viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

oh and, lol

RyanRaduechel

iTrader: (10)

Here is my Dart;


hahaha That was when I first got it and it still had the leaning power of tower in it. 225 CI Slant Six baby! Those were the first set of tires I ever had to buy, they were 3 days old when I did that to them. Needless to say I had to buy 2 more.

Car is now a built 318, clipped front and rear from a 74 to a 72 without the big 5 MPH bumpers that were mandated in 74. I also hung the 72 doors on it with the wing windows. It sits at the moment. Not enough money, time, patience, or care to work on it. In due time though.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

^Thats ******* awesome. I guess nobody was badass enough to pull off the Archer cosplay?

Also, I kinda like the Dodge Dart. Maybe it shouldnt be called a Dart, but I dont think it deserves any hate, I hope a lot more manufactures put out small cars with small turbo engines.
Id rather have a Dart than a Charger or Challenger, even if they stay true their ancestors with their truck engines/suspension.


(Not sure what those gains are supposed to be from)

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

This is great news right here:


I mean... cmon.. reading it out loud is obvious.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

2ndGearRubber

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

It's pretty cool that they finally managed to do this... to a point. The technology for full auto-land on carriers has been around for decades. Every Hornet can land itself with the pilot completely hands-off.

Immediately as a plane hits the deck for a trap, the pilot will select full power until the plane is completely stopped at the end of the wire, at which time they will reduce power to idle, and ensure their feet are off the brakes. Sometimes, if the pilot reduces power at the right time, the natural tension in the pulled-out wire will be enough that the plane "springs back" a few feet on it's own, giving enough slack to raise the hook. But, there is still enough forward thrust being provided at idle that sometime the wire remains taught on the hook and it will not release the wire unless the plane is "tugged" backwards with the wire itself... so as the plane is tugged back, the wire slacks and falls, and the pilot can raise the hook... then he will immediately add some power to begin rolling forward and using nosewheel steering and/or differential thrust to turn the plane out of the landing area while simultaneously folding wings. There is a guy standing just off the edge of the landing area providing hand signals to the pilot to control the whole evolution. Note that the Hawkey/COD have reverse thrust and can back themselves out of the wires (don't need tugs).

In the first pass, at the beginning of the video, it catches a 3-wire, which is the still the targeted wire on a 3-wire ship (CVN76+). In the last pass, it catches the 2.

The primary reason that they went to a 3-wire arrangement is simply for cost and manning. It takes roughly 8 people to man each wire... by eliminating one wire, you cut that much people, plus XX man-hours of maintenance each day.

How about this guy... bad day, can't get gear down, can't jettison external tank... what to do? Rig barricade and say a prayer. Scooters are tough though... plane probably flew a few days later.

dieselmiata

iTrader: (3)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Question:

I'd always assumed that carrier landing operations were entirely visual in nature, relying upon a combination of the meatball and signals from the LSO.

In the civilian world, autoland relies upon ground-based VHF emissions (ILS). And I'd assumed this to be impractical in the context of a carrier for two reasons:

1: Radio emissions, in wartime, are generally considered to be both undesirable and unreliable, no?

2: When the runway (and, thus, the glideslope transmitter) is moving in pitch, the glideslope indication would tend to be bouncing around, even with the airplane in a perfectly stable descent.


Searching for ACLS has provided a lot of news articles, but no real technical data as to how the system works.

thirdgen

iTrader: (26)

Is there a reason you picked photo number 60? She looks identical to my Wednesday night bartender. So identical, I'm having a very hard time believing its not actually her.

Opti

I much prefer this picture.

Screw your roof in particular.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Wut r u, sum kind uv homosex?




That girl is fine! I can't tell if it's actually vintage, or just made to look vintage. She doesn't have that "mom" look that a lot of girls from back then had. Looks too modern. Maybe she is just one of those rarities.

mx5autoxer

iTrader: (1)

I don't think it's vintage because:
1. She appears to have a tattoo on her ankle which was less common back then and,
2. That bikini looks way too modern.

Real vintage

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's definitely a relatively new picture. Absolutely zero film grain- that shot was taken with a digital camera.

As for "made to look vintage," I'm not sure what you mean. It's monochrome, but that seems to be about the only post-process manipulation that was done to it.

If I wanted to pass the image off for "vintage," I'd soften it a bit, push the color balance over just a tad to "yellow" the print a bit, decrease the contrast and pull down the highlights, and add some gaussian noise to simulate grain. I'd also crop it to change the aspect ratio to make it look like it came out of a square-format camera.

Something like this:



Just a quick five-minute example, but you get the idea.


EDIT: Apparently those five minutes were enough for mx5autoxer to sneak in ahead of me.

RyanRaduechel

iTrader: (10)

^This

Random picture: I snapped this and a few others at Miller Motorsports Park a couple of years ago.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Now i'm curious why go with that shock design vs the regular shock on the control arm? whats better about it?

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Center of mass moved to a more desirable location.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

She's no "Miss Lube Rack", haha! How did they think that was a great name?



How about "Miss Body and Fender"?



How about "Miss Auto Accessory"?