Typhoid

right......................... and how many Spetznaz were involved in the "negotiations"? and how many tanks accompanied the trucks from Senaki? and why were all those Russian "engineers" in Senaki in the first place if "Peacemakers assert that no cities and settlements they occupied." ?

I'd like to see a combination of ski jumping and skeet!

ok. How if the Russian troops did not capture/invade/occupy Poti, how did they blow up three coastguard ships in Poti?

my new Wings over the Pacific install based on WOV instead of WOE does the same thing. Other terrais work fine from take off. This one works fine starting from the air but explodes on the runway.

that would be the one. http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=2678 ust follow the directions carefully and you will have many missions. also check out the mission packs that are downloaded in the mission and campaign building section here.

"Perhaps you weren't aware, but the USAF was managing the overall air-to-air mission tasking. I don't think it's too far a stretch to think that F-15's got the lion's share of the kills becase they were the only ones providing CAPs in the likely engagement areas. " a point that I personallly heard confirmed by Gen Horner.

hadn't thought of that. I'll reload a WOV and take a look.

"To date, I don't think one battle has been lost or one mission has failed due to using a Super Hornet where a Tomcat would have." absolutely on target. The principle shortfall in the F-18E/F is in range/payload. That shortfall has been addressed by; 1. use of PGM 2. use of USAF Tankers The Super Hornet is doing just fine for us now. The other shortfall is the potential threat from an opponent equipped with advanced Flanker variants and modern air to air missiles. That is a very short list of potential opponents. It would be nice if would could field something equivelant to an F-22 in a carrier based aircraft. That need at the moment is a "potential" threat. As much as I did not like the decision at the time (and still don't), based on the financial constraints (particularly with the regime that followed) the decision by Darth Cheney and Bush the Elder was correct.

seems they've learned how to do productions from Hollywood...............................

I look at Alt-N as simulating tankers............

I think just about anyone who has ever flown for any length of time has at least one "there but for the grace of God" story. Thanks for that one. Brought back more than a few memories.

"(off to Cambrai, where a Camel is waiting)" what was it that The Baron said the other day? oh yea, "I'd walk a mile to smoke a Camel"

think of a new sim Wings over the Croplands with cropdusters!

you've got that right!! I've added some photos to the original post.

woe and had that with an F4F from the invisible airfield and a P40E from Midway. Havent' done a full checkout yet with other aircraft and haven't run the provided mission yet. I'll provide more details later. had a similar issue once with the EAW WWII Europe terrain when launching from the German carrier. Everything else works great and I never figured that one out either.

you raise a very good point. A FCF and a NATOPS check are two entirely different evolutions and while they certainly can be combined into a single flight - they are separate profiles and should not be done at the same time!!! I remember some pretty "interesting" FCF's including an uninteded dual engine out (think about what kind of plane I flew....), but this is one that rapidly escalated way out of control in the blink of an ey. you hit the bottom line - "It sounds like they sort of...forgot to fly"

invisible base is a cool idea! odd thing, when flying single missions the plane explodes as it takes off. any ideas? reseting the option to be airborne works fine so its not the cat file.

