Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Watch arses
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59098
Generally speaking Rolex movements have never been particularly "pretty" to look at and again generally they applied an engineering bias more than an ornamental one.Unless it's a Rolex Prince, they have an exhibition back and a beautiful movement behind it.
It's not tarted up, it's kinda "basic" looking, but it's like that for solid horological reasons. Mid range Seiko movements are similar. Solid. You can bate a Rolex movement like that off a wall and it'll keep ticking and you regularly hear of people having Rolexs(and aforementioned Seikos) for twenty plus years without the sniff of a service and still running like trains.
Rolex tended to be consistent across movements too. You don't get basic movements, medium level movements and heavily ornamental movements like many brands do, or certainly did in the past. Of the other brands Longines would be similar, if not even more consistent. From the cheapest to the top of the ranges in their history the movements looked very similar. Personally I like that aspect, that it's all about the engineering and what makes for a better movement, rather than what makes for a fancier looking one. If they are pretty to look at it comes from the engineering, not the other way around.
Funny enough one of Rolex's more "ornamental" movements was the OysterQuartz. Very nicely finished, Geneva stripes and all. Very innovative too.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Generally speaking Rolex movements have never been particularly "pretty" to look at and again generally they applied an engineering bias more than an ornamental one.
Funny enough one of Rolex's more "ornamental" movements was the OysterQuartz. Very nicely finished, Geneva stripes and all. Very innovative too.
Absolutely they are known for being robust movements and not particularly "lookers" but the modern Prince is an exception. Chronometer manual movement and the only Rolex with an exhibition back (at least that I know of). Nice review from Tim Mosso here
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Trigger Happy wrote: »A few of the more interesting watch bums from my collection.
Dammit man, name them!
0 -
-
Lorddrakul wrote: »Dammit man, name them!
Top is a William L. It was the 20th watch he ever produced.
Then middle row is a Christopher Ward VC3 Morgan, a no name Chinese pilots watch and a Seagull 63.
Bottom is an omega speedmaster!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Swapping out a strap today on the Globemaster and had to take a pic, love the finish on this movement.
temporary image upload
P.S. serial number pixelated out in case you're wondering why it's blurred in parts0 -
Advertisement
-
-
My oldest watch, a 1959 Longines Conquest. The green enamel on the back is showing it's age, still a beauty though and a great timekeeper.If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.
0 -
-
Diver's ass. But what is interesting is that it has a fairly low serial number (just 2 digits blotted out), and being a special edition means they're only being made for a year. This is from Sept 19 so the year is almost up, but you never know with Seiko.
Seiko King Turtle btw.
Fg might have been right about buying a few Seiko divers.If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
If you excuse the quick crap pic, this is a 38 on my just under 7 inch wrist. I was struggling between picking the 35.5 and 38. The reason for the pic is just to show the unusual lugs that really protrude. It kind of makes the watch wear a bit bigger as a result. This leads me to believe that the 35.5 wouldn't be as small as it sounds buy I still think for a 6 and three quarter wrist, the 38 is the better option.0 -
-
If you excuse the quick crap pic, this is a 38 on my just under 7 inch wrist. I was struggling between picking the 35.5 and 38. The reason for the pic is just to show the unusual lugs that really protrude. It kind of makes the watch wear a bit bigger as a result. This leads me to believe that the 35.5 wouldn't be as small as it sounds buy I still think for a 6 and three quarter wrist, the 38 is the better option.
Interesting take on it! Do the lugs overhang/sit flush on your wrist, would you mind posting a side profile view on the pics thread if not too much hassle? Really conflicting anecdotal experiences online.
Tried on my better half's DW/tangente ripoff today - it's 35*42mm with 18mm lugs, feels like a 20c coin on my wrist after taking off the Sinn.
Sorry Wibbs, back on topic now...
0 -
If you excuse the quick crap pic, this is a 38 on my just under 7 inch wrist. I was struggling between picking the 35.5 and 38. The reason for the pic is just to show the unusual lugs that really protrude. It kind of makes the watch wear a bit bigger as a result. This leads me to believe that the 35.5 wouldn't be as small as it sounds buy I still think for a 6 and three quarter wrist, the 38 is the better option.
Mmmm very nice.
I am eyeing the same model in midnight blue a little lately.
That 38 (or is it 37.5 even I think) is perfect on your wrist.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59098
Like all Swiss oufits they were happy to play both sides(until the German hard cash ran out), with the notable exception of Rolex.For IWC shouldn't it be a Messerschmitt? :PI'd actually far, far, far prefer a Messerschmitt!!!! :P
I wouldn't. Feckin flight safety hazard with wings. :eek:
Good question T. Before the war the US Hampden had sold their machinery to the Soviets and had sent over American watchmakers to set up the factory which IIRC became the Kirov factory. Just after the war the Soviets captured the Hanhart facility and shipped a load of unfinished movements and machinery back to the motherland, mostly chronographs and then started internal production.Wibbs might know - what did the soviet pilots use for "fliegers"?
