Caesar

Felices Natales Vobis!

Damn, nice find, Firehawk! Never thought I'd see a music video (other than The Wall itself) to use "The Trial," let alone a NGE video and so well.

I'd say MB and Spinners are right on. The SF2 series is amazing. I have SF2 and SF2E (haven't gotten V yet) and I have to say the improvements are quite noticable. The only reason I keep the first series on my computer right now is because every once in a while my friend and I will LAN it. If you're really into online play, you'll be a bit outta luck with the 2-series though. If not, definately go with the 2-series.

Whatever's on the Classic Rock station. If I do have CD's with me it'll be Rolling Stones, Iron Maiden, Alice Cooper, Bon Jovi, Boston, AC/DC, ZZ Top, Nazareth or Queen, usually.

Concur 100% with the above. Thanks very much for all your hard work! I definately like the new look.

Agree with Dave - this argument is going nowhere fast, no one here is going to convince the other that one plane is better; some will argue Eagle, others Tomcat, others neither one nore the other. Awesome Dos Gringos use too!

Very impressive, definately, and awesome at the same time. But that doesn't make the Eagle a better frame. The F-22 has a 0:0 kill/loss ratio, as does the EF-2000, Raphael and Su-35. By kill to loss, every former frame is better than those, but we know that not to be true.

That was only one of its roles. Talk to anyone who actually designed or worked on the plane during initial concept/design phases and they'll tell you it was meant to be a multi-role platform from the get-go, a dogfighter, long-range interceptor, strike/CAS platform, and recce bird. The strike/CAS was dropped quickly when the Marines backed out and wound up not getting developed for nearly 20 more years. I think Admiral Gilchrist would strongly disagree; in his book on the Tomcat, he refers to the fact that the swing wing was one of the strongest points the Tomcat had, giving it a bigger tactical envelope, and better able to get the best preformance across the spectrum, and better wing loading than any other threat fighter, or teen-series fighter in a combat configuration. I haven't seen any evidence that it was dangerous for the pilot and was in fact the strongest part of the airframe. When the first Tomcat crashed, the wing box was completely preserved, a full 6 feet into the ground. It was in such good condition that Grumman used it for continued tests after digging it out of the ground. Cracks in the swing wings only grounded the fleet once that I can recall (maybe Typhoid can remember others), around 1996, and only for a short period. Around 1976 there was an issue with pilots manually sweeping the wings and having shavings found at the pivots, but this did not ground the fleet, instead it put a 4G limit on the planes until the problem was sorted out. Considering that the oldest F-14A's got the better of German MiG-29's with VF-14 and VF-41, I don't agree. Tomcats had the ability to fly on parts of wings as well. The only instance I've heard of of an F-15 landing with one wing is when an A-4 crashed into the Eagle. An impressive feat, definately, but I also know of an instance of two VF-213 Tomcats crashing into eachother, one lost, the other having more than half its port wing ripped off. It made it back to a land base. I don't see the Eagle as very much more reliable, or survivable, if at all, one of the reasons I won't say one is actually better than the other.

Why...why...WHY would you ask this question? And last I checked, when the F-14A and F-15A first went at eachother, the fight was over in less than 80 seconds with both Tomcats holding gun tracking solutions on both Eagles, one at 10,000 feet, one at 30,000 feet. Then the photo footage of the F-15's getting waxed by the Tomcats got out in Aviation Week which caused a massive uproar with our generals because Japan was second-guessing their Eagle buy and it took a bit of coaxing to get them back. Of note, this fly-off was done at the end of AIMVAL/ACEVAL with some of the best crews available to both the USAF and USN at the time. Tomcat 1's crew was Joe "Hoser" Satrapa and Bill "Hill Billy" Hill, Tomcat 2 was Dan "Turk" Pentecost and Frank "Fearless" Schumacher; they split the fight into 2 1v1's, Hoser going low, Turk going high, both killing their Eagles with "minimal heavy breathing" over the radio. Which made the Eagle's AIM/ACE patches "How about now, Baby?" (for example) pretty funny... BUT! The assessments made here by MB pretty much back what I hear from Tomcat crews: it depended on where you were in the envelope, and at what altitude, and where at. VF-14 and VF-32 flew off against F-15's out of Langley in the late 1970's and found that in a multi-bogey environment, and in turning fights below 20,000 feet, the F-14 had the advantage. If they wound up higher than 20,000 feet, they lost a lot of advantages, adding to the fact that the TF-30 hated the thin air above that point. The Tomcat *might* have better wing loading, depending on its weapon configuration, getting as low as 55psf or as high as over 100psf, as related by Admiral Gilchrist. The Tomcat also had maneuver flaps and slats helping it at lower speeds. The Eagle had a massive advantage in T:W over the F-14A, and could also have a wing-loading advantage based upon the loadouts. The F-14B was a real kick in the head, though, easily comparable to the F-15C, and again, depending on where you were, would either have advantage or disadvantage. Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons was one of the first to witness what the "Big Engines" did to the Tomcat, as his pilot entered a one-circle fight with an F-16, got the advantage, and as the Viper tried to use the vertical to escape, wound up getting gunned because the GE engines allowed the Tomcat to follow it without issue. Against the F-15, their first encounters in the late 1980's (1988, IIRC) the Tomcats utterly slaughtered the Eagles, who were not expecting them to follow into the vertical. In one fight Parsons describes the Bravo going "literally canopy-to-canopy with the Eagle." The debrief started with "Uhh...did you guys get new engines?" It was also one of the few planes that could chase down an RF-111F on the deck. Another Tomcat driver, callsign "Cosmo" took his F-14B up against an Israeli F-16, wound up in a 4-and-a-half minute fight that ended with the F-16 calling Joker before a decisive victory could be had. In essence, neither plane is better. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages, but it all depends on the pilot, not the plane. It doen't take a "Hoser," "Frosty," "Snort," or "Heater" to whoop someone's ass in even an "A-" Tomcat, it was a damn fine plane and designed from the onset to be able to dogfight. But I'm just using the above examples to illustrate that point. In reality, I acknowledge full well that both the Tomcat and the Eagle are fine airframes, and I would not call one better than the other, realistically. It's the guy at the stick that decides the victor. (Shot of Hoser's pipper on the Eagle driver's helmet from that initial fight) Also, Eraser_tr hit the nail on the head. The Tomcat was not retired due to airfram capability at all; rather the axing of the program in 1992 by then-SECDEF Cheney. Not much for the airframes to do but get older, lack parts and eventually wear out their usefulness.

