JediMaster

They can have a three-way.

LOL, I'm sure he would feel differently if the situation was reversed. To wit: You wouldn't think that was over the line? We should allow that to stand?

I saw Jeff Krosnoff and Greg Moore die in their respective races in the 90s, but they were much smaller. Moore's was a single-car accident, in fact. There was no doubt he was dead, though. The crash was at 200+ mph and he hit the wall with his head. Krosnoff's wasn't as apparent, but when the car came to a stop he was hanging out of what was left of the front of the car (it was gone in front of the seat, so his legs were the front) completely limp. It is sad to think that in over 10 years the only improvement they've had is the HANS device.

He will of course deny it.

That's why I think both sides deserve to burn. I make too little for the GOP to give a damn about me and too much for the Democrats to think I'm anything but a fat cat. One side panders to those who make a ton (calling everyone who makes a million dollars or more a "job creator" is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time...how many of them have personal employees besides maybe a house cleaner or a nanny? BUSINESSES create jobs, not people) and thinks everyone who isn't rich is lazy, the other side panders to those who make very little but then sets it up so they pay little to nothing for stuff and even gives money away to those who won't even work. Their stances make no sense...how can liberals be decried as "intellectuals" if they have so little money? So, stupid people get rich?!? We've got millions of Einsteins with no money and a few thousand complete morons running CEOs? Really? The idealogies of the two sides make me sick...great job taking firm stances on things few to no people care about, while doing your best to maintain the status quo. What both sides' "utopias" would be, based on their goals, I would find to be an uninhabitable morass of uselessness. Unfortunately, all elections boil down to one or the other of these two stupid groups winning. There's no "I think both of these guys suck, send them back and give me more to pick from" option because far too many people are sucked in by these bogus idealogies (that I will bet the lives of, oh, every person on the planet fewer than half of those politicians actually BELIEVE in, it's just a way for them to get power and money for themselves) and will always vote D or R not because they want that one stands FOR, they want to prevent what the OTHER side is for. Guess what? Both parties have been trading off responsibilities for the past 100 years and things are just getting worse, so what kind of logic has it that everything would be just PEACHY if everyone in control was in the same party? That's right, China has that! Look how good they're doing! I'm the guy at dinner forced to choose between a leaf on a twig or a bucket of lard, when all I'd really like is a nice BBQ chicken and a salad. Or as they put it in South Park, a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich when you want someone intelligent who cares. If I had a time machine, I'd go back to the 1780s and convince the framers that political parties be outlawed in the Constitution. Everyone has to run just based on what they believe in, none of this "every Democrat/GOP has to support every precept of the Democratic/GOP party to get nominated or they get booted" crap that ensures the only candidates we see in general elections now are those that appeal to the far left and the far right, leaving those of us in the center just wanting to nuke them all and start over again. No more "registered party only" primaries! Maybe then the candidates closer to the center would get elected.

I don't think they're enemies so much as competitors. Like any 2 racing drivers, or boxers, or politicians running for the leadership of their country. Do they want to see the other one dead? Most likely not. They DO want to be #1 and see the other no better than #2, though. Naturally some people think of competition in terms of violence, as in "the last refuge of" for those unable to beat their competitor any other way. While I don't see foresee a WWIII with them anytime soon (although in decades to come things could change which could put as at each other's throats, just as those we fought with in former wars have turned into allies today), I don't see it as unlikely that we could enter a new Cold War with them as we had with the USSR decades past. No outright hostilities, but perhaps limited engagements in some areas on behalf of allies as happened before in both Korea and Vietnam. Lots of espionage, lots of belligerent behavior in the air and at sea with occasionaly shooting incidents, but I can't believe either side wouldn't be aware that a real war would be more devastating to both sides than any other possible outcome.

