FastCargo

Haha! FC

I'd agree with Dave...document, document, document. A lot of times the reason something doesn't get fixed is because there is a lack of a paper trail. In addition, your willingness to document the incident may motivate him to get the help he needs. This kind of stuff needs to be noted early and fixed early. Too often, there have been warning signs that have been 'let go', which results in escalation and bad things later. FC

I think I have to do some further tweaks to the Bone loadouts for the later models. Apparently, the tail kits for the GBU-38 (Mk82 version) make it just slightly too long to fit 28 per bay. I'll get to that in a few days...taking a break for a bit. FC

Oh, and one more...the SRAM 'over the shoulder boulder'... FC

I think we have a winner... SEAD, SAC style... FC

Unpatched? Probably should patch the sim then first...assuming it's first generation, Oct 08 is what you are looking for. FC

If I had been trained for it as part of an airshow program, the answer is yes. The best airshow flyers are disciplined, professional, and precise. They use very specific performance parameters ("gates") for each maneuver. They practice and train, brief and debrief, plan and prepare like any other flight. Usually, when one gets into trouble, it's because of a momentary lapse of SA (misreading an altitude, channelization, mechanical failure, etc) and not because they were 'hot dogging'. It's the guys who make stuff up, flying way outside of their trained skills, to act manly that get themselves or others killed. And although Frank Borman was right, flying across the Gulf in the old A model isn't 'hot dogging'. And 'flying the coast' meant flying within 50 miles of the coast at altitude...which is still pretty far out. However, if you had to punch, finding you would be a problem... FC

Well, you can't really compare the two (747 and C-5A) either. The aircraft were designed to operate in completely different environments. One only has to look at the wings to notice that. The main thing most military cargo aircraft need is roll on/roll off capability without the need of dedicated ground equipment. This drives the design to a high wing. Look at all the super heavy lifters out there with roll on/roll off...yep, high wing. That also means the nose and tail of the aircraft must have cargo openings that span the full fuselage width to take full advantage of that roll on/roll off capability. A 747F does not have such a capability, and other than one-off designs (the 747 LCF), no such thing exists for the 747. In the book "747" (http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviation/dp/0060882417), Joe Sutter states specifically that the 747 was designed as a freighter and PAX aircraft from the start (page 90), and is very clear that this design was NOT the competitor for the C-5. Boeing's C-5 competitor looked a lot like the An-124. Which means it could have very well suffered from the same stresses that the wings and wing box of the C-5 suffered in part due to the high wing design. Because the Boeing aircraft was never more than a paper design, we will never truly know. FC

SaE, Don't believe just because its a military dentist that wisdom teeth extraction is going to be bad, or because its a civilian dentist that it will go well. My wisdom teeth came in all correct so they weren't pulled when I was your age. I just had them all pulled a month ago, and it took 3 weeks just for the pain to finally go away (and I was taking vicodin), and there is still swelling around the lower sockets. The docs confirmed to me that a couple of the teeth took significantly more effort to pull out (some in pieces) than the x-rays and visual exam indicated. There was only one time that I had an issue with a military dentist and he actually was a civilian contractor because he didn't know how to use an ultrasonic pick well. But then again, I never had a cavity until a couple of years ago, so there never was much to any dentist visit (military or civilian) except a general exam and cleaning. FC

I know all about ejection seats and their limitations. I also know that even for early aircraft, that ejection seats would work just fine in level flight with a decent amount of speed (excepting of course downward firing models such as the early F-104 and B-52). Where ejection seats get into trouble are if you: A) Aren't in wings level flight B) Aren't in a zero or positive vertical velocity vector C) Don't have minimum speed (for early seats...windspeed was used to help separate the canopy) D) Failure of part/parts of the system What I am saying is that high speed, low level flight was well within the ejection seat envelope for even early seats, mainly because there was usually time to convert airspeed to altitude before punching out. There have been too many deaths/injuries not because of failures within the envelope, but pilots placing themselves out of the envelope because they waited too long trying to recover the aircraft. FC

What makes you think ejection seats wouldn't work at 500 feet? FC

Well, that F-84G is actually the F-84E model. No 'birdcage' canopy and no 'blow in' doors... The KAW mod will have proper models of all the straight wing variants. FC

nbryant is the closest by far...though he missed a few models and specifc models... :) FC

So, the questions in order: 1. What show? 2. What episode? 3. Name, type, model of every aircraft in the episode? Bonus question: Where was the episode filmed? You win...nothing...but what the hell, right? FC

So, the questions in order: 1. What show? 2. What episode? 3. Name, type, model of every aircraft in the episode? Bonus question: Where was the episode filmed? You win...nothing...but what the hell, right? FC

