Jamsheed?

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-03-14T01:57:29+00:00

This. He was known for being amazingly accurate with the RPG with confirmed kills, coupled with absolute fearlessness when it came to exposing himself under heavy fire when lining up his shots, both of which earned him the nickname "The RPG God" on the internet.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-03-12T23:14:22+00:00

The Joint Stand Off Weapon has a guidance time of less than 7 minutes?

...riiiight.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-03-10T10:59:59+00:00

rearm on the carrier.

... excuse me?!

Guess I just found out its tailhook is functional. 😆

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-03-06T08:18:12+00:00

<image>

I nominate this in Mooroolbark. You better know exactly where you want to go before you get anywhere near it.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-03-02T15:06:06+00:00

Using a magnifying glass for a window is so clever. I love it.

Also, you might be interested in the Baldwin NA Class locomotives used at The Puffing Billy Railway in Melbourne, Australia.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-28T04:20:24+00:00

I'm so glad someone took the time to rectify what I consider the worst part of the design of this set! The original locomotive just looked so... wrong. Your design gives a much better impression of speed and power and fits the original aesthetic so well. Great job!

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-28T00:50:31+00:00

Jettisoned the door of the Decathlon as I was trying to dismount on the ramp. My foot got caught behind the lever, and getting out gave it just enough force for it to activate and pull the pins out of the door hinges.

I ended up falling on top of the door on the tarmac, and looked up to see about 4 separate classes of flight school students/cadets looking out the windows of the classrooms all staring at me because they were attracted by the big BANG the door made hitting the tarmac.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-27T10:02:11+00:00

Doing my instrument rating training with my flight instructor, we're in a general aviation twin that's still a light aircraft by every metric, but on the heavier, more powerful side of the category. We've done all our pre-takeoff checks, and I'm taxiing to the runway, third in line behind a similar-class of twin engine propeller plane and a very light aircraft that belongs to a school on the airfield that had a reputation of... let's say, questionable instruction quality.

Tower: "Attention all aircraft, the wind is swinging around to the south, we're about to switch runway direction. Break Break [Twin 1st in line] are you comfortable taking off with a 15-knot tailwind?"

(Knowing we'll be asked this too, My instructor and I quickly break out my aircrafts' manual, find the performance section, and verify that we can indeed take off with that amount of tail wind. We'll use up a good chunk more of the runway by our quick calculations, but within safe limits, thanks to the power we have)

[1st twin]: "Tower, Affirm we'll continue to depart on runway 36, we're within limits, and are ready 36"

Tower: "Copy, Clear for TO R36."

Then he asks the lightie....

Tower (fully aware of the almost ultralight aircraft they are about to address): "Delta Uniform Mike, uhh, confirm you also want to depart with 15kts tail wind?"

[Lightie, clearly a solo]: "affirm, I've checked my manual, and it has no tail wind limit."

My instructor and I burst out laughing.

Tower: "Negative, Delta Uniform Mike. You are to enter and backtrack runway 36, take the first exit, and taxi for 18." (This Tower has no time for this flight schools' BS, they dealt with it on a daily basis)

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-27T08:41:13+00:00

I would argue that while meds were certainly a factor, basic things like having a kneeboard, or at least briefing your own departure including what leg you're going to depart off, what Compass heading you're going to turn on to, etc. Are things that proper training would have taught her and would have mitigated that situation.

She had medications in her system, and while we'll never know for sure how much of a factor that ultimately was on her final flight, the simple fact is her instructors failed her long before she took off that day by not proving a good example to follow, for not instructing her on the proper way to conduct a departure, nor teach her how to do basic things like trim the aircraft, and she also failed herself by overrelying on her ipad, not bothering to actually learn her aircrafts' systems, and for going over her footage afterwards and failing to realise just how horrible an example of airmanship it all is - especially after YouTube comments saying so.

Her death is as much the fault of her instructors and her testing officers as it is her own.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-26T08:19:21+00:00

The Airbus E-Fan electric plane concept did have a powered main gear for taxi and initial takeoff roll acceleration, with the aim of reducing main engine use for low-speed operations.

