-
Content count
6,656 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
324
Everything posted by Gepard
-
It is no fairy tale. Humans, like all animals breath out CO2 and Methan (CH4) is also a product of all animals. But CO2 is a fertilizer. Without CO2 no plants. Plants need CO2 as we need their Oxygen. As more CO2 as better the plants are growing. The only crimes on sky were the shooting on ejected pilots during the parachute descent.
-
Need Help
Gepard replied to WINGEDHUSSAR's topic in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 1 Series - General Discussion
Are you sure, that you use the correct cat extractor tool? The one for SF2 will not work with WoX. Try this. http://combatace.com/files/file/343-sfp1woewov-cat-file-extract-utility/ It should work. -
V-1 in SFP2
Gepard replied to Wilches's topic in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - Mods & Skinning Discussion
Should be possible. It was the first cruise missile. So it should be made as weapon in the way like a very slow cruise missle. Plane launched fro a He-111 should not be the big problem. The other thing is a ground launched V1. Silkworm coastal defence anti-ship missiles were made in past, but they had ships as targets. Dont know, wheter the KI would fire a missile on a non moveable taget? -
MiG-21bisLASUR
-
Strike Fighters 2 SeaStorm FAS.1
Gepard replied to KnightWolf45's topic in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - File Announcements
It was a problem with my 7-zip. It was from 2006. Downloaded a new version and it worked fine now. The SeaStorm is a nice bird. Well done!! -
Strike Fighters 2 SeaStorm FAS.1
Gepard replied to KnightWolf45's topic in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - File Announcements
Im using the program 7-zip. I will try to download bandit zip. Thx. -
Strike Fighters 2 SeaStorm FAS.1
Gepard replied to KnightWolf45's topic in Thirdwire: Strike Fighters 2 Series - File Announcements
I get a error message when i try to unzip the file with 7-zip. Is this a failure on my system only, or has someone else this problem too? -
The cockpit was always in russian language, even the export models had russian descriptions and names. Without a minimum of knowledge of russian language you was lost in such a cockpit.
-
The quality of the soviet airplanes depended heavily from factory who built it. For the MiG-15, MiG-17 series it was said, that the planes made by factories in the european part of the USSR had a much better quality than the ones who were made in eastern part of the union. The same is with MiG-21 and MiG-23. One factory worked for the soviet forces, the other for export. Export planes were downgraded and from worse quality. I know that technicians of the LSK (east german air force) were astonished how good the quality of planes was, which were delivered from a factory, which originally built planes only for the soviets themself.
-
Your words are basing on the statements of american pilots who flew the former egypt MiG-23MS during Red Flag exercises. And for this version the statement is correct. It is also correct for the MiG-23BN. Both planes had the same autopilot and the MiG-23 pilot needed the support of autopilot. Without the autopilot support the plane was a beast. The autopilot of the MiG-23MS and BN were slow and sluggish. They killed some good pilots. From MiG-23M it became better and the ML had a very good autopilot system. The MiG-23ML was a good fighter and when the USAF got 12 former LSK MiG-23ML for Red Flag all complains about bad plane behaviour ended. The MLD was even a step better. The list in this article is not my list. For me the top 7 worst soviet planes would be: 1. MiG-19PM, radar was more defect that working. The fuel system was leaking constantly. It was a nightmare for the ground crews 2. MiG-19S, very low readiness level due failure in engine and fuelsystem. 3. MiG-17PM, radar unreliable and often defect 4. MiG-3, underpowered, undergunned, useless in fight 5. MiG-2, medium catastrophe 6. Tu-104, to loud for passengers, terrible fuel economy 7. IL-62, real dangerous plane
-
Why so many people believe it must be an act of terror? If it would have been a bomb, the terror group would shout on all TV channels that they had done it. But there is no single voice from this side. I guess it was a tragical accident.
-
Did the Battle of Jutland Really Matter...?
