溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 國產倫敦的士 sell平、型、潮 [打印本頁]

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-18 07:33 標題: 國產倫敦的士 sell平、型、潮

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-18 07:49

It looks OK wow...

作者: ricrick 時間: 2010-10-18 09:45

Guess when can we buy inexpensive but reliable Chinese cars? Don't want to let
the Japs earn my ...
fy789 發表於 2010-10-18 07:33

good luck

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-18 09:48

Btw...calling Japanese "Japs" is the same as calling Chinese "Chinks" or "Chinaman"...

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-18 11:40

Btw...calling Japanese "Japs" is the same as calling Chinese "Chinks" or "Chinaman"...
fibbi 發表於 2010-10-18 09:48

You are right, but they deserve to be called Japs for all their faults, like Nanjing massacre, killing millions of Chinese during WWII, comfort ladies, biochemical experiments in North Eastern China, forced military money usage in Hong Kong etc. The Japs need to apologize.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-18 11:42

Guess when can we buy inexpensive but reliable Chinese cars? Don't want to let
the Japs earn my ...
fy789 發表於 2010-10-18 07:33

You can just buy the Chinese Volvo now.

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-18 11:44

本帖最後由 fibbi 於 2010-10-18 11:57 編輯

回復 5# peter236

Whether they deserved to be called is another topic. In daily context if we just want to use abbreviation, Jap is not a proper word.

作者: Catpiano 時間: 2010-10-18 11:54

Yeah .. WW II now ...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-18 18:42

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-18 18:51

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-18 19:14

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-18 21:57

本帖最後由 fibbi 於 2010-10-18 22:00 編輯

成王敗寇，割地賠償係好慘。怪就只怪自己積弱，可以怨誰？
以前中國強盛時咪又係要啲藩國年年進貢，歲歲來朝？
係，日本人係好睇唔起中國人，係有優越感，WWII時對中國人亦好殘忍，但係我唔認為現今社會個個日本人都係咁。好多都係無知嘅一群，因為啲歷史書亂咁寫。轉個頭諗，日本人係對敵人殘忍，我哋呢？點解文革時死咁多人？我哋又點鬥死啲自己人？
講WWII，日本同德國都係戰敗國，但我真係佩服德國，納粹都殘忍，但係佢哋都肯道歉賠償，以史為鑒；日本真係死不恢改。所以日本車和德國車，我一定揀德國車。中國車，相信要等多十年八年去build up個credibility 同realiability。

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-18 22:05

I know "Japs" is a racially-biased abbreviation; but how come they still called
us "Gee Nah Ren", t ...
fy789 發表於 2010-10-18 18:42

Why don't you just buy a Chinese Volvo? It is easy and simple to buy a Volvo here.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-18 22:05

你係咪有強迫症？？
日日幻想俾日本仔蝦？？

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 06:12

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 06:22

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 06:24

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 06:30

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 06:41

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-19 08:50

回復 16# fy789

In what ways I'm rationalize Japanese crime regarding WWII? I said they are cruel to Chinese, they also look down on Chinese.
凡事有果必又因，點解甲五戰爭會輸，點解中國要割地賠償，被烈強瓜分，與其話人哋點解咁無品嚟搶我哋嘅嘢，點解唔怪自己積弱，被人有機可成，怪人之外都唔該反醒吓自己，以史為鑒，日本人就係唔肯承認歷史，我希望我哋中國人唔係同佢哋一樣。

呢個世界弱肉強食，弱國就被人欺，以前就明刀明槍嚟搶，現在就講經濟着數。想要贏得人尊重，就要自強。現在中國強大，別國都要睇佢臉色。

過份的nationalism對世界對人都沒有好處。

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-19 09:02

本帖最後由 fibbi 於 2010-10-19 09:23 編輯

回復 18# fy789

Those are two separate things. Japanese are cruel to Chinese during WWII. This is a fact. They don't want to admit their wrong doing, try to deny history, that's another fact.
我想說的是人性是有醜陋的一面。日本人，德國人在二次大戰時對敵人殘暴不堪。
但你能否定中國人的人性沒有醜陋的一面嗎？文革就是一個很好的例子。

題外話，我啲中國歷史考第一架，仲要係全級嗰隻。不過我最唔鐘意讀清朝，七國咁亂，睇見都眼火爆。
而我認為讀歷史就是要學懂分析，從歷史中汲取教訓，以史為鑒。

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-19 09:13

回復 19# fy789

I do believe Chinese car is catching up fast. But reliability takes time to build up. I do think that it will take less time than Korean car. When Korean car first come out, it's just crappy quality. Over the years and numerous improvement, now Korean cars have gained significant market share. I am sure Chinese car can do the same too. I'm glad that you support the Chinese auto industry, but buying a car without sufficient track record is just too risky IMO.

