>>21739
Responding to a dead post kinda

There's another problem with gear driven systems, they have no slack in the system. Think about the torque being exerted on drivetrain components during a harsh downshift. In a a belt or chain system, there is some small amount of bounce that is taken up by the tensioning system. Performance suffers, but with a gear system, and especially on straight cut gears, all the load can shear a tooth. The best performance, and guaranteed to hold valve timing, but an extra failure point for race cars.

>>21913
What's the engine? Like a 1.2L or something?

>>21941
She's had some rough times, but she's been good to me and she'll be paid off this year.

>>21942
And I even got her a little brother a little over a year ago.

>>21617
I have read the Sheridan described as a bunker-blaster demolition light tank. Her 152mm gun fired conventional ammunition and the MGM-51 Shillelagh guided anti-tank missile. Armed with low velocity HEAT rounds that were good for blowing up bunkers & buildings without over-penetrating like the high velocity guns on the MBTs did, and also shooting big canister antipersonnel rounds spewing out flechettes.

it still isn't the coolest light tank...

>>21621

Anyone have internals of Su-34? I hear they have a toilet, beds, and a small kitchen.

>>21936

Mmm no, sorry bru. I tried looking around, and the Wikipedia article seems to support the assertion that they have some sort of accommodation, but I got swamped by false returns when looking for cutaways, even after specifying strict *34*. Honestly, you might actually try old /k/ for something like this. Monkeys and typewriters, y'know.

Alternatively, you *could* get your paws on the source materials cited in that Wikipedia article and see where that gets you; both appeared to be printed volumes, so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

God help you if they're by Jane's, though.

>>21936
>>21938
The aircraft is the size of a F-111 so it's likely it's just a small alcove behind the crew seats with a toaster oven or microwave for heating ration packs and a chemical toilet/small bucket. There's probably enough floor space one of the pilots could get into a sleeping bag.

>>21815
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-toilet-on-the-SU-34-Russian-fighter-bomber-work

How does the toilet on the SU-34 Russian fighter/bomber work?

Katya Aleksandra Hodgson, BTEC Applied Sciences, Hull College (2016)
Updated 36w ago · Upvoted by Andy Duffell, ex-fast jet armourer and Peter Wheeler, Pilot

Crudely put… it’s a large funnel leading into a cylinder filled with chemicals.

When people describe the Su-34 as having a toilet and a kitchen… it’s a bit of an exaggeration.

The enlarged cockpit area of the Su-34 does indeed provide a lot more comfort than typical fighter cockpits. The crew have space to comfortably sit and even move around a little, and don’t need the bulky flight suits typically worn by fighter pilots

However, it is important to remember that despite the enlarged cockpit, the aircraft is still based off fighter, albeit a large fighter. As such the space is still quite limited.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

The interior will be a vast improvement in terms of comfort compared to the old Defender. A centre console is equipped in the model photographed, but you can also specify a central seat or leave the space empty for a walk-though cabin. the gear lever is mounted on the dash so centre seat occupants will finally have somewhere to put their legs!
Rear seats also have more legroom than previous 110SWs. however the seats in the "boot" are now forward-facing fold-away seats instead of the traditional sideways-facing bench seats, restricting maximum occupancy to 8, where you could get as many as 10 or 12 in the old model.
Some of the plastic trim feels a bit... plastic, so I do wonder how squaddy-proof this new vehicle will be.

the style is starting to grow on me

I'll be honest I'm more taken with the new Jimny

A Pendolino with a poppy!

Class 91 in WW1 centenary livery.

"For the fallen" nameplate.

They also fly F35 B-variants in and out, as seen in the first Avengers. It's capable of STOVL but that design allows for less fuel-draining traditional take-off and landing and also allows adaptability for other non-STOVL aircraft to take off and land as well.

Not to shit on your morning brownies but Marvel Films©®™ are (im-)purely U.S. propaganda mouthpieces, for all the money and manpower from the U.S. Dept of Defense that gets invested in them at this time.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

http://archive.fo/xkVX8

The benefit of aircraft carrier is that they use a more dense medium (water) to efficiently transport vehicles that use a less dense medium (air) which is less efficient to travel through, to carry out their mission.

Putting an aircraft carrier in air is pants on head retarded, absolutely nothing is gained by the arrangement.

Also, I couldn't talk about the Helicarrier without bringing up the similarities with Cloudbase from Captain Scarlet.
Yep, it's another flying aircraft carrier. The only difference is this one can't go invisible.

>>21933
So I don't get hit by flood detection, the rest of my photos are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steamboatwilley/albums/72157708764171648
Unfortunately it rained for most of the day, so many of the photos were spoiled by raindrops on the lens.

  The FV433 Abbot SPG is powered by the Rolls-Royce K60 opposed-piston 2-stroke diesel engine and it sounds like this:

  The Chieftain tank has the bigger, but similarly-designed Leyland L60 multifuel 2-stroke opposed-piston compression-ignition engine. 750 hp (560 kW) 6 Cyl, 19 litres.

  sneaks up

  bump

  this thread is almost six years old