crl848

I've done that loads of times in WOE/SF:E when I run out of fuel

I'd laugh if Greece could go all the way again. I understand they could do with some cheering up.

Agreed. Let's hope that there won't be any re-run of this ridiculous war. Talk about pointless.

I'm having a real retro week. Last night I went to see Buzzcocks play in their original lineup with Howard Devoto at the Brixton Academy. On Monday I'm going to see a performance of Big Star's 3rd album by an "all star" cast. Then on Friday I'm going to a gig by Bob Mould, ex. Husker Du and Sugar, playing his album Copper Blue as a 20th anniversary special. And I've been to several of these 20th anniversary album play-through things recently. So, are people for or against this kind of thing? I've got to admit that, enjoyable as it was (and I'm still a bit deaf today), the sight of a load of fat old punks last night was a bit against the spirit of '77. Now all we need is the Pistols to agree to play the Queen's Jubilee.

Stone Roses can't be worse than Primal Scream doing Screamadelica last year. Best thing about that was the DJ and the intro music (Eno's here come the warm jets). John Lydon is currently refusing to endorse the campaign to make God Save the Queen no.1 in the charts at this Jubilee, but I suppose having just relaunched PiL he doesn't want the distraction. Or maybe it's just an inverse publicity stunt.

Well, we are talking Daily Mail readers here, what did you expect? Alta looks a bit different from when I last visited.

My eldest has just started reading Hitchhiker's. Hope I didn't put him off by going on about how great it is. Off to put on my dressing gown.

Bad news. Still got my vinyl copy of Licensed to Ill somewhere. RIP.

EXP 2 has the Lightning. Get it if this is important to you. I think you should.

Interesting stuff on the different training from France and Israel, thanks. And on the direct impact of the Vulcan raids.

My MBA is really helping out my tactical awareness.

I thought it was at a ski resort at first.

Sharkey Ward's main goal is to show that the RAF cannot provide proper fleet defence and attack capabilities as they claim, and are trying to rewrite history regarding the Falklands as a propaganda point. Thus his argument centres around the cost of Black Buck versus the same missions if performed by SHAR. Here's a link to one of his recent pronouncements on this subject. http://www.sharkeysworld.com/search/label/12.%20%2030%20Years%20On. I think that although he's absolutely right about the direct effects of Black Buck (minimal damage to PS runway etc.), and about the wider inability of the RAF to absorb the RN's aviation needs, it's a bit disingenuous to ignore the potential strategic benefits of Black Buck, which some sources certainly say did influence the Argies to keep back Mirage IIIs for air defence over the mainland (note that basing Mirages at PS is not the point, it's operating over the islands that is). Ward's essay above does not mention this potential strategic benefit, and nor from memory did the first edition of his 1992 book. On the other hand I see that the ever reliable wikipedia quotes his second edition as attempting to rebut the arguments (see notes 47 & 8 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#cite_note-46).

Sharkey Ward's arguments about the cost of Black Buck versus attacks by Sea Harriers (he made them in the book in 1992 and he's still making them today, see his blog) do not address the strategic point, which is that the Argies were prompted to withdraw their fighters from the islands partly because of the potential threat of the Vulcans to the mainland.

There was a great documentary on Channel 4 last night about the Black Bucc raids, based on the excellent Vulcan 607 book. Predictably they imply that the RAF won the war etc., but it is an above average example of this kind of programme. It was good to see the actual aircrew telling their stories and even the re-enactments are not bad and filmed in the real cockpits. Sharkey Ward didn't like it, check out his blog. Here's the link to the C4 website: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/falklands-most-daring-raid/4od

I haven't looked at them all but the uploader claims that he's put 5 parts on t'tube. Edit: sorry, I see what you mean.

I was flicking through my copy the other day, and was surprised to see his conclusion on AIM/ACEVAL that "F-14 and F-15 equipped forces can achieve exchange ratios of 2:1 against a well-trained, larger force operating low tech (Mig21) airplanes". This presumably with WP AIM-9L equivalent. That's a sobering statistic when relative costs are taken into account. I see that there's been some treatment of AIM/ACEVAL on this site before so I don't propose to open that conversation again; just that I was surprised re-reading the low expected kill ratios of the big fighters.

