Lexx_Luthor

Blank desktop screen. Strange (yea okay) ... for years I had different pics but eventually, and very slowly, I figured out desktop pics don't help. I *think* one time my desktop just didn't show up, and I was fine with it. Anyways, now I just use blank screen. Here hehe

Jedi:: Same with P-38 Lightning -- strategic interceptor.

MiG:: I said F-108 or F-12 updated over the last 50 years. Realistically, far better would be true 50 year on replacements for these two. Only the F-14B&D -- in its time -- in your Great List can begin to approach the tactical abilities of such an upgrade/replacement. However, I will admit, as State budgets since WW2 have been devoured, to thunderous applause, by exponentially increasing debt, this leaves nations with only tiny Turn~n~Boyd ninja dogfighters with weak payload, no speed, and weaponry for use against "enemies" that are equally crippled in military aviation development. And just to think, back then they did it with slide rules (...mostly...!).

Wreckage under Gulf, no TV cameras I suppose. Are the real things painted white like that? You could see them miles away. Visually, in the olde style. Like bullseyeing womp rats back home, and they werne't much bigger than 2 weeks 2 meters.

Reds win again 1 blonde 3 brunette 5 reds Count them, the brunettes are counting them and they thought they would win.

streak:: Interesting question. Fighter with the most survivability? Just found this....P-47... "Only 0.7 per cent of the fighters of this type dispatched against the enemy were to be lost in combat." ~> http://www.skylighters.org/p47/index.html I've read the Ilya Morametz (sp?) 4 engine Russian bomber in WW1 was never shot down even in numerous air combats with German scouts, although one did fall apart after landing, after being attacked by maybe a dozen German scouts. Any idea about SPAD in WW1? That was a beefy fighter.

Or they have to make it bigger to carry equivalent equipment that would fit in smaller western designs. Dunno. But everything else equal, I'd go for bigger: power, payload, speed, range, etc...

Wrench, Did you ever see this, or is my TE unique? TK fluffed the zoom calling code. The max 3200 zoom is under the "1600" label, and the 1600 zoom is under the "3200" label. To get max zoom, click the 1600.

Eric I'm looking now. FC and I have Jenkin's B-70 book. All they did was a metal mockup. I do see what looks like lots of riveting on one of the nose mockups, but that may be just the mockup, and if so, it could be flush. Nothing else I see has info on this. FC may know. The fellas over at overscan's http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php might know. According to the book, Kartveli aimed for M=4, but he found that heat limited that to M=3, and Air Material Command predicted only M=2.5 sustained. But I wonder how much fuel was left after the plane reached M=3. If not too much, then there is not much time to sustain that speed anyways. So M=3 may be a good max. btw...Kartveli wanted a real canopy -- think X-15 style and very small -- and continued to work on that as his own project even after everybody else went flush canopy.

...and Grumman style designs of course.

I dunno. F-14 was the best tac fighter of its time, followed by MiG-25. The best fighters in history were beefy, burly, Russian style designs. I'd take F-108 or F-12, updated over 50 years, over any of these post-modern Turn~n~Boyd wannabee super-ninja dogfighters.

Stingray:: Amazon link That's an interesting book. I read that some years back. Fiction but also "true" story on a certain historical level. If I recall, it nailed the days of Higher, Faster, Further and shiney silver changing to, well you know. The one customer review of the book at Amazon notes that he read it slow cos he knew he'd be sad at the end. A "flight through time" the customer wrote. Great description right there.

Julhelm:: The perfect weapon for high altitude: Dependable, reliable, and war winning. If you have not heard this yet, word-search this link for "snakes" ~~> China and Taiwan since 1945; Part 1 and the following turkey shoot.

Cater:: Greed kills. Don't know if the game can do this, but out on the street, that is when other side sets up backup flights to ambush your stalk, and now you have less fuel than you did before (and maybe at lower altitude). I'd love to see how leaders in online co-op or online war would plan using these old jets.

Cater:: The game AI can't handle this, but Chennault's P-40 pilots knew how. You make a pass and keep going. The "trick" with F-101 is you have endurance far beyond any Soviet supersonic jet fighter of that time with a competitive combat speed, although if you are deep in enemy lands (SAC bomber escort) you will have fuel problems too. I figure....you fire, and either hit or miss. In either case you just keep going, and don't look back, but do look ahead for another target in front, or do a gentle turn for home if your time is up. My idea is to keep your wing man maybe 20 miles behind you so he can attack the target if you miss, if he is not assigned a different target. On top of that, plan missions with a backup offensive flight behind you, or two or three backup flights. This keeps a certain area of high altitude sky under assault. Think: If you miss the target, say MiG-21F, and the target turns after you, your wingman comes up behind the bad fella and he's flying straight trying to catch you. If not, you keep going until MiG has to turn home for lack of fuel (or runs out if he chances that). This dependence on after burning speed could get itchy if you are far from a tanker though. Is this Correct Thinking?

