Toryu

I don't get why people always lament on public health-care, when the elephant in the room is a bank-bailout that has taken more money than the entire 50yr budget of NASA. There were lots of german V2 engineers sent to Russia in order to work on the ICBM-projects. The first US/ Soviet rockets were both V2-clones. The Redsone rocket was in fact a V2 on steroids. The Germans were working on the soviet "space"-project up untill the mid 50s. there were also other groups of german engineers working on the SU, like the former Junkers-engineers that basicly designed the NK-12 turboprop for the Bear bomber. Half of the "few fatalities"-issue was due to sheer luck. The Soviets in general were much more willing to gamble during their space-programm, hence the head-start.

That looks like a very specific version of the RC-135 (there were lots of versions, depending on the mission!). I have never seen a picture of an RC-135 with a hump before. There are no passenger-windows on that hump (ten hump-windows on each side on a 747-200). Those fake "passenger lights" would make more sense than anything elase, but they'll also give the target away at night. Also, a 747 is signifigantly larger than the RC-135. It furthermore has 5 exit-doors as opposed to 2 (on a 707). I still think the misidentification-thing is dicey.

The RC-135 does not have a humpback. The 747 is more than a third larger than the RC-135. You can actually not mistake those two aircraft when taking yout time to identify it. Had they not acted under pressure from avove, everybody would have walked home that night. The americans didn't know of the 747's deviation, because the area is not surveilled by radar. In fact, the 747 used to report being over their INS-waypoints, when they in fact weren't. The crew of 007 didn't even get suspicious, when a KAL 747 a couple of minutes behind them had a signifigantly (somwhat like 35 knots!) different wind aloft. Their mistake was not engaging the INS-waypoint following mode of the autopilot - instead, they flew on a constant heading, which would have gotten them to Seoul as well (I wonder if they'd have enough fuel aboard to make the trip, any way!). However, their lateral deviation was a couple of hundred miles. The US also surely won't call the Cremlin and admit they're espionaging the soviet ballistic missile tests at Kamchatka - that would be the opposite of "intelligence". No, they weren't. Later, when they shot down an iranian A300 and gave the Vincennes' skipper a medal for it, they joined the club. How would those "camo lights" work then? A nav-light is a nav-light. It looks pretty much the same on all large airplanes. There's no such thing a "camo lights". None of those cowboys could have come up with the idea of using the depression of the gunsight to check distance against wingspan? If that RC-135 has a 747's wingspan, it's most-propably a 747. It's always the other guy's fault! Another good example of soviet paranoia. -+-+-+-+- The soviets have always been more paranoid about airspace-intruders than the westerners (with notable exceptions - one of them an israeli F-4, shooting down a 727 over the Sinai in daylight). Then again, the soviets also played the cat's and mouse game and used trawlers on the high seas to gather intel about US carrier groups - sometimes forcing them to maneuver hard while launching or recovering aircraft! The soviets also tested various air-defence networks by sending the daily Bear. They also took a couple of nice photos of US carriers while overflying very close and low. None of them got shot down. Why didn't they overfly the US and spy-out the ICBM-silos and air-bases? Because they couldn't build an airplane that was suitable, and they couldn't build-up a support-force. They sure as hell would have done it, given half a chance!

Is there any book of an A-4 pilot besides "Rampant Raider"? I liked that one very much.

Technicly, it didn't "break the sound barrier" as it overflew. It came in hypersonic from orbit and was supersonic at 30000ft. The double-bang associated with the fwd and aft shockwaves (there may be some shockwaves in-between) can always be heard as soon as the aircraft flies M 1 or faster. It doesn't "break" anything (I guess you know this anyway, but people in general seem to be a bit confused about that). The *bang* results of all the sound-waves being compressed into a shock-front that travels at the speed of sound (it can't go any faster by definition...) - hence the cone-shaped shock-front at speeds faster than M 1. The second reason for the bang (it's related) is the huge pressure-difference from before the shock to after the shock (pressure, and temperature rise over the shock-wave, local Mach-number goes down). The intensity of the shock depends mainly on two things: - the deflection-angle (if the angle gets too large, the fwd shock detaches) - the Mach-number The Space Shuttle has a very blunt nose, as it's designed to travel at very high (hypersonic!) Mach-numbers during it's fairly short time of atmospheric flight. The thermal-loads of hypeersonic flight (and re-entry, of course!) dictate blunt-shapes, as sharp and pointy shapes can not dissipate the thermal-loads and will fail (this is subject to scientific research atm). The consequence of this blunt shape is a very strong fwd shock. The aft shock is also increased by the shape of the Shuttle, as there's no afterbody-assy that "reunites" the airflow, but a very suden transition from "engine compartment/ laval-nozzles" to "free airstream". This also results in a pretty strong shock-wave - much stronger than on fighter-sized airplanes. IF the Mirages were supersonic can not easily be determined. You might notice the lack of a double-bang. That might result in the geometry involved, though, as a airplane of 15m length, travelling at 330m/s will only take 0.04545 seconds to pass overhead, which possibly is too short of a timeframe for the camera to proccess.

