Toryu

You guys should take yourselves less seriously and order a Flintstones Car - no danger of spontaneous combustion whatsoever. Maybe frostbite on the hels of your feet, when it's cold... Technological progress suxx0rs, all hail caveman!

That's what most upper-class cars look like in Berlin anyway...

I have done that for years - it has never been an issue. My smartphones usually are replaced because of software obsolescence and taking 30s to open an app. How does he drive the car? I can drive my Polo so that it sips 5.5l/100km, but I can also make it drown, using 10+. My coworker's nieces's brother-in-law usually drives like shit. Most people do anyway. What's the point? P ~ (v^3) - you can do the maths on your own. On the freeway, people usually go 75-80mph, which isn't significantly slower than average speed on God's own Autobahn. Have you ever sat in a Tesla at all? The car is pretty amazing, even when being used to the bull$hit-talk of the german automobile-lobby, claiming how I should pay extra for "premium stuff" that japanese car-makers had installed on stock since 25 years. Have you ever been to America, or even driven a car there? You should - it's positively awesome. Little to no road-rage and people are way more laid-back than what you usually experience in common traffic in Germany (which is best described as "civil war on wheels" to the casual foreigner). "Quality" (as in "shiny on the outside, shabby on the inside" - see the latest pollution-scandal) isn't important to Americans, however reliability is. Big time. Americans are more concerned about a practical car than driving around a dick-enlarger as most Germans do. I always like it when people drive around their AUDI/ BMW / Merc with the engine-model taken off the trunk, so nobody knows they can only afford to buy the weakest engine, but want to show-off like a big guy. With a full tank being around 20$ (yes, depending on tank-size), I wouldn't be that concerned about gas-mileage either - most of the money on a gas-station in Germany goes to the greedy and incompetent government anyway. I have seen enough Tesla S (which is an upper-class car) in Germany, to have your hypothesis falsified.

Ich seh schon, ich brauche ne größere Festplatte

Der Norm72 sieht top aus: http://combatace.com/topic/72591-strike-fighters-2-screenshots/page-307 Ist der von dir, raven, und planst du den zu veröffentlichen?

Das Überschießen der Fangseile ist ein KI-Problem, oder passiert dir das auch? Im ersteren Fall könnte es vielleicht an der Anfluggeschwindigkeit liegen, die möglicherweise zu hoch eingetragen ist. Hast du das Fahrwerk verstärkt, sodass es stärkere Landestöße verkraftet? US-Auslegung ist eine Designsinkrate von 22ft/s.

Gut zu wissen, dass die LW-Kennung auf dem Vorderrumpf genug Platz hat. Die Panthera ist übrigens eine umgerüstete Mirage 50 mit Kfir-Avionikbestandteilen. Das macht sie vor allem in der Bodenangriffsrolle interessant - nicht zuletzt weil sie noch mehr Pylons hat als die Mirage 5. Welches Problem mit dem FM hast du denn?

@ Steve: Do you know if there's any US test-flight reports about the MiG-19? I was at the german Air Force Museum at Gatow (might ring a bell or two with our british members here) yesterday. Whenever you guys are in Berlin, you should go there - it's free, but a little bit of a pain to get there. Standing in front of the MiG-17s, MiG-15s and Su-22s they have there (quite literally standing next to a Sabre Mk.6), you can't do anything but wonder if the soviets had some kind of fence-fetish. I wonder why they didn't try out thinner wings in combination with less sweep and slats, instead of using wing-fences all over the place. They did have lots of fighters with LE-slats during WW2, so the concept wasn't new to them.

IIRC, the israelis rated it above the MiG-17 and favourable over the MiG-21 in some circumstances. The radar in the Fishbed C is nothing to write home about anyway.

