MigBuster

Have ordered another SSD and have downloaded the iso - so will be testing bits over the next few weeks. Suspect I might have to get a different version of office :(

Has video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33690446 Investigators say a Virgin Galactic spaceship crash was caused by structural failure after the co-pilot unlocked a braking system early. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says resulting aerodynamic forces caused the brakes to actually be deployed, tearing apart the craft. The NTSB has been probing what caused the craft to break up over the Mojave Desert in a test flight 10 months ago. The accident killed co-pilot Michael Alsbury and badly injured the pilot. 'Human factors' The Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo space tourism craft was flying a manned test last October when it experienced what the company described at the time as "a serious anomaly". It had been undergoing a powered test flight over the desert north of Los Angeles. Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson said after the disaster that he was "shocked and saddened" by the "tragic loss". NTSB chairman Christopher Hart said on Tuesday that he hoped the investigation would prevent a similar accident recurring, adding that the safety board had learned "with a high degree of certainty the events that resulted in the break-up". "Many of the safety issues that we will hear about today arose not from the novelty of a space launch test flight, but from human factors that were already known elsewhere in transportation," he added. Both pilots were employed by Scaled Composites, the company that designed the craft.

In the CW you would likely have flown through too much radiation on the way there so it wouldn't matter. There are methods for employment and avoiding the blast - though whether they work or not..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33650713 A new system to resist terrorist bombs smuggled onto aircraft has been tested in dramatic experiments. A device called FlyBag is designed to absorb the shockwaves and shrapnel caused by explosions. If security fails and a bomb reaches the luggage hold, the idea is that the blast would be safely contained. The trials - using old jets at Cotswolds Airport in Gloucestershire - showed that explosions on board caused no damage.

A free RAND report: Precision and Purpose - Airpower In The Libyan Civil War http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf

Currently Reading The Hunter Killers (Vietnam) by Dan Hampton (Ex Viper Driver) Very good thus far and useful tech info in the Weasel gear. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hunter-Killers-Extraordinary-Dangerous/dp/006237513X

Considering the Flight Model changes required I would say only the clipped wing version for the time being. I would like the late mk9 or mk16 with the bubble canopy personally.

