xthetenth
-
Content Count
972 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Recent Profile Visitors
1,297 profile views
-
Dragonstriker reacted to a post in a topic:
The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread
-
Dragonstriker reacted to a post in a topic:
The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread
-
Lord_James reacted to a post in a topic:
The Island of Misfit Piston Engine Aircraft
-
LostCosmonaut reacted to a post in a topic:
The Island of Misfit Piston Engine Aircraft
-
That_Baka reacted to a post in a topic:
The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.
-
AdmiralTheisman reacted to a post in a topic:
The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread
-
AdmiralTheisman reacted to a post in a topic:
The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread
-
Belesarius reacted to a post in a topic:
The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread
-
The Phantom II Zone (Also other cool McDonnell Planes)
xthetenth replied to LostCosmonaut's topic in Aviation
Standard Aircraft Characteristics pages: F4H-1 Phantom SAC 1 February 1963 F4H-1 Phantom SAC 30 April 1960 F-4B 1 July 1967 RF-4B 1 July 1967 F-4J August 1973 F-4S May 1984- 28 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- f-4
- phantom ii
- (and 2 more)
-
Good point, thank you for the correction.
-
Our priorities are actual facts. Facts don't give a damn about game balance. You are attempting to pick a fight because your pixel tanks aren't good enough and the documentation of facts is inconvenient to you. As it stands, the only thing you provide is an increase to the signal/noise[sic] ratio on a forum that strives to reduce it at every step. Hopefully you take the gracious gift of my time in the spirit it was intended and contribute signal in the future. Thanks!
-
Documents Repository: Small Arms
xthetenth replied to Collimatrix's topic in Infantry Tools & Tactics
I found a ballistics nerd on my travels. He knows the ways of the content sharer. -
I think that is in fact the case, which meant that the CdG's reactors were designed with ideas of exportability in mind (at least by proxy).
-
Ah. Now I get it. If you hadn't been involved I would be horrified by the prospect that that event was noteworthy enough to mention.
-
Is that permanent? I can't imagine a thought process by which that would be irrevocable, but that's not what this thread is for.
-
Addenda based on looking at sources: First off, somehow the ability to reverse polarity on a turboelectric drive to instantly obtain full reverse power didn't satisfy the Germans. I'd want confirmation but I would not be surprised to hear that the contract had been written in such a way as to accidentally preclude it. Also, in 1914, a GE electric system was $162,441 less than a direct drive. Another thing that I think is possible with them is significantly better resistance to two damage modes, flooding of the vitals, and a PoW style disembowelment (not actually preventing it but a
-
I have been remiss, and not been through this thread in a while. Turbo-Electric was largely a curiosity. Kind of cool, lets you do some nifty stuff, but reduction gears kept getting lighter in a way that tons of electrical gear didn't. Considering its main home was the USN, and up until the start of WWII they didn't make a design where weight wasn't limited (pre-treaty ships were limited as a proxy for budget), this really limited its adoption. During the treaty period, where everyone's ships were weight limited, yeah nobody was very interested in a bunch of weight in r
-
Ever since the Midways, every carrier's ship girder has been carried up into the flight deck. The Essexes were the last major carriers to have their hangar deck be the main structural deck (Incidentally, the Essexes and before had armored decks, just at the hangar deck rather than the flight deck, which is part of why I say confidently that the hits the Franklin took wouldn't have been stopped by a British style armored flight deck.) Basically, the hangar exits, island location and catapult tracks can tell you a lot about how well the ship design's been able to reduce stress to free it up for
-
Every single ton of carrier you put into a single hull gives you more capacity than the last one. It takes a lot of tonnage to be able to launch even one plane, let alone launch, maintain and arm one plane. If you compare the air wings of light carriers to supercarriers, the latter have a lot more air wing per ton because things like maintenance, seakeeping, launch facilities and deck space are amortized over more planes. Big missile batteries end up on their own platforms with their own superstructure optimized for radar and so on for very good reasons because the USN can afford the tonnage t
-
I've got a cav arms lower full of KE arms goodies that's rock solid. I used a Faxon pencil barrel and carbon fiber handguard and an Aero upper with no FA, but if I were doing it again, I'd be tempted by Sionics' upper sans handguard and the Faxon carbon fiber, since that means the upper QA process is more than me with a dumb look on my face. If I were trying to go cheaper, I've got a very favorable impression of ALG handguards as a budget sensitive solution.
-
Has there ever been a time where custom work could ever get you as much money as you put in?
-
Ah okay. That sort of mutant. What I'm trying to do really warrants a dismissive "it's the platform for a system with these cool things, let's talk about those because they're cool".
-
I give myself something like odds of finishing a stage before the par time. Maybe. If I do well. That'd be awesome, you should totally give it a go.
