Constellation1710

It's in the Oort cloud? I thought they were talking about Sedna... Regardless, why was Pluto called a dwarf planet again?

The MiG-17 in that shade looks really good

cocas No problem Actually, the idea is probably not as crazy as one would think. The following mods (no this isn't a request so much as an amateur assessment ), probably would have drastically increased the zipper's low speed performance The retention of the non-droppable wing-tip tank works so long as the fuel could be sprayed out rapidly The replacement of the flaps and ailerons with a single flaperon of the same surface-area: Straight-wings are highly responsive to the effect of camber changes compared to swept-wings and this would camber up more of the wing for flap use, and produce the necessary roll-rate A double-camber leading-edge flap similar to the F-8E(FN) to extract additional lift at low speed and allow slightly higher AoA's to boot The addition to a roll-spoiler atop the wing similar to the F8U Crusader to add additional roll when the flaperons are down The incorporation of the NF-104A's 212.8 square foot wing: The wing-fold-line would be outside of the flaperons I would not be surprised if high-speed would take somewhat of a hit unless somebody was to incorporated a souped-up afterburner or used the NF-104A's inlets. Absolutely...

The Modding & Developer Forums are Restricted: What steps does one go to in order to get forum permission to access them?

KJakker That's good to know. I'm usually able to appear pretty normal despite being a Star Trek fan :D Cool Oh, okay… Is this the one where you're flying the F-16 trying to shoot down the USS Enterprise? Oh, I've seen that site before! Wrench I think I do also… I'm not that old, I was born in 1790 Fubar512 I love it!

I think I remember this, it was kind of like an F-104 with inlets similar to the XF-104, spoilerons on the wings, and non-detachable fuel-tanks (it acted like an endplate and improved roll-control): I'm not sure if the wings were any bigger or anything of that sort, but I do remember that it had 4 x AAM's which I've never heard before though they looked like the AAM-N-2 (AIM-7A). I didn't know it was a direct competitor with the F8U-1 (F-8A) though I don't think that would have been such a good idea. For starters, the F-8 had a tighter turning-circle and, almost certainly, a lower corner velocity (I never flew the F-8 in any remotely realistic flight-sim so I cannot say for sure), though I can say the F-104's corner velocity was around 420 knots as I've talked to two people who flew them. While I don't know if the early F-104A/C's had flaps that could be deployed for maneuvering purposes, though they later were fitted and allowed a sustained rate of turn of around 7g (not sure if this was with the early J79's or not), but it was respectable and comparable to the F-4's as an interesting note.

Dave, Oh well

The F-104 is impressive!

Seems better than anything I could whip up

Hope I didn't frighten you

I really love this design!

KJLakker, 1. I'll take a look around the forums you suggested 2. As for the Star Trek episode "The Doomsday Machine": They wanted the vessel to have a hull number that was easily distinguishable from the Enterprise, after all they weren't sure how fans would react if they saw what they thought was the Enterprise all busted up. It's interesting to note that the hull-number designations for the Federation ships in Star Trek were originally based on the following (this is probably more than you probably ever knew -- or WANTED to know about Star Trek) NC used to be a designation up to 1951 for commercial aircraft; N was used after CCCC was what was used by the Soviet Union Matt Jeffries figured by the time we'd be able to explore space like this, we'd have a global government. As a result he combined the two to get NCC He knew certain numbers like 1's and 7's were easily recognizable and wanted to use those in the design He ultimately concluded that if you had a vessel that was say the 17th class of cruisers, it would have NCC-17__ in it's designation and the first ship would be NCC-1701 Early on the Enterprise wasn't going to be called a Constitution-Class, but a Starship Class (This admittedly makes little sense when you generally name the class after the first vessel in the line) This was deviated early on: In the 1st season there was an episode titled "Court Martial" which had a chart of vessels being repaired and refitted. A vessel with the hull number NCC-1700 was on the board with the designation "U.S.S. Constitution" (probably where the term Constitution Class came from) While I suppose one could label the first vessel in the line with a -00 designation, it does seem pretty weird (a prototype would make more sense of course modern day we rarely build prototypes of aircraft and usually just go with pre-production models, and with ships the first ship is the prototype) By the second season: "The Doomsday Machine" pretty much did away with it. It should be noted that regardless, there was an artist (who was actually a draftsman who worked for Convair at one point) named Franz Joseph Schnaubelt (who just went by Franz Joseph). Some of his drawings were considered canonical at one point (Gene Roddenberry changed his mind later on for one reason or another) though some of the designations were briefly mentioned in Star Trek The Motion Picture (Epsilon 9 Radio Chatter) and most of the vessels had a -1700 designation (except the Constellation) Of course since NCC was to apply to cruiser vessels only based on Jeffrey's own designation and other vessels listed in FJ's book were classified as Destroyers, Frigates, Dreadnoughts, and Tugs, this sort of throws a monkey-wrench into everything (albeit unwittingly). Later on in Star Trek: Especially in the retouched versions some of the vessels like the Exeter were given designations like NCC-1647 which also deviated from this, but at that point the system proposed was all but meaningless I used the name Constellation for a number of reasons but part of it is because I'm an ST fan, I used 1710 because it made more sense and my birthday's October 17.