@ steve Thanks for the offer of the file, but my lack of thorough understanding concerned the mechanics of the ejector-nozzles on most jets (as you already said: most designs are not con-div, but use secondary air to form the divergent part). Many text-books only treat nozzle-design to the point where they'd say "you need a con-div design", but they fail to mention how most ejector-nozzles actually work. Most jets do not feature a con-div nozzle that approaches the Laval-nozzle design, but rely on a much simpler approach in only providing a throat-area (primary nozzle) and a defined exhaust area (for the lack of a better word), which is the secondary nozzle. Some designs use(d) a primary and secondary nozzle, while others only used a primary nozzle, which was convergent-only. Aircraft equipped with these (eg. Tornado) are still able to achieve supersonic Mach numbers of 2 or more. Most text-books I've seen pretty much oversimplify ejector-nozzle design. @ streak You'll have to admit, that SF does not simulate transonic issues pretty well. There's no change in pitch-authority or control-forces (talking about the MiG-17), so a lot of what actually made the difference IRL is missing. Combined with the limitations of properly simulating human behaviour, this generally spoils the real-life advantage (or effectivity) of some aircraft. A well-flown F-101 was probaly better-off in a real fight against MiG-17s than in-game. Interestingly, the MiG-19 is somewhat of a mixed bag. Some sources rate it superior to the MG-21 for all practical matters, some rate it as a sure kill.

I think you'll find plenty of people thinking otherwise. I love the F-100. Lots of limitations and "be careful"-areas that give the plane character.

Doesn't the convergent nozzle rely on an underexpanded flow anyway? With the nozzle being convergent only, the exhaust jet can reach Mach 1 at max (which is much higher than Mach 1 in the ambient air, due to the temperature of the exhaust-jet). Thus, in order to expand into supersonic flow, it needs the nozzle-area to be increased behind the throat. IIRC, on most nozzles this is achieved by secondary air and a secondary nozzle, but some aircraft (eg. Tornado, Mirage IIIC with the Atar 9B with an eyelid-nozzle) obviously can do without the seondary nozzle. With the afterburner-jet being accelerated up to Mach 1 (which is higher than Mach 1 in the colder, ambient air), this might actually enough to attain a velocity of Mach 2, if the exhaust is hot enough. The trade-off would be a really bad underexpanded exhaust-jet. At 40,000ft, a sonic exhaust-jet with equal velocity of Mach 2 of the ambient air would have to be at ~600°C at the throat area - that's by using a=sqrt(gamma*R*T). Now, I don't feel quite happy by calculating isentropic through an afterburner-nozzle, but it gives us a first shot to make a guess. Seems to me that you can always drag the AI into a knifefight. They're not really into using their strenghts (except that means rolling their lift-vector on the enemy and pulling some Gs).

I think the yaw-stability is not that much an issue on the F-104, as it reaches it's pitch-up boundary somewhere around 22° AoA, where most conventional swept-wing aircraft still do have some AoA-margin available. It most-probably will depert violently, but that is primarily due to the engine acting as a precessing gyro. Interestingly, the A-7 recieved maneuvering-flaps later in it's career, which supposedly cured it's nasty departure. The shift of MAC is naturally also dependant on the basic geometric shape of the wing. A delta-wing will have it's CoL shift up to around 67% root-chord, while a basic, unswept flat plate will go for 50%. Both values are theoretical, of course, and only act as first approximation. I know the F-4 had lots of tanks in a longitudinal arrangement (and the Echo had a 7th tank - something the F-4F lacked), but I'm not sure about the CG shifting capabilities. The british Phantom (courtesy to it's Spey engine and the required fuselage-modifications) did have a different volume-distribution*, leading to larger wave-drag and thus generally a lower performance closte to the Mach or beyond, despite the more powerful engine (on paper - don't know the dynamic thrust curves at high Mach and/ or altitude - being a turbofan, the Spey had to give some performance away in that realm). The Mirage 50 was an Mirage 5 with the F1's Atar9K-50 (hence the name) and either an Agave radar (taken from the Super Etendard, for the ground-attack version) or with a Cyrano IV radar (taken from the F1, for the A-A version). The versoin you mean is the Mirage IIING, which had a couple of modifications, large (non-moveable) canards and the FBW-System of the Mirage 2000. They squeezed-out about 2 more available g throughout most of the flight-envelope. Much of that comes from the canards alone, however, decreasing the stability margin. Interestingly, sevral parties have develloped ther own canard-versions for the Mirages. The swiss canards, for example only have about 70% of the israeli canards' area. Referring to the Javelin: I've read several different accounts of why the afterburner didn't quite work out. One was the absence of divided fuel lines, whith the afterburner-pump bleeding off too much fuel from the mainline fuel-lines, thus leading to a diminished fuel-flow to the combustion-chamber. The other one was the abscence of a con-div nozzle, making the jet-pipe choke. The third one is your explantaion, which I haven't quite come to understand properly, yet. As I understand it, you're talking about the boattail-effect with the exhaust-nozzle having the wrong shape for the resulting pressure/ flow-distribution with an engaged afterburner, thus creating a large amout of drag there. A very interesting discussion, by the way! ___ * Basicly, it was down to the intakes being a good portion larger and the engine-bays being a lot more voluminous.

