-  [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 674 unique user posts.

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

PBE Shield Stickers and Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!

File 144812208642.jpg - (2.50MB , 2560x1920 , 20151114_153346.jpg )
19437 No. 19437 ID: bb9e49 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
Oops, I accidentally posted this in the vehicles of Operatorchan thread. It was meant to be in its own thread.
2 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19440 ID: a19011
Fukken hell Sloggy. I thought you were dead.
>> No. 19447 ID: bb9e49
Nope. I just got a girlfriend.
>> No. 19448 ID: a19011
welp they do tend to do that to posting time I suppose.
>> No. 19481 ID: df12a0
I'm pretty sure he still has time for "posting" her, if you know what I mean...
>> No. 19482 ID: 56a0e3

File 14363110297.jpg - (141.99KB , 900x675 , kCn0hsg.jpg )
18950 No. 18950 ID: b998fa hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]

>Russia will design two new classes of nuclear-powered submarines as part of President Vladimir Putin's 20 trillion ruble ($356 billion) rearmament campaign through 2020.

>Though the designs have not yet been named, one will be classified as an "underwater interceptor" and the other an "aircraft carrier killer," the head of the state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation's state defense order department, Anatoly Shlemov, told news website Lenta.ru late last week.

>After years of decline in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia's Defense Ministry has poured money into the construction of a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines. The first new types, the Borei- and Yasen-class, have already entered service.

Surely with the way the Russian economy is they ain't going to build a dedicated aircraft carrier killer submarine?

More like they are going to build some cruise / guided missile submarine like the Oscar-II?
26 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19441 ID: 33338c
File 144843590772.jpg - (85.15KB , 1000x709 , tu22m3_4.jpg )
My understanding is that the Russians were fairly reliant on air-dropped ASM systems, especially nuclear-tipped ones as standoff weapons to kill shipping. Their surface navy was never hugely impressive and had limited bluewater capability (the Kirovs are a neat concept, though), so a lot of their shipping raid capability was in the Tu-22M "Backfire" armed with Kh-22 missiles and Tu-95s as missile trucks with more Kh-22s. That, and their subs, which I understand scared the hell out of NATO.
>> No. 19442 ID: f013be
File 144846529388.jpg - (215.19KB , 768x507 , 'm going to murder you ;-D.jpg )
The reason why America developed the SEAD doctrine is because pretty much anyone we attack would have to be across an ocean, so we needed to risk using airplanes to destroy anti-air defenses

The Soviets don't need to risk that, so their version of SEAD is just their regular army under the cover of their own SAM umbrella, and putting some anti radiation missiles on support aircraft
It's simultaneous, basically by the time the Russians finish SEAD their tanks are also in your capital

The first Soviet attempts at ALCM was AS-1, an absolute shit missile
The engine on it was often sheathed in fuel so any malfunction would result in fires
It wouldn't separate properly because it was fixed in the lateral axis but not vertical, and as it flew at the same speed as the bomber it would yoyo back into the launching aircraft after separation
It was decided to be mounted on wings instead of belly to minimize chances of hitting the fuselage, but the missile was so heavy that turning with it would result in bomber wings falling off, which reduced flight parameters of early bombers
The problem was eventually solved by making missiles faster than aircraft so the aircraft launching it wouldn't be hit by any movement from the missile, but by that time Soviet aircrews hated the thing and would call it the little devil
The AS-2, 3, 4 and 5 were at least rocket boosted then jet sustained, but all were much faster than launching aircraft

Eventually Soviets said fuck it and put AS-1 on ground launchers
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19443 ID: cfe73e
File 144850448630.jpg - (1.91MB , 2440x1308 , Russian AS-18 Kazoo Kh-59MK2 anti-ship turbojet mi.jpg )
Playing the board (or living room carpet) wargame Harpoon, the old 1955 AS-1 Komet (NATO reporting name: Kennel) anti-ship missile was not very effective, but could at least be used as decoys when flying along with more dangerous bombers and missiles. Slow, short-ranged and inaccurate, but ships cannot ignore them. F-14 Tomcat interceptors groan to discover that they expended their Phoenix missiles downing Komets when more dangerous AS-18 Kazoo missiles were following.