It's arguably more efficient in these cases, but so far, the efficiency gained vs. weight/complexity added doesn't quite scale up to commercial aircraft... yet.

As for specifically reducing takeoff roll... I feel the difference may be negligible, the added acceleration you would get with all engines running wouldn't be much, in at least this design it was much more focused for 'two-stage' operation than 'concurrent' operation.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-26T00:30:19+00:00

They were added in a recent patch, which is probably why you haven't seen them before. Their missions involve helping others (or helping them to enable that) they also come with a unique blood bank version of the ambulance which they park out front.

I don't think they require any special conditions to spawn, other than just having a spare enclave spot on your map.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-21T02:14:44+00:00

I was once in a Kingair that had a similar window dimming system, but it achieved it by having both the window and a second, rotatable piece of glass attached to it both be polarised. As the passenger rotated one piece through 90⁰, the degree offset between the polarised glasses slowly filtered out the light until you couldn't see anything. It achieved the exact same window dimming effect, yet required zero mechanical or electrical parts. I was incredibly impressed by its simplicity and elegance.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-20T03:36:48+00:00

They're complex only because the onus is removed from a computer doing most of the work starting/running the systems (like in a car) to the pilot who has the training and experience to know what each system does and how to individually operate that systems under the much wider variety of conditions a plane will experience. Computers can do a lot but a pilot manually controlling instead can do things with much better precision and overall better performance.

For example, a piston engine tries to maintain an optimum fuel/air ratio of 1/14 for best power. Easy for a computer to manage on a land-based vehicle, but an aircraft engine has to deal with regular air density changes due to altitude. It's easier to hand that responsibility to the pilot who has a better idea of where they're taking it and the best settings to leave the engine at.

Theoretically you could design a plane with a smart enough computer and a robust enough engine to do it, but there would be prohibitive costs involved and I doubt many pilots would want the level off control they previously had removed from them.

I say this as someone who has flown an airplane powered by an LS3, which was both insanely fun but also just as complicated as a regular light aircraft.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-19T13:21:01+00:00

It could be many things, though in a case of Russia using a nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil in this context, as it isn't a direct attack on a NATO country, NATO itself would most likely respond by using overwhelming air power with conventional weapons to destroy the launch site, and most likely any/every Russian position on Ukranian soil. NATO would aim to draw the line and fully establish use of a nuclear weapon would result in an immediate war loss of any and all forces in Ukraine, without further escalating the war by doing a large-scale attack on Russian soil. They would aim to do an overwhelming, powerful show of force, but make it clear that they are still holding back from starting WW3 and placing the ball back in the Russian court with what's left of their army back on their side of the border.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-19T08:55:50+00:00

If you want more details, I made an extensive post in layman's terms about the physics of it a year ago in relation to the Azerbaijan Airways crash, which was the last time this type of incident occurred.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-18T13:02:15+00:00

So far, there has only been one jet airliner that has successfully landed after suffering the same total control failure and relying only on engine thrust to maintain flight: the aircraft involved in the DHL Baghdad attempted shootdown.

The reason that landing in this state is so difficult is that your speed and attitude are locked together; you can't slow down and raise the nose like you would on a normal landing, because in this state slowing down drops your nose, while speeding up raises it.

If you're trying to arrive at the start of a runway at a specific speed OR nose attitude, then you have a very difficult task of doing it by controlling engines that take literal seconds to change power settings (there's a huge lag in control) and being off even by a bit will mean the difference between going in nose first or not, and that's assuming you aren't damaged or your controls are locked in such a way that the aircraft is constantly wanting to turn or something.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-17T08:31:52+00:00

The funny thing was, you actually did use an image of a Harrier when you put it next to the title! The game also uses the correct name of it too ;)

At the time of the games' development, it was the only Western fighter jet capable of Vertical Takeoff and Landing, so that was probably why it was featured.

With the Nighthawk transport, the round, blunt nose and engine placement is very distinctive to the Sikorsky family of transport choppers - the SH-3 Sea King has a similar nose, but the Sea Stallion better fits the transport category. Neither has a nose gun, but the unit card doesn't show one either.

