[URL]http://www.incredible-adventures.com/migs/planes.html[/URL]
Err, no, ta. Last time I saw some footage from one of these events, the aircraft (a MiG-29) was looking rather rough around the edges. Not to mention the state of the airfield it was operating from; foot-high tufts of grass from between cracks in the apron and runway... -- | Wik -UKRMHRC#10- 2000 ZX12R-A1 -DC#1 -'FOT#0 'FOF #39 - BOD#12 BOB#12 |# You don't believe me | "Experience is the worst teacher. |That the scenery | It always gives the test first |Could be a cold-blooded killer. | and the instruction afterward." ***** human response from wik at blueyonder dot co dot uk *****
kind of reminds me why the Russians used 'low tech' in their planes, not because they couldn't afford it but they knew if a A bomb went off the EMP would knock the US planes out of the sky so they used valves and tubes, still think though that a EMP would take them out as well The best though is the US spending $17 million on making a pen that would right in space and all its differences to earth, and the Russians just took pencils -- E-Mail Addy obet(ng)qfy(qbg)cvcrk(qbg)pbz <---Rot13 it watch out for spam trap in header http://www.davessite.co.uk Trike Power the TRUE Trinity
Utter bollocks. They didn't use them because they couldn't make them: simple as that. Years ago, I remember watching a TV documentary about he Russian "space grveyard" - where they kept all the half-finished rockets, satellites, unused stuff, you name it. They never threw anything away. The TV crew brought along one of the Yanks who'd been on the Apollo missions to the moon, and they unearthed the half-finished Russian lunar lander for their moonshot that Apollo 11 scooped. It looked like the US version, as you might expect, but it was for one man, while the other member of the two-man crew stayed in the command module, orbiting the moon. It was unpressurised. The cosmonaut was to stand throughout the descent, in his space suit. All the attitude jets were mechanical. Yes, *mechanical*, operated through levers and cables, via two big levers that looked for all the world like old-fashioned railway signalbox controls. The Yank's face was an absolute picture. He stood in this thing, and waggled the big levers, twisted the twistgrips on them, etc etc, and in tones which even the TV soundtrack managed to convey as tones of utter awe said: "Yeah, this would work. This would have worked. Incredible. No way would I ever have gone in one of these. These were very, very brave men....." We used to laugh and say that Lada cars and Russian cameras were like that because they diverted all the good stuff and all the valuable components to the military. We didn't realise that the military stuff was just as crap. Only difference was that there was a lot of it.
he he he, yer seeing some of their military hardware I know what you mean -- E-Mail Addy obet(ng)qfy(qbg)cvcrk(qbg)pbz <---Rot13 it watch out for spam trap in header http://www.davessite.co.uk Trike Power the TRUE Trinity
Once attended a talk by some chap from the Centre for Defence studies, whilst at Northwood, and standard Soviet policy, should a General need 1000 tanks, was to order 2000, on the basis that they'd probably be able to get a thousand viable vehicles that way. Factories were paid up front, too, iirc. -- | ___ Salad Dodger |/ \ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C/exTS185C _/_____\_ ..61036../..13743.../..3157./.19406/.fecked. |_\_____/_| IMC#4 TPPFATUICG#7 YTC#4 DIAABTCOD#9 PM#5 (>|_|_|<) BOTAFOT #70 two#11 Ignoramus #0001 |__|_|__| BOTAFOF #09 IbW#0 & KotIbW# OSOS#07 \ |^| / WG* BotTOS #6 GP#4 ANORAK#17 FTB#14 \|^|/ 2003 RBR landmarks:99 points:2100 miles:8000 '^'
Oddly enough, in "high-end" hi-fi circles (where people spend thousands where we would wince at hundreds), Russian military spec - or yet better, genuine unused ex-military radio valves are highly prized and much sought after. There is a (comparatively) thriving industry producing exact copies of Russian milspec valves to be used as replacements in amplifiers costing tens of thousands to buy in the first place. Must be nice to have golden ears. I bet Motorhead sounds better at 11 on my rig, though ;-)
Pip : This tells me something, and it has little to do with the valves... Valve guitar amps, on the other hand, sound gorgeous.
How two words that are so close can be so far apart: "valve" <--------------------------------------------------> "value" SOVTEK, for example: http://www.prosound.co.nz/index.htm?valves/sovtek.htm~mainFrame Valve hi-fi amps sound gorgeous too. Sweet, mellifluous and free from the harshness and grit that afflicts solid state amps. Nice for acoustic and classical music at sensible to medium volume. Struggle like **** with big power-hungry speakers and high volumes, though - unless you spend a _lot_ of cash ... http://www.jolida.com/catalogue/jd3000a.html 6 thousand dollars ... https://athena.safe-order.net/decware/Monoblocks/zmono.htm 6 Watts ... Oh, to dream, eh? Did you ever do that Arcam thing? The: http://www.aslgroup.com/arcam/av8p7.htm thing?
For some reason I can't remember, although the nice man from Marshall did explain to me once, 6 Watts of valve amplification is a lot stronger than 6 Watts of solid state. Whether it's a perceptive thing or objective, I know not.
Pip : If there's any harshness and grit coming out of my amp, it was present at the input as well. The reason I like valve guitar amps is that they allow you to chose how much of the distortion is harmonic, and how much is not. If I wanted to amplify a classical guitar, I'd choose a solid state amp without question. *sniff* no. As soon as I had decided to put up with my aging amp for 6 months while saving up for the Arcam bits, it died with a blue spark and puff of smoke. So I spent the cash I already had on one of these: http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/product_detail.jsp?product_id=1547&taxonomy_id=62-98 Not as nice, but the minute I put on one of Beethoven's string quartets, I knew we were going to be happy together. I do still need a front-center speaker and a sub-woofer tho.
Darren Robinson : Currently, my amp is playing in stereo, with the volume set at -10dB. This means that the peak output at of one of the sets of speaker terminals will be about 15W. In normal listening (conversation possible, just), the amp will be set to -25dB, which is about 0.5W per channel, at the speaker terminals. But that 15, or 0.5 watts is absolute peak, the majority of the signal will be below 1/4-1/2 of the peak (depending on what you're listening to). So a 6 watt power output is not actually that bad to start with. The reason a 6 watt valve amp will sound louder than a 6 watt tranny amp is that the amount of amplification a valve can produce is up to 3 times the amount they will be required to produce in an amplifier design. Valves are very non-linear devices, their input/output curve goes something like: C , '