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-10-19 11:49

If not for WWII that the Japs fighted with and exhausted the KMT army, not to mention that the Japs sometimes cooperated with CCP guerillas, CCP would not have the chance to strength themselves and gained power later after winning the civil war, and we would have been able to live in a free, equal, and democratic China now, much like an enlarged version of Taiwan. In addition, all the crimes CCP committed would not have the chance to begin with.

Spend some time to read modern Chinese books and use your brain, instead of your butt, to think next time when you criticize others!
fy789 發表於 2010-10-19 06:22

Dai Lo,

Why was CCP able to rise up so quickly in the first place? More importantly, why did they manage to gather so much support from the regular citizens in such a short time?

Nobody knows what will happen had history took a different path, but had the KMT not suffered major losses and fled to Taiwan, the Jiangs would most definitely not have reflected on their past mistakes and embraced reforms nearly as quickly. For all we know, had the CCP not kicked out the KMT, China could still be just as corrupt as it is today, or perhaps even more so because the KMT were already corrupted to its core prior to the civil war.

So I am gonna say exactly the same thing as you have said to Fibbi: Spend some time reading modern Chinese books and use your brain, instead of your butt, to think next time when you criticize others!

-Lik

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-10-19 11:54

EEven if Chinese cars were a little behind other competitors, I would still buy
one for the purpose of assisting the Chinese automobile industry.

I am an engineer, and I work with lots of smart and diligent Chinese engineers on a day-to-day basis. Given the chance, I am sure China can build quality and inexpensive cars.
fy789 發表於 2010-10-19 06:41

I'm glad you're volunteering to be the guinea pig and and beta test these early generation Chinese cars. I'd much rather enjoy a mature product when they've had their bugs worked out instead of putting up with early generation defects.

Also, with the appreciation of RMB and the rise of Chinese salaries in general, I wouldn't count on Chinese products of the future being as cheap as many people seem to think.

-Lik

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 12:00

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 12:05 編輯

I'm glad you're volunteering to be the guinea pig and and beta test these early generation Chinese ...
Lik 發表於 2010-10-19 11:54

There are so many indigenous Chinese car designs that are already very good. They are already better built than the Japanese/Korean cars from just 10 years ago.
According to international car experts, the technology gap is just less than 6-7 years, which means Chinese car makers are able to catch up in less than 3 yrs.
For now, just buy a Chinese Volvo car.

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-10-19 12:09

LOL~

As a rational and logical consumer, I buy the best product that I can afford. I do not buy anything for "patriotic" reasons, and I have no reason to be "patriotic" to China anyways.

Morons like you, on the other hand, will do anything as long as it is "China-approved". LOL~

Are you even aware that the current Volvos have absolutely nothing to do with China as far as design and engineering are concerned? They are designs that have already been put into execution by American and Swedish companies (Ford and Volvo). China has nothing to do with them.

Moron~

-Lik

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 12:13

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 12:28 編輯

LOL~

As a rational and logical consumer, I buy the best product that I can afford. I do not buy any ...
Lik 發表於 2010-10-19 12:09

You moron Lik~~,

China and Hong Kong do not need you to be patriotic anyway. They have so much talent, so they do not need you at all. So please delete your Chinese name.

Most Japanese and Koreans do buy their own cars based on patriotism.

We are all aware of the designs of Volvo cars. For those who do not want to feed those perverted Japanese, Volvo cars are one of the choices. At least, the money goes to a Chinese owned company which can then use the money in Chinese car research and design.

hahaha, you moron

作者: blue20ae 時間: 2010-10-19 12:23

Which model would you suggest as an example of "indigenous Chinese car designs"?

