UnknownPilot

Which generation/title/patch level are you playing? I don't get those call outs and would LOVE them. I get the "you got a bandit on your 6 o clock" or "he right behind you!" or warnings of gun and missile fire, but nothing that indicates how or where the opponent is flying (turning, diving, climbing, etc) that you mention. Until I read that, I was thinking the back seater was modeled quite well and my only complaint was the inability to turn it off when he shouldn't be there. But now it seems I'm missing out. :(

I keep seeing new stuff, planes mostly, that are either released or WIP as Gen 1 still. I wish they would all move on to Gen 2. Then again, I'm sure if I were playing WOV and not SF2:V (which few people seem to get right when it comes to names I've noticed lol), then I might feel the opposite. lol

Ab-so-lutely! But get in line.

The F-16 was designed purely for in-close fighting, ACM, if you wish. It only got BVR capability later on as an upgrade. A backseater was not deemed important enough when not needed for doing radar twiddlng. You can "lol" and focus on the F-15 and BVR, but you're just voluntarily ignoring the point. How many seats in the Mirage or EuroFighter (non-trainer)?

I'd bet the loss of product cost far more than a cut off switch. For the sake of preventing a spill, yes, it should have been dictated. But risk to people? They sign on and choose the risk. We dont' have enough risk overall these days. Won't belong before this is YOUR morning commute as well - http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00004/00004967.jpg 'course, if we could just cut back on the new creations it would take care of itself (as Bill Burr so humously pointed out. )

T Mobile sucks balls. The service is horrible. The only thing they have going for them is CZJ as a spokeswoman.

The fact is, in reality, Regan and JFK are the superior presidents in that group. And since we really should only name stuff like that after people who uphold the Constitution, rather than dismantle, ignore, or otherwise weaken it, they should be the only two with a carrier named after them.

So much disdain for a very human, very natural act. Why?

Exactly. There is a lot of talk about a second seat as an inherent advangate in ACM, and it may well bring something to the field, but... it also means a larger aircraft and more weight, plus more lives put at risk. IF you need that for working a super complicated (to use) radar and weapon system, them it makes sense, and the benefit of a "second pair of eyes" can be cited. But if you have no absolute need for that second seat, then as you pointed out, it's not really worth putting it in (ie, not really all that great an advantage). F-15, F-16, F-18 (early), F-22, and now F-35.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/27/puerto-rican-funeral-home-presents-shooting-victim-on-his-motorc/?icid=main|netscape|dl9|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autoblog.com%2F2010%2F04%2F27%2Fpuerto-rican-funeral-home-presents-shooting-victim-on-his-motorc%2F I find funerals freaky enough without stuff like this.....

Referencing "big boomer".... Yellowstone is a few 10s of thousands of years overdue for another eruption.... Though whenever I hear or see "boomer", I immediately think of Bubblegum Crisis.

It would certainly be interesting to see C5's info if he finds time to post it (and wants to). But you provided the proof right there. They had a hell of a time against F-8s in T-G. What more is there? That's the situation being talked about here. The trouble is just a resonating resentment against the F-8 and it's rep. It's even been stated, proven, and accepted here that the F-8 was a better turning fighter. That obviously makes it the angles fighter in an engagement against an inferior turning fighter. What other explanation or description is even possible there, ya know? But despite it all, the bitterness is still ringing clear. They're both great. But in the end, it was determined that more turning ability was needed, and globally, the gun was deemed the desirable feature, even when all aspect and reliable IRMs came online. But, at the same time, the greater payload and BVR capability made the F-4 the better long term aircraft. (but that has nothing to do with the hotly debated subject here - and despite that keeps getting brought back up as F-4 advantages even though they are written off in this circumstance. lol) I'm with you and C5 and any rate.

The F-8 IS an angles fighter vs the F-4, and it does outclass it in that arena. In the same way that the FW-190 was an angles fighter when going up against P-47s, yet nobody would expect it to hang with a Zero in a turn at low speeds. And the gun is also a huge benefit close in in that period when you consider just what was needed for a Sidewinder hit. If you truly flew to your aircraft's strengths, you'd end up gun opportunities that weren't even close to AIM-9B opportunities. And compared to the F-4B/C.... this is even more-so. But this is about a very specific point in a very specific scenario - ie, close in, either against each other, or against their common enemy of the day. If you factor in any of the other aspects the F-4 was able to do - high bomb payload, BVR, etc, then there is no question it's the better (even only) choice.

Unbelievable. They should be given a little extra bonus (or extra vacation time or SOMETHING), but NOT punished. The way the world has gotten and is going is absolutely disgusting.

TY! (for making it for hard mode)

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "Democracy" is a bad thing. Leads to inevitable tyranny of the majority. But those politicians fighting is awesome! One should have intense passion and be willing to throw down with big issues like that are at stake. I wish the US Senate was still like that (apparently it used to be back in the 1800s where there would be cane beatings and such).