If I remember correctly, the sun was above the cockpit straight ahead, so I'd expect it to have been brighter looking straight out. I don't think it mattered the angle that I was at though; it seemed even if inverted when I looked down, the screen brightened.

I had some issues with it changing contrast; when I was looking straight ahead in the cockpit (through the HUD), it'd have a darker contrast, but when I looked down (panned the view down towards lower gauges), it would brighten up. I think this would happen depending on the view point externally as well. If it were more constant, I'd probably use it, because I think it certainly does look good.

Words fail me.

If I may be so bold, not even 6 million+ murdered Jews, Gypsies, Handicapped and Homosexuals, thanks to the ideologies of one man about 70 years ago?

I have to agree with 331KB; I don't think its right to take away people's freedom of choice. I joined up because it's what I wanted to do, but it's not right for everyone, and we exist on the idea of a free society (the Right to Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happieness) - forcing people into military service (outide of a massive war effort like WWI, II, Vietnam) removes some of that freedom. A good quote: "I detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't like plenty of what goes on in our country, but many of those things are covered by the rights and freedoms we believe in. People may protest us, or other people, hold different opinions and be vocal about them, call me wrong because I don't drink their cool-aid, and it may piss me off, but that doesn't affect the fact that I believe they have the right to make their opinions and choices as they will. I think people ought to be exposed to military service, to play their role in our national defense and to help uphold those freedoms, but I would also go to my grave in this service so that they have the ability, the freedom to chooseto do so, or not to.

Felix Natalis Tibi!

Well, at full throttle, engines do that; it's amazing the differential in fuel flow between mil and full AB. If you want unlimited fuel, select "Easy" for Fuel Usage in your Options. An example of that, with the F-14 by former Tomcat driver "Magic" Quist: "An interesting thing, also, to ponder. High/medium least amount of gas used per minute loiter/holding type power settings used aoubt 2200 lbs per hour per engine (say around 4400 lbs per hour total) depending on drag configurations. So, once on a "loiter" type holding station saving gas in the F-14, and if refueled to near full internal (16,000 lbs), you could fly around over 3 hours on just that internal fuel. At low altitude near sea level, in full afterburner, those two engines are gobbling fuel at 2000 lbs per MINUTE, so that same 16000 lbs will go away in only 8 minutes... (Not quite that bad at med to high altitude, though, but still, talking minutes to run out of fuel... not hours)."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AwvuirSEAA 2010, Baby! (Though I'm not sure of what to think about Flynn's depiction in this trailer...)

Ah, well I knew it was at least in production via IMDb, but this was the first thing I've really seen on it. They released something a year ago? Guess I am late! Still, I'm pretty excited about it!

We have come here to jointly kick ass and chew bubblegum...and we're all outta bubblegum...

S!

There was a set of updated FMs for the a good chunk of the MiG-23 series aircraft for the first-gen games by "doc_nele." I haven't seen him on for a while, but I did try to fly a few different MiG-23's with those FMs. Try is the key word here, because those bad boys departed very quickly. They had bad AoA authority and were next to impossible to recover from once departed; their best use was for real fast intercepts. Based on the 4477th's description of the Floggers, I'd say "doc" got it right. I haven't tried them in the second gen games.

Looks gorgeous, FT!

Well, a far less elegant solution to find your pounds remaining: multiply the gallons by 6.8 and you've got your approximate weight in fuel. The thing is, I don't know if the game simulates the weight of JP-4, -5, -8, or what; 6.8ppg is JP-5's specific weight, so if it's supposed to be JP-4, the number is 6.36ppg, and -8 is 6.76. So it might take some extra research. Like I said, not elegant, but that might help you ball park it.

Two tails are better than one! A lesson in SA... On recce, we got tangled up with a bunch of MiG-17's, -21's and Mirage 5D's. After about a 7 minute engagement, I'm quite certain all the bandits nearby are dead, and head for the objective point at top speed. About two miles away, I get a call "You've got a bandit in your six o'clock!" followed immediately "Missile inbound!" I put the stick in my lap and pop the flares, but the Fishbed was in perfect position and I was hit! Fortunately for me, the missile only removed my port vert-stab and some of the port flaps/slat. I pulled hard away from the MiG, who was now apparently interested in running, came back around, selected M61, got right on his tail and ZING! A tail for a tail! But he only had one tail... Lesson learned. SA is mandatory at ALL times, no matter how safe I think I am.

For what purpose would we do that (buy the Bug) ?