UnknownPilot

Religion, in and of itself (as a concept) is not necessarily a problem. In fact, violent relgions aren't even a problem when you really get down to it. The problem is the 2-faced nature of islam and it's supporters (meaning not the followers, just the ones that apologize for it). This idea that you have to "respect" islam, and yet at the same time the morons run around screaming like morons and blowing themselves up, all the while having people (outsiders, generally) saying that it is a "religion of peace" and that it's only "extremist nutjobs" that suggest terrorism is a good thing and that the religion itself doesn't actually. Here we have an INsider, an actual follower explaining that it does. But nevermind all that... let's do a thought experiment (and I'm not ranting at you Carlos, just kinda on a roll lol) - we all know what an extremist fundamentalist muslim is like (your basic woman hating suicide bombing terrorist). Now picture an extremist fundamentalist Buddhist. ...or Taoist. What actions would come about from such a group? Hardcore seclusion? Internal Martial Arts study? Mass contemplation? Basically, by definition, one who is a fundamentalist deals with the fundamentals, the core. And an extremist just takes it, well, to the extreme. If anything, those types are the ideal "litmus test" of the true nature of any religion or belief system. And also what will generally end up shaking out when wide spread enough to allow it to be distilled by people being surrounded by it 24/7, their entire lives (which is also why they are the litmus test). Edit - I didn't even get into the other problem with this particular religion, it's anti-Woman nature. That is a whole rant unto itself....

For weapon stations, you've already got the semi-recessed slots for the Sparrows, and then just move the twin 'winder holders to the glove area and you're good. I wish I could 3D model, or do the FM work. But unfortunately I don't have the tools or the skills. The only downside is that the FM would be someone's interpretation and effectively nothing more than an educated WAG. Not that that is entirely a bad thing, I mean, I'm sure certain conclusions can be drawn and it wouldn't have to be a total fantasy, just sayin'. I agree that it would sure be nice to have though. (For Gen 2 please. )

Sweet!

DWCAce, that kicks ass. That should be a recruitment commercial. If that doesn't get your blood pumping, then you must be a liberal. Suicidal, cool track! Never heard of them before, but I like it, it rocks. Here's another contribution, it's... more sombre, so I hope it doesn't kill the mood. But I absolutely love it and feel chills and am moved every time I listen to it (which is why I don't do it often) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Y5GZzMcl8 Iced Earth - Ghost of Freedom Jon Schaffers deep rich guitars are etherial and Matt Barlow's vocal delivery is just perfect. Matched with the chorus... the effect is just amazing.

"One ping only!" Yeah, I have several audio cassettes, but I can't remember which right off the top of my head right now. One of them was a double cassette, one is "M-P Sings" (all their songs), one is the "Album of the Sountrack of the Film of Monty Python and The Holy Grail", and I'm sure at least 1, maybe 2 more, but it's been a while since I've looked at my cassette collection. lol

I am a Python-aholic.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mdNqUW5wwTE

The pitch up "problem" really isn't (a problem). I'm not sure what the hang up there is. F-4H is not a production combat version, and putting it against the 106A probably isn't the best fit, nor fairest test. Like I said, politics and a heavy thumb on the scale. Let's start with the insane thrust per engine in the F-4. How many others in the USAF (or anywhere) had that? How hard would it be to pull an engine swap? Hot rodders do it all the time. Even dropping R-R Merlins in drag cars. lol Regardless, it's not a fair comparison, but is in keeping with a push from above as well as the USAF's penchant for throwing things away before they are ever actually developed. They are already calling the Raptor an F/A. Multi-role is a serious desire for the services, and it's just lame. The hot-rodded Tomcat would have been cheaper and more effective than the Super Hornet. Also, how can one truly be as effective in a fast mover in an EW role as a sub-sonic jet? There's a REASON for the A-10's existance. I'm talking about different things and differnet tasks, but it's all about the same thing - loiter capability, both time on station and the ability to go slow and do it WELL. Whether CAS, Attack, or EW, a slow mover just makes more sense. And it's not going to be a very good fighter as a result. Fast bombers aren't a bad thing, but the F-111 would be far better in that particular role than a Phantom ever could be. Specialization always means an ability (a possibility if all is done correctly) to excel in that area more than any jack of all trades could hope to. On the deck the F-4 isn't much faster (if at all) than the Thud. The air is just too thick, especially when carrying all kinds of ordnance and tanks. And on the egress, with those SAMs it's almost better to stay on the deck. Enh..... I LOVE the Phantom. And I acknowledge that the E is actually the superior version (handles better, packs the same BVR punch, plus has a gun(!)). It's just that it's a Navy plane, and it brought with it the total end of the Century Series and that whole style. What came after just smacks of Navy. The Eagle is just a revised Phantom afterall, and the Raptor is just a stealth-ized Eagle. But that's all neither here or there. If we are looking at the possibilities of making a fighter out of the Thud, it's a question of how could it be done, why would it be done, and how would things coalesce around it. And I think we really got that laid out pretty well now. :)

