gbnavy61

Yeah. What makes you think that after Russia accomplishes those "limited" objectives that they will listen when somebody says, "Ok. The Georgians won't bother those folks in S Ossetia anymore. You can leave now?"

On the up-side, they'll probably never forget that again. If they're flying at all anymore.

Wowzers. Still, better to have overstressed the hell out of the bird than plant it and take all those aircrew with. The old choice of: if we do nothing we're dead, if we do something we might die anyway, but there's a slight chance we'll make it. I'll take option B as well. Maybe I should check in with some of my P-3 buddies. Any photos out there?

I guess the crux of the issue is what the technical definition of an "independent state" is, regarding S Ossetia and Abkhazia. I don't think the Russians have any legal basis to be occupying those territories. Therefore, they have committed a hostile act against a neighboring country. I certainly don't like that the Georgians were blasting their own citizens, but they had the "right" to do that since it's their country. Russia is just taking advantage of the situation. Russia has Europe by the balls with energy resources and the stupidity of the US has left it too weak - politically and militarily - to counter Russia on its own. The Russians know this and they'll press until they think they can't actually get away with more. I agree that the West/NATO is now in a position to send a message to the world based on what they do or fail to do on behalf of Georgia. I hope Georgia is not sacrificed, but I have concerns that it will be. (Reminds me of Czechoslovakia pre-WWII.) I have a feeling, regardless of what Ukraine does, the Russians would probably not press the issue because I think that would draw a major international response - with more than talk to back it up. (Like Poland in 1939.) Anyone else seeing parallels here?

Man, they're dropping like flies here. RIP, Chef.

Also read something I find kind of funny. Russia sortied ships based in Ukraine to head to the Black Sea waters off Georgia. Ukraine said if the Russians blockade Georgia, they have the right to deny the Russian ships entry into port on their return.

I'd tend to agree with this as well. ---- I think Russia is using the opportunity to weaken Georgia and gain back some of it's lost Soviet Empire - or at the very least, exact a little revenge on a former Soviet region who wants in with the West via NATO. I'm not sure what Georgia hoped would happen going into this thing. If I have read correctly, the Georgians took the first act of moving troops into the disputed S Ossetia, which only furnished the Russians with an opportunity to claim provokation (genocide or whatever they want). Who knows who shot first? Doesn't matter anymore, the stuff has hit the fan. Now that the fighting has begun in earnest, it's going to be difficult to tell Russia to stop - not before they get what they want, anyway. I'm not sure what should happen with S Ossetia. It certainly seems like an internal Georgian affair to me, and I think Russia ought to butt out. I don't condone killing people to exert control over a geopgraphical area, but it is part of history and likely will be for a long, long time. Killing is wrong, but very few (if any) countries can claim to have established themselves without a violent history (the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Russian Revolution, etc.). I think we ought to be very wary of Russia, particularly with Putin still in a position of authority. I believe they've more than recovered from the economic collapse with the fall of the Soviet Union. Now they're flexing their muscles and trying to send the world a message that they're still a major player. So far, it's limited to a regional conflict, but I could see it going further - perhaps not now, but maybe in the not-too-distant future.

1. Every WO*/FE/SFP1 is a stand alone program - has everything you need (aircraft, maps, etc.). So, no you're not required to have SFP1. 2. You can have mutliple installs of the same game (WO*). This allows for having a version of WOV that is modern day jets, and one that is set in WWII. Hope that helps.

I'd tend to agree with this.

Are you kidding? If we even have any interests in the conflict, our news (particularly Fox) is not going to be very objective at all.

Yeah, this was sad news. I enjoyed most of Bernie Mac's stuff. RIP.

Well, the issue may not need to be addressed. Still, it would be interesting to know what causes it in some and not the others. Perhaps it's a quick-fix .ini edit or something we could do ourselves - not requiring a whole new download. Either way, something is different between the versions because you are able to see the canopy open or close from inside the cockpit on certain F-8's. Try it out, I'm not making this up. The mirrors are on the canopy frame, not the windscreen frame - you can watch them go away as the canopy opens.

I've experienced the same cockpit disappearance in WOI in the MF Crusaders (I'm not sure if other planes are effected since I've really been just sticking with the 'Saders lately). I set my mission wx to random and if I get "inclement," the fog is inside the cockpit with me and going through the clouds, all I can see is the gunsight on the combining glass. I have a mix of graphics settings, not strictly "unlimited" set so I'm not sure what other commonalities I have. Also my resolution is substantially lower - I think I'm only 1024x960 or a setting higher. No idea on your mod questions. I'm using the MF Weapons Pack May 08.

Ok, here's a new one (for me at least). I noticed on some models, the canopy open/close animation works fine, but the view from inside the cockpit doesn't show the canopy opened/closed, while others do. I think it works fine in the B and J, but the D and E show a closed canopy regardless of the animation. Is this another issue related to these two being the first F-8's released, or something else?

