Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 650
MoneyManMatt 490
Jon Bon 400
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 283
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70831
biomed163764
Yssup Rider61324
gman4453378
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48844
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43221
The_Waco_Kid37431
CryptKicker37231
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-09-2012, 07:37 PM   #46
Sidewinder
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 1,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm View Post
yes, so what. that aircraft still has to get close enough to fire those cruise missles.

now the backfire bomber is a whole nother story,
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight.
Sidewinder is offline   Quote
Old 07-09-2012, 09:39 PM   #47
nwarounder
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 2,239
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim008 View Post
Stupid to say Putin is testing Obama,the Russians are testing the USA Airforce the reaction time,and response.
Fucktard award of the day goes out to you! <hint> Obama is the Comander in Chief of the military. <another hint> Therefore, Obama makes the decision on how we respond (our responce).

I swear bro, I hope you can give a reasonable explanation of "what you really meant to say", I'm not in the mood for pity today.
nwarounder is offline   Quote
Old 07-09-2012, 09:56 PM   #48
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwarounder View Post
Fucktard award of the day goes out to you! <hint> Obama is the Comander in Chief of the military. <another hint> Therefore, Obama makes the decision on how we respond (our responce).

I swear bro, I hope you can give a reasonable explanation of "what you really meant to say", I'm not in the mood for pity today.

No your dumb ass reply trumps my statement x10 learn to spell or get spell check .You win the head up ass award of the day.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 07-09-2012, 10:57 PM   #49
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight.
dont confuse the simpletons with facts while theyre in the hanger playing with their lil drones ..
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 03:10 AM   #50
Sidewinder
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 1,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
dont confuse the simpletons with facts while theyre in the hanger playing with their lil drones ..
Unfortunately, the only way to shut the simpletons up is to throw the facts in their faces.

Like for instance, there's this one guy, CJ7, who thinks the TU-95 is a total joke because it has propellers instead of jet exhausts. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a piston engine and a turboprop engine, probably doesn't realize the TU-95 wings are swept, and CERTAINLY doesn't realize that it has range comparable to the B-52 with TWICE the useful load. In short, he has no idea what the TU-95 is really capable of, because he is fixated on the idea that "propellers == useless". One wonders what CJ7 would make of a C-130 Hercules, or a Shorts 360, or a Lockheed P3 Orion, or an ATR 72...

I almost included the Britten-Norman Islander in that list, but I remembered at the last minute that it is a piston airplane, and certainly obsolete and totally worthless in CJ7's eyes, despite it being one of the nicest small puddlejumpers ever designed.
Sidewinder is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 06:10 AM   #51
dilbert firestorm
Valued Poster
 
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 9, 2010
Location: Nuclear Wasteland BBS, New Orleans, LA, USA
Posts: 31,921
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight.
yes, I'm aware that the B-52 is primarily a cruise missile carrier, so is the TU-95 and the Blackjack bomber. (I made an error previously when I mentioned Backfire, I meant Blackjack)

I had to check your claim about the TU-95's bomb/missile payload, as I'm not familiar with Russian bombers.

ahem, Sidewinder. I don't where you got that information about the TU-95's payload capacity. Its not twice the capacity of the B-52. It is flat out wrong, unless Wikipedia is wrong.

The B-52 has a bomb/missile payload of 70,000#s. The TU-95 has a bomb/missile payload of 33,000#s.

You may have been thinking of the TU-160 Blackjack bomber, it does have a bomb/missile payload comparable to the B-52 and is much larger and faster.

Besides, the TU-95 is a smaller aircraft than the B-52 in terms of wingspan and length.

Interesting, didn't know they did that. TU-95 is a buffed up B-29 Superfortress from a copy of a B-29 Superfortress they stole.

Another factoid, it's the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world @ 575mph, but its still slow! LOL!

B-52 Stratofortress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...ns_.28B-52H.29

TU-95 Bear aka White Swan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev..._.28Tu-95MS.29

TU-160 Blackjack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev...s_.28Tu-160.29
dilbert firestorm is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 10:27 AM   #52
Sidewinder
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 1,428
Default

A quick comparison chart.

BEAR BUFF
Length: 151 ft 6 in 159 ft 4 in
Wingspan: 164 ft 5 in 185 ft 0 in
Height: 39 ft 9 in 40 ft 8 in
Wing area: 3,330 sq ft 4,000 sq ft
Empty weight: 198,000 lb 185,000 lb
Loaded weight: 376,200 lb 265,000 lb
Max. takeoff weight: 414,500 lb 488,000 lb

8 ft difference in length, 20 ft difference in wingspan. Less than 1 ft difference in height. (You may have been confused by the Wikipedia presentation: the Bear had metric first, then English, the BUFF had English first, then metric.) Wing area comparable, empty weight comparable, loaded weight over 100,000 lbs difference, about 70,000 lbs MGTOW difference.

You may be right about missile payload vs. loaded weight.


You'll have to reformat the chart for readability: eccie stripped the spaces.
Sidewinder is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 01:56 PM   #53
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
Unfortunately, the only way to shut the simpletons up is to throw the facts in their faces.

