Typhoid

just shows yet again the intellectual bankruptcy of reporters.

"The sad fact is Boeing is the ONLY all-US contractor lead " What is Northrup Grumman? the fact is that both teams were heavily international. The fact that one is a US plane and the other is the Airbus overlooks that international teaming arrangement that is on the Boeing team. the real sad fact is that this whole competition was hosed up from the start and now has to be done over, yet again.

I haven't gone to carriers in WOI just yet so don't know.

"880 km / h in 1.0 car" he went that fast in a car!!!!!?

I think that was about the "fleet average' for awhile.

AWESOME!!

good luck!

outstanding!! Congratulations and the best of luck!

but is it addressed correctly in the aircraft ini file?

ah. Then I had better download and install that one too......!!

and you'all talk about us Navy guys..............

very dumb question perhaps, but why 46 if he was shot down in 163? --------------------------------------------------- "I'd fly an Obama mission, but I don't do dope."

POW LCDR John Sidney McCain 26. Oct. 1967 A-4E 149959 (VA-163) struck by AAA from; http://www.skyhawk.org/2d/skyhawk-casualty.htm#POW

that would be awesome. Pity some of those don't have flyable ones left anymore. a close attempt at a heritage flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJpX0tX-XFI the Phantom Blues; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJpX0tX-XFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFxrSYqQFGs&NR=1 along with those other planes including the recent crash and tributes, and oh yea, that other team.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB1EHeEAl9A...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mdEv8yCOxY...feature=related

seems so obvious Yea, get to work!!

OMG!! our prayers for the victims.

this may be a really dumb question, but what is a mobo? (obviously it wasn't me!)

I heard he got his boat keys mixed up with the wrong toy when he went sailing.....

good point........

very strange that the power pack would short out like that. Surprised it didn't detonate.

the fleets were bought with different purposes in mind. The ORIGINAL KC-135 fleet purchase was to support the SIOP. Period. The KC-10 was bought to support mobility deployments of fighter squadrons. The current use of the tanker fleet is obviously much wider than the original intent but to answer your question - that's why. That fleet of tankers is one of those key enablers that gives not just the USAF, but the real warriors in Naval Aviation our global reach and mobility. To replace that fleet will actually take three increments. Since much of the KC135 fleet were newer aircraft and upgraded to the R configuration, that part can wait. The initial increment was to replace about (I think) 2/3 of the fleet of older 135's with follow on competitions for the KC-10 and then the KC-135R replacements. As an aquisition decision - this is utter folly. I understand the reluctance of this administration to bequeth a done deal on the next administration, regardless of which one it is. Of note, McCain has been very interested and involved in the tanker problems and was instrumental is forcing the open competition rather than the kick-back lease deal. So sticking either him or The Audacious One with a monstrous hot potato(e) would be politically sensitive to say the least. However, after a horrendously costly competition and incredible level of effort by the DoD, AF and the competing teams - its all back to square one and kick the can down the road. sad...... As a defense contractor - I know the costs of competing, and having supported on the defense side some source selection processes, that is an incredible amount of work. It would not surprise me to see various members of these teams, or even an entire team, bail out rather than go through that hell yet again. This does not say much for our aquisition competence. And why, before someone raises the obvious question, is it this hard to go through the aquisition process? Because that is how Congress set it up when they wrote the laws that we must follow.

I'm guessing your ground wire in the receptacle is off or the ground in your laptop is broken. See electrician!

Dave, putting my (ancient) business administration major hat on; your key expense, if I understand it at all (doubtful...) is for bandwidth and site maintenance. That fluctuates with your traffic (correct? or not?). so my initial thought is right along with your initial subscription plan where you have access levels depending on subscription level. Can you put a limit on number and size of downloads (I know you have but bear with me for a minute)? have to be a paid member to upload a file? number of postings limited by level? that way you could leave the casual user at the free but limited level, as you already have, but perhaps at a much tighter level. Then for the rest of us who paid in we get a varying level of the above priviliges up to the unlimited for the top level payers. Set the free download limit at a level that will block the higher downloads such as the comprehensive packages (OTC, NATO Fighters, Falklands, DS and maybe even the larger aircraft models and high definition skins) In other words, for the basic and free registration, you get a very basic level of access. Just enough to whet their appetites for more. (kind of like crack dealing.......) Implement without warning! --------- Now all should consider this. For the basic sims you have to shell $$$ out to get those sims, whichever ones they are. For the expansion packs through the developer, you also have to shell $$$ out to get them. What you get here for peanuts, or for nothing, are entire games and expansion packs of astonishing fidelity. The time and effort of hobbyists are producing for all some incredibly detailed stuff including terrains, missions, campaigns, object models, etc. Of particular note, the full packages such as NATO Fighters, OTC, Falklands, and the upcoming Desert Storm packages are essentially entire new games with new interfaces which are of a similar value as the original games. And right now these are free. I do not begrudge those at all who cannot due to temporary circumstances. Such things happen and I have faced that myself at one time as will at some time almost everyone. When and if conditions change, then so should your contribution here when and if able, if you take advantage of the products offered here. Those of us who have actually studied real economics (not the various Karl Marx deviations thereof) all understand one very key and basic law that is absolutely true and irefutable. There is no Free Lunch!! Not ever.

we had an earlier topic on the U2 operating from carriers. Now to be clear, I never doubted that they did. Just some pleasant discussion of the details on approach speeds and such. one of my former shipmates and a pilot who I rode behind for many, many hours and traps sent me the below email which was sent to him by someone else. I do not know who the original author was. --------------------------------------------------- Sent by an old Phantom driver. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it! I was on this cruise. This was in late 62 or early 63. After the U2 carrier quals, we departed Oakland with 2 U2's and about 6 F4's. aboard the Ranger (CVA61), We had 7or 8 crews, some maint guys, and 3 Airforce (or Maybe CIA) U2 pilots. Our OinC was John Young (later Astronaut) . We were gone about 3 weeks. Never found out where we went except that we crossed the equator and had a big shellback ceremony. After about a week the U2's flew several 6 or 7 hour missions and then we turned for home. We flew several times during the cruise just for proficiency but just in the landing pattern. No tacan locks and no radar returns (and no bingo fields!) so we were way out in the middle of nowhere. http://www.creativefission.com/Frame_MOV_Carrier320x240.html