The low attainable CL in clean configuration is worked-around by the availability of hi-lift devices up to M0.85. In this case, the LEF deploy to 15° and the TEF also deploy to 15 or 20° (forgot the exact number). Depending on the version and engine insatalled, the F-104 manages to attain a similar sustained G as an unslatted F-4 at speeds above 420KIAS. SEP is also relatively close between the two when above 400KIAS at low-med altitudes. Fun Fact: The F-104's L/Dmax is actually grater than the F-4's. BTW: On the F-104, the fuselage amounts to roughly 50% of the net-lift at higher AoA. I did some calculations about a similar problem for a Mach 4.4-cruising space-launch system a couple of months ago, so no need to dig up 'ole Küchemann. The unswept wing of the F-104 creates a supersonic leading-edge, which is unsexy indeed. Therefore, however, they gave the leading-edge a very sharp radius (well, almost no radius at all), to minimize drag of this wing-configuration. I'd hazard the guess that the sharp leading-edge actually leads to lower overall wave-drag than of contemporary fighters with a subsonic leading-edge and a much thicker wing/ blunter nose-radius. The trade-off was the need to apply BLC on the TEF for attaining manageable landing-speeds (180KIAS with the flaps at LAND, 220KIAS in final-approach with the flaps at T/O!) You'll also know that due to the AC's shift at supersonic speeds, G avilable also shrinks down. I don't have actual figures on the shift of the pitch-moment at hand, but I'll expect the shift on the F-104 to be smaller than on contemporary designs, due to the comparatively small size of the wing (small chord-length and thus small change in pitch-moment resulting due to the AC-shift). I also don't have the max avial-g figures of the F-4 at supersonic speeds at hand (I might ask a buddy who flew the F-4F and probably has the figures out of DASH-1 still memorized, though). A Mirage III can not attain more than 2.5 to 3g (also due to shock-induced pressure loss around the elevon-hinges) at Mach 2. I don't expect the F-4 to be able of attaining more than 3-4g at supersonic speeds, either. Thus, the overall resultant drag is not as important as one might think: With g-avial being low, the turning radii-large and fuel-consumption astronomical, supersonic turning is not that much of a deal. What's more important is transonic acceleration and SEP. Streak, I know those stories as well. Olds wasn't wrong at all - missiles should be simple and they should provide easy solutions for the pilot instead of creating problems. There's a quote of a programm test-pilot on the Falcon in one of the F-4 books I have. He states that the Falcon per se was the superior missile (better seeker, higher maneuverability than the Sidewinder models at hand at the time), but it indeed was designed for intercepts with a relatively narrow cone of firing and relatively long time available for switchology and procedures (cooling the seeker, etc.). It really wasn't a dogfight-missile in it's incarnation at the time (or any time later, for that matter). In the end, it all came down to the Air Force wanting to have an Air Force missile, replacing a Navy missile hanging on their Navy airplane. There was also inner-USAF issues with one command insisting on keeping the Falcon and one insisting on the Sidewinder. Politics at it's best...

