Berkut

Again though, the important take away here is that the vaccines were given to old and very frail people and that regardless of a vaccine 400 of them die in those short term nursing homes, per week. One could probably give an injection of water and the results would be about the same. There is no indications whatsoever the current vaccines are worrisome for those that aren't extremely frail. And if one is - i would argue getting the virus is far more dangerous.

Serious honest question. Considering your health issues aren't you far more worried about getting a novel virus which is known to kill those with especially weak health at an average rate of 2% (much much higher for those with bad health) vs getting a vaccine which kills at a rate... checks notes, basically non existing? Considering the balance of risk one of these options seems much better than the other one. One has to be careful with wording and statements on this because this kind of data is very very easy to take out of context. And if this thread is anything to go b

How about driving in the wrong direction or driving while being on the phone? Does that only hurt one person? Or millions of other examples one could think of. No, you seem to be missing that wast majority of time we all are willing to have certain "individual freedoms" removed or be paused because that is how a society works. You do it as well, all the time, because most people are not psychopaths. Does World War 1 sound deadly to you? Or World War 2? Or Vietnam War? Because USA is now approaching the number of COVID deaths equal to all of those three combined in terms of American

I am just gonna quote this because it is so so amazing it needs to be protected at all costs. Facebook and Parler are dangerous drugs kids. The last sentence literally made me laugh out loud, love it.

I have not. And none of those are; a - Happening right now with over 100 million cases in little over a year or so. b - Anywhere as contagious as COVID-19. c - Has 2%+ fatality rate. (H1N1 has lower fatality rate, SARS is "older" version of COVID and MERS is very low frequency and Antrax is bacteria) d - And if a/b/c was true, and there was a vaccine available i would take it ASAP ZULU ANULULU because it isn't about me but those that could die from it if i gave it to them. Yet, if the points a/b/c were true for any of your irrelevant examples (as they are

You are a good man.👍 I won't be getting vaccine in a while, fairly young and no pre-existing conditions or anything. Just hope i get it before summer and EU agrees on some kind of vaccine passport.

This is such an alpha and manly take that simply by reading this i grew my beard additional 20 cm. It actually is, it is literally a matter of public safety, google herd immunity. Taking the vaccine might not even be for you but for others. That is the whole point. Your decision doesnt affect only you. The only way to kill off covid so that it isnt here for ever is to vaccinate. But i suppose thanks for letting all of us know where you stand on this.

And that kind of driving is certainly not usual most people, especially not every day. And when it happens, i assume you had some break at that point during which one can realistically charge. But i obviously agree - the end game for EV's is to completely and utterly replace ICE vehicles and have enough range and price to do so. Having a short range EV and long range ICE is inefficient, one car should cover both cases. I would argue that for 99,9999% of the population the range part is solved, realistically 300+ miles/500 km is enough paired with fast charging. And technically if there is an e

Takes about 15 min to add 170miles/270km. About 30min from 0 to 80% (adding about 280 miles of range). Optimally for a "speed run" and using V3 chargers only one would charge about 20min at a time and charging ~220 miles of range and then drive for another 200 miles etc. That would bring down the total charging time to around 2,5 hours compared to the 4,5hours in that 1500 miles example. For Mach-E specifically the story will be completely different. (IE much much worse) Excellent question.😉 Tesla doesnt spend any money on any commercials or marketing whatsoever. And i am

The main issue here is peak demands and the strain on the power grid during certain times. If most people charge at night and the grid is half decent it should be doable but i am not familiar at all with the details of California's grid. In terms of electricity usage those 2 million cars would be about 10% of the whole states electricity use. For example; 2 000 000 cars x 30kWh/day* x 365 = ~22TWh. Total electricity production in California is 200TWh as of now. *30kWh a day per vehicle is about 150miles/250km, most people dont drive that much in a day so i am showing somewhat extre

Again sorry but what? Tesla's don't have fires at a different rate than other EV makers. And Tesla's rate compared to ICE rate is around 10 times lower meaning ICE is 10 times more likely to catch fire. ICE cars are literally propelled by an explosive and highly combustible high energy fuel. As to ideal operating temperature again that is not news? Every maker worth their salt have had active cooling and heating battery system. Not sure about the original Roadster but Model S and every other Tesla since it has had active cooling and heating system. All modern and "serious" EV's all have active