That's also why the F-16 always has something there. Originally the wingtip launch rails were designed to be off when not needed. The flutter response was improved with them on, though, and IIRC they found it even better with the AIM-9s hanging there. The heavier 120s do an even better job, so you see 120s on the tips and 9s under the wings now, backwards from pretty much every other plane out there (that puts IRMs on the wingtips). That includes the only other US fighters using wingtip rails, the Hornets. Both legacy and Super types just have 9s on the tips. I don't know if they can carry 120s there or not. My guess is there's no structural reason they can't, but they may not be wired for it and the change in flutter response on the different wings may be undesirable.

So C-5 is probably the local designation for the either the 130 or one of the other 2.

I haven't done "random" in awhile, so my last 10 are from Weird Al's 1985 album "Dare to Be Stupid."

When it comes to airlift, they only have 3 types. C-130s, F-27/28s, and N-22 Nomads. They have like 2 each of the former, and about a dozen of the latter at most.

The 2 best timed I've seen were the Thunderbird F-16 that pulled out too low, and the famous MiG-29 bird ingestion in the UK 20+ yrs ago where the pilot touched the ground at about the same time as the plane did!

Not the first, not the last...

Yes, I also was thinking "RC planes in WWII would raise their gear, we've had UAVs for decades that could do this, this is a big fat ZERO." This is a we don't have anything impressive to report but we're scared to have our funding cut so we're going to toot our uber-tiny horn nice and loud release.

Yes, conditionally. I used to play it more than now (considering it's 10 yrs old, not surprising really), but I do still fire it up every other month or so. I had one of the UP mods for awhile, but now I'm just at 4.10.1. I don't play MP much because 1) I'm too casual for most still flying it (no CEM, labels, engine overheat off, etc) 2) I only play coop, I don't like flying against humans (which more likely than not have so much more stick time than me it's not enjoyable) and 3) I have an irregular schedule so I'm online whenever and can't make promises on showing up. As stated, though, I still have it despite its wacky AI for all the planes I can't fly anywhere else.

GRIDLOCK!!!

Copy that! I'll concentrate on looking at Forza 4 instead...

Because the oldest of all traditions is to CYA, and getting people to abandon that in favor of protocols is nigh-on impossible at best.

I'm afraid this world situation is just too silly, I'm stopping it right now.

The funny thing is that they make all these noises about their own people, then send them on suicide missions. Why would anyone want to follow people known for using up their followers like that?

Still no word on what the 3rd installment will be. All that's been said is "popular American fixed wing plane". So we know what's it NOT, but not what it IS.

Ah, a carbon-fiber and aluminum alloy rain, quite nice on bare skin!

Is that a punctured ball at the base of the pile?

Even if the computer doesn't control flight ability, so you don't have to worry about crashing, what about the other systems? What could be worse than a mission into hostile airspace and your radar, RWR, and ECM switch off and won't come back? My feeling is that while a manned plane will likely have fewer problems than a UAV/UCAV, when a fatal problem occurs in a manned plane it's 10x worse than losing an unmanned one.

Yes, it's the OFP/Arma guys doing it. I'm not sure what the game itself will be like, but if you have arma 2 there was a demo of sorts that let you fly the a helo in arma2 using the FM TOH will have. It sounds like MSFS helo edition from the Arma guys, so I'm going to wait for others to get it and try it. I'm not much for "flight only" sims (I prefer combat flight sims!) so I may skip this one.

I have nothing against Jobs or what he was able to accomplish. However, I have a dislike for some of his more rabid fans. Some of the anti-PC rhetoric they spout is so stupid it's no wonder people think "Apple is for stupid people" because it's the dumb fans that are the most vocal. The smart ones, well, they don't go spouting off about it because they know it's not better, just different, and some things are better suited for it while others are not. It's like a presidential candidate being endorsed by the KKK or something...I'm sure Apple privately wishes those people would stay quiet. I don't care for the products themselves because they require certain concessions to giving up control that I don't like, like converting all your music to their own format first, or being locked out from digging into the OS.