The 104 isn't draggy. In fact, it's pretty clean (no surprise there - nothing much there to create any drag), allowing a similar or greater range at low level, hi speed than, for example, a Phantom (a real gas-hog by the way!) The same is actually true for the Voodoo. Also, neither aircraft (as far as I can remember) had any pitch-oscillation issues leading up ti APC/PIO at high dynamic pressures - unlike the F-4 which had stability-augmentation band-aids over it's relatively poor unaugmented flight-chraracteristics all over the place. A pretty short-sighted conclusion IMO. Both, the F-101 and F-104 suffered from severe pitch-up. Pitch-up is, however, not unique to T-tail designs, but also plays a decisive role on other highly-swept wings (Sabre-Dance anyone?). What T-tails do, is making recoveries in steady-state conditions hard. A bad thing in theory - in practice, most aircraft went into gyrations (thanks to precession created by the pretty powerful gyro which the jet-engine in those fighters represented). This in-turn meant that pitch-ups in the 104 usually transformed into violent spins, from which recoveries could be made...or not. The point about these behaviours is, that they're rather predictable. Exceed x degrees (or units) of AoA and you'll find yourself in a wild ride. Nothing special there, as other aircraft behaved similarly upon deperture, providing much less of a warning (F-8, F-100, etc.) and fewer ques. Apoart from pitch-up (and maybe some BLC-issues in the F-104), those airplanes were relatively straighforward in handling if you just didn't go into indian-country with your AoA (inertia-coupling during quick rolls is another topic, but most pilots won't go there to often, as it's pretty uncomfortable on your neck). In short, the F-101 and F-104 had pretty clear boundaries between "flying" and "being in for the ride". Those boundaries are tighter than on other airplanes, makeing them less useable - granted! But it also makes it easier to stay out of there - other planes (F-8, F-100, etc) will let you get away with more. But they'll get interesting suddenly when flying at high AoA and the warning provided by the aircraft (no stick-shaker that is easily detectable) may not be enough of a hint to pilots with different backgrounds. Their handling is less "digital" (either "flying" or "not flying") and thus harder predict for less experienced pilots or pilots transitioning from other airplanes. Granted, pilots will always need a lot of time on the airframe to fly it proficiently and efficiently. The F-100 kind of was a dog (more than 800 non-combat crashes during normal operational flying), but it actually didn't handle that badly (adverse yaw was a factor on most airplanes these days - the F-104 for example just wouldn't achieve high enough AoA to experience it, so it wasn't a problem there). It lacked thrust, but that wasn't an issue isolated to the F-100. Many pilots still remeber it fondly. All of that cut short: Most aircraft are getting dangerous when flying outside the numbers quoted within SOP. Some aircraft will let you get away with more stuff than others. The F-104 did'n experience that many "pilot error" accidents that were unique to F-104 characteristics. Most of the pilot-error stuff was issues that will kill any pilot in any airplane (CFIT). What made many early crshed on the F-104 unnecessarily deadly was the crappy ejection-seat. Most other aircraft of the time had Martin-Baker seats with a higher survivability rate due to the much greater ejection-envelope (particularily in the "low and slow"-regime). Many people involved with the Falcon claim that it was generally a better missile than the Sidewinder. What it made it suck was both, the complex switchology and the hit-to-kill warhead. The F-104 (when used as fighter) was considered the best aircraft in US-inventory below 20000ft (ref. "Project Featherduster"). It had about the same turn-capabilities at high speeds as an unslatted F-4. At low speeds, it sucked - but it wasn't designed for knife-fights in a telephone-booth. The F-104 featured superior controllability at high speeds to most other airplanes, thanks to it's high roll-rate, making it able to quickly point it's lift-vector into another direction. It would also accelerate quickly when unloaded. It's SEP was phenomenal for the early 60s. The later flap-limits (lower to T/O up to 450KIAS/ M0.85, extended up to 540KIAS/ M0.85) made it turn rather well at speed. Would you care to elaborate that phenomenon? ___ BTW: If you'te looking for interesting flight-characteristics, the Jaguar might be high on your list. Underpowered, unsufficient tail-area, a tendency to stall the engines and some very interesting roll-coupling autorotation-modes. Most pilots liked it anyway.

No gun-damage there. On pictures of what is left of the cockpit, one can clearly see that the holes (in at least one of the F/D-seats, the left-hand F/D floor, the captain's lower control-column, several parts of what's left of the "dashboard", etc.) were made by fragments entering the fuselage. Also, the pattern of damages is unconsistent with gun-hits, as well as the impact-damage is not consistent ith the damage made by gun-rounds. Also, there's a lot of evidence of fragmentation-damage to the left-hand wing-tip. What we can see above is the left-hand lower cockpit-window frames (to the right is the lefternmost window, to the left is the openable window on the captain's side). The damage pattern is pretty much consistent with a relatively close explosion on the outside of the aircraft by a fragmentation-warhead. That is pretty evident by the traces of soot and cratering on the outside of the fuselage-skin.