Phinale 2 is up on youtube.

Nice one Widowmaker. Or should I say Googleiss**ttoss? That's an automatic ** inserted by the message board btw

The LSO is keen on lineup, as the "runway" part of the deck is exactly one Tomcat wing wide.

Yeah, Pook's book is equally moany about the Navy as Ward is about the RAF, if not more so. And both of them hate the Admiral! Morgan provides balance to the force by not moaning as much IIRC. Ward is quite critical of Pook and the RAF in general's attitude to carrier flying in this article: http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/05/flying-from-our-new-carriers-%E2%80%93-the-rn-or-the-raf-ethos/

Some of my collection, back together after new trailers for the two at the back. Sorry for bad iPhone shot.

Short answer is no. I don't think real cockpits are suited to sims, as you're basically sticking a screen on the front outside the canopy, linking the controls to a joystick and maybe the throttles. The gauges don't move, and you have to have a separate panel on the screen which is not good for immersion. Much better to build a dedicated sim cockpit from scratch or out of the shell of a real one. How about this one (bit pricey though)? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RAF-Panavia-Tornado-ADV-Fighter-Aircraft-Cockpit-Section-Ideal-Simulator-Project-/130619898695?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item1e698d7b47 An understanding spouse is important

It kind of depends on the demil policy of the country where you live. Some countries like the US seem to mandate that everything is destroyed. See this link for an auction for 3 Phantoms from Davis Monthan. Click on Special Terms; "Purchaser must completely destroy material using a shredder that will effectively destroy the item to prevent reuse, recognition or reconstruction of the item to the satisfaction of the government appointed verifier"... "No parts removal. Harvesting of parts is forbidden. The use of precision torch fixtures, precision cutting saws or precision tools of any kind to minimize demilitarization is forbidden." http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?id=5086415 Others like the UK sell off surplus planes practically intact, which allows the preservation of parts. I'm not sure what the Israeli policy is, but given the large amount of US hardware, the US often insists on total scrapping in the purchase contract. Hence not many Phantom survivors in the UK for example. Buying overseas is expensive due to transport but does happen (normally short distances like UK - continental Europe). I'm surprised no one has asked whether I've tried converting one to a sim...

Now I was a shocked as anyone to hear that EXP2 lost money because of the mission editor and feature creep. But now TK keeps dropping hints that he will move to other platforms, i.e. iPad and build in less complexity. This strikes me as a mistake, and not just cause I'm a PC gamer. I'm happy to game on other platforms, but the game must be appropriate. Fact is, flight simming on the iPad is crap. The only good one is the Shuttle sim, where all you have to do is glide and land. X Plane is pretty bad, and COMBAT in X Plane is rubbish. It's impossible to get situational awareness in a fight with one view that you can't move easily, and hitting the fire button is a chore when you have to find it on the screen and not press something else by mistake. Also, I get the feeling that TK misjudges his market when he talks like this. I don't fly SF because I like easy, light and fluffy "games". I fly it because I like aircraft from the 1960s and 1970s. I also like the fact that some of the more boring controls are simplified (e.g. turning on the engine), 'cause I like dogfighting and moving mud, and especially moving between aircraft easily. On the other hand I want the important things to feel real: the FM, cockpit, etc. Extrapolating from my views (dangerous I know), I'm willing to bet that many or most SF flyers are similar. I reckon that people who want simple flying games prefer shiny new aircraft and are well catered for by HAWX etc. Sometimes I think that TK just says these things to wind people up or ratched down expectations for new products. Why does he produce so many versions of the F-4 and Hunter cockpits, for example, when basically one would suffice in a "light and fluggy game"? I'm hoping that at heart he remains committed to the PC and his unique niche in the sim marketplace. But some of his recent pronouncements are worrying. BTW I considered posting on the TW boards but decided I'd rather avoid the politics and see what the most committed user base of SF products thinks over here.