Ah, see that's what I meant. The inhibitor/limiter/tactile warning (ie, stiffness on the controls), would not reduce AoA, just tell the pilot where that edge is so that he would not go over it. Just like what is done on the Flanker. If the pilot pulls past, he exceeds max AoA. The difference is that in the Flanker it just Cobra's and you can maintain control over it. The other stuff I mentioned - more powerful engines and improved "combat flaps" and perhaps even leading edge slats... those would be the things to reduce AoA. Because if you think of it in terms of say 190 vs Spit. Factor out all differences in control, for a given G load, the 190 rotates in place more than the Spitfire does. Basically the 190 pulls higher AoA than the Spit because of it's higher wing loading. Now since we aren't talking about a weight reduction or wing increase for the 101 here, we'd have ot modify the wing to get more lift out of the given area, and do that by temporarily changing it's shape, via flaps and slats working in concert. More powerful engines further this by maintaining higher speeds and also reducing speed bleed, thus limiting AoA from 2 directions. But that's just a tangental point, not an argument for 101 over 105. I don't buy this 110 Spectre thing. Sure, someone else said there was a comparison and the Phantom was seen as better, but that smacks of severe politics and a heavy thumb on the scale. Or perhaps just an unnatural desire for multi-role. Multi-role is bunk. Let's look at the Navy's perspective for a minute, if I were orchestrating an air assault from the Navy, I would never strap bombs to a Phantom - I've got Corsairs, Skyhawks and Intruders! They will do that job far better, and also not require wasting a fighter/interceptor to boot. It makes about as much sense as trying to strap bombs to a Crusader or Starfighter (and yes, they tried that too.... oy!). So, from that angle, let's assume there is no messed up desire for multi-role like that, and no bastard McNamara out there to strip the Airforce of it's design ethos by pressing Navy planes into their service. What did the Airforce need, and what could it use? The 105 is an excellant bomber, and the followup, the F-111 will be even better. The F-100 is an excellent fast FAC, paired up with the Bronco for slow FAC. The F-100 and F-5 are both excellent CAS planes. The F-104 is an excellent short range fighter, which with good missiles would be even MORE deadly. The F-106 is a great large bomber interceptor. So what's missing is the inbetween, the fighter interceptor (meaning, something that intercepts fighters). This needs Sparrow and Sidewinder capability. Sidewinders alone just won't get it done. Should also have a gun as backup. If possible should be something that will easily integrate into the existing logistics framework as well (from parts to crew training and everything in between), and also be quick to roll out. While if it were me personally, the appeal of the Voodoo from both aesthetics and (apparent) logic, would cause me to go down that path (just like how F-Body guys put Corvette parts on their cars, it's just pulling from stock and slapping them on - with little to no customization ever being needed). However.... let's just say with the F-111 in planning, and the 101 not being heavily utilized, the Thud is the one that gets eyed.... ok, so, slap in a second seat, change out the radar, modify the bombay for internal tankage, put it on a diet, strap on some Sparrows and Sidewinders, try to wring a little more thrust out of it (even if that means an engine swap) and maybe even some combat flaps, and call it a day. Would THAT result be better than a Phantom? I dunno.... better than the F-4B for sure (for this purpose). Look at what the AF asked McDonnell to do to it afterall. Since Republic is already adding a second seat for Wild Weasel anyway, it's not difficult to do the rest of this, in fact, it's natural and seemingly easier than the wing re-work and trying to find some place to add a gun and ammunition (to something that didn't have one), all without adversely affecting anything. I'd say that keeps it within the realm of plausability. And also within the realm of ini edits (as you're just tweaking the radar/avionics, fuel capacity, and weight mainly. Not sure about a combat flaps setting, but that would seem to be possible through such edits as well, but I don't really know for sure).

