-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

Subject   (new thread)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 675 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

PBE Shield Stickers and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!

File 149840760540.jpg - (47.37KB , 800x566 , Rabbit Season.jpg )
21730 No. 21730 ID: b6523d Stickied hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
General car discussion thread

>post your car
>post other people's cars
>post dank maymays
>get derailed by Bat Guano
>ask questions
>get answers
17 posts and 11 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21808 ID: 762613
File 15048402968.jpg - (143.94KB , 1152x864 , IMG953033_.jpg )

Bad news: Ended up putting the stock engine back in the MK1 I got for this project because someone offered me a great price for it if it was all stock. (It only had 39K on the odometer.)

Great news: Found another host for the swap, better yet almost as few miles as the previous host and factory new snowflake rims. Wasn't the holy grail turbo diesel model, but I didn't get it for the engine for a reason.

A ~1500lb pickup with a ~200+hp Formula Super Vee swap.

God willing Irma spares me...
>> No. 21868 ID: 7e827c
File 151700030680.jpg - (4.92MB , 5312x2988 , 20171209_122349.jpg )
Bought a 1965 Falcon Squire wagon. Factory 289 car, though the previous owner took the engine and tranny out. Good thing I have a spare engine and tranny!

File 132985394688.jpg - (914.45KB , 2352x1568 , BMW-F800S-LimitedEdition2010-RightFrontLow.jpg )
1 No. 1 ID: e63b69 Stickied hide watch quickreply [Reply] [First 100 posts] [Last 50 posts]
Post it if it's yours and gets you from point A to point B!

No post without picture.
402 posts and 393 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21864 ID: e809d9
File 151582891249.jpg - (178.35KB , 700x515 , 700x515_425740943879401472_787724372837318656.jpg )
Car #3
>> No. 21865 ID: e809d9
File 151622649181.jpg - (101.56KB , 960x540 , 22155454_1782140832084861_2395045_n.jpg )

File 152159681611.png - (1.45MB , 1890x1036 , 6yw31c4vc7f01.png )
21873 No. 21873 ID: 858cd5 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
Post some plates
>> No. 21874 ID: 858cd5
File 152160128244.png - (1.08MB , 1060x537 , 24_57_51e6799a-390e-4e60-83cc-56e287b46571_530x2x.png )
>> No. 21875 ID: 858cd5
File 152160130980.png - (1.87MB , 1280x720 , maxresdefault.png )
>> No. 21876 ID: 858cd5
File 152160134145.png - (666.49KB , 800x388 , az-centennial.png )

No. 21228 ID: d4c8ee hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
  Hello airplanes? It's blimps, you win.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21481 ID: bb86e7
Needs better pitch control or stability.

He should have brought an anchor with bungee cord. That way he could have landed facing into the wind, and then not gotten dragged along. The reason he did not do so here, I think, is that he would have been tangled up into the envelope had he been dragged downwind when facing into the wind. I need to watch the full episode at some point.

I think the basic concept is sound, it just needs to be implemented properly; but the lack of time, budget, and engineering ability is what results in such enjoyable to watch shenanigans and failures that made that show so fun.


Is the short of it that the Doping on the Hindenburg outer skin was extremely flammable?

There is a science fiction book by Dean Ing, "The Big Lifters" where in one of the subplots the protagonists developed a ground laser boosted (for altitude boosts over the mountains) airship system that could pick up and drop off multimodal freight containers from trains. His goal was to get big rig long haul 18 wheelers off the roads. I think you might enjoy it.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 21844 ID: 3e9aae
File 151104997268.jpg - (39.17KB , 660x371 , _98808818_sbna_airlanderaccident2.jpg )
>The Airlander 10 - a combination of a plane and an airship - was seen to "break in two" at an airfield in Bedfordshire, an eyewitness said.

>Owner Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd said it appeared the Airlander broke free from its mooring mast, triggering a safety system which deflates the aircraft.
>> No. 21870 ID: f0fb5d
  Saw this neat video recently by an engineer who wrote a book on the R101. It explains why helium isn't/wasn't really viable as well as the...uh, interesting...gas bag technology the British used.

While every airship from their glory days seems to have ended in disaster, I still feel like modern technology and controls could rectify the problems. It wouldn't be cheap but it could be better.
>> No. 21871 ID: f0fb5d
I'll also say that I think the aspirational design characteristics of many of these grand, intercontinental airships contributed to their grand failure.

If you design an airship that doesn't try to take over cargo ships' market share over the oceans, eliminate the need to go from London to Cairo to Karachi to Melbourne and back or even cross the Atlantic without refueling inbetween, equip it with carbon fiber, rubber, plastic and aluminum where appropriate, don't try to power it with locomotive engines, set it up with 4G, radio and/or satellite links to modern weather radar feeds and match that with historical meteorological maps of graded wind-risk areas, you could do a lot of good without leaving any given continent or going too far beyond the shore.