Will hypersonic airliners be too hot to handle . . . literally? The issues involved in ground handling of a Mach 5-plus transport still simmering after its intercontinental hypersonic hop are among the unique challenges being considered as researchers address the potential operation of future high-speed airliners. While most hypersonic transport projects have focused on the basic design and aerodynamic, propulsion, structures and systems technologies required, the operational aspects are equally challenging and hard to predict, say developers. For clues on how to tackle some of these issues, hypersonic researchers are turning to previous high-speed operations such as the Anglo-French Concorde Mach 2 airliner or Mach 3.2 Lockheed SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft. However, speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Hypersonics and Spaceplanes conference in Glasgow, Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs Manager Rob Vermeland says that while these lessons may be useful to some degree, the operational challenges of a hypersonic transport versus a supersonic or subsonic aircraft represent “a whole different animal.” Future high-speed airliner projects like that being considered by the European-Japanese Hikari group have outlined a notional target for turnaround time of around 48 hr. Yet for the SR-71, even with the full attention of a dedicated ground crew, high-tempo operations were simply not feasible, says Vermeland. “If we had one sitting in the hangar here and the crew chief was told there was a mission planned right now, then 19 hr. later it would be safely ready to take off.” Then there is the question of maintainability. “The SR‑71 often would not come back ‘Code One,’ or flight ready. More often it was Code Two, which meant things had to be fixed, or worse Code Three, which meant major things had to be fixed. It might return with delaminated panels, rivets that had popped out in flight or even broken inlet parts. The average time to get the plane back and ready to fly was a week. If something broke it could be a month,” says Vermeland. “So if the high-speed goal is a 48-hr. turnaround, it will take a lot of effort to achieve. Airlines today try to turn an aircraft around so it flies nearly all the time. These aircraft will be sitting on the ground for around 100 times longer than they’ll be flying, so think of the economics of that.” The answer, he suggests, will be the development of intelligent, embedded prognostic, data-tracking and health-monitoring systems linked to an efficient logistics process, so that spare parts are ready and waiting when an aircraft arrives. Safety considerations should guide the design from the start, Vermeland says. The SR-71 was notoriously prone to suffering inlet “unstarts” at high speed, which were “a violent event for the pilot. It slapped them against the canopy. What will happen to our passengers if there’s an event that maybe an Air Force pilot is OK with, but your average businessman is not going to want to happen?” Passengers will also expect the comfortable cabin of today’s subsonic aircraft despite the extreme conditions outside. “Don’t imagine our passengers will have pressurized suits. What happens if we lose cabin pressure in these vehicles? What happens when you have a failure, and if you can’t afford to have a failure, what safety systems do you need to prevent that?” Researchers expect future hypersonic vehicles will need to work within today’s air transport infrastructure. But given the unusual requirements of high-speed aircraft for everything from fueling and ground handling to long runways and high-radius turns on taxiways, Vermeland asks if it may be better to develop dedicated “point-to-point” hypersonic airports. “Maybe it is worth the expense of designing a vehicle for that type of operation and not the other way around. There’s the whole infrastructure to consider for hydrogen fuel, and what about ground handling? Today’s cabin attendants and ground staff open the door on arrival. They push it in and there’s lots of touching to a part where there may be high temperatures. Do they put on heat-resistant suits or fire-retardant gloves?” Hideyuki Taguchi, green engine research leader at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, says current civil aviation certification standards are simply “not suitable for such an advanced aircraft.” The regulations governing forward visibility for the crew, for example, may be difficult if not impossible to meet with current study configurations that have both pilots and passengers shielded inside the vehicle between liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks. “This cannot be certified by the FAA because the crew cannot see directly out of the front of the aircraft,” he says. Hypersonic vehicles will need to navigate carefully to avoid exposing populated areas to sonic booms, says Sergey Chernyshev, executive director of TsAGI, the Russian central aerohydrodynamic institute. “The carpet of exposure to [a] sonic boom will be larger because of the vehicle’s much higher altitude. However, for vehicles we have studied, [under the European-funded Hexafly-Int high-speed vehicle project]” with a 360-ton takeoff weight, the maximum amplitude of the shockwave is only around 60-plus Pascals [1.25 psf] overpressure, so not so high as expected.” This is approximately the same as a boom generated by the space shuttle following reentry at Mach 1.5 and 60,000 ft. altitude but less intense than the 90 Pascals produced by the Concorde at Mach 2 and 52,000 ft. “To deal with the issue, we must think of the shape and configuration of the aircraft, the flight profile and atmospheric conditions. Typically, we calculate the sonic boom on shockwave density from straight flight, but if we have maneuvers or g factors while accelerating, this gives us increasing density because of focusing of shockwaves from different trajectories,” he says. As well as sonic boom concerns, the potential impact of emissions will be a major factor in both the vehicle’s design and how it is operated, says Sebastien Defoort, a research engineer at French aerospace research center Onera. But the severity will vary depending on cruise altitude, speed, fuel type and a deeper understanding of the potential climatic effects of water vapor in the stratosphere. “We will have to make this green from the start. There are some strong public concerns that need to be taken into account,” he says. “A conventional airliner flying at an altitude of 10 km will emit, as an order of magnitude, 300 tons of carbon dioxide and 140 tons of water vapor. A Mach 5 aircraft will fly at 25 km and, if it is hydrogen-fueled, will emit a lot more water vapor but no carbon dioxide. But if we fly at Mach 8, we will fly a lot higher and deposit a lot more water vapor in the upper atmosphere,” Defoort adds. A small fleet of hypersonic vehicles could add 15 megatons of water vapor a month to the atmosphere, most of it in the northern hemisphere. “We have to be careful, as these figures have yet to be consolidated, but the data seem to show that water vapor has a very large effect on climate and temperature change. Nitrous oxide emissions have an effect, but are secondary for hydrogen fuel.” More detailed analysis shows there are additional effects of the chemistry of the atmosphere that can reduce the residence time at higher altitudes. The bottom line, says Defoort, is “it may be better to fly at Mach 8 and higher altitudes.” In addition, he says, “there are special trajectories that may mitigate the emissions effects, for example, flying over the poles will help because residence times of water vapor can be lower.” http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/mach-5-airliner-operations-face-huge-challenges?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150720_AW-05_147&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001360373&utm_campaign=3233&utm_medium=email&elq2=a3dc33bef64d453dbfd085c2a4f56af6

It's nearly mine...................

'

Having a merged install I have to delete a lot of the stock jets from my installs If the aircraft keep being put back in you can also delete options.ini and versions.ini - the game will recreate both files on startup.

This ^

The dev preview was out months ago - had it on a VM but never tried SF. I would suggest testing your hardware still works in 10 before upgrading. Also good to wait a few months to let a lot of the bugs get ironed out.

