>>20217
I gave in, and took the El Camino to a local mechanic, he's gonna look at it whenever his shop has some down time, for a discount. Hopefully the stumble something simple, or something I an fix, so it wont cost me an arm and a leg. I did drive it to the shop, but under load in gear, the stumble gets worse, and there's a backfire if I try and give it too much gas too quickly. It does drive though, so thats a plus. Haha

>>20218
I'm retarded, the spark plug wires for cylinders 7 and 8 were swapped. Have been since I got the car. I kept telling myself I needed to check the firing order too...

>>20286
did they charge you an arm and leg for that?

>>20287
Thankfully no.
$80 for that, adjusting the carb, and setting the timing(it was already correct, fyi) not too bad if you ask me. Most shops charge that just to look at a car.

Update, fixed a few minor things on the interior, and bought a parts car for $150 in gas money (the guy towed it 2 hours to my house), and a winch I got for free. It has almost everything I need Robinson the interior, and everything I need for the body.

Tracks too narrow for the rainy season?
We can fix that.

Germans obsessed with interlocking wheels, even on bikes....

>>20277
They hit on a design and they were committed to it.

Back to cute and adorable things.

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/02/17/more-than-400-deficiencies-remain-in-f-35-stealth-fighter-manager/

>>20201
Oh gee, it's fucking nothing.

(source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZcK5DzmB_CgC&lpg=PA4&ots=BPgK1U5BSH&dq=F%2FA-18E%20number%20of%20Deficiencies&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false)

>>20212
>F/A-18 Super Hornet
That's interesting because their development lines aren't at all comparable.

The Super hornet errors were identified two years after first flight and it entered service two years after that. F-35 errors have been getting identified for sixteen years after its first flight. That is a long ass time to identify errors.

When it enters service the pilots flying the F-35 are likely to have been conceived after the plane they're flying.

I'm a nice guy though, if F-35 solves its 400+ errors and enters service two years from now in a fully combat capable form with no missing systems, I'll eat my words.

>>20213
My god it's almost like a advanced aircraft still in development (the USMC declaring the F-35B IOC was done for political reasons) is going to have more issues that need to be fixed as it's brought into service, than a airplane that was essentially "trick congress into thinking the Rhino is just a version of the Hornet so we can replace the F-14."

>>20214
Then why did you use it as a comparison dumbkoff?

The Maserati Boomerang was a concept car designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro. It was first revealed at the Turin Auto Show in 1971 as a non-functional model, but by the time the 1972 Geneva Auto Show came around the company had worked it into a fully functional vehicle.

The design of the Boomerang would resonate through Giugiaro's future designs for many years. Its sharp angles and wedge shape could be easily seen in the VW Golf 1, VW Passat, Lancia Delta, Maserati Quattroporte III, Lotus Esprit, and the De Lorean DMC-12. Powered by a 310 bhp (230 kW) 4.7L V8 engine driving the rear wheels, 5 speed manual transmission, and having a fully decked out interior. With a unique dashboard layout where the steering wheel and gauge cluster are part of a single console that emerges from the dash, and the steering wheel rotates around the stationary gauges.

The Boomerang was fully registered as a road car, but it was always intended as a one-off show car. It was shown in dozens of places, and after the 1974 auto show in Barcelona it was sold to a private individual. In 1990, it was shown at the Bagatelle Concours in Paris, 1993 Concours Italiana, Carmel (Calf.) and Pebble Beach, with a new owner and some restoration work done. It made an appearance again in 2000 at the Monterey Historic Automobile Races, and Pebble Beach - 50th Anniversary -, 2012 "BEST OF SHOW", May, Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2013 "BEST OF SHOW", October, Knokke, Belgium, 2014 "Paris Motor Show", Paris, France.

The Boomerang featured prominently in a 2014 series of Louis Vuitton print and video ads, with photographs by Jürgen Teller showing the car and fashion models at the Giardini della Biennale (Venice). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Boomerang

>>19970
Wow, you make the worst arguments.
I never stated Russia can ONLY export energy, but their economy is significantly funded by petroleum and gas exports. I post data on what Russia's top ten exports are, showing oil is 50.6% of their exports and you respond with the fantasy that they could sell something else if nobody was buying their oil. Their top nine exports are there and they're minuscule compared to oil.