Awwww man, I'd hope GOG isn't shutting down, I thought what they were doing was great! I bought I76 and Independance War from them because they were the ones who could get both of those programs to run on Win7. FC

It amuses me when people try to talk knowledgeably about stuff they have no clue about.... http://www.laserpointersafety.com/pilot-effects-overview/laser_pilot-effects/laser_pilot-effects.html And here's a nice picture of an actual incident: And here's a paper done by the FAA and DOV on the subject of laser illumination of aircraft: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0409.pdf Some highlights: I was lucky, the idiot who lit us up on short final was already pretty far to the side of the aircraft. The laser lit up the cockpit, but the captain didn't get directly hit, while I was unlucky enough to look at the laser and got flashblinded temporarily. There is a reason lasers come with warnings not to shine them in your eye....even ridiculously low power ones. Laser light shows have burnt out CCDs on cameras as well...think about how much power a so called low power laser can have if it burns out a camera. FC

I don't think you have to do that...if you go into the FLIGHTENGINE.INI files, you'll note these entries: I believe by adjusting the 'MaxTextureRes' lines to the appropriate size you want, the engine will resize the maps before loading them into memory. I've done this and it works great! FC

Some of us have jobs that require us to be on the road half the year pal. And the other half of the year is filled with spending quality time with the wife and kids. So having a gaming laptop is sometimes the solution needed to be able to indulge our hobby at all. It's easy to be amused when you have no real responsibilities. FC

It's from 'Modern Fighting Aircraft - B-1B' Volume 11, by a company called ARCO. My copy is pretty well worn coverwise...but it makes a great laptop lap rest. FC

An example of the 'post B-1A cancellation' proposed derivative aircraft. FC

As a former B-1 driver, I will tell you the idea of putting high bypass engines on a Bone is a complete non-starter. All those modifications you stated trying to do so would result in a brand new aircraft (so much for saving on development costs) that still would not be as efficient, as long ranged, or have as much payload capacity as a clean sheet aircraft based on a transport design. Hell, I'd rather just restringer and reengine the BUFF. Trying to bastardize a Bone to make it compete with such a design in those capabilities is silly. There was a reason after the B-1A was cancelled that Rockwell's 'B-1 family derviatives' aircraft were all rejected as well. On the other hand, an enhanced penetrator version, using F-119 engines and further minor stealth enhancements makes more sense, in that current aircraft could be modified to the standard without rebuilding the entire airframe or restarting the production line. F-119 engines have already been fitted and flown in testbed F-15s and F-16s, so the engineering to put such an engine into a F-100/101 sized bay has been done. Avionics and stealth coatings/shapings could be retrofitted with comparatively little effort. The F-23 is another non-starter. It's still a fighter-sized aircraft...you need something significantly larger for long-range strikes. FC

This is improper thinking for 2 reasons. First, you never just develop for the current war, you must develop for the next war. The idea of only building for subconventional conflicts is not smart if your caught short when massed tanks with embedded IADS start rolling across the plains. Secondly, a stealthy, high tech platform can fight from subconventional all the way to a high threat environment. A non-high tech platform won't be able to do that. Only an idiot would throw a BUFF into NK airspace without killing the IADS first...a job done by your high tech, stealthy strikers. But, you can throw a B-2 or F-22 into the desert right now and they'll be just as effective giving a bad guy a JDAM enema. The only exception might be COIN/close CAS ops, where a low tech, slow aircraft might be a better solution...which we're already filling with UCAVs. FC

Ops check good! FC

At the time, it was the lack of thrust for the performance (payload and range) needed for the B-52 specification. Now, it's just because the engines are cheap. It would be very expensive per aircraft to reengine them with the amount of benefit you might get. Sometimes it's worth it (KC-135R, C-5M), but sometimes it isn't. Folks have talked about restarting assembly lines before. What they fail to remember is that usually to do without the original tooling, space, blueprints, personnel, etc, is enormously expensive because for all intents and purposes, you're starting a brand new assembly line. Plus, you'd have to reverse engineer the product you are trying to build again...then design improvements into it, then build your tooling, then go through the teething pains of integration...I could go on. In my opinion, there should be 2 next generation bombers. One should be a low tech bomb / standoff weapons truck. Something cheap to build, designed to operate over low threat areas, carry every weapon available (and a lot of them), have tons of range and loiter time. A BUFF 2.0 as it were. The idea is that this would be your heavy secondary hitter, either by long range cruise missile (or even ALBMs) or long loiter for CAS. Heck, start with a 747-400 and add pylons. The other 'tier' would be a 'silver bullet' force. Hi-tech, fast, stealthly. Your 'first day' hitters, deployable, adaptable but for the most part, specialized. I personally like the idea of an FB-111 sized aircraft...or better yet, the FB-22 concept that was floated around a few years ago. FC