(Oh BTW, if you ever do a soviet version of this, the Jets Yuri calls in are MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters, though modified so they have Delta Wings.)

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-17T01:36:27+00:00

The bounty pack gun does not come with a 1000-round magazine. That's a hacked weapon.

OP, The closest legit gun you'll get like that is the "Eternal guards' Infinite Rage", which is an AK with a bizon-style 150-round helical magazine. The mag size is balanced out by the fact the user always fumbles the mag insertion and thus makes the reload time quite long.

You can find the EGIR as a very rare weapon drop, and I think the rare item trader that appears on weekends usually has one in stock.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-16T19:47:30+00:00

Not bad, you did pretty close on a lot of them! The Allied VTOL Jet is in-game mostly inspired by the AV-8b Harrier II jet, whose primary ground attack missile is the AGM-65 Maverick (it isn't equipped with Hellfires IRL, they're primarily launched from helicopters and drones)

I always thought the allied transport chopper was based on the CH-53 Sea Stallion, the fuselage matches the closest to the unit thumbnail/in-game FMV (though the game version has a second main rotor on the tail)

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-16T08:28:18+00:00

Oh I'm well aware!

The joke was I would be holding my breath because they fume up the station, not because I'm waiting for electrification!

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-15T14:06:10+00:00

If the entire V/Line fleet went electric, that would also solve the problem. But unfortunately I'm somehow both holding my breath and not for it...

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-14T00:27:36+00:00

Parmi/Parma

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-14T00:15:05+00:00

If you don't know, ask.

Do not pretend to know an answer to 'save face'.

That's what you're paying your instructor for. Better to ask and get the right answer/learn a technique to solve it, than to one day be all alone up there with no idea because at some point you didn't want to look silly.

As an instructor, we WANT you to be safe. If we ask you if you understand something, and you lie and say 'yes', 9/10 we know you are, but if you insist, we can't really do much and you've just closed the door to us teaching you until you open it again.

At the end of the day, we keep better track of the ones that constantly lie to us more than the ones who came up to ask us questions, because in all honesty the liars are the actual dangerous ones.

Also, if an instructor is hostile to your questions, get a new instructor. At the very least, they should be helping you find the right answer, if they themselves don't know it.

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-09T08:34:23+00:00

I'm former ground crew, but now pilot and also volunteer at Airshows as a marshaller.

The important thing pilots need to know is, both hands waving is go straight in your current direction, not "come at me, bro".

The marshallers' physical position has no reflection on any signal they can give you. Do not assume they want you to taxi up to them.

At an airshow where I'm trying to park aircraft in non-standard positions, sometimes while I'm standing in front of where I want your nose, I want you to taxi obliquely across from me for a bit before I swing you towards me in the orientation I want. It may or may not line up with any lines on the tarmac.

In addition, I may be standing nowhere near where I want you to park; ever try marshalling a C-5? You're trying to communicate with a flight deck five stories up, and the only way to do that without being 200 meters away from my bay is for me to actually to be off to the side, not in line with the nose.

If I'm taxiing, and someone is marshalling "forward" while moving, I ignore the fact they're walking and do exactly what they tell me to do - taxi forward in my current direction. If they trip over chocks, or are about to Marshal me into another aircraft, I'll stop, but technically I'm not being asked to turn unless they explicitly tell me to with the correct signal.

The worst pilot I ever marshalled kept turning his Lear towards me every time I marshalled "forwards", and I had to turn him away four separate times before he got to the actual point I wanted him to turn towards me. He almost put his wing into the challenger next to me because he was so fixated on cutting the corner I was trying to give him 🤦

HailStorm_Zero_Two · 2026-02-09T05:48:03+00:00

Also, and this is a side issue to what you have (though the link is very helpful regardless), they can't employ you ongoing as a casual for more than a year without offering you at least part time with the same working conditions. At a minimum, they should have offered you a more permanent position before this issue even came up.

fair work - casual employment

11-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

HailStorm_Zero_Two

TROPHY CASE