The trouble with that is that they'd torture and kill the women, and that is no good. Better to just drop mass quantities of pork on them. And start dipping all our munitions in pig's blood. And inform them of this fact. Plus it would help the pig farmers and potentially act as a boost to the economy.

Damn, can't find it on YouTube, but that comment made me think of Mel Books in History Of The World as King Louis when he snorted and looked at the landscape and said "everything is so green!"

Interesting points. It's late and I don't have a lot of time to post or contemplate, but just wanted to chime in real quick here. A soviet-style strategy of using a front line, short range fighter (ala Fulcrum) in the form of the Starfighter, either for running CAP for CAS missions, or as you said, return escort, that's a neat idea, and it retains a use for the 104 (and it would be damn good at it). Were there 2 seat combat 104s? Seems that you'd be hard pressed to add a second seat without doing something detrimental to it that wouldn't instantly relegate it as a trainer. And without the second seat, the clumsy interfaced early powerful radar would be a no-go, even if you could shoe-horn one into it's radome. My take on the Voodoo is that it wouldn't have to be a 2nd gen. That the 105 we are talking about would itself be far more of a second gen. Because my paradigm is the afforementioned F-8 to A-7 process, but in reverse. They really aren't the same plane, they are just based on the same design and principles, but so different that few parts would be interchangable. Perhaps this would not result in something quite so drastic (as a new body design [in how the A-7 is shorter and wider]), but it would certainly be a design re-think and new production. Yes, the existing 2 seat Thud is a jumping off point. But so is the 2 seat Voodoo. And here's the thing, slapping in the Phantom radar and engines should be far less of a job than the Thud redesign being talked about. That would make it cheaper, faster, and far more tempting to the brass. Regarding the pitch up, that's not really such a problem. It's really about AoA severity. That can be helped firstly with warning klaxons and something akin to the Fulcrum and Flanker where there is a tactile pressure on the stick informing the pilot of the edge, but not preventing him from exceeding it. How to do that? Well... I don't know, but I figure if the Kommandogeraet could be made in the early 40s, then this can be done in the early 60s. Then you supplement that with modified flaps, and perhaps even leading edge slats (similar to the E Phantoms), and you help reduce the AoA change in any given turn in the first place (not to mention helping improve it's dogfighting capabilities). And it too looks great in silver. Better than the Thud IMO. But then that brings me back to my previous point. If we assume that worked, and was done, then any deep penetration would be done by that, the role you suggested for the 104 would not change, and we're back to the 101/104 pair, because at that point, a deep penetration short range fighter is redundant. And so because of that.... perhaps the move would be best to simply go with the 2 seat Thud, seal up the bay to customize for fuel (it should save emtpy weight while also increasing capacity), put in the big radar, remove unneeded ground attack items and associated bracing, and try to get an engine boost for it, and there ya go.

What is the significance of "runway 36"? I've seen it in countless things. Just a couple of the most recent examples - Orbiter uses it (IIRC), regardless of the audio callout, it's always either 18 or 36 in SF2:V, and even Strike Commander (from 1993) uses it. Anyone know the background of this?

That's Anime mixed with CG, not a cartoon. (Cartoon = Loony Tunes or Disney, y'know, non-realistic art style, talking animals and objects, made for children, that whole deal [and yes, I LOVE loony tunes. ]) Looks really cool though. Imperial Japan '46. They had some great wonder weapons planned. I'd really love to see a true, modern, simulation done for all the secret planned projects of both the Luftwaffe AND the Japanese Imperial Army/Navy. IL2 '46 is the closest we've come, and that is rife with a heavy thumb on the scale and missing far too much stuff. 'Course, while I'm wishing, I might as well add how awesome it would be to have CFD applied to Crimson Skies and have it done like a true sim, skipping anything that actually CAN'T fly (few if any I'd think), and/or modifying the rest as needed (similar to Oleg's Lerche). A great story combine with a modern sim would be epic. And of course, catching a hook on an airship carrier would be epic too!

w00t! And a joint-op too, nice! We gotta get 'em now while we can, before our resident hussein pulls us out, intentionally creating a nightmare over there (while he'll surely pass the buck on when playing the blame game).

