Gocad

I have a bad feeling about this...

That's just the Surfing Mountain....so it's not a bug, but a feature.

Seriously, that sentence above cracked me up. It's okay to believe in a certain aircraft, no need to explain why....mostly because trying to do so opens the gates of hell.

Eric's Super Hornets come with a dedicated Dual AHM rack.

Captain Obvious asks: Do AI prop aircraft run out of fuel? Of course they do. I guess this also explains that remark (that's from a summary of a comparison between a Spitfire XIV and a Mustang III) about the Spitfire having no endurance. ( Doesn't matter whether these are Seafires in the pic above, it still fits.

To be honest, I find the term multirole pretty confusing, since it's either used to describe an aircraft that could use in several different roles at the same time while this term is also attached to aircraft that could fulfill several roles (i.e. fighter & bomber) more or less satisfactory. Not to mention that most attempts to compare aircraft usually ignore that pretty much all aircraft are built to different specifications, thus making all the "aircraft A is better at whatever than aircraft B" statements pretty pointless since in most cases aircraft A was designed to do just that while aircraft B wasn't. Just saying.

Is that a converted 3rd party skin?

IRM missile rails on the stock models are part of them and they can't be added to other aircraft through data.ini edits. You still could add missile rails, but that would require an external model.

[-Insert WoW flashback-] What?

The EAF had Mark IXs as well....and speaking of Spitfires, it would be the cherry on top if there were RAF Mk 18s in this addon as well, but I guess we have to be happy with the Merlin-engined ones for now. A correct Mk IX is still better than nothing, after all. I would still be happy if some Griffon-engined Spitfires would be added to the SF series someday....they are sorely missing really.

F-8 Crusader....other types may have more impressive combat records, but they are definitely not as cool as the MiG Master.

Neat.

So you gonna make a thread each time you have some new screenshots for your gallery now?

ZOMG! SPITFIRES! with C & E-wings even!

Seriously, all the numbers aside, I do think we're debating a non-issue here. All that number crunching is pretty pointless, since I still haven't seen ANY reference where someone actually claimed that the F-8 was a better aircraft than the F-4 due to its design. Not to mention, and I do feel like beating a dead horse here, all the superiority of the F-4 is pretty useless when the pilots flying them are unable to utilize since their training focused on other aspects.

Just out of curiosity, where have you read or heard this statement?

The F-8 was in the end almost as versatile as the F-4 and used accordingly...it just couldn't carry the same payload. 1.)A well trained GiB won't help much if the driver is quite inexperienced...I know that this setup is used when you start training new pilots, but still, once you at SHTF moment there isn't much he could do. 2.) Don't think of the F8U-3 as an uprated version of the F8U-1/2. It was a whole different aircraft, designed for a totally different purpose. And, despite its projected performance, an inferior aircraft compared to the F-4. That of course my armchair pilot's opinion, but I still think that it's quite valid. Besides, even if, I don't think that it would have been that easy to add a gun or Sidewinders to it once they had realized the need for those.

Lexx, two words: pilot training. And to answer your question, the F8U-3 would have done worse, since it was meant to be used as an interceptor, so its pilots would have had the same problem as the F-4 pilots had in Vietnam....no emphasis on ACM training in their syllabus.

Whatever, the Crusader still owns!!!11!! Besides, I'm well aware that the Crusader was only more successful against the MiGs (according to the kill-loss ratio) simply because their pilots trained ACM due to their (pretty useless) primary gun armament...and I guess that anybody who know a bit about the Crusader would say the same. That would also explain why most of the initial Topgun instructors were Crusader pilots. It's all about training.

Re: iPad ban Israel reverses its iPad ban Like I said above, that was just a question of time. What this has to do with the original subject...well, to be honest, some posters in this thread went a bit over the top with their statements. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it would be nice if some would actually think about what they want to post instead of just posting it right away. Sure, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but some are so far away from reality that it hurts.

The Gannet replaced the Skyraider in that role.

You don't need a ballistic missile to launch a nuclear warhead at an unfriendly neighbor...

The iPad has been banned for now since it does not comply with Israeli communication standards...and that will most likely be resolved once the iPad is sold outside the US. Why did Israel buy German and not American submarines...well, one reason would be that no American company builds conventional submarines anymore. Why is the Israeli Navy looking at a German design for their new vessels? Because the American design they initially looked at has become too expensive. Does the US-Israeli relations have anything to do with this? Not really, right?

Short version: Don't worry, you're a modder anyway. Btw, I wasn't joking about the post count. It doesn't matter how much you post, but what you post is important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE That one is still the best.