column5

I'm almost certain that the F-5C only saw combat in the South, at least while the USAF were flying them.

Or just go for the F8U-3 instead.

I just clicked on the link and read a little of the article but the tone is so petulant that I gave up. Guy sounds like a douche.

There was a quasi-official evaluation of the F-4 against the F-106, in which the Dart faired poorly. The nature of the evaluation is controversial, though, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the F-106 could outperform the Phantom in some areas of A2A combat. The Dart's reliance on the AIM-4 throughout its career was an achilles heel. The dry-thrust to combat-weight ratio of the Phantom is not that much better than its contemporaries: Phantom - 0.568 Thunderchief - 0.482 Delta Dart - 0.444 Starfighter - 0.484 Undoubtedly more effective but probably not cheaper. The unit cost of the Tomcat was high and the maintenance costs were astronimcal compared to the Hornet. I'm a Tomcat fan but even I have to admit that cost was not one of its strengths. Still, as a taxpayer I would have preferred that the Navy got the better aircraft instead of the politically correct one. Uhm...the only similarity between the F-15 and the F-4 is that they have two engines. The F-15 is a pure USAF design incorporating all of the lessons that service learned during Vietnam. Also, the F-4 did not bring an end to the century series. The aircraft from the F-100 to the F-106 were the products of philosophy emphasizing speed, either for fast nuclear weapons delivery or fast intercept of manned bombers. As the manned bomber was superseded by the ICBM, the supersonic tactical aircraft became largely obsolete. If you want to blame the Navy for the death of the century series, blame Polaris.

Nah, I've been a lesbian all my life.

Douche Douche Bo Bouche Bananna Fanna Fo Fouche Me My Mo Mouche. Douche!

Blame game? Let's play the name game! Barry Barry Bo Barry Bananna Fanna Fo Farry Me My Mo Marry. Barry!

This would also be a good day (since it is coincidentally also the anneversiary) to remember the Waco seige and subsequent deaths of 76 individuals at the hands of the US government. This event--and the Ruby Ridge killings--precipitated the action in Oklahoma City.

I think that the important lesson from Korea that we failed to learn was that a country should never enter into a war with anything less than total victory as the objective. Look at the misery that has existed in North Korea for 60 years now as a result. In Vietnam that was compunded by Macnamara's belief that a war could be run like the Ford Motor Company--based on statistics.

Hence, Johnson, the POTUS...

One of the most important lessons learned from Vietnam is that selecting targets and imposing ROE from the Oval Office has disastrous consequences. Johnson and Macnamara are directly responsible for the loss of many thousnads of lives as a direct result of their policies.

The information here may be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war For what its worth, the question isn't really whether the casualty level in any given war is arbitrarily low enough to justify itself, but whether the outcomes justify the cost in lives and other resources required to realize them. The true outcomes of a war can take a long time to assess, by the way. Who would have predicted in 1945 that Japan would be an economic powerhouse 40 years later?

The A-4 is significantly undermodeled in the game. In real life it could reach transsonic speeds in a shallow dive and maintain that energy fairly well, especially the aircraft with the 408A engine.

Based on all of the sources availble to me, I designed the TMF Crusader flight model to be slightly inferior in turn performance to the MiG-17, but better than the stock models. As someone above pointed out, the F-8 is really an energy fighter, it just happened to be more agile than just about all of its contemporaries. I like to apply the same rule of thumb that the US Navy did: when simulating Soviet tactics, they used the F-5 to represent the MiG-21 and the A-4 to simulate the MiG-17. Since we have more data available to us on those aircraft, it allows for an easier comparison when working on a flight model.

One thing to consider about this statement is that while the F-8 and A-7 look similar, there is almost zero parts commonality between them. The aesthetic similarity was enough for the Navy to let them slip by the VAX requirement that the new aircraft be based on an existing design, and actually gave them a significant advantage over their competitors--the North American proposal was based on the thoroughly outdated Fury and Grumman's single-seat A-6 development would have been too expensive.

I'd have to change my state of mind for that be-hind. I bet if you threw that ass in the air it would turn into sunshine.

Well, if you insist. Another Jolly Roger.

"My mystic mallet Mjolnir shall penetrate thy hole of glory, Zeus!" "Not before I strike thy anal bellows with mine lordly bolt, Thor!"

It could be more disturbing...for example if they were dressed as Zeus and Thor while doing their sticky man-love.

He clearly wants to thrust his spam-candle against your sweaty, heaving buttocks Dave. Raging case of davecurious for sure.

Tipari. Very dangerous. You go first...

NOOO!!!!11 LUTENENTS MITCHAL WAS TEH BEST PIULOTS IN UNITD STATS NAVEL AVIATIONS XCEPT FOR ICE MAN WAS ICE COLD NO MISTAKES BUT LOOTENANT MITCHAL PUTS ON HIS BRIEFS IN READY ROOM AND EVERYONE KNOWS WHO IS TEH BIG SEX MAN!!!!!!!!!!111

LET ME TELL YUO MR BIG PANTS USAFMTLDN THAT WHEN TK F14 SEXPLANE SIM COME TO MY HARDS DRIVE I WILL BE BACK AND SHOW YUO WHAT TOP UNITED STATS NAVEL AVIATOR LOOTENANT PETE MITCHALL CAN DO AGAINST MIGS28 NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN THAT CLOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Good to see you too, Henrik!