If China lost their electronics manufacturing, they would only lose less than a quarter of their exports because they have a more diverse export economy. The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in Chinese global shipments during 2014. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from China. http://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-exports/
Electronic equipment: US$570.9 billion (24.4% of total exports)
Machines, engines, pumps: $400.8 billion (17.1%)
Furniture, lighting, signs: $93.4 billion (4%)
Knit or crochet clothing: $92 billion (3.9%)
Clothing (not knit or crochet): $81.4 billion (3.5%)
Medical, technical equipment: $74 billion (3.2%)
Plastics: $66.8 billion (2.9%)
Vehicles: $64.2 billion (2.7%)
Gems, precious metals, coins: $63.2 billion (2.7%)
Iron or steel products: $60.6 billion (2.6%)

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

>>19969
>More than 50% of Russia's exports are petroleum and gas.
Which is only 9% of GDP. In reality, it is not that the economy at large is dependent on oil, it is a federal budget that is being formed from oil prices - more than 50% at that. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the government knows what it is doing, is it? It doesn't, really.

>>19972
Oh, well, never mind. Such a small section of the economy does not mean anything, right? And the Russian arms industry even less so. Only around 4.5% of Russia's exports. ...Actually that's a LOT. Russia is the second largest conventional arms exporter after the United States, with $13.5 to 15 billion worth of exports in 2012. Combined, the USA and Russia account for 58% of all major weapons exports. And Russia's arms exports, particularly their PAK-FA fighter, is germane to this discussion. Russia's foreign buyers are balking at the quality and capabilities of this plane. Do they have a point or are they trying to weasel a discount or get out of bad pledge? I don't know, myself.

By the way, oil rents (the difference between the value of crude oil production at world prices and total costs of production) made up 13.7% of the Russian economy in 2013. Saudi Arabia was 43.6%. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PETR.RT.ZS

- Chinese Chengdu J-20, a stealth fifth-generation fighter prototype. Or so they claim.

>i never stated russia can only export energy
You implied it in an effort to make Russia seem dependent on oil exports, that's your whole argument.

>their economy is significantly funded by petroleum and gas
Their exports in total make a tiny portion of their economy. Russian economy is internalized because of constant Western snubbing, sanctions and other shenanigangs since 1989.

Oil is the only thing Europe reliably wont sanction, and the only thing Europe is willing to pay for, therefore that's what Russia exports. Like I said, if dildos were sanction proof and desperately needed in Europe, Russia would export that.

>China
Chinese exports are 25% of their economy, and their imports are 17% of their economy.
German exports are 30% of economy, and imports 40%.
American exports are 9%, imports 14%.
Russian exports are 15%, imports are 9%.

The first two are very globalized, and very vulnerable to sanctions and the ebbs and flows of the global economy. If Germany were to be cut off, they would instantly collapse worse than USSR did.

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

>>19972
>In reality, it is not that the economy at large is dependent on oil, it is a federal budget that is being formed from oil prices - more than 50% at that. It shouldn't be a problem as long as the government knows what it is doing, is it? It doesn't, really.

50% is a lie from someone that either hasn't looked at Russia budget since Ieltsin time or the first Putin mandate. Or from retards mistaking export revenues for state revenues.

Since the very smart tax reform of 2001 and 2004 (which made people actually pay their taxes), at most it's 30% and it was for all hydrocarbon related products, not just oil.

Just for oil Russia produces around 11 000 000 barrels per day.

At $30 a barrel and $1 = 76 rub, that's 2280 rubles per barrel.

25 billions rubles.

PER DAY.
9 trillions a year injected into the Russian economy...

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

>>19397
>This is kind of my thing against kayaks, they recover from a roll, but they seem much more prone to it.

>I've been in a few canoes but never a kayak, and am a bit partial to canoes.

My thoughts exactly. (Pic is me standing up in a canoe)

The modern kind of kayaks on the market right now are just for fun. They aren't really designed for real work, but even a real kayak is fairly specialized for long distance seal hunting.

All the canoes on the market are for real work, they can all carry a load and multiple passengers.

>>19834
I will say though, a kayak is easier for newbies. Some modern kayaks have pedals which control a rudder, so turning is real easy.

>>19834
I have a smallist canoe and a larger aluminum one that is a fucking indestructible beast. Every spring I go and pick fiddleheads on river islands, about a hundred pounds or so every trip, ever with around 300 pounds they truck on just fine.

>>19965
You can get $4.50/$5.00 a pound for them. They normally grow in wet spots, and along river banks. The key to picking out the right ferns is that Fiddleheads have a copper colored chaff while other ferns have a hairy covering.

The Fiddlehead or Ostrich Fern has a lot of tannins and other shit in them so they need to be boiled first to remove those. They taste like asparagus. They should be showing up in 2 months or so along with the Ramps.