Like for instance, there's this one guy, CJ7, who thinks the TU-95 is a total joke because it has propellers instead of jet exhausts. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a piston engine and a turboprop engine, probably doesn't realize the TU-95 wings are swept, and CERTAINLY doesn't realize that it has range comparable to the B-52 with TWICE the useful load. In short, he has no idea what the TU-95 is really capable of, because he is fixated on the idea that "propellers == useless". One wonders what CJ7 would make of a C-130 Hercules, or a Shorts 360, or a Lockheed P3 Orion, or an ATR 72...

I almost included the Britten-Norman Islander in that list, but I remembered at the last minute that it is a piston airplane, and certainly obsolete and totally worthless in CJ7's eyes, despite it being one of the nicest small puddlejumpers ever designed.

I didnt say it was a total joke, I said it was an old plane from the 50's .. the swept wing is obvious in the pics of the old bird, that explains alot for the performance of any plane, 130;s are currently used to deliver MOAB's , and during Nam were lovingly called PUFF by the boots on the ground. Something anout the 50 cal chain gun making shit disappear in a puff of smoke ... and its possible Ive spent more time in civie turbo props than you, specifically KA B200 and 350's .. pretty neat listening to the fans spool up and after they start singing see the props kick in ...


go toss you backhander insults at the simpletons sidewinder ... turbo props and piston planes are simply out classed in todays world of air capable warfare ... not a damn thing wrong with either .... unless you happen to ne driving one and some jet jock slips in your 6 and sends a heater up your tail numbers.

GFY.
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 04:10 PM   #54
Sidewinder
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Huntsville AL
Posts: 1,428
Default

One quibble.

As I remember it, "Puff the Magic Dragon" was the AC-47 (deployed starting in 1964, and still in use all over the world, by several countries). That nickname was not applied to the AC-130 (deployed starting in 1967, and only ever used by USAF).
Sidewinder is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 04:29 PM   #55
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
One quibble.

As I remember it, "Puff the Magic Dragon" was the AC-47 (deployed starting in 1964, and still in use all over the world, by several countries). That nickname was not applied to the AC-130 (deployed starting in 1967, and only ever used by USAF).

true that , my bad.

47's were prop planes nonetheless ... my point.
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 04:54 PM   #56
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
yeah yeah yeah ... bla bla bla


tinker toys in the air compared to HDLR bombers ..

theres not a drone flying that can carry the ordinance a B52 or a B-2 can carry.

PERIOD.


here ya go IB hook this motherfucker aka MOAB up to a missile carrying drone and see how far and fast it can fly.. 1100 mies LMAO

http://military.discovery.com/videos...all-bombs.html
You are a deflecting dumb-ass, CBJ7! Your original remark dismissed the Russian planes as too old and propeller driven. Face it, your lame ass remark has been substantively repudiated; so now you want to interject a lame-ass, straw man argument about drones not being able to carry a MOAB.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:22 PM   #57
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
You are a deflecting dumb-ass, CBJ7! Your original remark dismissed the Russian planes as too old and propeller driven. Face it, your lame ass remark has been substantively repudiated; so now you want to interject a lame-ass, straw man argument about drones not being able to carry a MOAB.

I didnt dismiss anything other than planes from the 50's are at best second to modern aircraft ... you were the one that brought up the toy drones compared to Long Range Bombers of any age ... aka DEFLECTING away from the topic.

CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 05:50 PM   #58
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
I didnt dismiss anything other than planes from the 50's are at best second to modern aircraft ... you were the one that brought up the toy drones compared to Long Range Bombers of any age ... aka DEFLECTING away from the topic.

No, it was your dismissal of propeller driven war birds as "of no consequence" that prompted the need to "educate" you about propeller driven war birds currently in the U.S. arsenal. Old, propeller driven war birds can create an international incident leading to war, despite you small, dismissive opinion otherwise.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 06:00 PM   #59
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
No, it was your dismissal of propeller driven war birds as "of no consequence" that prompted the need to "educate" you about propeller driven war birds currently in the U.S. arsenal. Old, propeller driven war birds can create an international incident leading to war, despite you small, dismissive opinion otherwise.

wrong again ...

I compared the russian plane with our 52

prop and turbo respectively

then you posted a pic of a drone complete with stats which in NO way compare to either ...

as I said both have their places but modern aircraft with modern technology trump the older planes ...

kinda like a new 2013 corvette trumps a 51 chevy
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 07-10-2012, 06:14 PM   #60
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
wrong again ...

I compared the russian plane with our 52

prop and turbo respectively

then you posted a pic of a drone complete with stats which in NO way compare to either ...

as I said both have their places but modern aircraft with modern technology trump the older planes ...
Oh, but you do lie.

Here you post disparaging the Russian planes' age.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
a ragged ass 60 year old russian plane left its airspace ...
And here you post disparaging the planes because they are propeller driven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7 View Post
the suspect Russian bird has propellers ...
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved