gbnavy61

Think it's time to step outside there.

She's not that bad looking. The makeup definitely isn't helping her. I'm sure she's a nice person and really must like/love someone to pose for these photos - they don't leave much to the imagination. At the risk of digging a deeper hole, I'll just say this: If it weren't for less-attractive people, how would we know who the hotties are? (Remember when we talked about how you should end your stories one sentence earlier...)

My first requirement for a lady is that she have a pleasant face - that's the part I have to look at all the time. Yikes.

I know it's theoretical and all for fun within the game. I'm just suggesting that this technique of determining the drop point may not give the accuracy necessary to hit/destroy your target every time (again, unless we're flying a B-17 w/ a dozen bombs, or using cluster bombs). I didn't remember if the sim allowed everything to go into metric. Anyway, that still leaves two problems. First, airspeed. I'm pretty sure that the default info in the lower left corner gives you Indicated Airspeed (same as on the instrument panel). Is there a way to get True Airspeed? In the end TAS is what you need to base your calculations on, because the higher you go the more difference there is between IAS and TAS - kinda makes a difference if you want to be up higher to avoid AAA. If you have no wind, TAS is your Groundspeed - i.e. how fast your jet, and consequnetly, the bomb, is moving over the ground. Second issue is altitude. Just because you are at 6000' on the altimeter, doesn't mean you have 6000' between you and the surface. So, some advanced knowledge of the target elevation is required for accuracy. I tried this out in WOI yesterday - took a Scooter over to hit a runway. I ran the numbers for 300kts at 6000ft and got a drop point of 1.6NM. I know you used metric numbers, I converted to English units. Now, I have my targeting and HUD set to 'hard' so I wasn't able to be extremely precise with the drop point, but I got pretty close to the drop point (by eyeball anyhow). I came in at an angle because flying down the length would kinda defeat the purpose of the test. My bombs missed a runway-sized target by a good 100' laterally at least (assuming runway centerline was the desired impact point). Now granted I wasn't perfectly on parameters, but that's kinda the point - is anyone ever going to be exactly on? If you're off a couple feet on altitude, or you're a couple knots fast or slow, or you're slightly offset to one side of the other, it can make a big difference. The higher you are, the more flight time the bomb has, which means any deviations from your drop parameters have that much more time to affect the impact point. And if you're off on more than one parameter the affect could be increased (for example, if you're higher and faster than your drop numbers - your bomb is going to overshoot the target quite a bit).

I would assume even with all this math stuff you'd need to be pretty much right on parameters and right on course to get even close to the target. What kind of targets are you going up against and what kind of ordnance are you using? Also, how are you determining when you're at your drop point in the game? Also, how do you identify your other parameters - altitude is obvious, but not all aircraft have True Airspeed gauges - and what about different units like knots and feet vice meters and kph? Not trying to shoot down your work here - it's a good application of what you've learned in class - but, it seems an awful lot of effort to plan out the drop. If this is a WWII type bomb run with about a dozen or so 500lb bombs with a large target, this would work well. But otherwise, it seems like it would lack the precision needed to hit smaller targets, when a little dive-bombing might get you a whole lot closer, without all the number-crunching.

If we're lucky, maybe they'll sink all their own stuff before anyone else has to. Sorry for the crew, though.

I see the problem...you're flying a helicopter. (Sorry, I can't actually be useful here.)

Maybe said individual confused JFK and JFK Jr. If you overlap the stories, he could have been shot in a plane. Any takers? Storm, I know exactly what you mean. It wasn't an airshow, but we were out picking pumpkins (at the pumpkin patch of course - family tradition) one year before Halloween. I probably wasn't more than twelve at the time, with my little brother at my side, and we looked up to see what exactly was making the cool sounding prop noises a ways off. Lo and behold, a nice B-25 Mitchell (my brother's first name, too, as it happens) was buzzing around looking pretty sweet in the clear blue sky. We weren't the only ones to stop and look up - a father pushing a stroller with his younger child was easily within earshot. Suddenly he opened his mouth and out came the following sentence which made me cringe: "That's a B-24 Martin Marauder." Ouch, two strikes at once.

Yeah, I doubt it would. All that extra weight when you could just throw one really good engine in there. We have F-16s that do just fine on one.

I'm not a fan of a twin-engine 'Sader. Kinda spoils the lines, IMO. Otherwise, it looks pretty sweet.

Skippy, what kind of plane are those?

Always thought the Lanc was the best looking Brit bomber.

As in, "Attackattackattackattackattackattack!" ?

Oh, I was thinking about this but forgot to mention it before: tankers. Turn a 2-hour mission into as long as the pilots can stand it.

I don't know about less well known, but here are some that come to mind for me: F-4 - first all missile armament, and multi-role big jet fighter EA-6B/EF-111 - modern jamming/SEAD aircraft F-14 - first long-range missle/radar system on a big fighter (some good info during the Iran-Iraq War) F-117 - first stealth aircraft AV-8 - Harrier, first operational VTOL jet (debut in Argentina) F-86 - first US swept wing jet fighter (counter to the MiG-15) UH-1 - Huey, first mass-use helicopter (esp. in Vietnam) w/ many missions and modifications (led to the AH-1) AH-1 - first dedicated attack helicopter SR-71 or U-2 - high-speed/altitude recce platforms B-52 - lots of years of service w/ lots of missions to look at MiG-15 - first operational interceptor over Korea, swept wings, etc. MiG-25 - Mach 3+ interceptor, was untouchable for a while Mi-24 - first helicopter built like a tank There's many more options out there. I don't know as much about Soviet or European (western) aircraft, as I do the US, so I'm sure there are a lot more interesting aircraft out there. You could make the argument that many aircraft changed the face of war, this even applies to testbed aircraft or X-planes (like the XB-70). In general, a new aircraft has capabilities that surpass its predecessors and probably give it an advantage over its contemporary enemies (real or projected). These new capabilities encourage the other side to counter them with new tactics and/or weapon systems - which also "changes the face of war." Heck, you could probably even start talking about UAVs.

