JediMaster

I'll just throw in that external ord will add weight and drag, but not affect area or lift. So the weight figures in directly, the drag of course just affects the speed.

Heh, if you go to Dulles and Intrepid you will see 2 of the shuttle orbiters, not to be missed!

Crimson Tide is post-Cold War but almost the same. However, the "bad guys" are really just an offscreen impetus for the action, you know next to nothing about them, it's the drama on board that drives it.

I've always been partial to "what in the wide, wide world of sports??"

To be honest, I always thought there was one there, somewhere. Never heard about it, but it seemed logical to assume it existed.

What are the stats on losses of F-16 due to engine failures vs Hornets? In other words, how many times has a Hornet made it home when an F-16 did not? How many Hornets were lost when the one engine failure was so bad that it went down anyway, either due to fire or taking out the 2nd engine, making redundancy irrelevant? I always hear this 1970's era argument about engine reliability thrown about, but that was based on the reliability of engines in the 1960s. How do engines in the 21st century actually behave? Of course, I'm sure Canada believes the US Navy has no regard for its pilots and doesn't care if they all splash down in the middle of the ocean which is why they had no qualms using single engined jets like the 35B and C, or the A-7s, or the A-4, or any of a vast number of single engined planes over the last 100 years. Only Canada is smart enough to realize that one engine = FREEZING DEATH TO PILOTS, naturally. If only the DoD had someone as intelligent and with as much experience as armchair generals, then no single engined plane would be developed or purchased ever again. But yeah, I'm sure buying a plane that has 2x the number of engines (and therefore will have 2x the number of failures) that will be obsolete in just a couple of decades is better than buying a plane that will be competitive for as long as the old Hornets have been around. Why buy a 2017 car you can use for 20 years when there's a 1997 model with low mileage available, even if the laws say it will be banned from road use in 5 years because of emissions standards? Buying a military platform based on what is best for peace time instead of war time seems a bit shortsighted...

Yeah, the A-10C was not built for extended inverted flight.

Exactly. And the right replies by falsely stating that it was better *insert random date in the past here* even when it can be proven that unless you are referring to white Western males it most likely wasn't. The problem is both sides are wrong in different ways. But those on the left say the right is MORE wrong, and wrong in the ways that count, while their flaws are smaller. Meanwhile those on the right say the left is more wrong, and is wrong in the ways that count, while their flaws are smaller. Found something that makes my side look bad? Attack the source for credibility, claim it's overblown, it's a conspiracy, it's a distraction from the REAL issues, why are we talking about it instead of X, blah blah blah. Found something that makes the other side look bad? Attack anyone that attacks it source, claim it's being covered up without adequate attention, decry how it proves how corrupt THEY are, demand it be treated as the greatest threat ever, blah blah blah. The cold truth is that if either the left or the right get their way, society will collapse. Only a balance down the center has made society grow, with balances between soulless capitalism putting children slaves in factories with a rich oligarchy treating the masses as subhuman and mindless socialism where people are actually supposed to work just as hard as everyone else, with no one slacking or overachieving and everyone having the same things as everyone else, in total disregard for actual human behavior and abilities. The idiotic demonizing of the other side so that it seems morally repugnant to compromise (the very foundation of the Constitution that both sides claim to admire, actually) is what is going to destroy this country. Not the right. Not the left. The unwillingness of the two sides to work together and insistence that ONLY they are correct will.

I've had a couple of instances of the site not coming up right when I first come here, but it could be my link which is combatace.com/index for some reason.

No. The world's climate is in no danger from nuclear plants. Worst case scenario is people near a plant might be in danger in specific cases. Yet the plant itself emits steam. An electric car emits nothing. You can charge it with solar power, or wind power, or coal power, or literally anything. A team of mules turning a wheel even. If petrol is so safe, I challenge you to sit in an enclosed space with a running internal combustion engine for a few hours. Then you will see how harmless it is. I refuse to drive with my windows open the air is so foul. I sit and imagine all the idiots around me with their windows open dying from cancer in a few decades from sucking it in all the time. There is also so much energy lost to heat and noise that is wasted instead of being used on powering the engine. Dreadfully inefficient. Oh, and I HATE filling up the car. I dream of the day where I can just plug it in at home and leave every morning with a full charge. No more visits to those awful smelling filling stations and stepping in a puddle you thought was water, but it wasn't, and now your shoes smell like it for the rest of the day, as does the inside of your car...

I never understood holding losers in such high esteem. The South was fighting for their homes and their way of life. They had every reason to give it their all. The North consisted of soldiers who didn't want to be there fighting an enemy they didn't care about to prevent them from leaving. Ever get in a fight with someone because they wanted to leave your party but, even though you didn't like them, you demanded they stay? I didn't think so. Yet the North won. So, QED the South's war was run by losers and they lost. Maybe if the vast majority of their population wasn't maltreated slaves they would've done better? Doesn't matter, they lost badly. Then they got even by spending the next 150 years whining about how great they were. Of course, if they had their way, we'd all be slaves to the Reich or Imperial Japan now, because a split US wouldn't have tipped the balance to win WWII. Or even if it had, it wouldn't have been strong enough to stand up to the USSR, so Stalin would've crushed us. If only the South had won to preserve the right to enslave, so that we could all be slaves now. Ah, dare to dream...

You referring to the engine or the APU? That APU is definitely higher-pitched than most, the engines themselves don't sound that different to me.

As far as I know there was never a carrier that had Tomcats that did not have Hornet as wells, at least once the Hornets entered service. While there were a few older carriers too small to take the 'Cat, I thought they were mostly all gone by the time the Hornet saw widespread adoption anyway. It's not like there were any restrictions, and they served for the 80s and 90s together, so there were I'm sure tons of pics of it. Now if you mean Super Hornets, that was a very small window and I'm sure more specific.

Anyone else wanna negotiate??

No kidding. Even those of us without the issue often need that for those times when you can't make noise and speaking or listening are out. At some point I've played almost every game I own with no sound for some period, some longer than others. With subtitles and chat and other indicators I can play successfully in most games. The experience is lesser, certainly, but it was either play the game that way or not play it at all. PUBG has made a ton of money, it's not struggling, it can afford to have these relatively inexpensive features. It's not like rewriting for DX12 or something!