JediMaster

Yeah, no way I'd ever consider moving out there!

Hard to say as it's an agressor squadron, but my first guess would've been an F-15E.

Well, the F-22B was planned from the start but they killed that so I'm not optimistic. Frankly I could see a 2-seat version of the A and C F-35, but I think the B is out. I just can't picture any way to put a 2nd seat and keep it STOVL without a radical redesign of a large part of the fuselage.

You misunderstand. Track IR is not a 1:1 ratio, just as your mouse's position on a mouse pad isn't a literal representation of where the cursor is on the screen. Try this--stare at one spot on your screen, then roll your ahead around in a circular motion without losing sight of that spot. Your nose points away from the monitor at all times, but you can still see it. That's how TIR works, it monitors your head position and then translates that into exaggerated movements of the screen. I'd say turning your head no more than 30 degrees left or right gives you "check six." Likewise tilting your head back to look down your nose gives you a "straight up" view and tilting your head down a little lets you go head-down in the cockpit.

Done! I've got both CFS3/OFF and FE with its expansion. They're very different although covering the same era. FE and exp would cost you what, 45-50 Euros or so? I'm sure CFS3 is far less than that and OFF Phase 2 is free (Phase 3 won't be, although I don't think they've announced what they'll charge). If you like TK's other sims, you know exactly what FE will be. Change the terrain, WWI planes, WWI themed menus, same basic style of campaign/missions. OFF is good for people who liked/didn't mind CFS3's way of doing things. It is sort of a 2-in-1 setup, though. You run a custom front-end UI that then launches the modded CFS3 when you go to fly and exit back out when done. Not perfect, but workable. There's also a bit of oddity where the enemy AI is kinda brain-dead in single missions but very good in campaign. It's a CFS3-related problem, no way to fix it I know of. I will admit I spend more time in FE, but that's because I fly it coop MP with someone.

I'm still confused about their kid. I mean, you remember those lyrics from Loverboy, right? "Cruise and Holmes DNA just won't splice."

Neither the B-1 nor B-2 served in DS. B-1B wasn't configured for conventional ops yet (it was still nuclear only) and the B-2 hadn't entered service in 91. The B-52G and H did it all. That's right, that was the 52G's swan song as well.

Like they would keep them in a hangar. Anything like that would be in an underground bunker which is a helluva lot more secure than a lousy hangar. The C-17 is one of my favorite transports because it's so nice and quiet. The C-5 sounds like bolts in a blender as it struggles to get airborne, they really need to reengine all of those things ASAP. The Harriers are LOUD when they land because they always rotate those nozzles down and the sound bounces off the ground and echoes EVERYWHERE. Burner-equipped jets are all fairly close in tone, depending on single or twin engines, with the old Hornet not being quite so loud. The WORST is the stupid DC-8s we have here. Those things seem to just have loudspeakers that put out 200db under the wings to make them go, they're not really ENGINES.

I've noticed the West has really lagged behind the East when it comes to ADA and SAMs. I mean, yes, the Patriot is an awesome system, but what else is there? We have them, old Hawks, Avenger/Stingers, and the Vulcan? Is the Chapparal still around? Anything else? Russia has IR and RH SAMs of every type and range, fixed and mobile, plus ZSU 23s, 57s, and the deadly combos like the 2S9 Tunguska that we have no counterpart of. It seems like while the USSR focused on shooting down NATO planes any way they could, NATO focused more on shooting them down with fighters above all else.

I just mean the PS3 only comes with the gamepad controller, you have to pay extra for the remote. Granted it's cheap, but you do have to pay extra. As for scratches, unlike DVD and HD DVD, BD has a new coating that makes it more resistant to scratches. I've rented DVDs, HD DVDs, and BDs from Netflix and I've never seen a scratched BD. Dirty with fingerprints, yes, but in every case I've been able to wipe it down to looks-new condition. Some DVDs and HD DVDs, though, were really bad. As for flash drives, the simple matter is they cost a lot more than a BD. Ever seen a 25GB flash drive for $15? Yet you can get a BD for that. The switch to consoles like PS and Gamecube using CD/DVDs instead of cartridges was for cost reasons, and a flash drive is just an old Nintendo/Atari cartridge in another guise.