- Kh-59M Ovod-MK2 (AS-18 'Kazoo') anti-shipping variant with a turbojet engine and larger warhead. Range 115 km.
>> No. 19444 ID: cfe73e
File 144850583832.jpg - (174.90KB , 2048x1356 , Russian AS-22 Kh-59MK2 AS-22 stealth standoff miss.jpg )
The Kh-59M is the AS-18 Kazoo, but the Kh-59MK2 Stealth Standoff (also Kh59M2?) AS-22 stealth standoff version, rocket or turbofan engine, shown in MAKS 2015. Light compact tactical stealth ALCM with a range of 290km (for export) and 550km (for internal) versions. Rumors have told that India will get "special" export version with a range extended up to 350km.
>> No. 19445 ID: cfe73e
File 144850590185.jpg - (345.73KB , 1200x800 , Russian AS-22 Kh-59MK2 AS-22 stealth standoff miss.jpg )
MAKS 2015: KTRV showcases Kh-59MK2 aircraft guided missile upgrades
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 September 2015 http://www.janes.com/article/53970/maks-2015-ktrv-showcases-kh-59mk2-aircraft-guided-missile-upgrades
Among the most significant weapons to be exhibited at MAKS 2015 was an updated version of the Kh-59 stand-off land attack missile, called the Kh-59MK2.

Developed by the Raduga Design Bureau, part of Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV), the new variant - about to enter flight testing - has been configured to fit in the internal weapons bay of the Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fighter aircraft. Additionally, the body of the missile has been optimised for a reduced radar cross section (RCS).

The new, stealthy Kh-59MK2 is 4.2 m long, has a wingspan of 2.5 m, and a 0.4x0.4 m cross section with its wings and fins folded. Although currently designated as part of the Kh-59 family, it is expected to receive an entirely new designation in the future.

As for the original Kh-59, the missile is intended to strike a variety of fixed ground targets, including targets with low radar, infrared (IR), and optical background contrast, known position co-ordinates, and target area information features.

Powered by a Saturn 37-04 bypass turbojet (or a 50MT turbojet for export), the modernised Kh-59MK2 has an acknowledged range of 290 km. It incorporates an INS and a satellite guidance system (GPS and GLONASS) that can provide mid-course guidance, and an electro-optical (EO) terminal guidance system that gives a circular error probable of 3 m in either day or night operations. One or more missions can be loaded into that system to provide optional guidance on different targets.

The missile can fly as low as 50 m over the ground, with warhead options including a 310 kg penetrator or submunitions.

File 144607582185.jpg - (48.59KB , 640x427 , Expeditionary_Light_Tank.jpg )
19348 No. 19348 ID: 667a5a hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
>At AUSA 2015, BAE Systems unveils for the first time to the public a nexw a project of expeditionary light tank that could be airdropped from a C-130 aircraft.

>The company’s solution is based on the purpose-built M8 Armored Gun System, modernized with mature technologies from the CV90 family of infantry fighting vehicles and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

>In 2013, airborne units of U.S. Army has requested to have a new light tank with fire power which could be airdropped. In February 2013, U.S. Army requirements officials at Fort Benning, Ga., are in discussions with the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, N.C., to develop "mobile protected firepower for light airborne infantry," Col. Rocky Kmiecik, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence

11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19425 ID: cfe73e
File 144788618316.jpg - (844.25KB , 4000x2667 , Russian BMD-4M with additional protection 1.jpg )
The BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle is fitted with a 100mm 2A70 low-pressure rifled gun, a 30mm 2A72 coaxial autocannon, and a 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun.