They all look nice (and better on the Tomcat - except maybe the D'backs).

Easiest I've experienced so far is the Tomcat - though I typically FLY NAVY and don't much bother with the rest. Tomcat's got the BVR reach and also the speed, power, maneuverability, and countermeasures to get around most threats. The F-8 is also pretty easy to fly and fight with. I've been shot down a few times, mostly from being out of missiles and trying to make a guns run on a tail-gun equipped bomber - not my favorite thing to do. Once, though, I did experience a realistic Crusader bite-you-in-the-ass-ism. I was coming in behind this MiG for a guns pass and realized a little too late that I was going to overshoot. Trying to salvage what I could and stay behind him, I popped the boards out, and tried a pulling roll off to one side - it had worked for me before. This time, I think I pulled a little too hard and the sucker departed and was spinning about half a second later. There I was falling to earth with about 1000' between me and the mountain top. Only enough time to mutter some obscenity and pull the handle.

Nice.

Additional info on the Hultgreen (I believe I misspelled it before) mishap: Apparently she was correcting for an overshooting start by sidesliping - IIRC that was definitely not recommended due to the tendency of the TF-30's to stall. The port engine stalled as a result of the sideslip. She then tried to waveoff from the landing and went to high power on the starboard engine while pulling up too much on the nose - probably distracted by being at low altitude and trying to respond to the compressor stall. By pulling up too much, she stalled and the yaw produced by the starboard engine aggravated the stall causing the departure at low altitude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWb68Wk3bY -A better clip w/ LSO audio. He waved her off pretty early. I'm not sure of the specific procedures, I've never gotten hold of an F-14A NATOPS, but that doesn't sound unreasonable. Compressor stalls are aerodynamic stalls just like a wing stall. The blades are at a fixed angle relative to the shafts in the engine, so the only thing that can change is the airflow into the face of the blades. Disruptions in the airflow caused by maneuvering may lead to a compressor stall usually coupled with high power settings (high RPM) or just a rapid application of power (from low to high RPM). A major compressor stall is usually signified by a loud bang, or bangs as the pressure tries to equalize. The stall basically lowers pressure in the front of the engine so that the pressure farther aft in the engine is higher. As we all know from wings flying - high pressure wants to go to low pressure - so, the flow through the engine actually reverses and tries to come out the front. Not what the engine was designed to do. Not to mention, the engine can overspeed (RPMs) and overtemp itself during this violent episode leading to damage and fatigue of components.

Yeah, that was LT Kara Hultgren - first female F-14 pilot. If I remember the information correctly, there was a mechanical failure in one engine that lead to a flame-out. Then, the high power on the other engine produced a yaw that was recoverable, but she didn't react correctly to the situation and the Tomcat departed controlled flight. The RIO tried to punch them both out, but the plane had rolled too far when the pilot's seat fired. The meat and potatoes of the accident report is floating around the internet somewhere. Basically, it was mechanical failure coupled with pilot error. Then, all that raised a whole flap about whether or not the Navy had caved to political pressures regarding gender integration - whether or not LT Hultgren was really qualified to fly Tomcats, or if she had been pushed through the program anyway. ---- Anyway, yes the TF-30 engines in the F-14A's were very underpowered for the aircraft and were only intended as a temporary fit to the Tomcat. It was intended to receive a version of the F100 (I think) engine that was being developed for the F-15A. Delays and costs prevented that from coming about and the Tomcat soldiered on with inadequate engines. Compressor stalls were very common and it was said that pilots had to fly the engine rather than the plane to avoid engine stalls. Biggest difference between the A and A+/B is the GE engines. The glove vanes ("winglets") were operable on the A and A+/B only. They were for stability at higher Mach numbers into supersonic flight, but their benefits were marginal and their removal saved weight. So, when they failed, they were disabled permanently. The new-build D's never had them (the rest of the D's were rebuild A's). The D was a bit of a different jet. More of the internal systems were digital, rather than analogue. The D had the GE engines, a contemporary HUD, the twin chin pod for the TCS and IRST, and more internal upgrades that I can't remember at the moment. I believe, because of the extra drag from the twin chin pod, the D was actually a little slower than the other models, which would probably make the A+/B the fastest 'Cat.

Lately, I've been in 'Saders or nothing. Still hop in the F-14A now and again, but I'm holding out for the B.

Yeah, I'd agree on both. I think it might just be a neat way to round out the collection. Either way, let's have more 'Saders.

Great work, all. Love the models and the skins bring more personality to the jet, especially the high-viz. Be cool if MF was also cooking up a 'Twosader' just to add to the whole collection. When you're out of F-8's...

So true.

Speaking of more Tomcats, anyone heard any word on the MF F-14B?

Amen, brother.