All the car companies are linked worldwide.
http://www.toomanycars.info/CarRelationship/Car_Rel-Image2.html

They all leverage technologies from each other. Also most Chinese Manufacturer are started as JV. It would be interesting to see what is a Chinese brand.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 12:25

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 12:27 編輯

Which model would you suggest as an example of "indigenous Chinese car designs"?

All the car compan ...
blue20ae 發表於 2010-10-19 12:23

There are over 100 Chinese car makers. Most of the big Chinese car makers have two parts to their businesses. One part is the JV. The other part is indigenous car making.

There are also the private car makers like Cherry, BYD and Geely.

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-10-19 12:50

Most Japanese and Koreans do buy their own cars based on patriotism.

We are all aware of the designs of Volvo cars. For those who do not want to feed those perverted Japanese, Volvo cars are one of the choices. At least, the money goes to a Chinese owned company which can then use the money in Chinese car research and design.
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 12:13

Moron,

In Japan at least, people are buying local Japanese cars not because they are patriotic -- the Japanese government is extremely heavy handed on protectionism measures, so import taxes and duties are really high on any of the import brands. So for locals and normal people, they just buy locally made Japanese cars since imported cars from foreign manufacturers are too expensive.

No sensible consumer would go support a company even if they made inferior products. And yet that is exactly what you are recommending people to do. If that is not moronic, I dunno what else it could be la~

-Lik

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 13:47

我諗我識既日本人多過你。
你鐘意日日中華民族到了最危險的時候由得你，
不過鴕鳥嗰個係你，
你概本唔明佢地作風，
日日幻想日本滅中國~~
老實講，日本仔反華示威都冇出過「要中國消失」呢D口號，
反而反日就有句「要日本從地球消失」～～
日日係度打飛機冇用嫁～～～～～

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 13:57

回復 25# peter236

你又打飛機～～
你都未答我殲10用乜engine??
做乜同以色列lavi一個餅印咁既？？？？
太行呢？？？裝得未呀？？？

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 16:08

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 16:16 編輯

回復 peter236

你又打飛機～～
你都未答我殲10用乜engine??
做乜同以色列lavi一個餅印咁既？？？？ ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 13:57

The J10 does not look like the Lavi at all. The J10 is China's indigenous design and has no relations with the Lavi at all. The Lavi was not even developed totally and was already abandoned.

The latest information suggests that J10 and the J11 now use China's own indigenous Shenyang WS-10 engine. China is now developing the J15 which is equivalent to the F22 plane.

We can see China is definitely moving ahead with their own indigenous designs after working so diligently for the past few decades.

Canada, on the other hand, is spending a lot of money on US made planes.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 18:50

不如我post啲相上黎好唔好？？？

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:08

以色列賣左成個project俾中共咋～
傻仔!成都有架Lavi prototype 嫁!

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:12

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 19:19 編輯

以色列賣左成個project俾中共咋～
傻仔!成都有架Lavi prototype 嫁!
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 19:08

hahaha, you moron~~
The Lavi project was not even totally developed. The US would not have allowed such a sale to China anyways, since the Lavi contains some US technology.
I have been following the J10 project from the beginning. Of course I heard about wild claims that they sold it China.
But the J10 is based on the indigenous Chinese J9.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:17

Lavi....

J10

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:20

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 19:33 編輯

They don't show resemblance at all.
The radar, avionics and weapons on the J10 are all indigenous Chinese design.

Please see wikipedia.
All Lavi prototypes were scrapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi

"When the IAI Lavi was cancelled on August 30, 1987, a total of five airframes had been built. Prototypes #1 and #2 were completed prototypes, while #3, #4, and #5 were incomplete. Parts from unit #1 and #2 were pulled to complete unit #3 as the private-venture technology demonstrator (TD) aircraft. The gutted unit #2 was put in the Israeli Air Force museum at the Hatzerim Airbase for static display, and the rest (#1, #4, & #5) were scrapped."

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:20

殲乜鬼15....
Su-33就係Su-33啦!

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:21

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 19:31 編輯

Chinese J9, on which J10 is based.