Still don't understand what is so special about that? The important thing for charge rate is the C rating/factor which is a factor between power of charging (or discharging) of a battery and its rated energy capacity. So lets say a 100kWh pack that uses 8 hours to charge will be charging at ~12,5kW or a C rate which is just 0,125. A friend of mine has been charging his Model S at like you describe for many years now, at 240V and ~16kW so it isnt exactly high tech or new tech. Chances are your mobile phone is charging at a higher C rate than what you are describing. Not to mention i

Hehe, good you didnt take my "jab" to be mean spirited (wasn't mean like it!), just found it slightly funny. 🙂 Natural gas is underrated agree with that, especially for cargo ships. That and planes won't be going electric in a while so LNG is second best choice for sure especially since ships run on bunker fuel which is just awful. In longer term would be feasible to produce LNG (methane) through Sabatier process as well so win-win if one can get methane leaks under control. Oh well, getting wildly off-topic since i don't have a dog in the fight whether Mach-E is a Mustang or not

This is quite possibly one of the most boomer things i have seen posted here tbh. 🙂 Yeah, i would like to know more as well because it doesn't make much sense what he is writing. How would the batteries in a "hybrid sedan" be any different than from a pure EV? I assume 800 miles of range is with ICE since he seems to be talking about hybrids. And charge in one afternoon doesnt say much at all, since that depends on the battery pack size and throughput of the charger. Neither is it really needed as it is better and more economical anyway to charge overnight. Hybrids are just for manufa

Nice to see someone recognize the one true scale. One of us, one of us.

Video didnt work here atleast, had to download it. Personally not too impressed by the detail on either that exhaust or the cockpit. Especially the cockpit, i feel like the one i have from Temp models in 1/72 looks much much nicer... Less "robotic" detail and no 3D print residue.

I am not holding my breath for KittyHawk to produce an accurate kit of Su-57.

Pretty much. It isn't a bad kit IMHO - just a lazy one. Personally, i don't think the rivets are that visible (however, much more now surprisingly than in the previous shots) so i wouldn't bother adding them, even in 1/48 scale. Fasteners however, are still prevalent and much more visible and would add some nice "texture" and detail to the surface of the model. I don't see why Zvezda couldn't add those, there is thousands of pictures of previous prototypes and those fasteners haven't changed radically on the serial ones. Can't imagine that would take that many days for the designer to add them

That doesn't quite look like an Su-33 i have ever seen i must admit.😛

"Kinetic's" (original developer was Aviation Art) cockpit was notoriously shallow. This was due front landing gear bay and was one of the things, among with other bugs, that just couldn't be fixed in time in development. Minibase kit is an improvement in all directions IMHO. It is certainly not a kit for a beginner, but not because of the fit or anything like that, but just the sheer amount of detail.

Yes, the new Su-57 kit from Zvezda represents "Phase 2" frames starting from T-50-6-2. There is a bunch of differences but i would argue the biggest one is the stinger. It is much longer on Phase 2 frames and slightly different shape, compare your build vs the linked T-50-3 pic. 🙂 But excellent build and nice to see the Su-57 kit being built, especially in this unique scheme. Could you show exactly what masking you used and what is your experience with using it? This is the part i a most worried about when i am going to finally build a T-50 myself, having been wanting to for over

Have you glued your landing gear on? Personally i would recommend leaving it off til after painting, weathering etc as it can get in the way and/or break off etc. I left the main landing gear completely off (it snaps in place so easy to put it on at any point really) and just installed the "stub" of front landing gear (part L28 and L49) and folded them into the bay. Atleast that was the case with my plastic landing gear parts for my BM build. 🙂 Hope you recovered well from your "dose" of covid... Otherwise, good progress so far on the build!👍

Yes. This has been the main hold up.

The footage is from Kazan aviation plant where they are refurbishing, modernizing and built Tu-160's. (Now building Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA) The frame is likely completely emptied for fuel and it does have a support jack below the tail, although probably as an extra precaution rather than a necessity per say; There is nothing at the front wheel holding it down per say. At different posts it has wings fully extended, for the reasons boom175 is speculating on. So generally speaking it is possible to see an operational frame like this, but unlik

Regarding the "new" covers. Here is a new video from RT (yes, RT sucks) and the new covers appeared a couple of times here; Did some digging and appears frame shown with them is T-50-10 and it is the only prototype that has them. I don't *think* it had them from the start but looks to have been fitted them somewhere between March 2018 and October 2018. With this pic i remember to have seen them before but just forgot about them; https://russianplanes.net/id239689 Not sure whether they are on top too or not.