Hey fellas! I normally don't request things, but I've stumbled accross a great picture of a VF-21 Formation with an A4D-1 dressed up in VF-21 colours. Link here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mGHEOhCB_q0/TokIFvU3lOI/AAAAAAAAC3w/XvXO4zxwS2I/s1600/VF-21-19590416--012202.jpg Is there anybody who'd like to create a skin for the A-4A or A-4B based on this picture?

Wrench, I wouldn't ask, if I was sure I could do those decals/ skinning in general only half as well as others :wink2: I'm quite sure the tailstripes are colored as the ones on the Tiger:

No April fools' today: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/guess-whos-coming-to-red-flag.html Sounds interesting to me

A friend of mine told me that visiting BONEs at Nordholz NAS, Germany, have thrown-over cows during low-passes But then again, the Bone has four engines - each of them more powerful (and thus propably emitting more sound-energy) than the single M53 of the M2K. A fun-fact in terms of sound-energy: The CJ610 at our engine-lab (a civil, de-afterburnered version of the J85, an F-5 engine) produces 60kW of sound-energy alone at max power. So there's an equivalent power of 80HP of SOUND emitted from this - tiny - turbojet-engine. The issue with the glasses breaking is that there needs to be relatively strong pressure-spike in order to excite the glasses beyond their max stress-deflection. It's basicly a function of the glasses' thickness and it's area. The shockwaves that are experienced by transonic (at M< 1.0) objects are relatively weak, because it's just local air decelerating into subsonic-flow. Shockwaves created by an object that flies at transonic speeds that are greater than M 1.0 are a different beast and usually stronger, with stronger pressure-differences associated. The PX-difference is a function of the freestream Mach-number and the angle of deflection. The aircraft are both clearly past the camera when the bang occurs, with the second aircraft being faster (smaller Mach-angle) than the first. Mach-numbers will vary locally with temperature. As the air-temperature is not homogenously distributed (as in "the same temperature everywhere"), there will be warmer and colder spots of air. An example: An aircraft traveling along at 336m/s @ 15°C is flying at M0.99 - a temperature-drop to 7°C will turn the same air-speed into exactly M1.0 - the speed of sound changed by 4m/s (about 7-8 Knots) by just a change in air-temperature of 8°C. The Mirage might have gone in and out of M1.0 by just flying at the same air-speed, as temperature-differences of 5-10°C can easily be achieved by different ground-colours. Then there's wind-shear and moisture-distribution, which also have an effect on the speed of sound and// or the Mach-number. A combination of changes can and will get you supersonic without intent in a heartbeat. ______________ Transonic: Condition of airflow around an object that has both, subsonic and supersonic portions - usually between M 0.8 (below= purely subsonic) and M 1.3 (above = purely supersonic). The transonic-region is different on each aircraft-type and will differ considerably with AoA.

Assuming an OAT of 30°C, 1100km/h would be about M0.87 - which would certainly not make those windows crack! Assuming ISA-conditions of 15°C, we're still at M0.89 or so. You can wave a hand-full of BS-flags on that! You won't hear such a *bang*, unless the aircraft travels at M0.99 or faster.

Ok, after being stupid and giving you the Dagger armament, I'vedecided to give it a second attempt A-4C's usually had either - three BR/BRP bombs and two 300gal tanks (BR/ BRP bombs are of spanish origin) http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-Weapons/BRP-retarded-bombs-Spain.html - two 300gal tanks and a single Mk 17 bomb (the Mk 17 is of british origin) A-4P: three BR/BRP bombs on a TER on the centerline-rack and two 300gal tanks A-4Q: a couple of Mk82-Snakeeyes (four a MER at the centerline-rack) plus two 300gal tanks. The picture doesn't show the rack on the airplane, so don't nail me onto the configuration - but it's the only bomb-picture I've seen of the Quebecs so far. Info taken out of "Wings of the Malvinas" by Santiago Rivas. http://www.crecy.co.uk/images/9781902109220_Wings_of_the_Malvinas.jpg The BR/ BRP-bombs are called "EXPAL" and were used on the A-4C/P only. The Mk 17s were used on the C and P only. The Mk82s were used on the Q only. The A-4C could be fitted with Shafrir 2 missiles, while the A-4Q could be fitted with AIM-9B missiles.

He's technically not treating "his people" in a bad way. Remember, it's all about which tribe you're in, or which religious-nuance you believe in. It's not that these rebels are freedom-loving democracy-fetishists. They're more into what goes on in Saudi-Arabia. Hardly the better option than Assad - there is no "good" side in this war. Pity is, it's (as usual) the people that have no dog in this fight, that suffer the most.

I kinda don't get all that talking. 1) The TuAF has violated foreign airspace before - multiple times. Want a list? Ask their fellow "Nato-allies" Greece. People have died in those hassles before. 2) They have RWR gear. 3) They flew over an area associated with heavy fighting. 4) They were close to a russian naval base. Now, I wouldn't invite Mr. Assad to my birthday-party, but Syria is not out of point here. Conspiracy-theory-alert: Who knows who pressed the button? In a civil-war, front-lines tend to get quite blurred.