Please refer to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-9

"The new J-9 design had air intakes on the fuselage sides featuring variable inlet geometry to alter the compression mixture. It used a Chinese designed WS-6 turbofan engine with 12,400 kgf (27,000lbf) afterburning thrust, and featured a Type 205 radar (with a search range of about 70 km) and four PL-4 radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The J-9 plan was discontinued in 1980, but the J-9 development enabled Chinese engineers to gain experience with the canard layout type, experience that would prove useful in the J-10 project."

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:23

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 19:42 編輯

殲乜鬼15....
Su-33就係Su-33啦!
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 19:20

Indigenous Chinese J15 naval version is equivalent to class Su33, but since China can make them, there is no need to buy from Russia.
The J15 uses indigenouse Chinese radar, Avionics and weapons.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:39

仲有,殲15係艦載機，點會同F-22同級？？
係比都同FA-18/F-35C比啦～～

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:41

仲有,殲15係艦載機，點會同F-22同級？？
係比都同FA-18/F-35C比啦～～
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 19:39

The new indigenous Chinese stealth planes will give some competition for the US F22 planes.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:41

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-19 19:53 編輯

你真係未見過J-15???
我又洗唔洗post上黎？？？

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:49

The new indigenous Chinese stealth planes will give some competition for the US F22 planes.
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 19:41

你都幾過癮，性質同作戰目的都唔同，點比？？？

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 19:55

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-19 19:58 編輯

上Su-33
下JJ-15...

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 19:57

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 20:01 編輯

上Su-33
下JJ-15...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 19:55

The J15 uses indigenous Chinese radar, avionics and weapons.
That is why the J15 is superior to the Su33.

The Chinese need to prevent the Russians from copying Chinese technology.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 20:05

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-19 20:14 編輯

傻仔，人地問過俄羅斯賣兩架Su-33俾成都，俄仔死都唔肯賣咋～
咁中國就係烏克蘭搵架訓練機番黎搞咋～～
中國可以整既係Su-27(J-11),因為老俄賣生產權同技術俾中國咋～唔係33呀傻仔!

不過都唔怪得佢，
摺翼機真係好難做。

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 20:09

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 20:12 編輯

傻仔，人地問過俄羅斯賣兩架Su-33俾成都，俄仔死都唔肯賣咋～
中國可以整既係Su-27(J-11),因為老俄賣生產權 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 20:05

You moron~~

China can now make their own J15 with indigenous radar, avionics and weapons. There is no need to buy from Russia.
Russia wanted to make $$ by selling, but China refused to buy, since they have indigenous Chinese design which is superior.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:11

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:23

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Lik 時間: 2010-10-19 20:24

你話中國制嘅車無問題咪無問題囉。不過到時唔該你用行動去 backup 你所講嘅廢話。

電能車要壞嘅野仲多過電油車。我真係唔該你快手去買返架 BYD 來揸，唔好衰俾我睇呀～

最後，我鄙視嘅一直係中共，而唔係中國。兩者之間咁大分別都睇唔到，真係唔知邊個先至係 stupid.

-力

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 20:24

You moron~~

China can now make their own J15 with indigenous radar, avionics and weapons. There is ...
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 20:09

哈...
中國自己design唔出可靠既摺翼機，呢個係事實，
理得你乜Q野雷達隱型，J-15摺翼唔work上唔到航母呢，就可以掉。所以抄都要抄個work既。

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 20:28

哈...
中國自己design唔出可靠既摺翼機，呢個係事實，
理得你乜Q野雷達隱型，J-15摺翼唔work上唔到 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 20:24

The newest J15 design has included the reliable folding wings. Please update your information.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 20:30

你話中國制嘅車無問題咪無問題囉。不過到時唔該你用行動去 backup 你所講嘅廢話。

電能車要壞嘅野仲多過電 ...
Lik 發表於 2010-10-19 20:24

You 鄙視 China/Hong Kong and everything Chinese. You said that yourself many times before. We can search your posts to prove this.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:34

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:42

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:45

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-10-19 20:46

回復 Lik

I will surely buy one if it's available in North America as a way to support and assist ...
fy789 發表於 2010-10-19 20:45

運費好貴

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 20:47

運費好貴
sheep 發表於 2010-10-19 20:46

Why? Cars are imported from Japan/Korea.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 20:51