Polish Su-22 Fitters Receive A Modernization Package Including A Change Of The Color Scheme Last year, the Polish Ministry of Defense decided to extend the operational life, that has lasted for 30 years, of 18 out of 32 Su-22 jets used by the Polish Air Force: 12 Su-22M4 single-seaters and 6 Su-22M3K two-seat trainers will remain in active service according to the report published by the Polska Zbrojna outlet. All of the Polish Su-22’s are stationed in Świdwin, at the 21st Air Base. The modernization plan assumes that the jets are going to be fitted with new avionics, including the imperial gauges in the cockpit, along with a new radio and flight recorder. Still, the change which is most visible is the new camouflaged color scheme: the Polish fighter-bombers received a new, gray-toned paint scheme. All of the modernization works are being carried out by the Bydgoszcz Military Aviation Works, the same facility whichperforms the maintenance of the Polish F-16. According to the statement made by Waldemar Topol, Director of Operations at the WZL plant, works on a single jet will take nine months on average. The works involve disassembly and general repairs of the critical components that have a significant impact on flight safety. Structural properties of the airframes are also being closely examined. Secondly, the cockpit flight instrumentation is going to be rescaled into the imperial system. Even though the Polish crews are used to quickly perform the units conversion, the change of the instruments is going to improve standardization (as well as pilots comfort), especially in case of the operations conducted together with the NATO allies. The color change will give the Polish Fitters a livery similar to that of the Polish F-16s. A flight test program is going to be executed, before the aircraft return to Świdwin. What is more, during the Bydgoszcz Air Fair event, a modernized MiG-29 with a new paint scheme, resembling the one utilized by the Polish F-16 was also presented. Images emerged on some of the Polish aviation-related forums. Prolonging the lifetime of the 18 airframes will make it possible to continue the training of the pilots who would be assigned to other squadrons, and the Fitters would still be supporting the Polish Special Forces or the Navy, as Polska Zbrojna reports. When it comes to the Su-22 airframes that are not going to be refurbished, the last one is to be withdrawn in 2018. The pilots flying the Fitters claim that despite their age, the airframes are still very reliable. http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/15/su-22-gets-new-color-scheme/

Glad most of the crew got out but sad news about the pilots RIP

Nice Work I must be using Sundowners from SF1 - may have had to alter it a tad.

http://www.argunners.com/gallery-wwii-airplane-graveyard-in-pacific-ocean/

Bought yes - no time to install and use it yet!

