FFG 054/054A Thread

[eecsmaster]

i mistyped. I meant to say "2*4*4"


So yes, 32 rounds total.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the newest pictures show rectangular hatches while the old ones show circular ones. Another design difference between the ones build in HD and JN?

 

[planeman]

Now with clearer pictures it is apparent that there are 32 hatches, and they look square to me (sorry Golly). I think that 32 x SA-N-12 deriative is most likely.

 

[crobato]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that the newest pictures show rectangular hatches while the old ones show circular ones. Another design difference between the ones build in HD and JN?

Not at all. I think the "circular hatches" were painted on protective roof like covers to decieve onlookers.

 

[planeman]

I think it's more likely a photo interpretation error, probably mixing up sealed-tube ends with weather hatches etc.

 

[Gollevainen]

Well I'm not covinsed, I remain in my position, as its quite logical...You divide a square (or almoust square) area to two equal size areas with horisontal or vertical line you get rectangulars which are illogical to the given task...How do you explain the shape of the hatches?

 

[crobato]

I count one hinge = one hatch. 32 hinges, 32 hatches.

 

[Gollevainen]

But how do explain the shape of the hinge/hatch?

 

[PeoplesPoster]

But how do explain the shape of the hinge/hatch?

The shape of the hatch is square. Your getting confused by the perspective.
It's ridiculous to have 2 hatches per tube.

 

[Gollevainen]

The shape of the hatch is square. Your getting confused by the perspective.
It's ridiculous to have 2 hatches per tube.

No it's you that are confused by the perspective. Its clearly seen in this picture. There's a 16 larger spots which most of you think forms the hatches to to two missile silos but it would mean that the shape of the hacth and silo is rectangular which is illogical.

 

[Totoro]

Oh, fun game! No, it's you who is confused by the perspective. Depending on the angle at which we're looking at the surface, it can appear very much distorted. And since we're looking at a very shallow angle, surfaces here appear as if width is like 8 times longer than 'depth'.

Another thing helping the trickery is the extreme telephoto lense pic was taken with, which makes the object further away have the same width as objects closer to the camera. It is just unnatural to the human eye and to most of photos that we see, which are usually taken with wider angle lenses.