Another interesting factoid: Marquardt built one of the very first (or maybe even *the* first – I’m not sure) Artificial Kidney Dialysis Machines, tested in 1970 at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, L.A.

Not first, but definately one of the first more practical machines. The first dialysis machines were built by a Dutch medic, dr. Kolff, in the 1950s. Not that those were really practical, as they were so big that a patient hooked on to them were basically drained of all their blood. Kolff later went on to work at the UCLA/Cedars Sinai, so he was probably involved in the Marquardt machine as well. I believe Marquardt had some interesting membranes for these machines, which ment that the machine could remain small and hence wouldn’t drain the patient too much. With the old machine, blood pressure would drop to dramatically low levels when hooked up.

For those who think WTF?, a dialysis machine is some sort of ‘external kidney’ which cleans the blood of people which have suffered kidney failures. And for that other WTF: i’ve been the chief editor for the Dutch magazine for nurses in the dialysis and transplant business 🙂

Stand corrected on the J-5 production – single seaters were indeed built until 1959 only (Lims were actually built till 1964, so i was wrong there), but the JJ-5 was built until 1986 – so i reckon that a full spares production was running until that year as well. Which could also explain the high quality of the J-5s when compared to the Lims on the warbird circuit. However, when comparing it would be interesting to know what the actual careers of these warbirds were before being sold on the private market. I do know of some J-5s on offer in the late 1980s with only some 500 hours on their clocks, whereas none of the Polish ones had such low airframe useage.

I do hope i didn’t misread that quote, and that guy actually thinks that China also built MiG-15/MiG-15UTIs…

Weekend warrior: the fact that i love Chinese food doesn’t mean that Chinese aircraft are any good, and neither do antique artefacts. With the same logic, i could say that Chinese aircraft suck because the pavements i walked on in China were really, really bad.

Something burning here, although it’s not after.

If you allow this fellow primate to join the fray… Showing gloss-painted demoteam aircraft (which also happen to be specifically modified for that job, and definately recieve a lot of extra attention compared to operational fighters) as ‘evidence’ of high-quality surface finish of one country’s aircraft over another country’s is just pure ********. Put a J-7 of the August 1st demoteam next to a Striji MiG-29 or Vityazi Su-35 and both will be looking excellent, dentless and as smooth as a freshly oiled babybum. It would be a lot fairer to compare a twenty-year old MiG-23 with an equally old J-7, for example. Or you can get really mean and compare the length of a J-6 from an early 1960s production batch with the length of a late 1970s-built J-6. Gee, how come that supposedly identical aircraft from an identical factory differ some ten centimetres in length? Admittedly, those non-existant production standards are definately gone in the PRC, but the Soviets never were that bad. Same with the ludicrous claim that Soviet-built RD-9 engines had a short service life, while it’s Chinese copies hadn’t. That’s not quite what the Egyptians experienced with their F-6es, and considering the fact that the first T-8 (later Su-25) prototype flew with engines simply taken out of a MiG-19 does suggest something for the lifespan of the Soviet RD-9s as well.

I seriously wonder how many airplanes people claiming that “country A has a better production finish than country B” from both countries concerned have seen from up close. If you compare a SABCA-built BLu F-16 with a US-built Greek F-16, some of you would immediately claim that SABCA-Lawndarts are ‘built much better’ than Ft Worth-Lawndarts. But then again, if you would compare a standard USAF F-16 with a standard BLu F-16 the conclusion would definately be the other way around.

One question: how many of the people claiming that Russian building quality is worse than Chinese, European or American production finish have spent a considerable time looking at tiny details of those very aircraft – in wheelbays, for example? If you haven’t, i wonder on what your claims are based.

EDIT: Re Crobato’s picture of a “poorly constructed” Soviet aircraft, that one is a German MiG-29. While some of the panels are indeed bent somewhat by repeated opening and closing, the plane looks that bad mostly because of all the blotches of paint used to cover scratches in the original paintjob. Because the original paint has likely faded over the years, the new paint has a different shade even though it comes from the same can. The pic says absolutely nothing about surface finish quality of production aircraft, but only illustrates how ANY aircraft looks after a lot of hard work and out-of-depot maintenance. Each aircraft about to recieve depot work will look like that.
Just compare a pic like that with the look of the ex-German MiG-29s on delivery to Poland. Did the production quality suddenly improve just because that MiG just recieved overhaul? I think not :rolleyes:

Nope, those 20x60s are pretty cheap. Got my last pair for some 100 euros.

Now with a bit of googling googling and a lot of help from the hints:

3. — What was the first aircraft with a hydraulic system with a pressure of
3.1. — 3000psi Hint: A heavy U.S.

B-36? Not sure, but i did find a number of references on problems with their high-pressure hydraulics. Then again, the other candidate i can think of is the Bristol Brabazon which wasn’t military.

3.3. — 5000psi Hint: Not so long ago and still doesn’t work

The V-22 Osprey. Yet another possible program-killer…

…basically all T-tails have slight anhedral.

Not all of them. The Voodoo had dihedral, and the Javelin had perfectly straight tailplanes. Not that either one had particularly pleasant characteristics.

12. — Identify these six planes, and plz be as specific as possible
X — X — X (yes, “something French”, but what?) — MiG27K — “Prone” Meteor — X (what Meteor? it is not Israeli. Hint: It is French)
Hint from left to right: A heavy U.S. plane (basically easy, but an uncommon view — a USN fighter — something the French used for Delta-research — that funny-nosed Meteor flew till about 1967 in France

Left: AJ Savage? It’s not an airplane i’m really familiar with, but the small sloping canopy does look like it.
Second: thanks for the hint, it’s an F7U-3 Cutlass (with the high canopy). You’re looking from the rear towards the back-end of the canopy, the ‘flared’ pieces which appear to be some sort of wings at the bottom of the pic are actually the intakes.
Third: still no idea… that final Payen thing perhaps?
That Meteor: one of many NF11 testbeds from the CEV, this one doing EW tests over Cazaux?

The one in the back is a long one, so most likely an L100-30. Most, if not all, ex-military Hercs flying as civilian cargo planes are short ones.