Maybe the last on this thread http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/ [Editor’s Note: To be perfectly clear yet again, we have no partnership with Lockheed-Martin or the F-35 program. In other words, we’re not getting paid by them to write these articles. C.W. Lemoine’s views are his own and do not represent those of the United States Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps. This is just one fighter pilot’s personal opinion. Keep that in mind.] Just under two weeks ago, we talked about a poorly-translated test report that gave critics of the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II ammunition to suddenly declare it the worst dogfighter ever. In the time since that article, you can’t find an aviation-oriented website that hasn’t put its two cents in, declaring the F-35 everything from an F-4 clone, to an F-105, and even going as far as calling it a BVR failure. So is the F-35 truly the worst fighter ever? The standard U.S. Air Force Weapons School answer is, “It depends.” From an acquisitions standpoint, it’s in the running. Plagued by delays, setbacks, and budget overruns, it has had its share of issues. It’s also guilty of a terrible public relations campaign. But at the end of the day, this aircraft has done one thing no other aircraft has ever been able to do – turn an entire generation of aviation bloggers, journalists, and commenters into overnight military aviation experts. It’s simply fascinating to watch every hipster who’s ever played Ace Combat sit back and pontificate about the downfalls of an aircraft that hasn’t even reached IOC. It’s like a renaissance of air combat. As the first fighter in the digital age, the F-35 has allowed people to watch and read about the results of flight tests in near real time, drawing their own conclusions as to the success or failure of the program. Security clearance? Who needs it? Wikipedia has everything that anyone who’s ever played Battlefield 4 on Playstation needs to know in order to realize that the F-35 is a sitting duck if you happen to get it after a respawn. I’m just a lowly fourth-gen pilot, so my opinions might not be as valid as someone who’s read a leaked FOUO report on the internet, but before the million-man Strawman Army reaches full strength, it may be time to inject some sanity into this discussion: 1) The F-35 vs F-16 flight was a developmental test flight. I wrote an article about this already, and the horse is very much dead, but I think it’s worth repeating because the actual test report came out after the article. The flight was a Developmental Test Flight in which the test platform F-35 was sent out to test flight characteristics in high performance flight. Did I say test enough? Flight control algorithms (because this jet has a computer running millions of lines of code telling each control surface what to do) were studied and determined to require adjustment (pitch rates, departure resistance logic, etcetera). No other conclusion is valid from this TEST. 2) Comparisons to any Vietnam-era aircraft are INVALID. The F-4 struggled in an era of AIM-4, AIM-9, and AIM-7. These missiles failed often (AIM-4) and either had to be guided the entire time of flight (AIM-7) or could only be shot from tail aspect (AIM-9). A reliance on these missiles had come at a time when the Air Force had shifted its focus to shooting down Soviet bombers in a Cold War scenario. The F-105 comparison is so ridiculous it’s barely worth mentioning. Both the USAF Weapons School and Navy’s TOP GUN develop tactics to suit every aircraft in the fleet. These tactics key on strengths, minimize weaknesses, and address threats. And even after these tactics are developed, they evolve over time. What else do you expect? It is 2015. Think of BFM as the equivalent of unarmed hand to hand combat for Marine grunts. It is important, because it is self defense, but it is not THE mission. It is not the primary method of achieving a kill. It hasn’t been since the early 80s. Yes, BFM can still happen. There are hundredsof scenarios where an F-35 may find its way to the merge. In a world with high off-boresight short and medium-range missiles, is it still possible to get a guns kill? Absolutely. Is it likely? No. In an environment where everyone, including the enemy, has these missiles, a prolonged engagement in which you dogfight into a gun weapons employment zone is not a highly survivable situation. Unless you managed to get wrapped up with the only remaining MiG in bad-guy country, it likely means his buddies are close by. Saddling up for a guns kill from a neutral merge takes time and fuel – luxuries you just don’t have in combat. And this applies to any aircraft – fifth-gen, fourth-gen, or said threat country. Countries have spent a lot of time and money developing these missiles for this very reason. If you find yourself in the phonebooth, the quickest kill is the most survivable. Now, if the F-35 gets into a turning fight is it a sitting duck? I don’t know. You can find HUD footage of a T-38 gunning an F-22 on YouTube. Is a trainer aircraft with paper-thin wings a BFM monster against a jet that nearly flies up its own rear-end during airshows? No. But any given Sunday, anything is possible. The F-35A is a 9G-capable aircraft with a monster engine and a relatively high-alpha capability. It may not be a Raptor. It may not even be a Viper, but it won’t be an F-4 either. I don’t know how it will do in Dissimilar Air Combat Training until it starts wrapping it up on a regular basis in the real world (i.e. – operational squadrons, not test aircraft in test squadrons). And guess what? None of these journalists do either. 3.) F-35 sensors, avionics, technology, and capabilities are classified. It’s hard not to laugh when another “definitive” article comes out declaring not only is the F-35 a lame duck WVR, but it’s also dead in the water BVR. Holy crap. There are two groups of people that know the true capabilities of the F-35: those that have the clearance necessary to read about it, and the people who built it (who have the same clearance)…. And probably the Chinese, but that’s another story. Anyone else that makes claims to know what the capabilities of this aircraft are and how they compare to threat aircraft (also classified, by the way), are just wrong and have traveled so far out of their lane it’s not even funny. They just don’t know what they don’t know. I’m sorry, but you don’t have a right or need to know. The military keeps these things classified for a very good reason – to save American lives. Sensors, capabilities, tactics, and the like are not going to be released to journalists unless someone does so illegally. And even then, it’s like a dog watching TV. They’re not going to understand what they’re even looking at (as we’ve seen in these “expert interpretations” of a leaked FOUO test report). Why is this important? Because any unclassified source that claims to know how an F-35 will do in a BVR engagement is flat-out wrong. Anything beyond that is pure speculation based on marketing brochures that are worth less in the real world than the paper they’re printed on.Sorry. As I mentioned earlier, this is the first aircraft to be developed, tested, and flown in the “instant gratification” age. No other aircraft has had its dirty laundry aired in real time quite like this one. And a lot of people have worn out their “Jump to Conclusions Mat” as a result – without any valid information to back it up. 4.) The F-35 debate is political in nature. This is where I must apologize. In my follow up, I went a bit out of my way to trash the F-35 as a program. As a fighter pilot, this is pretty far out of my own lane. The merits of the cost per unit and total program costs/timeline are something politicians and elected officials should debate and explain to America. As a taxpayer, it’s everyone’s right to question how money is spent. But the two issues should not be confused. I should not have brought it up as part of the argument. How an aircraft is acquired doesn’t mean much in the battlespace. The military acquisitions process needs work, or as Navy dudes say, it’s an “other.” That’s really irrelevant to the onslaught of hit pieces that have come out lately. 5.) The F-35 won’t be a bust, but it also won’t be perfect either. Both the F/A-18 and F-16 have had almost 30 years worth of development, and neither of them are perfect to this day. They weren’t perfect when they first came out and both aircraft have their own strengths and weaknesses. Having flown both, I have seen it firsthand. That doesn’t mean either aircraft is a bust. Very smart fighter pilots and engineers have done a great job in making them very formidable against even newer and better threat aircraft. I am confident that the next generation of fighter pilots and engineers will make the F-35 equally lethal through superior training, tactics, and even aircraft upgrades down the road. It’s just what we do as American fighter pilots. It may be frustrating for spectators and participants alike. There may be more growing pains, but it’s going to push through eventually. And if you’re a true aviation enthusiast, you should be rooting for it. From my perspective, the horse is dead and I won’t feed the million-man Strawman Army anymore. The show will go on and, eventually, this jet will become the face of the American strike fighter. Just my humble opinion. Your mileage may vary.