(if the above link doesn't work, try this one)

How to lighten back in the day? It all depends. It could well be that it would not be possible to lighten it, without knowing the structure from a designer's perspective, I can't really say. However, I'd approach it sort of like replica car builders with an enthusiast mind-set and OEM budget. IOW, think of a unibody car made into a replica via a tube frame chassis with body panels attached. It's lighter and stronger than the original. I remember reading how Grumman planned to redesign the glove area of the F-14 to remove the vane, expand it slightly, and in the process create more room for fuel, add strength, and improve handling, all without adding weight. So that sort of thing. Scour the systems looking for anything that didn't need to be there, down to, and including, excess threads on bolts. (F-Body lightening mantra "don't try to remove a pound, try to remove an ounce 16 times") As it's to be more A2A oriented, perhaps look to removing hardpoints meant to carry heavy bombs and the structure to go with them, see if any weight could be shed from the electronics as a result (not needing ground attack radar and such), and finish it all up with a bit more money spent on materials (assuming it was built to a low bid, I'm guessing some more money could be spent on materials for reduced weight and/or ehanced strength). However.... the real question is... why? Here's what I mean by that - yes, I realize this is all a "what-if" and it's based around making teh 105 more of a fighter, but, to what end? When I was talking about single seat vs 2 seat fighters before, I was not suggesting it should be left a single seater. I was simply debating a stand-alone philosophical point. In THAT era, Sparrows pretty much meant a radar so complex you had to have a back seater. Not until the F-15 came out would that change. So, what would the 105 be used for in this scenario? What else would be used with it? If you keep it single seat, then you pretty much need to mod the Voodoo and use them in that pairing, the 105 would be the in-close fighter, meant to be cheaper and armed only with gun and Sidewinders, while the 2 seat Voodoo would be the expensive counterpart, meant for longer range capability, armed with Sparrows backedup by 'Winders and guns. Alternately, if the 104 is meant to be kept around, then we already have an effective, single seat SRM armed close in fighter. Why have 2? In that case, take the Wild Weasal Thud (2-seater) and return to the drawing board with that for the lightening re-design and whatever other improvements could be made to it. Or in a third option, lift engines and radar and weapons from the Phantom to slot them into the Voodoo, improve the Starfighter, use that as your pair, then just work on giving the Thud more thrust and more effective (Starfighter-like) flaps for combat, so that it would in essence be an A/F (not the other way 'round), and again, potentially act as it's own escort, or go hunting once the drop has taken place. Just some thoughts.

Sweet!

Man! I wish I had the means to record video, or even that tracks could be saved in this sim. I just had a couple of amazing firsts. I took an F-104C-10 up North in 75, with random enemy air, time, and weather, but light ground defense (simply because too much of that brings my ancient machine to it's knees and I can't play). It put me up against some MiG-21s and it was a far tougher fight than I would have figured it should be. In the process of trying to get a gun shot on one, he hit the brakes, I over-shot, went vert, and he sent a missile up my exhaust. I was surprised at their response, but kinda impressed too actually. So I hit re-fly and decided to be more aggressive this time. I went higher, with more thrust, and tried to hold a superior E state over them. Also blew my tanks almost right away this time. In the process of following the first one I had locked on-to, I saw the other one shoot across my face, not knowing if he was going after my #2, I switched and followed him. We went down into the weeds and I was able to turn with him easily, but the roll rate (slow at first, with fast acceleration and slow deceleration) kept screwing me up. And he would pull some snap moves to get out of my sights at the last second. And this was the first "first", coming down low, in a hard turn, I had my take-off flaps down, was pulling G, then he slammed the brakes and cut the other way, I was going to over shoot so I continued but pulled up, raised my flaps, and switched to padlock view, and to my amazment, my lazy spiral climb apparently caused him to lose control in his attempt to follow me, because he slammed into a river. My first maneuver kill! So then I saw another 21 near, but my #2 was WAY out of position and screaming and crying, so I chased him down, he had 2 17s tangling with him, I called him in then told him to attack my target, but he wouldn't listen. I sailed in, snapped off a shot, and he stood there and took it. The other one was a bit tougher, and I accidentally sliced his wing off with my v-stab. But by this point, I was seriously low on fuel. The dial read below 1 and I had 238 miles to go to get home. So I headed that way, climbed gently up to 23,000 and eased the throttle back as far as I could. By the time I reached 175, I knew there was no way I'd make it, so I hit Alt-N and then tried to ease it down to the base, but I ran out of gas just before I turned on to final approach. Now, here I am, doing less than 400knots in a Widowmaker, 5 miles from the strip, and it's off to my 9 o'clock. :::: ulp :::: I gently eased it around, and just rode it out, waited until I was just about at the fence before dropping take off flaps and gear... my blown flaps were no longer being blown, I had no power to go-around, and this thing has an 8 mile long tail that's easy to strike, with no wings to speak of... I held it steady until I was about 90' off the deck and tried to gently flare it. Somehow, I managed to not strike the tail and just hit a little harder than I'd normally care to. I dead-sticked a Starfighter!

