gbnavy61

F-14D and RF-8.

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was just having a conversation about this general idea earlier today. Bottom line is, I don't think any law out there directly says you have the right not to be offended by anything anyone says. Not enough people understand free speech means people get to say things that you don't like. Grow up, folks. Either all speech is free, or none of it is - there's no picking and choosing.

Wingtips on that thing are still too rounded. Otherwise, the model is a nice improvement from the old version A.

Ah yes, the Chewbacca Defense.

I don't think you could stick a hook on that if you wanted. Look at the underside - the hook would have to be well forward to not interfere with the doors for the moving nozzle. I'm thinking if you can't make the vertical landing you're s.o.l. The helo guys will be picking you out of the drink. Not to mention, if these guys are going to be Marine Air, then they're going to be deploying on the big deck amphibs - last I checked they don't have any arresting gear to take, so you'd have to hope there's a CVN somewhere within fuel range.

I've got most of my hours in TMF F-8s and most of that is air-to-air. Pros - Holds onto energy fairly well. Great acceleration and climb. Potent cannon and the ability to switch guns to use only two at a time - makes the ammo go a longer way. Pretty good endurance, particularly when you climb her up to altitude. Probably the best turn performance for a US jet of its day. Excellent roll/pitch rates. Flies the best clean, or with Sidewinders only. All around a great dogfighter. If you run into trouble, it usually leaves you the ability to light the burners and get out of dodge. Good basic gunsight. Cons - Primary weapon is cannon which is prone to jams. Plagued by early, unreliable missiles. No long reach, like Sparrow-equipped F-4s. Can be hard to bleed enough speed to prevent the overshoot, at times. Limited air-to-ground capacity, and not really designed for moving mud in the first place. It can depart on you suddenly in a loaded roll at full back stick and full aileron. I lost one F-8 to a low altitude departure. A second time, I departed in a dogfight and got lucky nobody was in a position to shoot me while I recovered. Forward visibility is only average due to a lot of canopy structure out the front. Radar is short range. Cockpit instruments are located differently in different models and sometimes aren't placed well. No chaff/flares and only late models have internal ECM. If I had to chose a jet to be over Indian Country in, I'd pick the F-8. Behind the boat, that's another matter.

I was under the impression that for a single runway, or at the boat, you'd want to get the non-damaged jets down first, since they could expedite and have the least risk of leaving a foul deck for any jets to follow.

My vote and my planet go to Ming!

Well, screenies don't mean it's out. There's lots of screenies of the new F-14B and a couple of the revamped A from TMF, but neither is out yet.

Single mission carrier ops. Carrier landings that are a little more realistic (you don't have to worry about bouncing off the deck even when you make a good pass). A little better ability to see over the nose. In most jets, you have to fly approach speeds much higher than normal in order to see the landing area. If you want to fly on-speed, most of the time you have to blindly aim for the deck.

Arrow, Are you using rudder pedals, or the keyboard or joystick? The way the rudders are set up in this game is there is a slight delay before you get to full rudder deflection. If you're using the keyboard, all you can do is tap the key to get small amounts of rudder - not the best way to do it. If you have pedals or a joystick w/ twist (which I personally can't stand) you can map the rudder there for finer control. FS9 or any of those have the option of the repeat function where your rudder inputs will stay in after you stop pressing the key. WOV does not have this function. Yes, the MSFS series gives better response to rudder inputs than this series, although I'm not sure which is more accurate. I've found the rudder control in WO* to be more than adequate for taxiing, and I hardly ever use rudder on landing - not until the wheels are on the deck. If I'm not lined up on the runway, I use angle of bank to fix that. Either way, airplanes aren't designed to turn using the rudder. Like commander said, rudder is used to coordinate the turn.

That is true

All I have to say is Go Seahawks!

