| Warthog Territory Forums http://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| What's this? http://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=12543 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | gifted [ 04 Mar 2008, 04:03 ] |
| Post subject: | What's this? |
Found this while looking for other stuff. Please tell me that arrangement is on purpose! http://iyaoyas.com/images/MVC-010F.JPG |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Mar 2008, 10:27 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well when you mount 4 500lb bombs BEHIND the axle........... |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 04 Mar 2008, 22:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
DANG that is PRICELESS! Thanks Gifted, I really needed a good laugh like that today. Boomer, I could be wrong, it's been a few years since I was on the line at DM, but those look too big to be MK-82's/500 lbers. They look more like the MK-83's/1000 lbs. Either way, you put that much mass on one end of a trailer, and then another 3 behind it, you GOT to break slowly. ![[lol]](./images/smilies/anim_lol.gif "LOL")
|
|
| Author: | mark59 [ 04 Mar 2008, 22:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yup....too big to be mk 82's. Might even be mk84's. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Mar 2008, 23:33 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mk-84s have an 18 inch diameter, they don't look that big. MIGHT be 83s AF doesn't use many of those ( if any ) Navy is the bulk user of the 1000lb'ers and that MIGHT say \"Navy\" on the link between the trailers. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Mar 2008, 23:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Did some digging on the pic. It's the Navy so 1000lb'ers 
|
|
| Author: | Racegal8 [ 05 Mar 2008, 00:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm they look like they do just a bit of damage. |
|
| Author: | TheBigThug [ 05 Mar 2008, 02:04 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bad Pun \"I wan't full safeties, I dont want any fish coming back on us\" |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 05 Mar 2008, 03:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was wondering how that would happen. The point about braking is well taken. |
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 05 Mar 2008, 15:36 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't know about the \"Braking issue\", He would of had to be going \"PRETTY DAMN FAST\" but still look at the construction of the hitch. That tongue looks like it broke in a strange place to happen while braking. It looks like over \"Time\" of probably \"Dropping the Tongue &Hitch\" repeatedly that it formed stress \"Fractures\" over time and finally \"Broke\". Look at the A-10 that had its nose gear strut \"Snapped\" , Who would of ever thought that \"Chunk of Metal\" could break??? You have to look at where it broke, the coloring thats left, that wasn't a \"Clean break\". I bet they don't NDI those tongues and hitches. Goose |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 05 Mar 2008, 18:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought that little trailer in the back looked a little odd. I'd never seen one like it before. I've also never seen White bomb trailers nor Gray bomb tails in the AF before. The BB Stackers who'd loaded the main trailer, still should have spread those 4 bombs out, 2 fwd inboard, 2 aft outboard. The tounge on the aft trailer looks to me, that it broke more from the tourque of the nearly 2 tons pushing it into a hyperextension between the hitch and lower edge of the main trailer's platform. The leverage of that much mass at the end of the long tounge, could snap that end like a twig. Granted, if the joint were previously weakened by repetative dropping, that would make the break easier, but I think it would have broken regardless of that. Of course, we don't really know how much speed was involved. If the truck were pulling 30 mph, vs. 15 mph, it'd make a world of difference. Anyway you look at it, it was an accident that could have been prevented at several points. If the Stackers had loaded the trailer right... If the driver had been driving slowly... If the Driver hadn't had to stop quickly... If the trailers had been properly treated and cared for. Lots of factors. |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 06 Mar 2008, 00:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The trailers apparently belong to the Navy. Last I knew they didn't know what a jammer was, so they load everything by hand, somehow. A Navy guy would have to give the specifics on that. But that trailer would let you position the bomb directly under the rack, minimizing the amount of manhandling you have to do. |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 10 Mar 2008, 04:17 ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok absent a detonator how hard would it cause these bombs to go off in an accident? my understanding has always been that military explosives have many times more stable than traditional commercial explosives--as uncle Sam can afford the best. Opposed to a commercial that must cut cost at all cost in order to make a profit. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 10 Mar 2008, 07:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: ok absent a detonator how hard would it cause these bombs to go off in an accident
Umm wicked huge, they don't even go off when pickled. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