FC, if you look through the cockpit's gunsight, won't you see the inside of F-103? How do you plan to get the periscope to work?

Indeed. Keep your speed high. If you miss, just keep going, don't look back (as if you could). Let your wingman 50 miles behind you take care of the target. What a concept!!! FC:: Jenkins B-70. I started that tonight sitting in tub. Not much time to read anymore so I read in the bath hoping not to drop a book. Don't try to visualize this.

Which one? The "two weeks" girl? That's where that form of verbal slippery~ness came from btw. Has to be. How long will you be staying? Two weeks aha yep How long before The Patch? Two weeks yep aha

Thanks I'll look up the AWACS stuff. Yea I know about the scripted mission limitation, but I only do scripted stuff. Campaigns: Couldn't a heavily tweaked AI plane be given some kind of mission, restricted to a "large" airbase far from operations, the only "large" base on a map, and have it work as sorta AWACS? Maybe make its top speed 100km/hr so it never gets to the fight? I have no idea how TK's campaigns work. I've asked TK several times about a simple map-wide mission combat events text output file, so the modders can program their own dynamic campaign engines using that data from a previous mission game run.

You know Fubar, somebody may have to invent the Fake AEW; say, a tweaked single AI A-4 spawning near map edge with 2000km radar range, 360 radar arc, starting at high altitude with no fuel, or zero thrust, but with very low mass so it drops to Earth slowly like feather (can't have it flying toward targets). And time another one to spawn when the first "AEW-4" finally feathers in. Something like that. btw Fubar, does this Redcrown thing require the radar "surveillance" AI aircraft to be RHM armed? I suspect it does. I wonder if the Fluffup of radar surveillance is one big reason why TK does not respond well to Korean War game threads for the *current* game. I hope the future F-14 game is the perfect vehicle for new radar sim programming starting from flour. I'm stuck at SF-2006, and I've found a way to help AI aircraft "see" far away and that is to spawn, far above the path of an incoming enemy strike, a "fake" enemy AI plane at say 1000km altitude with zero thrust but map size visibility distance. When the intercept AI come nearer the fake target, the real strike aircraft become the focus because....the AI switch to a closer target. I didn't know that until now. Very useful...!

mmmm, best writeup I've seen yet on -103 ~> http://www.alireggiane.com/t575-republic-xf-103-thunderwarrior FC, it seems area rule is mainly for transonic performance; getting beyond Mach 1. With higher machs, wings can get smaller compared to fuselage, so less area ruling needed maybe. Su eliminated area rule from later Su-15 designs to have more fuel in the fuselage. It had a very small high mach wing for its size, so that may make it less vulnerable to transonic acceleration problems than the older 1950s stuff with higher aspect ratio swept wings (...or giant 102~esque delta wings). Dunno.

Funny, the fuselage does have a certain F-105 look. Republic of course. AwSim stuff Eric.

SF:: That range would be in the AI radar section of the DATA.ini file right? Extract it and czech it out (if ya'll use extractors in SF2+ I'm stuck at SF1 2006). Interesting. With some not too deviant tweaks I can run about 200km in SF1 2006, and much more with some rather deep, FlightEngine and Terrain ini bizarrnes.

When Chuck Norris takes a bath after workout, the sweat and muddy water combine to form the Mighty Mississippie river.

Great stuff. The F-106 website has always been a favorite. One suggestion. Ya'll are using Joe's 101 articles. He is generally the best on the net for so amazingly many US aircraft. I would put his name and link to his site at the top, beginning each 101 article...ie... F-101A etc... by Joe Baugher -link- ~> http://www.joebaugher.com/oldseriesfighters.html : : : (I suggest that specific link for all articles so the reader can see what Joe offers for US fighters beyond F-101) When I use other mens' and womens' writings, I push the author onto "stage" in front of every reader as soon as the curtain rises. Also, you might edit Joe's format of aircraft data, making the data line by line items instead of one large hard to reference paragraph of words and numbers. -- aahhh, you already did that. Awsum!! Sorry!!