As one of the most heavily armed IFVs, the BMD-4 possesses multiple secondary armaments. These secondary weapons include a 30 mm AGS-30 grenade launcher, a 5.45 mm RPK machine gun, and a 9P135M launcher post capable of firing additional anti tank missiles. The AGS-30 and RPK are both operated by passengers seated towards the front and bow mounted towards the left and right respectively. Both of these bow mounted weapons are dismountable and man portable for increased versatility. The 9P135M missile launcher is mounted towards the roof and is also dismountable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-4
>> No. 19428 ID: 1f99d2
The 2014 Littlefield Collection Auction

Its listed as a DD which I guess means that some sort of firearm works on it, not sure if that means the coax or main cannon
>> No. 19430 ID: 06a0fb
Oh wow, that's the FMC downselect prototype. That's not even up to full M8 type status yet. That'd be neat to see. That'd be from 1991, 1992 at the latest.

The M8 has a different gun, the shorter M35 105mm rifled gun, whereas this still uses the M68. This thing also is fitted with fixed armor, whereas the base M8 is lighter by 2.25 tons because of the move to stages of armor fittings. This thing's got a different engine too, because the M8 was standardized to run on JP-8 or diesel.

Some lucky son of a gun got something important on that winning bid. The M5 Stuart would have been fun to bid on too. Oh man, lot 1084, an Ontos! I've loved that thing ever since I first saw it at the Rock Island Arsenal Equipment Display as a kid. Doesn't come with the guns though. Shame, that be a fun armored gokart for $20,000.

Damn it must be nice to have money and the knowledge and teams to repair these things.
>> No. 19432 ID: 254d85
File 144805534653.jpg - (218.59KB , 800x1019 , tank quality chart.jpg )
And the L7 is arguably not useful for fighting anything newer than a T-62. Even export model T-72s with downrated armor were scaring the hell out of analysts, during Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war it repeatedly came out on top against the M60, Chieftain and Merkava.

Off the top of my head the only "light tanks" in service that mount full-size guns are upgrades to the Italian B1 Centauro, and the Sprut. The Rooikat, XM8, Vextra 105 and CV90 have all been prototyped with various low-recoil 120mm guns but none are in service. The Chinese had the Type 89 tank destroyer but it's just been retired and I question if Chinese 120mm ammo is any better than modern 105mm ammo.
>> No. 19434 ID: 381ee6
The chinese have a new light tank

Issued to "mountain" divisions or whatever, because it's 30 tons and can actually climb a slope unlike the chinese MBTs in service with <18hp/ton

~100mm tank gun tho

File 143718985742.jpg - (107.12KB , 960x540 , Thesia.jpg )
19044 No. 19044 ID: f2c4ed hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
So, I bought a 2000 Durango a couple months ago, a known beater, and have been slowly upgrading it as funds allow. New Alternator, brakes, radiator, rear diff, shocks, ball joints, and I just ordered new tied rod ends.

Eventually, I'll end up painting it, installing a safari-grade roof rack, some extra lights, and if I can find one, an extra-large fuel tank.

But, with 220,000 miles on it, I'm figuring it's going to need an engine and tranny rebuild/replace sooner or later, and I'd rather get that done before I'm innawoods doing some OPERATOR (or, more likely, towing a house trailer from one town to another).

Also, it shakes worse than it ought to, and has a noise that's only present when I'm on the gas, which tells me that it's sourced between the pedal and the transfer case.

Obviously, rebuilding a engine isn't hard, in the scheme of things, and I've done that. Granted, it'll be more complicated than a Continental GTSIO-520, but I did a head gasket replacement on my Pontiac last fall out in my driveway, and that worked out just fine.

Has anyone here rebuilt an automatic tranny before?

Aside from "keep it clean, no, I mean REALLY clean.", is there anything I need to know before I start? It seems simple enough, you know, pull it apart, inspect the hell out of it, replace anything that's chewed up, as well as all the bearings and seals, then put it all back together.

