war on coal and oil. Ice levels in the Antarctic are rising [some data suggests it has, and may, but it is offset by Greenland ice loss alone, let alone ice loss from every other place like Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, etc]. It's cold here on January 3, so much for global warming [odd they never mention the problem on August 23 or whatever]? They said there's going to be an ice age back in the 70's [they can't show the science papers, just an article in Newsweek or Time], and just last year or so, they said solar minimums will result in another mini-ice age [again, no, nothing about climate in the actual science paper, just the press running their own version of the paper].