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-19 20:55 編輯

The newest J15 design has included the reliable folding wings. Please update your information.
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 20:28

and please update your information,
佢做得出，係因為抄左Su-33咋～～～

唔係都唔洗千方百計去搵架Su-33番黎「參考」啦

傻仔!～～～

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-10-19 20:51

Why? Cars are imported from Japan/Korea.
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 20:47

ha ha,
they are made in N America

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 20:52

ha ha,
they are made in N America
sheep 發表於 2010-10-19 20:51

hahaha, not all of them made in North America.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 20:54

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 21:00

你自己係度打飛機啦～～
日本人唔係講兩句好說話就會尊敬你，
你係真係要叻過佢地，佢地先會服。
中共夠膽有種就開軍艦日日去釣漁台，迫老美表態，
如果輸唔起，
就收皮。

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 21:04

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 21:04

鴕鳥嗰個係你，
抬起你個頭，
塞你個頭入去做偽憤青好蠢～～～

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 21:06

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 21:08

and please update your information,
佢做得出，係因為抄左Su-33咋～～～
唔係都唔洗千方百計 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 20:51

You moron~~
The Chinese didn't have to buy any Su33, as they can make their own planes.
It is the Russians trying to copy from the Chinese, since the Russians have no $$ to do their own research.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 21:09

你自己係度打飛機啦～～
日本人唔係講兩句好說話就會尊敬你，
你係真係要叻過佢地，佢地先會服。
中共夠膽 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 21:00

When is Taiwan sending warships?

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 21:11

咁你既論點係乜？？？
日本亡你國未丫柒頭？？
日本係65年前已經投左降啦～！！！！！
仲有，成啫住人地唔道歉，唔賠錢，
我地偉大既毛主席，周總理，蔣總統爭住原諒㗎仔同唔收錢～～～
你話佢地點會睇得起你地中國丫～～～？？？？？

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 21:18

You moron~~
The Chinese didn't have to buy any Su33, as they can make their own planes.
It is the ...
peter236 發表於 2010-10-19 21:08

你係咪有病？？理解能力有問題？？？
J-11係Su-27，Su-27唔係艦載機，並唔可以用係航母上面(呢架航母又係買俄仔唔要既....)
國產自己design唔出艦載摺翼機，先至要明抄Su-33～～～
邊X個會抄當今中國既軍事科技？？？講笑咩～！

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 21:29

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-19 21:31 編輯

你係咪有病？？理解能力有問題？？？
J-11係Su-27，Su-27唔係艦載機，並唔可以用係航母上面(呢架航母又 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 21:18

Are you kidding here? The Russians had no money to complete aircraft carrier. Now China is fitting it with indigenous Chinese equipment.

China now makes the indigenous J15 with indigenous Chinese radar, avionics and the folding wings. There is no need to buy from the Russians.

China is now modernizing the J11 into the J11B, again better than the Russian Su27.

I would not be surprised if the Japanese want to copy from China, since the Japanese can't make any modern fighter jets.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 21:40

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 21:53

咁Admiral Kuznetsov係乜東東黎嫁？？？？
J﹣15抄晒Su-33架prototype,咁就緊係唔洗再買Su-33添啦～～～
你啲logic都幾有趣......

俄仔冇錢？？？你估下歐洲啲天然氣邊個賣俾佢地既？？
update your information!!

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-10-19 22:07

回復 56# fy789

I'm not saying Japanese is right. I"m talking about 人性醜惡的一面。You obviously miss my point too. So no point to discuss with you.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-19 22:19

咁Admiral Kuznetsov係乜東東黎嫁？？？？
J﹣15抄晒Su-33架prototype,咁就緊係唔洗再買Su-33添啦～ ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 21:53

The Varyag was not complete due to Russia lack of $$.

The Chinese has now fitted it with Chinese radar and equipment.

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-19 22:25

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 22:40

回復 77# peter236
Varyag無完成係因為1992年ussr解體隻船落左係烏克蘭手上而並繼續做，並唔係你既大話「俄羅斯冇錢」。
Update your information.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-19 23:15

的確，上面乜都冇，
中國要死掂套彈射技術出黎...唔係的話呢舊20M既廢鐵又會變做主題公園.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:04

回復 peter236
Varyag無完成係因為1992年ussr解體隻船落左係烏克蘭手上而並繼續做，並唔係你既大話「俄羅 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 22:40

It was because of Russia had no $$. The reason is back then the oil prices was still very low. Russia later got more $$ to spend because of rising oil prices.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 01:06

定係烏克蘭冇錢呀？

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:08

定係烏克蘭冇錢呀？
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-20 01:06

If Russia had the money, then there was no need to transfer ownership to Ukraine. The Russians could have kept the ship and complete construction.

