>>20622

>It'll take me over a football field to stop at highway speed and 80k gross weight.....
>I'm not worried about bikes though, unless you hit debris in front of me.

That's kind of what I'm talking about, though. The thought that always crosses my mind is basically "What happens if I lay it down with this guy <30 M behind me?"

And yeah, that's rhetorical; I pretty well know what would happen.

>It's oblivious car drivers.

Jesus, don't even get me started, bro.

>>8339
This was way before I started trippin, but last week I made my last payment, and I still love this car.
>>18071
Jesus fucking Christ Boof, if I had access to this kind of hardware, my friggin head would explode. Congrats on the Ferrari! Its so pretty!

Subtle packaging for my new diff carrier.

I had to paint the cover in my signature wrinkle black.

And this truly EXCELLENT design feature. It's a downward-facing, solid steel spike on the bottom of the frame rail, right where you slide under to work on anything on the back half of the rig. You have to keep it in mind at all times, lest you shove it through your kneecap on accident.

It is riveted through the frame rail, attached to nothing. Must be an artifact from the assembly line.

>>21317
You've got an angle grinder right?

1977 Lincoln Continental Town Car sedan.

>>21307
don't know off the top of my head

>>21293
IHC, when will you realise that retro 'dubs are cool? Especially a Golf.

>>21314
I have no problem with the body style, it's just everything else about the car that's terrible.

Everything.

Back around 1988 or so, I bought a 1974 Cadillac ambulance for $500. I got it for an RV to go on hunting and camping trips. And it worked out! I removed the paramedic's chair, put a bed in and it was all set. That gigantic car had a 472 CID V-8 engine and a 27 gallon fuel tank. The 1975 Cadillac had a 600 lb 500 cubic inch (8.2 liter) engine.
The 1974 model year was impacted by the oil embargo of late 1973 and early 1974, which hit large cars especially hard, as fears of rationing drove people to buy smaller cars with better fuel economy.

That ambulance probably weighed around 6000 pounds and probably got around 7 miles per gallon. Not a very economical car to take to the wilderness, but you could stand up in it.

I know that the EPA had only a single (not separate city/highway) MPG rating list in 1974 and I think that was the first year for it. In Thos. E. Bonsalls "Cadillac The American Standard" there is a reprint of an advertisement Cadillac sent to dealers in 1974 to run in local media, this one from Valley Cadillac. It states that the Environmental Protection Agency made a study recently of gas mileage delivered by 376 new automobiles and that the Cadillac Eldorado was found to deliver 10.4 MPG, the de Ville 8.9 MPG (I dont understand why thered be a difference), and also listed some other cars including Lincoln 7.9, Chrysler 8.4 and smaller cars like the Pontiac Le Mans at 8.4 and Oldsmobile Cutlass at 7.3. 1973 and 1974 were probably the two worst years for fuel mileage on GM cars with very restrictive emission controls which gave both poor economy and poor drivability. In 1975, all GM cars got catalytic converters which allowed the engines to perform better and give better economy. By 1976, the EPA was listing both city and highway mileage and I still have the EPA window sticker from my 76 350 4BBL (Olds engine)Cutlass which shows 15 city and 21 highway. http://forums.cadillaclasalleclub.org/index.php?topic=85736.0

My GF and I went on a couple road trips last year in her Prius. Didn't have a shower but with the back seat folded down it had more than enough room for her and I to sleep. Prius sucks balls in town for lack of acceleration but it's quite adequite on the interstate. Got about 65 MPG in the Florida Keys and about 55 out in Arizona and Nevada.
I also have a 94 Chevy Astro LT AWD that was formerly registered as an RV. It could fit a large futon in the back. Didn't get the best fuel economy and the 28 gallon tank was a real pain in the wallet to fill but it could cruise along at 100mph all day and no cop ever gave it a second glance. Took it to Florida a couple of times back when the AC worked. Climbed the embankment closing off the lost highway at Centralia at drove around there one time. Once drove it around for more than a month with a broken torsion bar.

  >>21231
>>21232

But the A-6 has been retired. Along with the F-117. And the Air Force has been in an ongoing controversy in retiring the A-10. The Air Force’s latest retirement schedule, unveiled in its latest budget request for FY17, begins divesting the A-10s in FY18. The last A-10 would be sent to the boneyard in FY22. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/25/house-legislation-restricts--10-retirement/83508968/

  >>21294
Aside of heavy payload that's kind of why it makes for a great example. This was before stealth, so you can think of it as a pre-stealth stealth bomber.

The most modern example of a bomber using speed, storms and terrain for "stealth" would be F-15E, or that new Sukhoi bomber.