Just don't make the Bush speech the "read my lips...no new taxes" one! As for planes, I think it should feature all the planes that served there that are no longer around. F-14s, F-111s, F-117s, A-7s, A-6s. Also the RAF planes like the Jaguar and Buccaneer.

The JSF won't replace the Super Bug though. Not really. It will replace all the old Hornets still around and may eventually replace the E model, but seeing as there no 2-seat JSFs planned the F will never be replaced. I think it will soldier on for a long time to come like the Tomcat before it did.

$350 for a BD player NOW. Up until a couple of weeks ago, it was $399 for a BD player and NOT top of the line. The PS3 is a good deal because Sony loses money on them. No one is losing money on BD standalone players. Only the PS3's lack of regular remote sucks. I'm considering getting one as a 2nd BD player, but I'm also thinking about buying a new laptop w/BD player and plugging my TV into the HDMI port. Sure it's $1300 for the laptop, but it will do other things and will also be a portable BD player if I go on trips! However, Sony isn't my favorite company so my BD player is the Panasonic 1.1 profile model that came out end of last year. I didn't care about 2.0, I don't even have my HD DVD player hooked to the internet. Of course, the PS3 has wireless so I COULD use it there, but no standalone player has a wifi connection.

You do know they're making another Street Fighter flick, right? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891592/

I read a very good article recently about what is now known about the Tomcats' performance in the Iran-Iraq war. It boiled down to "did damned well against Iraq" and there were several confirmed kills of Iraqi jets by Phoenix missiles. However, there were also a large number of misses, I think I saw something like 50% success rate. I think it was in the previous issue of IAPR.

That's why they're developing the AIM-120D and the one after that (E presumably) to have even longer range. The AESA radar the latest Super Bugs have is superior to what even the Tomcat Deltas had. The 120C has less range than a 54 did, but is arguably more effective against fighter-sized targets and certainly anything remotely stealthy. The 54C was a 70s missile designed to attack bombers and cruise missiles at long range ie non-manuevering targets. I think every known kill by a 54 was against a target that was unaware. There's also some speculation the US might buy the Meteor if it's proven to be cost-effective (for what it gives) if it can do more than a 120 variant for the same or less money. I've also never heard of any complaints about Super Bug bring-back weight, only tons about the legacy Hornet. Same with the range, the old Hornet had ridiculously short legs while the Suped one is "average". An F-22N likely would've cost a LOT more than a Super 21, which as mentioned was dumped in favor of the new Hornet for cost reasons.

The real question is why didn't they STAY there?

The good news is I don't think BD will ever need to be replaced. 50GB on a disc is more than enough unless someone decides we all need 2160p TVs.

I vote for Mr T.

So, how long until I see it in Armed Assault?

Can I use it to fly to work like Bond in Thunderball? If not, useless!

The real question--can you make a pilot that looks like a dog with an eyepatch?

It's a Star Wars Z-95 Headhunter if designed by Burt Rutan!

I would think an An-124 style door in the rear would make the most sense. My main concern is that plane looks like it would tip over in a strong wind! That landing gear is very narrow track for a wingspan that large. I mean, the Bf109 had issues with tipping over and its gear was proportionately a much wider stance. Maybe some outrigger gear ala B-47/52 underneath the point where the wings switch from anhedral to dihedral? At the very least the fuselage itself would be bulged out at the bottom where the gear goes, like on the Il-76/C-17/C-5/An-124/etc giving it a more triangular cross section in that area. Oh, and I would add even more wheels. That sucker must be HEAVY.

Many fighters have bare metal on the top and bottom of the fuselage where the afterburners are. That's because temps get so high there that paint would blister and peel off. The F-15 is one, I think the Flanker is another. Remember the engines are in the middle of the plane, not sitting right in the tail, so the exhaust has a long tube to pass thru before it reaches the nozzles and that air is HOT.