There's also the concepts of stability and maneuverability to consider. In general, the more stability you have, the less maneuverability you have - and vice versa. Obviously, for a fighter there is a strong desire for maneuverability, but the aircraft cannot be completely unstable - it would be too difficult for a pilot to control. For example, looking at the F-8, early models lacked the ventral fins. However, during carrier launches, those F-8s could come off the cat stroke ass-end first because of the poor directional stability - pilots had to eject or die. So, the fins were added to improve the F-8's directional stability. The F-4 has strong positive (wants to return to the starting position) directional stability. You've probably noticed, stomping on the peddals in some jets will get your nose slowly (painfully slowly) tracking in the desired direction. In the F-4, it pretty much slides 2-3 degrees in the desired direction and stops - I've never tried it for more than 10 seconds, but it takes a long time to get the nose yawing around to a new heading - much too long. Trying this in the A-1 will get a better response, although still not as good as rolling in some bank and pulling the nose around in a turn. One way in which the two aircraft differ that affects directional stability is wing design. The Spad is a straight-winged aircraft. The Phantom is a swept-wing design. The Spad's straight wing makes a small contribution to directional stability. When you press the right pedal to yaw the Spad, the left wing goes through the air faster creating more lift, and therefore more drag on that side (production of lift also produces drag), so there is a small increase in drag trying to pull the left wing back to a neutral position. In the F-4, you press on the right pedal and swing the nose to the right. Essentially, the same thing happens as with the straight wing, except that the right wing now experiences greater spanwise flow (flows down the length of the wing from root to tip - producing less lift) and the left wing experiences greater chordwise flow (from leading edge to trailing edge), so there is an even greater amount of lift (and therefore drag) produced by the left wing over the right wing of the F-4. So the overall effect is that the F-4's swept wing creates much more directional stability (resistance to yaw) than the A-1's straight wing.

I don't think the angle of the rudder hinge is any significant portion of the roll. Basic aerodynamics explains why fixed-wing aircraft roll when rudder is applied. This resultant roll is called "proverse roll" (you roll in the direction of yaw). Just remember the lift generated by your wing(s) is controlled by several factors - velocity being one of them. Let's break it down: 1. You're cruising along in your F-4D (or A-1D), fat, dumb and happy. 2. You stomp on the right rudder pedal. 3. Your nose starts to yaw right. 4. Your left wings starts to travel through the air slightly faster than the right wing. 5. Your left wing starts to produce more lift than the right wing. 6. You start to roll to the right. Arrow, The important thing to remember about an F-4 is that it's a big, honking aircraft. If you expect rapid yaw response based on your rudder input, prepare to be disappointed. There's a lot of momentum, plus a few aerodynamic design features, that want to keep you tracking in a straight line. Rudders on jets are useful, but they are not a primary means of getting your nose pointed in a different direction. They're pretty much used for three things airborne: putting the pipper on the bandit, recovering from a spin/departure, and crosswind landings. If you want to bring the nose more than 2 degrees left or right, bank and pull. Now, the A-1D is a different story. It's prop-driven which means the rudder has to give the pilot a lot of authority to counteract torque and other factors associated with a rotating propeller. The moral of the story is: don't expect an F-4 to maneuver like an A-1 - they're different animals. I don't think there's anything wrong with the config.

Venture Bros.

Uh oh, someone is not on-speed.

Disgusting.

Ditto.

Ah, I misunderstood "Javelin."

I had assumed for ideological differences that the cats and dogs would be on opposing sides. If the laser cats really are using lasers, then, range is unlimited, provided it is line of sight. The crafty eels may be able to use ballistics to their advantage and lob shells over obstructing terrain, possibly neutralizing the laser's advantage. Then, the eels may also choose to use over the horizon weapons before moving forces in closer for the amphibious operation. And, what if the eels were able to mount railguns on their naval vessels? That could be a decisive advantage - increasing range and damage from ballistic weaponry.

Damn 'shoes - always f***ing things up for the rest of us.

Sir, I believe you are mistaking your dog breeds. Basset hounds have the long ears, beagles, relatively short by comparison. Although, I do agree a beagle assault force facing laser cat landing defenses would need more modern armament than javelins. Perhaps, something of the fully-automatic weapon variety. And haven't we forgotten that in order for a successful seaborne landing, the eels would obviously prep the beach with naval gunfire.

I think we're about to get into a Pythonesque debate about weight ratios... But, wouldn't the felines be tempted to eat said bats?