Gepard replied to Hauksbee's topic in WOFF UE/PE - General Discussion
The german navy port in the North Sea was Wilhelmshaven, not Kiel. The german Hochseeflotte operated against UK always from Wilhelmshaven, never from Kiel. The german ships proved better, because they had a better damage resistance. The german crews were better drilled for combat conditions and they had learned the lessons from Dogger Bank desaster. For the british it was a victory because the german Kaiser was unwilling in future to risk his "loved toy Hochseeflotte" again. There were no longer raids toward the british coast with big ships. The Royal Navy was able to replace their losses faster than the Hochseeflotte. So the RN was able to hold close the entrances of Nort Sea for german commercial ships and blockade the sea trade of Germany. It was a britis defeat, because they lost more ships, more modern ships and more sailors. As Craig said already, strategic victory for the Royal Navy, tactical and operational victory for the Kaiserliche Hochseeflotte. -
Alternativen für die Lw bzw. LSK zwischen 1955 und 1980
Gepard replied to PraetorH's topic in Deutsch
Als die Bundesluftwaffe einen Nachfolger für den Starfighter in der Jagdrolle suchte war eine einsitzige F-4 im Gespräch. Die einsitzige F-4 sollte als Übergangsmuster bis zur Einführung eines Tornado Jagdflugzeuges genutzt werden. Aus dem Projekt ist nichts geworden, weil die notwendigen Änderungen das Budget gesprengt hätten. Aber das Teil, ich habe es einfach mal F-4FG (Fighter Germany) genannt, könnte, falls es realisiert worden wäre, so ausgesehen haben: -
That were no destroyers. It were cargo ships and submarines. And it were soviet, not russian. The bad guy Khrustchev, who put the missiles to Cuba, was not a bad russian, he was a bad ukrainian. The results of his stupid politics we have to cure up today (Crimea, Donezk). Bu you are right. The behavior of the american pilots some 50 yeras ago was similar to the mock attacks of the russian pilots today. This are all young guys with big balls and the strong believe to be the best in the world. Its always the same. So no need to worry. Lean back and enjoy the show.
-
The US sailors had fun too. Look into their faces. Like visitors on an airshow. And by the way, what would US planes do, if a russian destroyer start sniffing less than 100 km in front of the american coast?
-
To F-14 fans, would like your enlightment on avionics. Thank you.
Gepard replied to Boresight's topic in Air Combat School
I must correct myself. The AIM-9L in 1982 was able to do a head on shot if the incoming enemy plane was on afterburner. Under such condition it was truely an all aspect missile. -
Its difficult to compare fighters which were made for different roles. One plane that fits perfectly in one role may have been an desater under different conditions. As example: The Mustang was the perfect long range escort fighter, but was not really fit for the rough conditions of the eastern front and it was also not able to operate from carriers and for night combat it was nearly useless. So i may give my own ranking: The best frontline dogfighter: Yak-3 The best escort fighter: P-51H Mustang The best Navy Fighter: F4U-4 Corsair The best day interceptor: Meteor
-
To F-14 fans, would like your enlightment on avionics. Thank you.
Gepard replied to Boresight's topic in Air Combat School
To say, that the AIM-9L was the first all aspect IR guided missile is popular, but not 100% correct. (Its perhaps 95% correct.) In reality is was not able for a direct nose shot. There was a cone of perhaps 5° in which the Lima was unable to lock on. I must look into my archive to find an east german graphic about this subject, which was really close to reality, how i found out in the early 90th when i discussed this topic with west german F-4 pilot. In 1982 the AIM-9L was used in Lebanon War. Only in the first battles the Israelis used the AIM-9L in head on shots, because the most shots missed the target. Shots from a slighty sideward moved position already hit the target. But there was a big problem with Friend or Foe discrimination, so that they used the Lima in tail on dogfights in the most cases. Up today, i have not yet seen a HUD screen movie of a AIM-9L head on target shot and kill. Perhaps someone of you has a link to such a video. -
Yep, but because someone though a molotow cocktail on it or made a fire under it. No normal car burns out because of loading the batteries. Its not the first time, that Tesla cars lit up. Two or 3 years ago they had a fire series with 3 buring cars in one week. Not because someone had messed up something while tuning the car, but because the cars had production failures. Lithium Ione batteries are strong, but potential fire dangerous. Boing had the same problem with the Dreamliner batteries. Show me the conventional car that burned out two days after delivery! Show me a new built car that burned out caused by technical failures only two days after handing over to the new owner! Not pictures of old cars, not pictures of cars which were victims by arson. Do you know the latest Tesla commercial? I like it!!
-
A two days old Tesla S after supercharging in Norway on January 3rd 2016. Have fun with Tesla! Enjoy it!
