Lt. James Cater

Judging from the rest of the thread, the time span seems to be early to late 60s.

Looks like i'm geting involved in a project and so i'll be needing some hints from anyone here who already does this. I've got studio experience but it's always been with medium to big setups, amps, drumkits, and i never had to worry too much since i was just the vocalist. Now i have to do most of the work on my own and i'm looking for a starting point in the digital world. For starters i want to pick up a laptop and use it exclusively for the music. Don't know yet about pro tools or other programs but i am going to use EZ Drummer/Drumkit From Hell,then run my Bass through an emulator to finish off the rhythm section. Certain rhythm guitar tracks i can lay down but most will be sessioned by people i know. Same with the leads as i can't play one worth a damn. The vocals should be no problem as i can rent out a rehersal studio and anticipate knocking it out in 2 days at the most. I plan to go around and check out a number of forums but i figured i would ask here as well since we have quite a number of devout music devotees. At the moment, my equipment budget is pretty small, about $1200 But i figure the laptop should be quality and the highest cost purchase involved.

Would you beleive we used to patch holes like that when i worked as a tire mechanic at Big O tires? Would wouldn't guarantee the longetivity of the repair, but it would last you long enough to get down the road quite a ways.

That was so damn funny! Even in the underground you can find the same thing. The pioneers lay out the riffs and after a few years you can swear that you hear the same chords, progressions, and scales used by at least half the bands putting material out. It repeats itself every few years as newer genres and sub-genres spawn. I used to tick off a guitarist i was in a band with by listening to his riffs and telling him exactly what band, album, and song used what he was coming up with. Perhaps that's why we end up with bands that are so technical that you wonder "Forget about playing it, how the hell did they think of it"

Put three 150 gallon drop tanks on a F-5 and you could go farther than one thinks such in a tiny(By USAF standards)plane. The J-85 engine is pretty fuel efficient. Has anyone thought of how the scenario would play out? I'm assuming the bombers would be based in the UK. Would the fighters be based there also? Or would it be at the bases seen in WOE? Also, what would be the deepest targets to hit in the Soviet Union? Past the Urals? This really gives a lot to think about!

"Does this boyd book actually mention the US would have been better off only using MiG-21s then - can someone confirm it actually states that?? Im sure there was a reason for having different types of aircraft" No where in the book does it come up. nor in anything else i've read about the the man and his works.

I can't MOD worth a damn but i can do a whole lot of research. If anyone would want to try experimenting with all this i would be happy to help out any way i can.

I went back and re-read the whole thread. So we are taking about WW2 bomber/fighter action in the early/mid 60s. High level dogfighting with souped up Voodoos and Thuds VS MIGs/SUs. I think that certain scenarios should have been suggested first before the techical discussion began. Like what Bombers are being used, what the targets are, how far into enemy airspace are they going, what altitude they are flying at, etc. All in all, i think this would be great for MIG-21 pilots in particular.

May i suggest that everyone involved in this forum read "BOYD, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War" by Robert Coram. I love the Thud, but all this talk about an air superiority version just isn't cutting it no matter how it's laid out. Neither is it working out for the 101. "Air Superiority" as we envision it has a bit of a small problem. At some point, the wonder systems are not going to perform as advertised and a close up A2A encounter is going to happen. Despite the "Bigger Higher Faster" enchantments inherent to the Century Series, a number of them were seriously handicapped in a close in fight. In these sims of ours, i absolutly dread the early years when unreliable missles neutralize the squadron and those MIGs (who sure as hell CAN go A2A quite adeptly).

http://forum.combatace.com/gallery/image/11929-clipboard-136jpg/ 3APR65 Just went out with a couple of the boys and ruined Charlie's day. Nice start to this tour. Hear we got a strike mission tommorrow. Will turn in early in case it's the truth.

Just re-read this post. Great for Fighters, suicidal against Bombers. Against a formation of IL-28s, you are going to be quite dead. One alternate use for the 9B is to shoot one at an aircraft which is fleeing and out of gun range. If it locks, chances are good that the target will break on the missle and hopefully allow you to close in.

UP, My first campaign flying a Deuce, i used the IR missle 99% of the time. Since then it's been a 50/50 setup. The 102 is tricky to fly since it's in no way a dogfighter. Get it up REAL high and it's a hell of a MIG killer. As far as intercepts go, get in behind the targets (usually IL-28s) Knock down a couple and get the hell out of Dodge as soon as your mission is accomplished. AI pilots can score with SARH shots from a distant while the escorts are trying to get you.

http://forum.combatace.com/gallery/image/11887-clipboard-135jpg/ When in doubt, go back to your roots!

Take a WOE F-102 into combat and see if won't have success with the Falcon. I was really skeptical at first but became a convert quickly. As a matter of fact i still have an unfinished campaign in a Deuce with the pilot having a whole lot of success.

Reminds me of the problems i had with Atolls while flying a MIG-21 in ACES OF NORTH VIETNAM. Found out by trial and error that .8 of a mile was the killer launch point.

Rule of thumb for using the 9B... Close in, get good tone on straight and level sitting duck target aircraft, let fly, expect miss. Whenever i had the chance to stalk and shoot at high altitude i've had many successes unless the target breaks hard, down below it is a different story. Just earlier today i was reviewing some earlier DiD campaigns and remembered a 24 kill French Mirage ace. Only 2 kills were with the 9B. You can believe i was pulling off textbook envelope attacks as well Compared to the Falcon or Firestreak, the 9B comes distant a third in the early WOE campaigns.

Just to add my bit of 9B slagging. I found one of my old notebooks and it had the record of a 59 kill French Hun driver. Only 12 were via 9B. As a matter of fact, of the first 20 victories only 2 went down with the missle. It doesn't matter if the missle is good at high altitude since seemingly 98% of the encounters are at low level. You can work the envelope all you want but chances are good that it will miss. If the early campaigns in WOE had high altitude intercepts the 9B might be useful. As things are it is basically dead weight.

Dive deep into the world of WOV GOLD and you will quickly learn to fear the flak!

I was a fan of the series too. But just last week i re-watched "The Hustler", "The Godfather", and "Glengarry Glen Ross". Throughout all three i was wondering what happened to the quality plots, scripts, and acting? But god help you in Hollywood if you decide to actually have a script that requires real acting skills from the stars. These days it tends to be the usual CGI, smash up, sophmoric, pablum that dominates.

When Hollywood produced the Scooby Doo movie, that is when i knew they ran out of ideas. For the sake of the US i hope no one outside of the country watched this movie.

Was shot down by a MIG-23 after my flight went tard. Will post screenshot later. Am taking a break due to burnout and the real world intruding.

Incredible stats!