nscode

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=7100

should be actual production by now

nothing special

Don't speak like that about the F-15s father. It's not nice ;)

Hvala kolezi :)

Thanks! Hvala! Хвала! 謝謝 Virtual beers for everyone :beer: (bears too, for those who know what I'm talking about :D), and with all I share the joy of hearing the roar of a MiG-21 somewhere in the clouds above me :)

And here's the original article, thanks to MiGac from AvijacijaBezGranica.com :)

Some of you may have seen this video of the USAF evaluation of Yak-23 You must have wondered how it came into US hands. :detective: This is the story, translated from the "Monografija VOCa", or the Monography about VOC. VOC is Vasduhoplovno opitni centar, or Aircraft test center, Yugoslavia. Both aircraft were returned to ther owners (Romania and Hungary). Hungary also got their pilot back (who didn't deflect, but was simply lost), but Romanian pilot was granted political asylum.

Nice off-time music :)

nce

The fact that that is the question is what upsets me the most. If one of two engines fails, chances of the other engine failing are MUCH higer than the only engine failing on a single engine aircraft. Yes, it is there as a backup, and if it is possible to use it to safely land the plane, by all means it should be done. It's safer for the pilot than the ejection anyway. But if one engine has failed, that means that something is failing on the airplane. The root of the problem might not be in the failed engine, and the failures could easily propagate to other systems, including the other engine. So, an aircraft with a failed engine should be directed away from populated areas, while it is still possible.

It not ridiculous, it ridiculously missunderstood. I am not questioning the pilots training, the aircrafts abilities, or the positioning of the airbase. I am questioning the decision to fly single engined over a populated area. And it's not a training flight where you just shut down one engine, and have a fair chance it will restarst if you need it. And I'm not saying you should do it just because you've lost an engine. I'm saying it should be done if you've lost an engine AND there is no other way to get to an airport than to fly over a heavily populated area.

Some shit can't be avoided. Some can.

It's not a matter of intensions, but of negligence. Who ever - be it the pilot, the controler, the one who wrote the procedures - neglected lives of people in favor of saving a failing aircraft, should be held responsible.

The Russian flag on their shulders is also a hint :D

As you could read, he lost the first engine over the sea.

I also hope something is done (legally) against the pilot or who ever decided that the plane is worth more than the lives of people on the ground. I don't expect pilots to choose to die and protect others, like so many did, but if there is any chance that the plane might endanger lives, I expect it to be ditched if possible.

:rolleyes: yea, a dump truck that can dump 3 tons on a dime

Yea.. I wanted to take on a project of modifing it so that the target is MIPS assembler, that would be even cooler... but I'm afraid I haven't got the time :( I would be doing it in January, and I plan on flying BS at that time :D

I'm doing my homework now.. makeing a Yacc definition for a microC to hypothetical assembler compiler. Usefull, isn't it :)

Smokey flares... good for new gen heaters :)

And the KGB's freeze ray is located at..... which museum? :D

3B looks like a toy :D

No need to catch up. They just stoped launching missiles beyond Rmax

yup, none taken :) I just had to point it out, as it was repeated several times. And it just goes to show that when it comes to the real thing, there are no rules.