I'm not sure I even remember my account or number. It was a relatively low number actually. But I haven't used it since like 04 or something, maybe even earlier than that. I always liked the service, but all the girls I wanted to talk to were either on AIM for a brief period, or Yahoo now, so that's what I use.

Was Billy Mays involved?

English (Anglo-Saxon) is Germanic.

Just like the man said - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRStbyWdm50&feature=related From about the 3 minute mark. (some of it is a rehash from the above, but it's still great - the whole thing is dead on too lol)

GwynO, that's a reason that I think people should all be trained. By and large we have a rampant amount of disrespect today - globally. I know I take extreme jumps with this analogy, but I'm trying to state the entire snowball effect briefly: If you don't respect someone, what is to stop you from stealing from them, or assaulting them, or even finally killing them? As I said, big leaps, but like the journey of a thousand miles (ie something large) it begins with a single step (something small). Respect and honor are never given, nor taken, but they MUST be defended and held. S&E, ignoring the overbearing police state we live in these days for a moment, there is nothing wrong with violence. It is the way of nature, and nobody can claim to know better than nature. Life is life and not all that special (didn't we have that discussion before? lol), be it algae, a stink bug, a beef cow, or a human. It's all the same crap. You don't think twice about killing the stink bug in your house, do you? It's all about perception. But all of life from top to bottom is a struggle, a violent struggle with intense competition. And it's not always about predator and prey, just as often it's about ranking within a group (primarily in social mammal species.... which includes us). And finally, if you follow the brains process, particularly the triune brain, emotions, including rage, and the physical actions/reactions, they instigate are also natural. In it's most simplified form, might does make right, because the victors write the history books (and enforce their moral code). Also, we are NOT equal. Not in the least. Men and women are not equal just for starters. Of equivalent value, yes, but not equal. Equal means the same. And any child with roughly equal aged siblings can tell you that boys are not the same as girls. There are always exceptions, but on the whole, we (men) ARE stronger, more prone to violence, and more able to take hits. By and large women want a man to take control, even if just in bed, but generally, overall. That's why nice guys finish last, and the bad boys ride off with the hottie after the nice guy just helped her through a tough emotional time. And that extends even to within gender groups. We are not the same, and so we are not all equal. Not even in the eyes of the law when you get down to it because fame and money bring with it the sort of treatment that everybody should receive. And of course if you DO get into any sort of altercation with anybody, even just verbal, better make sure they are the same race as you (or that they are white, either one works here), because if not you'll end up on the bad side of a "hate crime" charge. But again, outside of the law, size, natural ability, and skills all come into play and we are just simply not equal. (Though Samuel Colt went a long way toward changing that situation) EZ, you were within the realm of self defense, but there were still other ways to handle the situation. I'm not calling you out, nor disparaging you in any way, I'm just making a point. Once you blocked the weapon, she was basically defenseless. Now, it must be said, there is a good chance that it would have stopped only the attack, but not the crazy and knocking her on her ass stopped the crazy. And yes, it probably did her some good in the end too, as well as short circuiting the situation. But right or wrong, it's just my nature that I would have subdued her, and if necessary, picked her up and locked her out of the house and called the police ONLY to pre-empt her on it (though I am loathe to call the police for anything short of a post break-in situation that arrived at after it was over). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OvvgPwGZOU

I can understand your feelings on the issue given that situation. But I still don't agree with striking a woman. Now granted, it helps that I'm 6'2" and a healthy 225lbs. But as Yoda once said "size matters not". I personally do beleive in defending yourself from female attackers. But defense is not the same as offense. Deflection and control, from training can be used to prevent harm from coming to yourself, as well as to subdue the would-be attacker. Of course working to avoid the situations altogether can help tremendously too.

Could be an interesting twist. Will have to see if more information comes out, because that article was rather sparse. But it did point to it happening. Many people seem to find it plausible too, but I don't know the guy personally.

Mac, absolutely the Phantom was more versitile and better at BVR which was vital for fleet defense. My only argument here is against the notion that the Phantom was as good at turning as the Crusader was. Outside of that, there's no question that it was the better fleet defense interceptor and also had the capacity for fighter sweeps as well. However regarding gun kills... they are almost too easy. Not sure where the idea of laziness comes in. That is the single greatest handicap for the Phantom. Again, if you mount AIM-9Ls or Ms or even IRIS-Ts to it, then you're ok. But with 9Ds..... you're just chucking lots of money over-board in the hopes of something hitting. Sparrows aren't much better. Regardless of type (E or E-2), firing parameters, or firing platform. Also, the J eliminated the outboard slats, didn't it? Something the E had, and which was preferred by the rest of the world. Gotta think that was a help too (for the E). And for the record, I really DO like the Phantom.