Ginge mMn. sogar sehr gut. Die Mirage IIIO hat beispielsweise deswegen ein "O", weil das "A" bekanntermaßen schon vergeben war und das "O" phonetisch zum "Australie" passte (und zum 'oz(tralia)" der Aussies selbst). Die Namen müssen nicht immer zu hundert Prozent auf der Hand liegen - so hieß beispielsweise die projektierte Mirage für MAP (Military Assistance Program), die in Zusammenarbeit mit Boeing gefertigt werden sollte, "Mirage IIIW", wobei das "W" für Wichita stand, wo das Ding gebaut werden sollte. Die erdachte Mirage III für den Sudan sollte "Mirage IIIK" heißen, wobei das "K" für Kharthum stand... Das "L" passt sowohl zur Luftwaffe, als auch zu einem "besoffen" ausgesprochenen 'llemange Interessanterweis wurde die MIIIE erst auf Kiel gelegt, nachdem man bei Dasault erkannt hatte, dass man bezüglich "Multirole" etwas tun musste, wenn man noch auf dem Markt Fuß fassen wollte. Am Ende beherrschte man dann das Marketing so gut, dass jeder Kunde das bekam, was er wollte. Die Liste an Optionen ist sehr sehr lang... Bezüglich der Marine: Die Mirage IIIE als Grundplattform (auch für die LW) wäre vermutlich tatsächlich der beste Kompromiss. Das Cyrano II konnte Schiffe erkennen und war letztendlich zu ähnlichen Leistungen wie das NASARR imstande. Als Bewaffnung würde ich (abgesehen von allerlei "dummem" Geraffel) die AS37 "Martel", die AS30 und die AS34 "Kormoran" vorschlagen. Bei der Marine würden dann "Mirage IIIL(M)" und "Mirage IIILR(M)" fliegen, also die Mehrzweckversion und die Aufklärerversion in der Marinevariante.

Die M2000 wegzulassen macht vieles einfacher. Mit der Idee der Kampfwertsteigerung der MIII hatte ich auch schon gespielt. Bin nur leider ein Modder-Dilettant, weswegen das eine Weile dauern kann Würde zunächst das Atar 9B der MIIIC durch ein Atar 9C ersetzen (=> späte Shahak). Nach Einführung der F1 würden dann alle MIII auf Atar 9K-50 umgerüstet. Das sollte die Flugleistungen ordentlich aufwerten. Später kommt dann noch anderes Geraffel (neue Avionik, Canards) hinzu. Die M5 macht insofern Sinn, als dass sie mehr Treibstoff als die MIII an Bord hat. Dafür siehts bei der Navigationsausrüstung/ Avionik ziemlich dünn aus. Sinn würde eine M5 mit Agave-Radar für die Exocet (oder Kormoran, Sea Eagle) machen. Generell kann die MIIIE die AS.37 "Martel" verschießen, was ihr eine rudimentäre Angriffsfähigkeit gegen Schiffe verschafft. Ich schau' mir nochmal die M5 der Belgier an und gucke, ob die was vom Hocker reißen kann.

