Caesar

Thanks for the snippet from someone whos over there and who saw his jackassery, Typhoid. I think that may have ceased any doubts about who I'm voting for.

Oh dear God no. I'm sorry, but the Bug does not have the swagger and screen appearance of the Tomcat, heck the Tomcat was practically the star of the first movie! And I really don't see them taking any closer eye to reality than they did before: when they tried, it didn't look good on camera (they talk about it on the special edition DVD). I just hope it never goes through. Rambler, the sequence where Goose dies is perfectly possible; the Tomcat generates a low pressure system above the aircraft when in an upright flat spin and it is recommended in NATOPS for the pilot or RIO to punch the canopy first and wait for it to clear before initiating ejection (sequence is listed on pp. 548 or 14-40); as Pete "Viper" Pettigrew said, that sequence was based on an actual accident (not sure if the RIO was killed in that instance, but apparently it did happen).

Saw it last night. Two words: Kicked Ass.

To quote a Tomcat Driver: "In addition to reducing "the excessive longitudinal stability [sic] encountered in the supersonic regime" [from the F-14A NATOPS], they had other functions, also. Originally designed with an unfulfilled air-to-ground role for the Marines, the F-14A's glove vanes deployed automatically when the Wing Sweep BOMB mode was selected. This was to increase weapon platform stability in delivering air-to-ground weapons. . . . (which of course it never did when the Marines pulled out of the F-14 buy). Also, the glove vanes automatically extended with the maneuver flaps and slats, and with the wings swept aft of 25 degrees. Personally, I used to extend the glove vanes manually on low-levels. They made for a more comfortable and stable ride, bouncing at high speed through low-level turbulence and desert thermals. Finally, we used to manually put the glove vanes out coming into the "break" . . . . just because it looked "cool". " The maintainer's perspective, later on when they started locking them: "The best that I can remember is that if the gloves were working properly we didn't mess with them. If it's not broke don't fix it. However if they failed then they were disabled."

Looks great!

I hate it when I pull the wings off my bug. But then that's what happens when 24.2G gets loaded on the airframe. Straight in approach, nearly no roll authority, used rudders for control.

Looking good! It'll be nice to see the Voodoo in the TW series; always thought it looked sexy!

If you only want to add the fuel tanks, what you can do is install the MFWP to a temporary folder, then find the tanks you want, copy and paste them into your actual weapons folder. Because they replace the original tanks, I don't believe you have to do anything with the weapon editor. With the AA-9, copy and paste it into the weapons folder, then open the WeaponData.ini, add the Amos's data to the bottom, making sure that the weapon's number is the next in sequence from the weapon above it. Save that, then open your Weapon Editor, and open WeaponData.ini check to see that the AA-9 is added, and then save. (SOP for adding weapons). You should now have the weapon auto-loaded on your MiG-31, or be able to load it manually.

Yeah, didn't we also find out the MiG-23 couldn't turn/fight worth a damn without departing during Constant Peg? http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2007/0407peg.asp

Lookin' damn fine. Good job.

They are a seperate download, but they're right here at CA in the Weapon Mods section. Great Foxhound, BTW!

Actually, those are old photos from when I've explained it before . All of 'em are different now.

Which number are you looking at? The one in the box is IAS, but the aircraft is going faster. Usually the closer to the ground you are, the closer IAS is to TAS, higher up, the difference gets bigger. Above is the low altitude screen, showing both speeds close to eachother. This shot is at altitude. Note that I am actually traveling at 2.2M, or over 1200 knots, but my IAS is 508kts Again, high altitude, IAS is 490kts, but I'm really traveling (TAS) at 1489kts (2.6M). So, look for your TAS indicator. If the TAS is actually 1100km/h or whatever, then I'd say something isn't right, but I'm guessing you're reading the IAS, which tells you roughly how the aircraft is going to handle, not how fast it is really going.

If you're looking at the little screen at the bottom that gives you your speed/throttle/etc. that's indicating your IAS or "Indicated Airspeed," your True Airspeed (TAS) can be seen on one of the aircraft's gauges or on the HUD in some models. This has been discussed at length before, so either check the Knowledge Base or use the Search. One quick question: at what altitude are you flying? At low altitude you'll be lucky to break 1.2M even in a fast plane.

S!

Great news, DW!

Got a couple from a couple genres...but I'll just choose "Hair of the Dog" by Nazareth.

Wow, looks incredable!

Happy Independance Day! <S!>

MK2, you rock! Thank you for all you've done for the community and your great generosity!

Yeah, I heard about this this morning, really blows.

Well, the Navy already has a Su-33; it's called the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet. There. I said it. I dispise that plane, but cannot deny that is is a kick-ass 4.5-gen fighter. It lacks what the Tomcat and Intruder had in strike capability, range, and sheer fleet defense power, but it is also the only plane I know of that has defeated the Raptor in a knife fight. Doesn't happen consistantly, but the evidence has been posted before. If that plane can get the better of a Raptor, it can take a new-generation Flanker. AESA gives it a deadly mid-range fighting capability combined with the AMRAAM, massive alpha capabilities make it a b*tch to fight close in, and good weapons payload at range (again, not as good as its predecessors, but still good) means it can fight longer without needing to tank than legacy Hornets. I don't think the US needs the Su-33 when the USAF has the Raptor and the Navy has the Super Bug, and both are getting the JSF. Two 5th gen aircraft and a good 4.5-gen, I don't see the point.

Either smack them in the teeth (hit 'em at long range), or get 'em low and slow and drop the Big Boys (flaps). Works well for me even on hard. Now if they've still got heaters...then it gets interesting... EDIT: Back on topic, Manfred, definately check out Marcfighters and the Modern Era A/C section here to fight newer, tougher opponents. The Flanker and Fulcrum should not disappoint you if you're looking for a challange in your Eagle/Viper/whatever.

I LOVE Tron. Got me the 20th anniv. DVD set. It took me two times to really 'get' the movie, but I think its great. Also a fan of the game Tron 2.0 (Lightcycles rawk). I can't believe it didn't get best effects because the board thought the team had "cheated" by using a computer. Now, everything's CGI, and the computers don't break every 30 minutes!

Long range A2A loadout could have been 2PH-3SP-2SW, 4PH-2SP-2SW, 4PH-4SW, 6PH-2SW, 2PH-2SP-2SW...I've seen pics of all of those (though I've noticed personally that the 4 sidewinder config doesn't show up often in pictures, maybe I'm just not looking in the right places). To do a 2-3-2 you have to reassign the pylons because by default you end up loading the fuselage sparrow stations in pairs and when 2PH are loaded up front only one AIM-7 can be loaded on the aft sparrow station in reality because of the Phoenix pylons obstructing part of the middle Sparrow station. Also note: you could load 2 LGBs, a LANTIRN pod, 2 SW and 1 PH at the glove pylon and still consider it a "long-range" loadout because you can still reach out and touch someone before blowing up their runway. Doing that takes an INI edit also.