JediMaster

A certain harrassing entity trying to stir up crap on other sites via false statements about CA staff...vaccillates between humorous and annoying, depending on phase of the moon.

It hardly matters when people don't actually LISTEN to what the other guy is saying and instead "interpret" a couple of buzzwords as meaning "they see differently!" and going off on a rant....when if they bothered to listen they'd realize how close their viewpoints were in the first place. But, I suppose feeling 1% different is the same as 100% different to them...the old "if you're not with me on EVERY issue to the SAME degree you're against me."

When Peter takes out the TV ad to spread "the word" I was LOL.

I've got a pair of WD's...a "book" sized 250GB from several years back with external power and a "pocket" sized 640GB from last year that powers off USB. Both work fine.

He was within inches of catching a wire anyway! That would've been disaster as he was yanked from the sky...

I was nearly born on the 4th of July, actually!

You won't be able to tell a thing by looking at it, but you can detect it by its smell. It smells like...victory.

It's D'anna Biers with a dark wig! Odd outfit for a 3 to wear...

Neat idea. Unfortunately, I could never go downsized from my 65", which limits my options!

No problem, just do what I do...get the good camera, then tell them to do it again. They wouldn't possibly say no.

The F-22 has side-by-side engines while the T-50 spread them apart a bit. There's legit reasons for each design choice (the F-14 took that route as well). Close-set engines offer less adverse yaw in a single-engine out situation, wide-set engines offer insulation from one engine failure taking out the other via debris. The nose thing, like the Su-27 before it, is likely due to the angle of flight (so the nose isn't pointing high over the line of flight at cruise speeds or lower) as well as giving the pilot a good view over the nose on takeoff and landing. Also, the wide-set design offers a "lifting fuselage" effect which adds lift at high AOA that can be very useful.

Don't have a favorite! I'm just a fan of all the planes, theaters, and eras!

You know, I don't think I've ever seen a thread titled "Why I Love Ohio."

If he makes it, I'll buy it. Since SFP1 I've yet to be disappointed by one of TW's games. Ok, I've been disappointed with the limited support for the MP side and its removal from SF2, but that was a case of "features not implemented", not a quality or design issue. I'm still hoping for MP support for SF2 or a new MP-designed title! Anyway, does this imply Suez will be the one out later this summer, or it will be out well before then and this unannounced add on will be in the summer? English can be so imprecise!

I think I quit using ICQ in 2006 or 2007...

Gotta love the clipped-wing Spit for that low-alt dogfighting. I think my CFS3 install has like a dozen and a half different Spit models from the 1% guys.

Did Kurt Plummer start posting under some people's accounts here??

Do you have a twist rudder? You may want to go into the controls and increase the dead zone for the rudder so you don't move it inadvertantly.

Like all of them, it depends where you're going to be using it. I've found within my own county coverage varies wildly between carriers (Sprint is good in the north, sucks in the south, etc). If you're going to be using it nationally...who knows?

A lot of this is based on theoretical "factory fresh" planes. What about "in the field"? We've talked about the missile reliability factor, but that's not in a vacuum. I don't know what the mission capable rates were for each bird, but I would think the F-4 had more downtime due to more complex avionics than the F-8. What were the MMH for each bird? I know the F-4 had to be higher, but was it just a bit or a lot more? I mean, a fleet of planes that is grounded is no threat to any aggressor, so if you had a wing of each plane, how many of each would actually be available to fight at any given time? I've never heard of any maintenance nightmare stories for the F-8 yet plenty for the F-4. Of course, there were so many more F-4s that may not mean anything. Take the rather common problem (as far as type rather than occurrence) of a radar failure. For a missile-armed F-4, would that mandate an immediate RTB? What about an F-8? Was its radar a bonus, and not "vital"? You may or may not be able to show that an F-8 at 100% would fare one way or another vs an F-4 at 100%, but how often were each really at 100%? Just like Oleg's penchant for using "captured test data" for non-Russian planes and then "let's impress Comrade Stalin" data for the Russian planes, you have to take a lot of numbers with a large dose of salt...

I guess that depends on how much crap they pack into it...

Well, perhaps 400 trained birds, each carrying .5 kg...

You mean in the A-10 pic? Those are called "dents." Probably from AAR in turbulent weather resulting in a good whack to the nose.

Well, look at it this way...decades after their introduction into service, which plane is still in front-line use? Just the F-4. Upgraded, sure, but still the same airframe, and no better a dogfighter today than it was in the 1950s. However, which was the last to serve on carriers? The F-8 for France, years after the US and UK retired their carrier-borne F-4s.

A-50 = Il-76 w/Russian radar PHALCON = Il-76 w/Israeli radar