Mal eine Frage an die geschichtlich Versierten: Deutschland hatte Anfang der 70er Interesse an der SEPECAT Jaguar geäußert. Aus welchen Gründen geschah das und aus welchen Gründen sah man davon wieder ab? Versuche mir gerade eine alternative Geschichte auszudenken, bei der die Luftwaffe die französische Option wählt, und Mirage III, Mirage F1, Jaguar und Mirage 2000 (und in der Zukunftsperspektive bei der Rafale mit im Boot sitzt) beschafft. Angedacht sind: Mirage IIIC für JG 72 und 73 (optisch wie MIIIC) Mirage IIIC_update für JG 72 und JG 73 mit Atar 9C und Cyrano II Radar (optisch wie die späte "Shahak") Mirage IIIx(F)* für JG 71 und JG 74 (optisch wie MIIIO) Mirage IIIx(A)* für JaboG 31,32,33,34 (optisch wie MIIIE) Mirage IIIx(An)* für JaboG 31...34 mit ausschließlich nuklearer Bewaffnung (Kanonen ausgebaut und dafür mit den zusätzlichen Treibstofftanks, 1700l Zusatztanks) (optisch wie MIIIE) Mirage IIIx(N oder M)* für MFG 1, MFG 2 und MFG 3 (optisch wie MIIIE) Mirage IIIx( R)* für AG 51 und AG 52 (optisch wie MIIIR) Mirage IIIx(RD)* für AG 51 und AG 52 als mögliche spätere Version mit verbesserter Navigationsausrüstung (die AdlA bestellte ebenfalls ein paar MIIIR mit dem zusätzlichen Dopplerradar nach) (optisch wie MIIIRD) Mirage F.1x* - hier habe ich mir bisher die wenigsten Gedanken zu gemacht; bisher habe ich mir nur eine Story für die Verwendung der MIII überlegt. Möglich wäre die Ablösung von Teilen der MIII-Flotte oder Komplettablösung. Letztere wäre bei den großen Nummern an Flugzeugen (~700 MIII, wie auch beim Starfighter) ziemlich teuer. Jaguar x* - entweder für Teile der LW und der Marine, oder nur für (Teile der) Marine. Angedacht habe ich ursprünglich, dass die Marine zwei Geschwader auf Jaguar umrüstet. Diese wären dann analog zur Jaguar M. Die Luftwaffe hätte Flugzeuge die ähnlich der Jaguar A wären, auch wenn sie technisch etwas ausgereifter wären. Mirage 2000x* - wie bei der MF.1 eine Option, die relativ teuer wäre. Generell könnte man jene Geschwader ablösen, die seinerzeit nicht MF.1 erhielten. Eigentlich wollte ich zunächst die MIII (ähnlich wie bei den Schweizern) von Anfang der 60er bis Anfang der 90er im Dienst behalten - das entspricht etwa der Dienstzeit der MIII bei der AdlA, wenn auch große Teile der Flotte dort inzwischen durch andere Muster ersetzt waren. Ich möchte jedenfalls die MIII in Norm83 und Norm87 sehen ____ * Der Buchstabe treibt mich noch etwas um: "A" ist schon vergeben. Dassault-übliche Kombinationen (EA, CG) sind schwierig, weil im echten Leben schon vergeben oder zumindest verwirrend. Eine Möglichkeit wäre ein eigener Buchstabe wie "G" (germanique) oder "T" (teuton) - letzterer war allerdings vergeben.

An A-7?

Can't be IAS. 530KIAS at 11,400ft would translate into about 609 KTAS (@ISA), which in-turn would be Mach 0.96, which is a bit on the high-side for a Hunter in cruise. 530KTAS would equal about Mach 0.835, which is a more realistic value. It's probably the still-air TAS (= GS), which makes more sense from a navigational standpoint.

Norm76 looks pretty good on the Harrier - very similar to the initial Sea Harrier paint-scheme that was used by the RN FAA.

The rebels won't have the tech to jinx anything on the recorders. Anyway, don't have too high hopes about anything being revealed by the recorders. They'll indicate a flight "just fine" and then suddenly stop after the electric-power is cut-off*. I doubt there'll be any useful data after that - besides: what use would it have? The crash-mode is pretty appearant - inflight break-up after a missile-strike. Has anybody seen the skin-panels of the left-hand Section 41 area (Section 41 = forward fuselage, containing the cockpit and the FWD doors)? There are shrapnell-holes all over the place. The flight-deck crew was probably dead instantly, and so was the electronic-bay (just below/ behind the cockpit), feeding the flight-recorders with data. I don't have any expectations about any of the flight-recorders. The engines' EEC-data might reveal some parameters after the hit (like overspeeding, surging, etc.), but you won't be able to make much out of that. The remaining issue of interest (at least for the next of kin) might be the mechanics and sequence of the break-up in the air and whether people on board were conscious and suffering. ___ * As was the case with PA 103, TWA 800, AI 182, and some other in-flight break ups.

Flown routes of different airlines and flight-restrictions in-place before the shootdown, according to NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html?_r=1#diverted Looks like the restricted zones were much farther south, over Crimea. Also, some sources say that MH17 diverted to a track running slighttly to the north of the filed route, due to weather.

That's not how it works. Airlines fly accros allegedly "hot" airspace all the time. They even fly into "hot" destinations - be it charter or even scheduled service! If you have a SAM, you don't shoot down an airliner. Just like anyone who legally carries a gun doesn't go out killing random people. The fault is not with the airlines - it's with the asshole that pulled the trigger. Some people deserve to be hung on the highest tree. That includes the mofos that show passports of the victims on TV.