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:11

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-20 01:17 編輯

的確，上面乜都冇，
中國要死掂套彈射技術出黎...唔係的話呢舊20M既廢鐵又會變做主題公園. ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 23:15

China gained a lot of insight into the structure of an aircraft carrier. The knowledge gained is worth way more than the price they paid.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 01:18

你真係唔明白彈射系統有幾重要......冇呢樣野或者技術唔成熟，係會闔包散~~~~

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:20

你真係唔明白彈射系統有幾重要......冇呢樣野或者技術唔成熟，係會闔包散~~~~ ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-20 01:18

It depends on what type of aircraft carrier you talk about.
For the US aircraft carriers, they need the steam catapult to send the planes up.
For the Varyag, it has a curved slope that allows the planes to take off.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 01:32

Hei men, the topic of this posting is "TAXI"...

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:34

Hei men, the topic of this posting is "TAXI"...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-10-20 01:32

They are always like that. They like to use every chance to bash the Chinese.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 01:47

回復 88# peter236

Not always... Most disputes start with "CCP/KMT good/bad at"...
IMO, Chinese is a big whole family... There are lots of member and everyone needs one's dignity, not identity...

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 01:49

ski jump ramp～～～咁就要睇下架A貨Su-33同班機師夠唔夠料子玩ski jump ramp 囉~~

原來係taxi~~~車我唔多曉～不過呢～國產車我就死都唔會信~~

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 01:52

回復 90# MoiRhapsody

I don't mind if I'm "renting" the taxi for a short ride...

It looks quite classic though...

作者: peter236 時間: 2010-10-20 01:54

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2010-10-20 01:55 編輯

ski jump ramp～～～咁就要睇下架A貨Su-33同班機師夠唔夠料子玩ski jump ramp 囉~~
原來係taxi~~~車我唔 ...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-20 01:49

You claimed that the Chinese need to use the steam catapult. Now you realized the Varyag uses the ski jump, that means they don't need to use the steam catapult for take off. Do you even know how the Varyag looks like?

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 02:04

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2010-10-20 02:18 編輯

第一，國產航母，呢家都係研究緊，
A貨Su-33到底有幾重，take off length可以有幾短都未敢樂觀，唔做好兩手準備，開發個彈射系統出黎，係咪想有船冇機用？？？
第二，雖然做唔出黎，不過唔用磁力彈射係咪下一代既航母都想續繼ski jump ramp???
第三，要用Ski Jump Ramp take off載重好大限制，唔可以帶太多武器同油，prove to be inferior.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 02:08

回復 MoiRhapsody

I don't mind if I'm "renting" the taxi for a short ride...
It looks quite c ...
lo_pak 發表於 2010-10-20 01:52

借都免...我驚會爆炸。

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 06:39

回復 94# MoiRhapsody

Shouldn't be "that" bad, I think...

作者: fy789 時間: 2010-10-20 06:47

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 06:48

回復 93# MoiRhapsody

As far as I know, the new aircraft carrier design that China is proposing will be carrying a lot of missiles & loadings. It's one of the problems most critics are complaining - "overloading" on a single molded carrier. If there's an explosion it turns out to be a catastrophe...

Anyway, it's still the first time ever China starts with its aircraft carrier design. IMO they shouldn't follow the Russian design if they can. We can't expect too much on the performance other than "for demo" only...

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2010-10-20 06:51

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2010-10-20 06:52 編輯

回復 96# fy789

Can that be achieved relying on disel engine output, I doubt... How long do you have to wait to recharge the batteries array after each takeoff...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2010-10-20 18:16

你係咪有強迫症？？
日日幻想俾日本仔蝦？？
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-10-19 14:05

你估比d 日本妹妹仔騎唔辛苦架?!?!

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2010-10-20 20:15

回復 99# mcjohnjohn
日本妹滅我中華億億萬萬子孫蟲之心不滅！！！

吔咩嗲~~~~~

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)