The Škoda 30.5cm Mörser M.11 used by the Austro-Hungarians during the Siege of Belgrade in WWI and the Yugoslav Royal Army postwar, part of Belgrade Military Museum outer exhibition at the Kalemegdan fortress.

Looks like posting in this old thread won't bump it to the front page.
- German WW2 artillery at Utah Beach, Sainte-Marie-du-Mont, France.

It would have had a sustained 77 degree angle of attack without relying on vectoring nozzles, as well as carry any ordnance F-15 can.

It's a great airplane but this thing killed the portion of the ATF program designated for the Navy (NATF), and I can't forgive that.

Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) 1988-1991 - Due to Congressional intervention, the US Navy agreed to evaluate a navalized version of the US Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (now the F/A-22) as a possible replacement for their F-14s. In return, the US Air Force would evaluate a derivative of the ATA as a replacement for their F-111s.

In late 1988, a Naval ATF (NATF) program office was set up at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the existing ATF Dem/Val contracts were modified to include studies of potential NATF variants.

The Major Aircraft Review reduced the peak production rates of both the ATF and NATF. This had the effect of substantially increasing the program cost. In August 1990, Admiral Richard Dunleavy, who was in charge of Navy aircraft requirements, stated that he did not see how the NATF could fit into any affordable plan for naval aviation. In early 1991, before the final contractor for the ATF was even selected, the consideration of the NATF was dropped. This was mainly due to the fact that the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14's could meet the Navy's air superiority needs through 2015.

The F-22N was studied in the Major Aircraft Review as an NATF concept, and canceled in large measure because the projected high gross take-off weight exceed the capacity of current carriers. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/natf.htm

- F-22 with variable-sweep wings for the U.S. Navy's Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program.

Carrier aircraft fly slower approaches than land-based aircraft and must be able to perform a waveoff at low speed. Therefore, a full power 1.5g turn at 0.2M and sea level with all stores and reserve fuel on board may be needed to ensure an adequate maneuver margin. This requirement determines the wing loading for sea-based aircraft [the SSF was exempt from this waveoff requirement because it performs vertical landings].

Carrier operations require heavier structures for several reasons: 1) arrested landings require a tail hook and reinforced fuselage, 2) landing gear are designed for 24 ft/s sink rate, and 3) catapult launches require reinforced nose gear and a strengthened fuselage. These weight increments are difficult to quantify because there are no data for aircraft that were designed for both land-based and sea-based operations with exactly the same mission capability. For example, contrary to the expected navalization penalty, the land-based F-4 actually had a higher empty weight than the carrier-based version. But in this case the land-based version used the increased strength and wing area of the carrier aircraft to carry an increased equipment load, which equates to higher mission capability. Similarly, few aircraft have successfully made the transition from land-based to sea-based operations. The carrier version of the British Hawk did perform catapult launches and arrested landings but required substantial structural reinforcement to do so. The navalized Hawk is approximately 11% heavier empty, but it can no longer fly as far as the land-based version.

Since historical research did not provide values for fuselage and landing gear weight penalties for carrier operations, an estimate had to be made another way. To this end, the F-14 and F-18 were modelled using ACSYNT's land-based weight equations. The actual aircraft fuselage and landing gear structure weights were approximately 30% greater than those modelled by ACSYNT. Therefore, 30% fuselage and landing gear weight penalties may be applied to carrier-based aircraft in this study. Informal comments by US Navy personnel agreed that 30% was a reasonable estimate.

Early in the ATF/NATF development, a Naval variant of the F-22 could have been developed. By the late 1990s, however, to graft a Naval requirement onto an existing F-22 program would be similar to the mistake that the Department made in developing the F-111. In that program, DOD directed the Air Force to add Naval requirements to an existing Air Force EMD concept "with minimal disruption" to the program. As a result, the Naval version of the F-111 was significantly overweight and subsequently canceled in favor of a new start Navy aircraft, the F-14. The appropriate time to join multi-service requirements is early in the program, and the ideal time is while the requirements are being developed in a balanced systems engineering approach.

F-22 Raptors deploy to Estonia

An F-22 Raptor pilot from the 95th Fighter Squadron based at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., gets situated in his aircraft prior to taking off from Ämari Air Base, Estonia, Sept. 4, 2015. The F-22s have previously deployed to both the Pacific and Southwest Asia for Airmen to train in a realistic environment while testing partner nations' ability to host advanced aircraft like the F-22. http://www.af.mil/News/Photos.aspx?igphoto=2001289424

>>19789

Mother of God.

muh patriotic jokes

Didn't Land Rover do a recall last year because the doors would randomly unlock/open?