Instead of thinking it's a cargo ship or luxury ocean liner in the sky like they did in the 1920s and 1930s, think of it as an 18 wheeler (or RV) that doesn't need a road.
>> No. 21872 ID: df12a0
I'd love it if they designed one to be an extremely-high-altitude, super-long-endurance "Spooky"-style gunship

File 15153457249.jpg - (652.80KB , 565x850 , flashywhips.jpg )
21859 No. 21859 ID: 6a47c8 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
Everyone tells me my scissor lift APC build dream is retarded
.. now I understand it looks stupid and is very slow but hear me out

you could armor it up and sit up there with a sniper rifle..
you could roll it up to areas unacessable to cars and provide ground support with a mobile gun carriage ( also can throw shot up homies in it as a medical vehicle)
... you could even pull up to 20ft windows and R6S it up and window entry right?

im not really worried about people trying to tip over my armored giraffe on account of how dang heavy these things are and sniper rifle
1 post and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21861 ID: b86a7d
Having OPERATED these many, many times I can say: they're fucking slow.

Slightly above walking pace is max speed.

And they're pretty damn wobbly once the extendocock is extended.

>you cold even drive them through a fucking door probably..
Well, yeah, that's what they're designed for. Unless you get into the larger diesel powered models, but those are for outdoor use only.
>> No. 21862 ID: 03f678
File 151542474024.jpg - (47.00KB , 460x354 , MS%2035-4-L%20Telescopic%20Boom%20Forklift.jpg )
Get a boom lift.

>They're faster and more manuverable.
>The forks can be replaced with a basket or be used for breaching doors.
>higher ground clearences
>> No. 21866 ID: 6a47c8
Oh yeah those do look cool. do you think i should go for an articulating version or just the telescoping one?
>> No. 21867 ID: 6a47c8
File 151690311889.png - (440.52KB , 681x410 , boomboomiwantuinmyroom.png )
there is this one I saw on Alibaba.. looks pretty heavy duty and it says its only $5,000 that can't be real right? how cheap are these mini tanks usually
>> No. 21869 ID: 958644
File 15178797508.jpg - (575.98KB , 1760x1168 , 5264-3.jpg )
There's also this option. Pic related.

Let's be real, unless your ground support in the debris free streets of NYC, a scissor lift can barely traverse any terrain and will still probably die after crawling 2 miles in 30-45 minutes.

A boom lift or even a fork lift could work pretty well, also scissor lifts are only rated to life something like 500 lbs, fork lifts are rated to lift many thousands of pounds, they can pick up cars. You could armor a fork lift and it will still move.

I think it's a novel idea, just maybe start with something that's actually made to drive around.

File 151086585469.jpg - (69.57KB , 499x363 , p-61-black-widow-500-2.jpg )
21840 No. 21840 ID: 09c7e0 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
The P-61 "Black Widow" all weather fighter-bomber-interceptor is not only the single most accomplished fighter aircraft of all time with respect to combat ratio, its also the single greatest military aircraft of any type ever put into service as it achieved it's combat ratio while also supplying both daylight and nighttime air to ground ordinance delivery with divebomber pickle barrel precision and delivering as much payload per sortie as aircraft twice as large.

prove me wrong
2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21843 ID: 48ee34
…in air-to-air combat with manned aircraft
they've lost to SAMs, the iraqi ground forces knocked down about half a dozen of them. israel lost one maneuvering in combat as well. several aircrew have gone to valhalla

>saudi airforce
>> No. 21845 ID: 278cbe
>in air-to-air combat with manned aircraft
Which includes: CAS, transports, UAVs, helicoptes, and probably weather baloons as well

>muh technical failures in combat missions
>muh unconfirmed kills
>muh flying on one wing
>> No. 21846 ID: ebb4ba
t. sergei
let me guess, your next post is going to be "muh export models"
>> No. 21852 ID: 80dc83
well it looks like this argument is settled
the P-61 black widow is the single greatest combat aircraft ever produced!
>> No. 21858 ID: 05d612
File 15152175009.jpg - (35.00KB , 260x334 , 51rj5VSU1sL__SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg )
The argument settled without anyone mentioning that the P-61 could outmaneuver every other combat of it's time, that it could outturn a zero and outroll a 190 because of the P-61 unique control surface arrangement even thought the zero was half the size and the the 190 even smaller?
Damn the Black Widow didn't even have to work hard to win this thread. It outgunned pretty much everything too. Deicing gear, the best all weather radar ever invented, approach radar, bulletproof radial engines…

just damn, if u could datass a plane without seeming like some who wants to do sexual stuff to them then i would datass a P-61 24/7 for years on end without even thinking about other aircraft

File 151513136883.jpg - (95.35KB , 684x448 , ACH-47A.jpg )
21854 No. 21854 ID: df12a0 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
>The ACH-47A was originally known as the Armed/Armored CH-47A (or A/ACH-47A). It was officially designated ACH-47A[56] as a U.S. Army Attack Cargo Helicopter, and unofficially referred to as Guns A Go-Go. Four CH-47A helicopters were converted to gunships by Boeing Vertol in late 1965. Three were assigned to the 53rd Aviation Detachment in South Vietnam for testing, with the remaining one retained in the U.S. for weapons testing. By 1966, the 53rd was redesignated the 1st Aviation Detachment (Provisional) and attached to the 228th Assault Support Helicopter Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). By 1968, only one gunship remained, and logistical concerns prevented more conversions. It was returned to the United States, and the program stopped.