During the war I have no idea TBH and never found a satisfactory answer. They did import a load of US watches, Gruen, Hamilton etc as part of the lend lease deals. No doubt some of them ended up on pilot's wrists.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
I wouldn't. Feckin flight safety hazard with wings. :eek:
Absolute bastard on the ground.
But a late F series with the clean wing and the Galland hood would be my high altitude fighter of choice.
The argument is always made that some Germans racked up ridiculous scores in the east flying against poor opponents.
IMO, it doesn't hold true after 1943, the Russians cottoned on quickly to their strengths and stayed below 5000mtrs for a reason.
Even in the west though, against the best of the western pilots and planes the 109 did sterling service.
Yes other fighters were better, especially late war but German Experten still scored heavily in the 109 in all theatres it flew.
Now that said, if I had to fight in a WW2 fighter and couldn't have altitude?
It'd be the Goodyear version of the Corsair with all the naval equipment stripped out and lightened as possible, or if I could lay hands on a Grumman F8!
But for sheer destructive effectiveness?
I'd take a 109F with the clean wing.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59098
FW190 myself. Harmonised controls, easy to build transport and repair, more forgiving of damage and rookie and average pilots*. IMHO the best all rounder piston fighter(with a sideorder of bomber) in the war. Not nearly as scalable as the Spit mind you. For the experts the ME262. I remember reading the memoirs of a French ace who said by the end of the war the Germans had either complete newbies, or complete experts, If you engaged a group, most would leg it, but if one stuck around and engaged, start praying.
*a rellie who flew a few British types in the war reckoned one big reason(other than propaganda) the Spit was so liked and so good was it was very forgiving at the limit, especially for rookies. The stall was the most gentle of any piston fighter of the time(the Mustang was a right wagon) and it gave plenty of warning before you stalled in a turn. The 109 in the hands of an expert yeah, but push it too hard the leading edge slats would deploy, inevitably asymmetrically and you'd spin out. He reckoned it was less that it could turn better, but more that you could push her harder than an average German pilot would dare. Though he did say the rudder pedals were more for show...Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
FW190 myself. Harmonised controls, easy to build transport and repair, more forgiving of damage and rookie and average pilots*. IMHO the best all rounder piston fighter(with a sideorder of bomber) in the war. Not nearly as scalable as the Spit mind you. For the experts the ME262. I remember reading the memoirs of a French ace who said by the end of the war the Germans had either complete newbies, or complete experts, If you engaged a group, most would leg it, but if one stuck around and engaged, start praying.
*a rellie who flew a few British types in the war reckoned one big reason(other than propaganda) the Spit was so liked and so good was it was very forgiving at the limit, especially for rookies. The stall was the most gentle of any piston fighter of the time(the Mustang was a right wagon) and it gave plenty of warning before you stalled in a turn. The 109 in the hands of an expert yeah, but push it too hard the leading edge slats would deploy, inevitably asymmetrically and you'd spin out. He reckoned it was less that it could turn better, but more that you could push her harder than an average German pilot would dare. Though he did say the rudder pedals were more for show...
I would in my earlier years have always gone for FW
Very well thought out weapons system, even the trimming and auto engine controls were a precursor to HOTAS.
Its just a bit too common now tho :P I'm trying to be hipsterish with my choices :pac:
The Spit AFAIK had a gentle wing drop pre stall, with plenty of onset buffet to warn you it was coming. The 109, well you hoped you were high enough to recover because it would flip out on a whim.
Some other choices that spring to mind for me would be the Fiat G55 or the Yak-9.
And if you could pick and mix equipment, I'd be sticking the mk2 gyro gunsight on whatever I was flying.
I actually have a book with some really lovely interviews with pilots of the great planes, "in the cockpit" I must get around to digitizing at some stage.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59098
Very sadly not D. I did have a German one button Hanhart for a short time in the mid 90's, sold it to buy two other watches(and car partsIs the Kirova one of yours, Wibbs? If so very very jealous!!). I remember it was a choice to either find a watchmaker to fix it(the chrono part wasn't working correctly) or sell it on. Hard to find a watchmaker back then so selling it on was the better bet. Plus TBH it actually felt quite flimsy, even "cheap". Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
I am now off to load up IL2 and play a campaign or 2
I haven't played a flight sim in years!
I have DCS but hadn't played it in years and it's more jet orientated anyway.
So I took a trip over to Steam, and picked up lL2:1946 with a load of add one for the grand total of €9.99!
I think my college output may take a hit this semester
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0zPRWxQig
Advertisement