You'll need WOI2 and any SF2-version with the A-4F model in it for this to work properly, as the game looks for the Kfir's cockpit. The old gunsight is historical, as all pre-1974 A-4Ms were delivered without HUDs. The HUDs were retrofitted in 1974 to the older models, and built into the 1974 and later aircraft. The israeli A-4Ns had HUDs right from the strat of their production.

Like John McClain?

The VVS liked the Cobras for a couple of reasons: - high production-quality - actually transparent armored-glass - radio-equipment, that worked - acceptable low-level performance The quality of the airframe/ engine/ equippment was miles ahead of what the Soviet Union would produce at this time.

Hallo Leute! Ich habe ein Problem mit den Mirage-Zusatztanks: Seit einigen Monaten sind ja die Zusatztanks (teilweise?) bei den Flugzeugen im 3D-Modell integriert. Leider müssen bei älteren (SF2) Mod-Flugzeugen dann bei neuen Patches Daten aus den CAT-Files extrahiert werden, weil sonst die Zusatztanks immer mitfliegen, auch wenn sie nicht ausgewählt worden sind. Nun de Frage: Welche Daten müssen in diesem Falle genau extrahiert werden? Ich erinnere mich dunkel daran, dass es die jeweilige Data.ini des Flugzeugs war, auf dem der Mod basierte, oder liege ich dabei falsch? Habe das jedenfalls probiet, und komme zu keinem positiven Ergebnis. Muss die Data.ini der alten Flugzeuge irgendwie modifiziert werden, oder liegt der Schlüssel ganz wo anders? Interessanterweise trifft das Problem anscheinend nicht auf alle Mirage-Mods zu, sondern nur auf einen Teil.

OK, ich denke, ich habe das Problem gefunden: In der Data.ini muss der jeweils mit dem Modell verbundene Tank als Flugzeugkomponente und unten als Bewaffnungskomponente auftauchen.

Also die Tanks in der Loadout.ini zu löschen, funktioniert nicht.

Ich möchte eigentlich nur, dass der jetzt im 3D-Modell integrierte Tank nicht zusätzlich zu dem ausgewählten Tank erscheint. Anscheinend ist es der 625l-Tank, der Probleme macht, wenn er in der Loadout.ini steht. Werde nachher mal die Tanks löschen - von Hand nachladen macht mir nichts aus, da ich die Flugzeuge meist eh selbst belade

Das heißt, ich muss die Loadout.ini der betroffenen Mod-Mirages mit der Originalen .ini der Shahak überschreiben?

True so, Jedi, but you'll have to admit that at the speeds and ranges fought, the 50 cal round sufferes performance-wise. Even with APIT-ammo, the propabilityof bringing-down another fighter is pretty low. It takes a lot of hits or fewer but very decisive ones to bring-down even a fighter-sized target at those speeds and ranges. That's due to the 50 cal's reliance on kinetic energy other than larger caliber's chemical energy (read: HE on larger calibers actually means that something explodes!). Apparently, many israeli F-4 pilots with previous Mirage III-experience found the M61 (20mm) to be inadequate for A-A gunnery. They preferred the twin Aden 30mm machine-cannons of the Mirage.

F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio acc Wiki: Sources: 32: Dorr, Robert F., Jon Lake and Warren E. Thompson. Korean War Aces. London: Osprey Publishing, 2005. 35: Stillion, John and Scott Perdue. "Air Combat Past, Present and Future." Project Air Force, Rand, August 2008. Retrieved: 11 March 2009. Research during the Cold War has been almost impossible due to the archives being inaccessible to outsiders. After the end of the CW, research done my multiple historians has indicated that the initial overclaimin on both sides had no factual basis.

I don't think he's any more "proud" than Americans being proud of shooting down VPAF-airplanes. Anyway, a sense of pride in killing somebody is pretty much out of place as far as I'm concerned. @Gepard: Over-claiming kills (kills doesn'r neccessarily mean "Abschuss" - non-german countries have been somewhat more liberal in awarding "kills") has ever been an issue in any war and on any side. Allied planes having shot down more fighters than the Luftwaffe had on total strenght in one day has frequently been reported. It's nothing to lose any sleep over. One has to realize that some people (especially pilots) will never let facts get in the way of a good story. Hence the report about "blond, low-tanned" vietnamese fighter-pilots that allegedly flew naked/ no helmet, etc. @Topic: There have been soviet advisers in Vietnam for quite some time (much like their american counterparts). If they actually flew combat-missions is somewhat less researched. Given the fact that VPAF interceptors concentrated in high-speed intercepts rather than long-lasting dogfights, it's very hard to establish any facs. Then again - who says that the soviet advisers had to be any better than the Vietnamese? The soviet performance during the war of attrition was nothing to write home about anyway...