Thesia comes from the "Ship of Theseus" thought experiment.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
24 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19404 ID: f98c5d
They use F150 parts? Fuck, I need to look into them when I finally graduate to 4 wheels.
>> No. 19410 ID: 223a41
File 144764194028.jpg - (47.24KB , 660x440 , durangooffroad.jpg )
>Now, I'm under the impression that the front axle on a 4wd is supposed to turn slightly faster than the rear axle, so I'm guessing I need a 3.9x rear one. I'm not 100% on that, though, I just know that engaging 4wd with a 3.92 front axle and a 3.5 rear is going to cause bad juju.

To the best of my knowledge they should move at the same speeds though, when you turn with 4wd the outside wheel will move faster and the inside slower which causes the wheel bind you notice on a surface with good grip like pavement.

>Oh, and the heater doesn't work. I'm not sure why, but it puts out not-hot air, and I can't even get that to blow in the windscreen-only mode. I'm not really sure why it won't switch heater modes, or why it won't switch on, but I haven't had a chance to start troubleshooting yet. I suspect a plugged heater core to begin with, but the switching of ducts is probably part of the vacuum system or something.

Yeah, check the controls, ducts, etc. along those lines. Pretty much every vehicle I've seen after about 10 years starts to have some kind whole or partial failure related to the system that forces the air. My Expedition fans only seem to work on high, but the heat and a/c work so I'm in no hurry to fix it.

Yes, sir. I'd double check the year to confirm, but I think all of them were built on the F-150 frame, also they're nearly identical to the Lincoln Navigator. The Durango, sadly, was built on the Dakota chassis. Most post 90s vehicles will have at least 1 fully or nearly identical other named vehicle. With the engine and transmission usually being used in several other vehicles by the parent company.

To add to that, nearly every SUV is built on a truck or car chassis. So it's always important to check if your SUV is a fancy truck or a fancy station wagon hatchback thingy.

Have some off road Durango
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19418 ID: 793e55
How uber of a press? I have a 20 ton.
>> No. 19426 ID: bcd0bd
>a press

Wat. I've always used a hammer and a vise to change light duty u-joints. But then again, humid environments. You should change the fronts first as a test to see how rusty they are. (Obligatory lolseattle)

> front wheels turning faster than the rear

Ehhh... that's done a lot on heavy equipment and military vehicles. And as far as I know, it's done in the transfer case. The chances of that being done on a light duty vehicle are small, unless there's some sort of viscous coupling in the t-case.

Which there might be, everyone except IH had one of those at some point in time, and AMC/Jeep was particularly fond of them.


Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 19427 ID: bcd0bd
Oh also the Hoonda CRV it's based on the Civic

File 144599468181.jpg - (21.76KB , 800x362 , 1445983573566.jpg )
19344 No. 19344 ID: 205782 hide watch quickreply [Reply]

Northrop Grumman has won the LRS-B competition, with a fixed price $21.4 billion dollar contract for 21 aircraft. The estimated cost of the winning airframe is $511 million per aircraft. No technical details yet.

The only thing bigger than this contract is Lockmart-Boeing butthurt that's going to happen over the next few months.

>We're so miffed that Northrop out-shilled us
>We're gonna go grease a few more palms, maybe they'll change their minds
>Blown so far the fuck out that their hurt asses are catching up to NASA's New Horizons probe.
>> No. 19345 ID: 9aea35
>$21.4 billion dollar contract
A pittance compared to the trillions lockheed is getting
>> No. 19346 ID: cfe73e
File 144604577940.jpg - (44.08KB , 1200x680 , US X Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) Lockheed Mar.jpg )
The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is a proposed long-range strategic bomber for the United States Air Force, intended to be a heavy-payload stealth aircraft capable of carrying thermonuclear weapons. Initial capability is expected in the mid-2020s. A request for proposal to develop the aircraft was issued on 9 July 2014, with a contract awarded in October of 2015. The Air Force plans to purchase 80–100 LRS-B aircraft at a cost of $550 million each in 2010 prices or $606 million each in 2016 fiscal costs. On 27 October 2015, the Pentagon announced that Northrop Grumman won the development contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber

Northrop Grumman Wins $21.4 Billion Pentagon Contract
OCT. 27, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/business/northrop-grumman-wins-21-4-billion-pentagon-contract.html
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said on Tuesday that it had awarded a contract to build the next-generation long-range strike bomber, with an initial value of $21.4 billion, to Northrop Grumman, which already makes the B-2 bomber.