-
I dont worry about BMW. I had the chance to drive one BMW i3 for a day. This car is produced not very far from my home. 20 km or so. I agree with all, that the driving of a electric engined car is nice. Its silent. The acceleration is outstanding etc. etc. But the range is to short. The time of reloading is to long. And not only with BMW. The newest Tesla ads speek of a range of 345 km with one fully loaded battery. That means your action radius is around 150 km from your home. This is to short. And in cold weather the range is even shorter, because a battery is working worse close 0° Celsius than at 30° Celsius. The capacity is down to 50 or 60%. Its pure physics. Then you need electrical energy to heat the car, you need light and there are other electrical consumers like bord computer, navi, radio etc etc. This reduce the range even more. And with the speaker you mentioned, i think it is a good idea. Not because i love the sound of an powerfull engine, not as 70th comfort zone you call it, but as safety feature for other road users. The noise of the car is a warning for pedestrians or guys who go by bycicle, or animals. E-cars are dangerouse, because they are to silent. Its a big problem. Not if they drive fast. At 80 km/h and more the sound of the tires is significant and enough for warning, but not below that speed. And in towns (we have here a 50 km/h speed limit) they are so silent, that there is no, or a very little acustical warning for other road users. Make a selftest. If you are not aware, that a e-car is coming, it can end very very bad. One false, careless step and you ends as a hood ornament.
-
Nice gif. Really. I love it. I hope your enthusiasm for the Tesla will not end like the girl in the gif. Wait till you have your Tesla in 3, 4 years. Drive it for some years and then you will remember my words, when the range you can drive with one full loaded battery becomes shorter and shorter. You mentioned Hybrid cars. A colleague of me drives a Prius for some years. He had a fuel consumtion of 6.5 liters/100 km. My Peugeot 2008 i drive between 5.1 and 5.5 liters/100/km (depends on weather, temperature etc). The Peugeot (no hybrid, no Diesel car, ordinary petrol engine using pertrol of E10 quality) is more then 10% better in fuel economy than the highly praised Prius. You praise the Tesla for outstanding acceleration. I will say no words against it. Without gear box you push the button and the car starts like a rocket. Its impressive. Truely. But what is the speed limit on your streets? 60 miles/hour? ~100 km/h? Come to Germany and see what freedom of the streets means. No speed limit! Some foreigners become a little bit pale in face when they sit the first time in a car which is swimming in a 150km/h traffic on an Autobahn. As american you has an other point of view on cars, then me as european or especially german. For me is quality important, reliability, fuel efficency. Americans like power and glamour. Quality reliability and fuel efficency are in the USA of less importance. Tesla build cars following the american way. Maybe, that it will have success in the USA. But in Europe the Tesla will fail, like american muscle cars or street cruisers, Hummers or Trucks.
-
You call my statements drivel and yourself give away only Teslas glamour advertisements? LOL The future will show who is right. Teslas dead end devolpment or the fuel cell technology. In 10 years we may talk again.
-
Of course Top Gear was entertainment. This was the reason for the success of this show. But in case of batteries they are right. Its worth nothing. First: The fact, that supercharging harms a batterie is not solved, and i think you cant solve it technically. The lifetime of a battery is long if you load it completly and then must you use it till it is completly "empty". Then you must load it completly and the game starts again. But a completly empty battery in a car means, that you surely would end somewhere in the Pampa. So you are forced to reload a battery before it is completly empty and this is harming the lifetime of the battery. (You may make a self experiment with the accu of your smartphone.) And with supercharging you reduce the lifetime much faster. Then you will never reach the 8 years Tesla is offering. Replacement is expensive. Very expensive. Second: If all or the most cars would be electrical driven and the power source would be batteries then the electrical power networks of a nation would be overwhelmed very fast. This networks are not made for such ammounts of energy. They would become instable and break down. And by the way, how folks can reload their batteries when they have only a parkspace on the street? Should they throw a powerline out of their flat window? Or should the cities install loading station at every parkingplace? Who should pay for it? Third: The resourcess for high tech batteries are not available everywhere. They would be transported around the whole world and this is neigther cost effective nor good for the nature. And after use this batteries are hazardous waste. Forth: Battery driven cars are dangerous for rescuers (Firefighters, medical service) at car accidents. Fifth: Electrical cars are dangerouse because they are to silent. There is no or less acustical warning for people and animals. An incrase of accident rate will come. The 5th point is easy to overcome, but the other 4 are a real problem. If the electrical car is really the future, then the fuel cell is the best energy medium. It would need no big change in infrastructure. The petrol stations would get a new storagesystem, side by side with the systems for petrol, LPG gas or what ever is already in use. No big deal. Battery driven cars need a major rebuild of the whole infrastructure.
-
You know, that superchargers ruins a battery very fast? The lifetime of a batteryblock is only 3 to 5 years. With continous use of superchargers you come down to 1 or 2 years. And a new battery pack for a car costs 10.000 Euro or more. In 2011 the british automotive TV show Top Gear had an interesting episode: http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/electric-cars-day-trip-part-12-series-17-episode-6