>The ACH-47A carried five M60D 7.62 × 51 mm machine guns or M2HB .50-caliber machine guns, provided by the XM32 and XM33 armament subsystems, two M24A1 20 mm cannons, two XM159B/XM159C 19-Tube 2.75-inch (70 mm) rocket launchers or sometimes two M18/M18A1 7.62 × 51 mm gun pods, and a single M75 40 mm grenade launcher in the XM5/M5 armament subsystem (more commonly seen on the UH-1 series of helicopters). The surviving aircraft, Easy Money, has been restored and is on display at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
>> No. 21855 ID: df12a0
File 151513148020.jpg - (40.17KB , 640x335 , ACH-47AEasyMoney.jpg )
>> No. 21856 ID: df12a0
>> No. 21857 ID: df12a0

File 150637710674.jpg - (305.14KB , 1136x1200 , b-36_pit04.jpg )
21815 No. 21815 ID: df12a0 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
...got any image dumps of 'em, Bat Guano?
11 posts and 11 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21829 ID: 278cbe
File 150689998745.jpg - (937.61KB , 3000x2035 , 1358045932_il-76-aircraft-indian-air-force-06.jpg )
Il-76 bottom cockpit
>> No. 21830 ID: 278cbe
File 150690031475.jpg - (117.76KB , 600x900 , CSRMyP5XAAAMAdh.jpg )
IL-76 tail gunner cabin
>> No. 21831 ID: 278cbe
File 150690062999.jpg - (866.85KB , 2560x1707 , 18a_Kabina-Il-76MD-90A_.jpg )
IL-76MD-90A - modernized
>> No. 21851 ID: d82b25
pls post more b-36 interiors
>> No. 21853 ID: 80dc83
>I wonder what the cut-out is for.

there where they kept the vodka bottle

File 151214592467.jpg - (175.45KB , 1024x683 , 9539 resized.jpg )
21850 No. 21850 ID: 1eb131 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
I realise this story is from before June and it's now December, but I thought it would be quite relevant to OPchan:


File 147901608580.jpg - (158.41KB , 1231x1668 , CxBDUGtWQAg5Yl3.jpg )
21419 No. 21419 ID: d4c8ee hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
The Russians seem to be having some trouble with their carrier again.
28 posts and 10 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 21838 ID: 278cbe
File 151060959491.jpg - (97.05KB , 640x511 , QODkhio8.jpg )
No that's the other way around you fucko.
>building an aircraft carrier requires years of development and preliminary design assesment
>therefore you can't include it into current budget right away
>> No. 21839 ID: cce514
File 151061467913.gif - (2.66MB , 360x202 , CdlTl7F.gif )
Yes and program cut from the budget was for the development. No need to get that mad about it.
>> No. 21847 ID: 278cbe
>for the development
Since when RnD of specific project requires specific article in military budget?
>> No. 21848 ID: 1d521e

Uhh, except for blackbook projects, ALL of them. Governments don't just hand their militaries blank cheques, they're budgeted with tight cost controls. R&D is a massive cost, you can't just have a vague development budget for multiple projects or hide the costs in other parts of the budget. The money men would never allow it.
>> No. 21849 ID: 278cbe
File 151145105554.jpg - (172.79KB , 850x480 , 23560E_MVMS-2015_01.jpg )
>except for blackbook projects
>R&D is a massive cost, you can't just have a vague development budget for multiple projects or hide the costs in other parts of the budget. The money men would never allow it.
Yes you can, in fact, you must, if you want to have a space for several variants and have to change specifications during development and construction. Unless you have the bad habit to throw the money at problem until it goes away. I don't know, it might be that US project planning is entirely different and they need to invent moon landing from scratch every time they want to go to the Moon.

Let's see what you need for current specifications of aircraft carrier:
1. 100 000 tonne hull construction project (ice-capable for northern seas) - that is the main trouble, although not as much since Russia has several docks able of building such a ship. Latest series of ice breaking ships is already at 33 000 tonnes.
2. Power plant - nuclear reactors for this ship have been developed for new icebreakers already. Carrier's power plant will be designed for hybrid propulsion - which means that some modifications will be needed, naturally.
3. Air traffic management system - pretty much the reason Kuznetsov being updated. There's a lot of experience learned form operations in Syria and it will take time to learn from that.

The rest of the project will have to follow these primary goals, otherwise it will turn disastrous, of course. As I said, it will take years of preliminary development without any mentioning of final project. Compare that to the less exciting and more developed alternative which awaits decision with it's preliminary design already completed.

>but Russkies didn't include them into their 2020-2025 budget
>"Putin’s 2025 modernization planning session was what didn’t make the cut"
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Delete post []
Report post
Previous [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]