Northrop beat out a team from Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The announcement is the biggest contract out of the Pentagon in more than 10 years, and could eventually be valued at $80 billion if the Air Force buys all 100 bombers, which are to have stealth capability, that are planned.

The Air Force is replacing its B-1 and B-52 bombers, which date to the Cold War. B-1 bombers are on average 29 years old and B-52s are 51.

“Our team has the resources in place to execute this important program, and we’re ready to get to work,” Wesley G. Bush, chairman and chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a statement.

- Lockheed Long Range Strategic Bomber Concept Art
>> No. 19347 ID: cfe73e
File 144604595882.jpg - (376.28KB , 1360x943 , US X Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) Boeing conce.jpg )
The U.S. Air Force is quietly ramping up spending on a future bomber, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service published earlier this month. The Air Force also sent requirements for the program to the industry earlier this week. The goal is a new group of bombers to serve two functions: replace the aging bomber fleet, and safely attack despite future defensive weapons.
Work on Air Force's next bomber began years ago. Here's what Popular Science said about it in 2012:
Patents and bid proposals from Northrop Grumman, maker of the B-2, suggest that the new bomber will be narrower than the B-2 but maintain the familiar flying wing design, which reduces radar reflection by minimizing hard edges. Engineers are also testing new types of radar-absorbing coatings that could be customized to individual defense systems. And so a picture of the next generation of stealth bombers is beginning to emerge.
Such a bomber would greatly expand the ability of the Air Force to hit protected places in enemy countries, places beyond the safe reach of America's still-flying Cold War-era B-52 bombers. The Air Force expects to field between 80 and 100 of the new Long Range Strike Bomber, and they plan to have them ready for action by the mid 2020s.
In March, people reported and photographed what appeared to be a new, v-shaped aircraft flying over Texas. This theory meshes well with the Congressional Research Service report, which saw a rapid budget increase and notes that:
the projected LRS-B budget increases more than 10-fold in the current Future Years Defense Program, from $258.7 million in FY2013 to $3,451.2 million in FY2019. Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS's assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets. Such prior development would also help explain how the Air Force intends to get the system from a Request for Proposals to initial operational capability in about 10 years, when equally or less-complicated systems like the F-22 and F-35 have taken more than 20.
Despite corporate maneuvering about the contract, both the Air Force and potential industry partners are keeping quiet about the development. In a triumph of blandness, Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James told the U.S. Naval Institute in a statement that "The [Long range Strike Bomber] is a top modernization priority for the Air Force. It will be an adaptable and highly capable system based upon mature technology." http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/air-force-working-new-bomber

- Boeing Long Range Strike Bomber Concept Art
>> No. 19356 ID: 06a0fb
final value of the contract is projected to be $55-80 billion.
>> No. 19395 ID: 9b876d

>October 28, 2015, Pentagon announces Northrop Grumman winner of the LRS-B contract.
>November 06, 2015, Pentagon announces halt to LRS-B project because Boeing-Lockheed team has filed a formal protest.
lol burgers going to have to wait 10 more years for LRS-B built by Boeing-Lockheed.