>>21296
>>21257
If we're on the old stealth vs. terrain cover debate...why not both? Apparently a low-altitude penetrator version of the B-2 was under consideration at one point in its development.

>>21175
>rocket engine
Is that a translation error? I would expect a hybrid turbo-ramjet like the SR-71 had.

Imagine modern air combat as playing flashlight tag in a field at night. You can turn on your flashlight (radar) to try and find other players, but they in turn see your light (EM emissions). Low-observability technology is represented by some players wearing ninja suits while others wear reflective vests.

>>21298
Erm I think the point is to cut costs so more platforms can be produced with a lower tech base. Any total war scenario is going to involve nukes, and nukes will crash your tech base pretty fast.

Although I don't think the A-6 guy is talking about that, he's just being pedantic about the comparison.

>>21299
Modern stealth is only effective in a narrow band, called the X band. It's not effective in other bands of radar, such as those used by ground, shipborne or AWACS search, tracking and interrogation radars. Or in infrared, which is becoming distressingly common and depressingly sophisticated. Or passive radar... once that comes in it's pretty much over for stealth forever.

who knew lycoming could make something that is piston engines.

  I wanna see this irl

  Like rotor noise?

  No Country for Unprepared Anuses.

  .

Ever hear the story about the C5 (or was it a C17?) that had the blowout while a dude was leaning on the tire?

God damn.

>>21040

Cleanup on aisle C5!

>>21042
I wasn't MX and i'm not especially technically inclined when it comes to airplanes but my understanding was that after this shit happened they were cleaning the guy out of some surrounding AGE equip.

>>21040
>>21170

My grandfather told me his most traumatic moment while he was in Vietnam was when he watched his best friend die under very similar circumstances. They were doing some maintenance around a tire of a plane (can't remember what) and he leaned on it. The moment he did that, there was a massive blowout and his buddy instantly died.

My grandfather normally cried when he told that story.

>>21170
>>21171

Jesus. Hey, if ever they bring back the draft, remind me to test well enough I don't get assigned to ground crew / AvMech. I think I'd much rather get shot, stabbed, or blown up by incoming arty than killed by something so mundane as a fuckin' tire.

>>21165
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%94-41
>RD-41 - single-loop single-shaft turbofan engine with thrust vector control developed in the Rybinsk Motors CB. It was used to test samples VTOL Yak-141 as the lifting motor. Some sources call this engine RD-48.

clearly a pulse jet.

>>21166
Yeah. Production is already something like 24+ flying F-35Bs right now. 12 for the Marines and 12 for the RAF so they can both declare it IOC and pretend it's fit for service. (and this is out of 170+ prototypes and low-rate production airframes)

And regardless, the F-35B isn't getting canceled. The Marines need something to fly off their WWII flattops, the British banked on it entirely because they're too poor to build a real carrier, and Italy likewise is intending on buying them to replace the Harriers on their two carriers. Spain is also likely to buy a handful for the same reason in 2020-2030 when their Harriers reach the end of their airframe lifespans.

>>21157
>>21168
Here's your clue I was talking about PETA and not RD-41 you dense mouthbreather - you quoted the part that proves you're a retard.

Besides, didn't I tell you not to come back unless you had something smart to say, or did you fail to read that sentence as well?

>>21168

Yes, they're stuck with the F35B, no one is going to build new Harriers.

>>21166
Mostly true. Lockheed bought information from a desperate Yakovlev for some data, but developed the F35B on their own.

this article explains the developement reasonably well, comparing Harrier-style engine setup to the F35 w/a table at the end. Images wouldn't load for me, though.

http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=214108

pic related is a benefit of having a lift fan, hot engine exhaust is not re-ingested into the engine.

If you get the chance to stop by the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio, do so. They've got just so much stuff there, it's crazy. Also a new hangar with excellent lighting (pic related). If they'd get the new LED lighting into the other hangars it'd be amazing. Other hangars are lit with "theatrical" lighting which is a nice way of saying dimly lit to save money. New hangar has bright LED lights, so much easier to get good photos...

>>21270

Also they have Bockscar. The B-29 that dropped the nuke on Nagasaki.

  >>21255
Five engines is fine too.

Qantas Airlines: The Fifth Pod: A Behind the Scenes Look

  Wow Qantas has some great videos.

Qantas and GoPro: Day in the life of a plane

  Our Aircraft Engineers | QANTAS

AME - Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, similar to our A&Ps. Canada and other UK derived maintenance, I believe, have stricter certification standards. While American A&Ps can work on everything from a hot air balloon (airframe rating) to the space shuttle, AMEs have to be certified on the type of aircraft they will be working on. (Props, jets, helos.)

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

>>21255
I worked at an airport for UPS and got to see one of these in person. I wish I got to see it closer, but it was mind-bendingly large.