TheChief2000

Just whip out the MP3 player and turn up some Toby Keith real loud!

Well as long as the sloppy animation isn't constant I think I can deal with it. I was able to ignore the problems with the newer Area 88 series in terms of bad animation and continuity mistakes (drop tanks off, drop tanks on)

Oh man the sync of the animation with the lyrics is hilarious. Top notch. From the first clips I saw I thought Gunslinger Girl would be an anime I would absolutely hate, but after watching it I love that series. I especially love the ending.

That guy should be playing for MC Hammer with his mad keytar skills. "Yo yo yo, who's beeper keeps beepin and beepin.... Hammer don't hurt him"

I had never heard of the Watchmen before and I wanted to know the characters, so I looked up the series on wikipedia and now I know the whole plot so I don't feel like I have to go see the movie. There is a "motion comic" DVD being sold already if you want to watch the story without seeing that specific movie.

Oh Wow, that thing looks awesome. As far as cargo planes go I kinda have a soft spot for the C-119 and C-123. Having both for Microsoft FS is great, but having the AC-119 for my merged SFP1/WOV/WOE will be just superb. Many thanks!

Uh, are you supposed to set the parking brake before a LAPES extraction?

I'm more of a lurker but I have been around here for awhile. I had the original Strike Fighters: Project 1 and I came over when this was still Biohaz Central. I drifted over from SimHQ when the rivet counters and patch deniers killed the forum discussions and drove away most of the modders.

Ha Ha I love the pics with the dorsal and ventral battleship turrets!

I remember endless references to that in Mystery Science Theater 3000

If you enjoy war/history movies I recommend Battleground.

When the original Hawk system came out they would explode soon after lifting off. When I tried to add in the stand alone Hawk launchers that would show up on any terrain like a mobile SAM unit I started seeing the problem you are dealing with. I finally got the problem corrected. Download the latest compilation weapons pack here http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=7791 if you don't already have it. Next replace the Hawk entry in the weapondata.ini with the one from the pack and add the files from the Hawk folder to your weapons folder. That fixed the problem for me. As always, remember to backup files in case this doesn't work for you.

Prayers for the safety of you and your family Mannie.

Keeping in mind that I am educated as an aeronautical/mechanical engineer but I have not worked as an aeronautical engineer, this is what I deduce. It looks to me like this is supposed to be a STOVL light bomber meant to be based from STOVL carriers like HMS Invincible or Kiev class ships, with a mission profile very similar to the F-117 but with at least some air-to air capability. Here is my reasoning. As has been pointed out the landing gear looks like the aircraft is a tail dragger. If you look with concentration at the side view you can see from the position of the wheels that without vertical landing capability, to touch down on the main wheels first would require such a small sink rate that the aircraft would have a dangerously high landing speed. Also with that wheel configuration, to be able to safely make the takeoff rotation on the rear wheels you would need a high takeoff speed. To achieve takeoff without a long runway, it makes more sense to me that the aircraft would takeoff with the combination of thrust vectoring and a ski jump ramp found on STOVL carriers. Now given that we know a STOVL aircraft can never carry aloft the same payload that a conventional aircraft with equivalent thrust can, it seems to me that the plane would rely on using a small number of precision strike munitions. That would seem to make this plane a tactical striker with limited strategic capabilities such as what the F-117 was designed to do, putting a bullet through the brain of an integrated air defense network. I say limited strategic capabilities because it would not have the payload or fuel capacity to have a long loiter time that would enable time sensitive attacks like how the B-1B has been used in Iraq. Regarding the air-to-air capability, the large front nose does seem to be indicative of a powerful radar. From the top and front views it seems this is a lifting body design, and given the stubby wings I don't think the plane would be very manueverable even with thrust vectoring. So I guess that the plane is designed to deal with enemy aircraft BVR, but I do think it has some defensive capability. Given how broad the tail is, it looks like a rear-facing radar with a good search and track capability could be mounted. From the look of the weapons bay doors on the underside view I am guessing the plane is designed to mount at least one or two rear-firing missiles. The only thing about the design that causes me trouble with these conclusions is that with all that extra sensory data, you might think a second crewman is needed but only one seat can be seen in the side view. On the other hand you could make the case that the plane relies on advanced computer processing like the F-22 and F-35. That is my theory, feel free to discuss and ridicule my ideas.