File 144676301595.jpg - (132.00KB , 2006x994 , 1993-97_Pontiac_Firebird.jpg )
19361 No. 19361 ID: 23df7a hide watch quickreply [Reply]
DUDE THEIR FST AF!!!! COWABUNGA BROTHER, i just bought this bad boy, guy i bought it from says it has 900 horses idk what that means but it does 0 - 60 in 6.8
>> No. 19362 ID: 23df7a
File 144676312631.jpg - (21.79KB , 630x385 , general motors_chevrolet volt.jpg )
wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my prius has 6 cyl v8 and it does 600 horses in 6.8 seconds. ill beat you in a race!!!

hoonigan for life!!
>> No. 19363 ID: 23df7a
nO kiddo ill fuck ur shit up in my mustang
>> No. 19364 ID: 23df7a
File 144676338957.jpg - (753.79KB , 1600x1280 , S2000_2004_front_profile.jpg )
my new miata will somke u fags
>> No. 19365 ID: 23df7a
File 144676351648.jpg - (2.36MB , 2647x1600 , Roadster_2_5_windmills_trimmed.jpg )
my new lotus eleise its electric

No. 16833 ID: 451480 hide watch expand quickreply [Reply]
  >Toyota says this mechanically simple engine achieves a claimed thermal-efficiency rating of 42 percent in continuous use.
14 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19265 ID: cfe73e
File 144194178934.jpg - (379.81KB , 2100x1575 , car, BMW 328d 2014 sedan 32 city, 45 highway &.jpg )
#1 Diesel Car With the Highest MPG: 2014 BMW 328d
The BMW 328d is the king of the hill when considering diesel-powered cars with great mpg, as this luxury sedan checks in with EPA-estimated ratings of 32 mpg city, 45 mpg highway and 37 mpg combined. On top of that, there are also xDrive all-wheel-drive and wagons models available with this thrifty diesel engine. The 328d xDrive Sedan and 328d Sport Wagon received a 35 mpg combined ratings, giving you usefulness and great fuel economy in one package.
The 328d is no slouch in performance either, as its 2.0-liter, turbo-diesel engine pumps out 180 horsepower at 4,000 rpm and 280 pound-feet of torque between 1,750 and 2,750 rpm. The clean-diesel engine mates to an eight-speed, STEPTRONIC transmission that allows the base sedan to hit 60 mph in just 7.4 seconds and top out at 130 mph. With the xDrive AWD system, this sprint time falls to 7.3 seconds. The 328d’s weakness is its base price, as it starts out at $38,900. http://www.insidercarnews.com/10-diesel-cars-with-the-highest-mpg/10/

2014 BMW 328d Overview: http://www.newcars.com/bmw/328d/2014
>> No. 19266 ID: cfe73e
  MotorWeek | Road Test: 2014 BMW 328d https://youtu.be/4hMdWekN25U
>> No. 19267 ID: 9aea35
The entire concept of hybrids is fucking retarded unless you really really really want your car to be quiet sometimes

Either go full electric or go full combustion
>> No. 19357 ID: 223a41
File 144644565821.jpg - (162.50KB , 1280x800 , unplugged-performance-tesla-model-s-3-1.jpg )
I read a review of the Honda Civic EX vs Hybrid, where the hybrid consistently got about 10mpg than the EX.

I'll give you the hybrid isn't great, but it's currently the most marketable option.

A huge part of the problem with marketing electric vehicles is there's no quick way to refuel as of yet. A lot of people see this as a huge drawback. People don't want the inconvenience of not being able to drive for several hours if they didn't charge their vehicle. Electric and hybrids cost more to buy and likely more to maintain than their gas counterparts. People aren't willing to sacrifice the time tested gas engine for a pricier car that has more potential inconveniences, and I don't blame them.

Hybrids have a lot of potential; electric vehicles still aren't available enough for most people to consider them an option when buying a new car.

That being said, hybrid vehicles are starting to see much better mpg than their gas counterparts. Personally, I like the idea of electric vehicles with an option to have some kind of fuel generator for extended range. Unless we find a much better way to harness electricity than a battery. I don't really see full electric becoming as popular as hybrids in the near future.

Pic: Tesla Model S.
>> No. 19360 ID: e7f332

It's actually not - using electric motors to supplement a gas engine can actually yield some really nice performance.