False. I'm dangerous all the time (That's right, Ice...man). The person below me is a member of the Martin-Baker fan club (for real).

Two things: NROTC scholarships are gold. I did pilot training during college (as part of my major) and the Navy picked up the costs for all my flight fees. Now, the two catches to that are: they only did it because it was part of my major, and there are only 3 places I know of that have NROTC and a flight training program (Illinois, Purdon't, and Auburn), though this may have changed. Nothing is guaranteed. Only your hard work and a good amount of luck ("timing") will get you to where you want to be. You can even join the Marines and sign for a pilot slot on the dotted line. When it comes down to it, if it turns out you suck at flying, you will pound dirt for a living. Even if you get past the first hurdles and make it in to pilot training, you might not get the platform you want, regardless of your ability. The bottom line is, see which service fits you best, overall. You have to be able to stand the service culture and the people you work with for at least several years. Don't base your decision entirely on: which service has the jet I most want to fly? Personally, and this is not a knock at the USAF, just my realistic self-assessment, I wouldn't have enjoyed working in the Air Force. It's just not a good meld with my personality.

Hmmm, not sure about that one...

Yeah, I don't think so either. The Marines, maybe - but I know the Navy doesn't "guarantee" that. However, I will say your odds of getting a flight slot are probably better in the Navy or Marines, rather than the Air Force. This topic reminds me of... Bob Norris is a former Naval aviator who also did a 3 year exchange tour flying the F-15 Eagle. He is now an accomplished author of entertaining books about US Naval Aviation including "Check Six" and "Fly-Off." In response to a letter from an aspiring fighter pilot on which military academy to attend, Bob replied with the following: 12 Feb 04 Young Man, Congratulations on your selection to both the Naval and Air Force Academies. Your goal of becoming a fighter pilot is impressive and a fine way to serve your country. As you requested, I'd be happy to share some insight into which service would be the best choice. Each service has a distinctly different culture. You need to ask yourself "Which one am I more likely to thrive in?" USAF Snapshot: The USAF is exceptionally well organized and well run. Their training programs are terrific. All pilots are groomed to meet high standards for knowledge and professionalism. Their aircraft are top-notch and extremely well maintained. Their facilities are excellent. Their enlisted personnel are the brightest and the best trained. The USAF is homogenous and macro. No matter where you go, you'll know what to expect, what is expected of you, and you'll be given the training & tools you need to meet those expectations. You will never be put in a situation over your head. Over a 20-year career, you will be home for most important family events. Your Mom would want you to be an Air Force pilot...so would your wife. Your Dad would want your sister to marry one. Navy Snapshot: Aviators are part of the Navy, but so are Black shoes (surface warfare) and bubble heads (submariners). Furthermore, the Navy is split into two distinctly different Fleets (West and East Coast). The Navy is heterogeneous and micro. Your squadron is your home; it may be great, average, or awful. A squadron can go from one extreme to the other before you know it. You will spend months preparing for cruise and months on cruise. The quality of the aircraft varies directly with the availability of parts. Senior Navy enlisted are salt of the earth; you'll be proud if you earn their respect. Junior enlisted vary from terrific to the troubled kid the judge made join the service. You will be given the opportunity to lead these people during your career; you will be humbled and get your hands dirty. The quality of your training will vary and sometimes you will be over your head. You will miss many important family events. There will be long stretches of tedious duty aboard ship. You will fly in very bad weather and/or at night and you will be scared many times. You will fly with legends in the Navy and they will kick your ass until you become a lethal force. And some days - when the scheduling Gods have smiled upon you - your jet will catapult into a glorious morning over a far-away sea and you will be drop-jawed that someone would pay you to do it. The hottest girl in the bar wants to meet the Naval Aviator. That bar is in Singapore. Bottom line, son, if you gotta ask...pack warm & good luck in Colorado. PS: Air Force pilots wear scarves and iron their flight suits.

In that case, can it be made to be a ridiculously high negative G - virtually assuring that no one will ever reach it? It's easy enough to reach zero G - one might pickle the camera by mistake. Just an idea.

I still like the Prowler for SEAD. Although, something faster would probably be more survivable.

Infamous = more than famous. See "Infamous El Guapo."

Yeah, I built many a starship Enterprise and Imperial Star Destroyer w/ my legos. My favorite was an F/A-18 I built once - best looking one I came up with. Never mastered the retracting undercarriage, so I always tore the gear off when I was wheels up and stuck 'em back on to land. I think I even threw a tailhook on that Hornet, too. Good times.

The only time you need to see outside is landing (maybe takeoff). Otherwise, it'd be like flying on instruments in the goo the whole time. Of course, in a normal aircraft, if the instruments go bad you still have the option of getting to a hole in the clouds and looking outside. I'm not sure what you'd do if the camera went bad on one of these.

Ick. Why would you use that hunk of crap when you could take a Tomcat? Anytime, Baby!