MiG Buster Really? The perception of motion seemed to be better in LOMAC Gold and you didn't have that weird wide-angle lens thing. I never would have thought the USAF would have a desktop simulator when they have actual simulators. It's pretty obvious they would have taken classified stuff out (especially the capabilities of the electronics).

I understand

Wrench, Okay, so you generally are looking for people who build models? How does one become a developer (I assume you'd want people to develop a model or two)? BTW: Do you have any room for "idea people" (i.e. people who either are model builders or non-model builders, though are regardless conceptual people who come up with ideas that can be adopted by other model builders?)

Fubar512, And a higher mach number has different airflow traits... What you're describing with the U-2 is coffin corner: It even happens 747's where you have a 10-20 kt window at heavy weights.

Wasn't DCS based on an actual flight sim used for the A-10? I personally think of the following as follows Falcon BMS as being the best F-16 simulator in terms of a fully clickable cockpit; it seems to have the most realistic HUD symbol arrangements, radar modes, and the communication setting modes. DCS World as having the best A-10 simulator in terms of a fully clickable cockpit; Soviet Bloc aircraft have displays that really capture the differences in ADI's and meters. Falcon BMS accurately captures the positively insane noise level produced by a jet canopy up DCS World generally seems to have better graphics that flow smoother, with the exception of the following: The view seems to be an excessively wide-angle camera view and everything seems to be curved, size relations don't always look right, and the hangars seem clunkier Each have their strengths and weaknesses

An airplane with a stall speed of 160 KIAS at sea-level one would think would theoretically stall at 160 KIAS at 60,000 feet: However it doesn't exactly work that way. The reason has to do with mach-numbers and that plays a role in shockwave formation: 160 KIAS, sea-level is around Mach 0.24; at 60,000 feet is between Mach 0.81 and 0.82. The shockwaves and the pressure gradient makes stalls easier so the critical alpha will lower as you go up. Technically it might be more practical to think in terms of mach number first; then think of airspeed as the amount of air you are plowing through.

I'm not sure what the rules are for introducing one's self on this forum, but I just joined, I'm from New York, and I'm 44 years of age

Fubar512, Awesome sight BTW: The Mutara Nebula was purple, red and probably had some blues in there

What a shame

strikeeagle There was a forum I was a member of which required you to introduce yourself within two days or they'd revoke your membership, so I figured I'd better be safe than sorry! Stratos and Dave Merry Christmas to you too BlitzGreek Awesome name, very creative: And Merry Christmas to you too

What worries me is things that involve no human in the loop: Already the Navy has proposed an autonomous sub, then there's a computer called Jade-2 being tested in the South West (scary stuff and reminds me of Skynet)

I can abide by forum rules, but to be honest I wouldn't mind being given access to the political discussion forum.

Dave, That's a shame. I know this will sound weird, but I actually had a hunch he had Parkinson's (A family member of mine had the disorder and the way he was shaking in the Dogfight's video and seemed to have little emotion on his face seemed likely) -- it's one of those things you hope you're wrong on but...