No. 19353 ID: 254d85 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
  New video of the Gulf of Sidra incident.
>> No. 19355 ID: 381ee6
>lybians order their pilots to provoke americans into shooting
>leave ejected pilots to drown to add to the shock value
>tomcat gun cams show floggers had missiles
Lybians basically ordered their own pilots to die for nothing, fucking retards

File 143979190520.jpg - (97.49KB , 1200x630 , ferrari-arson-main.jpg )
19147 No. 19147 ID: 963c4b hide watch expand quickreply [Reply] [Last 50 posts]
Millionaire's Son Torches Ferrari So He Can Get A New One
The Ferrari was one of 15 luxury sports cars that the 20-year-old owns.
08/12/2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/millionaires-son-ferrari-fire_55cb76d0e4b0923c12bedee3
Talk about having money to burn.

The wealthy son of a Swiss millionaire was sentenced to two years probation and a $33,000 fine after he torched his Ferrari 458 so that he could use the insurance money to buy the latest model year.

The Ferrari was one of 15 luxury sports cars that the 20-year-old owns. The Ferrari was a gift from his father, and he told a judge he was afraid of asking his dad to buy him a new one.

Cost of a replacement runs in the neighborhood of $310,000, according to Sky News.

The young man arranged to get a massage as an alibi, then had some arsonists drive the car to Germany and set fire to it in an industrial lot.

Authorities weren't fooled by the plot, and traced the arson back to him through phone records and surveillance video.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
73 posts and 57 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 19288 ID: cfe73e
File 144478024569.jpg - (691.64KB , 2256x1408 , car, Volkswagen Golf Mk1 post-facelift 1.jpg )
And here's a Volkswagen Golf Mk1, post-facelift.
Any differences between this and the pictured 5-door Rabbit are... subtle.
>> No. 19289 ID: cfe73e
File 144478032727.jpg - (495.79KB , 2088x1328 , car, Volkswagen Golf Mk1 post-facelift 2.jpg )
>> No. 19339 ID: 19c2c8

Looking good is about the only thing they do well. Oh, and they smell good, too. That little bit of unburned fuel that makes its way out of the exhaust when it's cold, fuck yeah.

They're slow, expensive to maintain, and hard to work on. I'm seriously considering swapping a Toyota 3E-E (or a 4A-FE if it'll fit) into mine. Literally 30 more horsepower and even a little more torque, granted it's at a higher RPM.
The fact that the torque peak is at 4000 RPM (bersus the diesel's 2300 RPM) doesn't really make a difference. Both a Tercel and a Rabbit will only make 35 MPH up Yarnell Hill, but the Tercel will make it there faster.

Oh god my brain's doing that thing where it keeps talking and talking and won't shut up. Thinking? Is that what it's called?
>> No. 19340 ID: 550e49
why not do an engine swap for a new diesel? I quite like the current gen Fiat 1.6JTDM engine in my MITO.

>Oh god my brain's doing that thing where it keeps talking and talking and won't shut up. Thinking? Is that what it's called?

>> No. 19343 ID: 31fab1
File 14457717596.jpg - (180.00KB , 1920x1080 , Ricky's brain won't shut up.jpg )

No. 19274 ID: 2b949e hide watch quickreply [Reply]
  I don't even know what the hell caused this. Something to do with fire control/computer? Did someone forget safeties or overrides or something? First thing that came to mind was something like the Missouri/Phalanx friendly fire incident in the Gulf. But I don't know if that same principle applies here.

Video is of a couple of Tunguskas firing short bursts. One eventually starts having what looks to be a runaway dump and having the turret start swinging around randomly.

In case embed doesn't work (because it's on Liveleak):
>> No. 19275 ID: 254d85
  Stuck trigger plus asymmetric recoil causing the turret to slew around.
>> No. 19276 ID: 254d85
>> No. 19291 ID: 667a5a
  It's sonny puzikas spinning star of death move, for when you're surrounded

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