interesting email thread going around on a recent P-3 mishap. My comments are the last ones at the top of this thread. I've deleted the other identifying addresses. I hope the photos come through. This underscores the hazards of flight ops when one focuses on one item to the exclusion of other factors. There are quite a few indicators in this thread of things not going well these days in the P-3 world........... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hmmm.... coming in doing a drill with one engine out and they have another engine "surge", so they shut down the bad one before bringing the perfectly good one (on the same side) back up while not watching their airspeed?!!!!! I've done enough FCF myself sitting between two T-56 engines (the same engine - but we mount ours right side up!) to know that was a significant "contributory factor" to this mishap. five rotations from 5500ft!!!! lucky they're still alive. Should be an interesting discussion at their FNAEB........! Subject: FW: Whidbey P-3 spin, 7G pullout An exciting story that I am most happy NOT to have witnessed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: FW: Whidbey P-3 spin, 7G pullout Surprising tale of USN P-3 Orion mishap (near crash!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "borrowing" applies mainly to the P-3's. What the hell were they (not) thinking when they shut down #2 without first firewalling #1? Even dumb jet jocks understand that 2 dead engines on one wing is not a condition you want to find yourself in. Almost as scary is the statement that the Navy has so few airplanes that they don’t belong to the squadrons any more – they must be “borrowed†from the wing. “Dad, can I have the keys to old 161331 today? I promise I’ll drive with both hands on the wheel and no drag racing.†________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Last Tuesday, 22 Jul 2008, a P-3 Orion from VP-1 was flying an approach to NAS Whidbey Island with the #1 engine in a simulated failure mode. At 160 KIAS, the #2 engine started to surge, so they had to chop power to it. As all this was happening, they were still decelerating, so by the time they added power to #3 and #4, they were at 122 knots, and in the dry terms of investigators, "departed controlled flight". The P-3 did FIVE rotations in a flat spin, dropping 5500 feet, finally recovering between 50 and 200 feet AGL (above ground level), pulling a whopping 7 positive G's on the airframe after sustaining 2.4 negative G's in the spin. The rolling pullout burst 45 rivets on one wing, physically RIPPED the main spar, and bent the entire airframe... the crew could see INSIDE the fuel tanks of the wing. *********************** The P-3C that almost went into Puget Sound waters a few days ago was from NAS Whidbey. It was a CPW-10 aircraft being operated by VP-1. Squadrons don't own aircraft any more. The P-3 fleet has so deteriorated because of under-funding and over-use that there are less than 100 still flyable*. The P-3s belong to the wing and are "lent to the squadrons on an as-needed" basis. The mission was a NATOPS pilot check, with a CPW-10 pilot (LT) aboard, a VP-1 LT and LTJG, plus VP-1 aircrewmen that included two flight engineers. The word is that the crew finally recovered control of the aircraft about 100 feet above MSL by pulling 7 Gs. The bird was landed back at NASW. Max damage was sustained by the aircraft, including almost tearing off a wing. Aircraft BuNo 161331. At Whidbey, P-3C 161331 was doing a Functional Check Flight.� They could see the inside of the fuel tanks when they landed.� SDRS recorded the flaps being raised and the landing gear being cycled down and then back up. Aircraft released all the fuel in tank #3 when it appears that the seam between planks 3 and 4 split. Tank #4 also lost its fuel load when plank #1 separated from rest of the aircraft wing. P-3 Incident BUNO 161331 Class A Mishap! Take a look at this. Unbelievable that the crew survived. This is out of Whidbey I believe yesterday or the day before. Here is some of what has been passed from this event coming from reliable sources: There's a lot more to this mishap. 45 consecutive rivets were pulled out on the stbd wing during the 7 g pull out (rolling pull), after peaking at negative 2.4g's as well. They did five spin rotations from 5500 ft- - they bottomed out "between 50 and 200 ft"!! They could see the inside of the fuel tanks when they landed. I'll forward the pictures this evening. They were at 160 KIAS, appr flaps during a prop fails to feather drill on #1 when #2 started surging. They bagged #2, but while doing so got to 122 KIAS. When they added power, they were way below Vmcair, and departed. About a minute later, just before impact, they recovered. Source is from DC. talking with investigators in Whidbey. Subject: P-3 Incident BUNO 161331 I knew there was a reason I hated doing FCF's. Check this out... For your SA we had an P-3 Class A today (not a mishap but by the material condition of the aircraft they are calling it a class A). Here's the preliminary info I have: At Whidbey, BN 161331 was doing a FCF and shut down #1 engine, with #1 off, #2 engine exhibited vibrations and was shutdown. With two engines off on the same side the aircraft stalled and was recovered at 100 feet. 7 G's were reported to pull it out of the stall. The aircraft landed safely. Broken Wing Panel Seperation Mad Boom Buckle Wing Spar Broken

download the mission planner and instructions. It will tell you how to set one up.

"You sure you haven't been talking to that friend of mine?" I'm stuck in the purgatory of staff misery with an FAA Liason Officer to the NORAD HQ within earshot......... one of the tasks my team is working on is figuring this mess out. To say that the FAA and the DoD have differing views of the world has to rate as one of those classic understatements of all time. and I like to take the train now........... what is even more scary is reading of the airspace congestion over Iraq and Afghanistan with everyone and their cousin heaving a UAV into the air. It is a miracle we haven't had a jet suck a UAV down the intake. Although we have had a helo chop one up! (didn't do the helo any good!)

"although to say that the ethnic Russian part was installed by Stalin conflicts with my knowledge that it was in fact, the Georgian ethnic part that was instead encouraged by Stalin. "

no argument there. The interwoven political and ethnic divisions through all of the Caucasus region is bewildering and mind wrenching. The situation in the Mid-East is, by comparison, relatively simple. At the present time the Osettian region is split into North (within Russia) and South (within Georgia). South Osettia in relation to the "central government" in Georgia is a separatist region with regional autonomy but still under Georgian control. The Russian peacekeepers are there to safeguard the ethnic Russian population (installed by Stalin). So all of the ingredients are mixed for a very dangerous, volatile flashpoint where absolutely no one will win. This has been building for years and is but one of several regional conflicts, including another section of Georgia, that could easily erupt into war. My prayers for your family and their safety and for a peaceful resolution soon before this spins further out of control.

you win!!!!

usually whatever the latest plane is up for testing...... that tends to keep my limited time filled up pretty well. lately the F-14B, A-7E, RF-4C series, the Canadian package in all of its glory (outstanding!!) and the F-5 package. after that, I tend to stick to the tailhook planes (duh!) more than others but not exclusively. A-4 F-14A+ and D F-4 F-4 USAF and others F-8 A-7E Mig-29 SU-27 and in the WWII arena the F-4u, F4F, Zero and P-51 WWI I like the Spad

"I lost my wing during high speed maneuvers in WoI (!!!):P...of course I had heavy loadout but it still shouldn't happen....I read that navy gives usually "safe info" and on the air shows you can see that pilots takes 9g in super bugs during maneuvers... what is your knowledge about that guys??" mixing real life and sim here. the sim is accurate in putting that max g load on. However, in real life the aircrew also has to consider what he might be carrying. Your comment on the heavy loadout is the key and actually validates the sim. The NATOPS, or Dash-1 for the pale blue suit gents, will have a table with a graph that equates load and max g. In other words, you will have a different max g based on what you are hanging on the stations. I would venture to guess that you have not seen in any airshow, any aircraft loaded to the gills pulling 7-9 g's. At least more than once...........