Yeah, in essence. I was hoping to do something along those lines - not an actual mission generator, but an external app that utilized game stats. It can't be that hard for TK to make that a file, even a temporary one that background apps could read before it is wiped out. :/

Not so great examples..... Lighter means more of everything, range, accel, climb, and turn. More power can help in turn too (somewhat). But in this case, more wing would be a god-send in addition to a lighter structure - if for no other reason, greater internal fuel capacity (meaning less need for draggy external tanks which also feck with the mass locations). However, yes, speed is important. IF you can get enough of it, then you need less turning. And that is why your examples are less than perfect there. The 104 had such a thrust and speed advantage over the MiGs that they would have stood no chance, you wouldn't have to turn there. However, they could certainly 'hang' with the 21s (they weren't exactly aerobats themselves afterall). The Jug at altitude was faster than the mustang. And it was that thrust loading, at altitude, that allowed it to actually fly rings around the Bf-109's. Plus, the truth is, the Jug isn't quite as bad as Oleg made it. (exceedingly true for the Hellcat as well) Watch the movie at Zeno's, it can dance. However, not nearly as well as the 109 can, but as I said, when you take them up high and the 109 is gasping for air, struggling to stay above stall speed, and the Jugs have no problem exceeding theirs, then can zip and zoom around with near impunity. And weren't you just pining for more wing on a Starfighter? hehe For a Starfighter mod, I'd shoehorn in a better radar, and cram some ECM and RWR equipment into that dorsal spine, and see if the engine techs could wring a bit more out of the design, or even replace it with something more powerful in the same form-factor (and with better low throttle cruise consumption IF possible). Also make that probe on the C-10 be retractable. Then basically just do something like the Blackbird - take off, get to the edge of friendly space, re-fuel, filling the center conformal tank and inboard wing tanks (might skip the tip tanks, they really mess with roll rates), then proceed on the mission. Toss in some better comms with the ground, air-borne dedicated radar, ground radar, recon flights, and other friendly air traffic. Much of that I'm sure they did, I'd just work on trying to improve it all. The only benefit to a back seater is to work an overly complex radar system that can't be done while also flying the plane. Now, true, they also offer a second pair of eyes, and when working as a team can present a benefit there too, but.... probably not enough to put a person at risk and add extra weight. Or at the very least, not enough to stretch a design to add one that wasn't there to begin with (from the drawing board, or using a 2 seater to begin with.... ok). I dunno... I could see a simply part's swap into the 101 and pair that with the 104 in the high-cost/low-cost system we have today (and have had since the F-15/16 combo). Then you could make the 105s their own escort with some simple tweaks. Or... swap the updated 101 for the updated 105 in that scenario. And depending on where you want to go.... I know you are big on SAC and high alt and bombers... I'd keep the Hustler and push forward on the Valkyrie, then boost the 106 to be the high-alt escort. OR... perhaps just buy more YF-12s, that could work too. (but we don't have a YF-12 in game, and I have been approaching this hypothetical discussion with an eye toward game integration)

Amazing work orsin. Thank you very much. Would it be possible for you to release one for the MiG-29G as well? (the NATO-ized Luftwaffe Fulcrums acquired from the Lufstreitkrafte after the re-merger. They rigged them for NATO weapons, and, in game at least, NATO (ie, imperial) instruments. They look almost identical though, so my hope is that it could be a quick and easy thing for you.