After reading all that has been said, I think this pilot (Mr. McCue..?) should be given some deference for what happened. It obviously wasn’t intentional, he may have made a performance mistake..but who hasn’t. Now, granted, a mistake in his field could mean deaths and the losses of a great deal of money or property, but it is still human to err. I’m sure that if the authorities had an issue with this that they have already (and maybe still) are “discussing” it with him with some seriousness. All in all, if they have no big issue with it and are satisfied with the reasons he gives, so should we. This individual made a mistake and walked away-many have not. Do you punish him for being able to do so while those who did not are memorialized??? I’ve seen a number of occurences at airshows which make one wonder about the overall safety of actually having such an event. Thankfully, the vast majority are pure accident and the authorities understand this and allow the show to go on. We all must have some tolerance for inevitable human error, lest we be homebound and afraid to venture out into this beautiful life that we have…

Well, as an America, the movie was garbage. It was one of the best examples of making a movie for pure distribution that I’ve seen in a while. Affleck is an a$$. I hope that the non-U.S. members of this forum haven’t gotten the idea that this is how all Americans view world events. I’ve seen the references to “The Few” on this board and the thought of what it could turn out to be make me cringe-first Tom Cruise teaches the Japanese how to be samurais and now this… :rolleyes: “The Battle of Britain” is how a movie should be done and “Tora, Tora, Tora” is just fine in my book. Any of you guys know of any good war/aircraft films from other nations that never get mentioned?

Yes, I’d have to agree, those were a couple of pretty rough landings there. Because the refueling probe was still extended…? Okay, maybe, but it still seems awfully rough…

I thought the X-32 was a freakishly interesting looking bird too and I had a little hope that it would win, but… The X-35 was deemed a better V/TOL performer in hover tests due to its direct lift set-up versus the X-32’s vectored thrust. Conversely, the X-35 is the more complicated and likely to weigh the most of the two. Also, the X-35 was much closer to true production standard than the X-32 which was still in the process of being refined when it was tested. Major changes to the wings, nose, canopy, etc. were being planned for the “F-32” had it gone into production. It had been determined by Boeing that the delta wing form would have had poor approach speeds and characteristics for carrier landing, but, the leading edge flip-up slats were a short term fix for the competition which did improve this problem some. As for payload, as one poster above said already, both aircraft were designed for the same internal payload using the same engine so any payload difference between the two would be largely negligible and speculative. Range? Well, the X-32 in delta form might likely have had more internal capacity than the X-35, but since that was to be canned anyway, there’s no reason to believe there would have been any great difference in the two. All in all, either aircraft would be likely to perform the roles intended and had there been no X-35, we would be talking about how lucky we are to have an aircraft like the F-32. By the way, both of these prototypes reminded me of specific aircraft of the past. The X-32 with its gaping nose intake, deep fuselage sides, and nose-up attitude on the ground reminded me a great deal of the A-7. The X-35 with its high ground stance, prominent/large engine exhaust, and side intakes makes me think of the F-105. I make no comparisons with these other than in appearance….

Yes, what you’re seeing is the wing instrument boom which, in this picture, is at such an angle to make it look like an upturned wingtip….

I will certainly agree in regards to the A-4 Skyhawk. Can anyone think of a realtively cheap, single-engined, lightweight aircraft like the A-4 that has accomplished more and performed more roles from a variety of basing like the Skyhawk? It was omni-role and omni-based and did it all for a fraction of the cost of a Phantom or even the later F-16. Don’t get me wrong, I like F-4s and -16s just fine, but… Consider a modernized, new build A-4 with an engine in the 20k lb class, modern off-the-shelf mulitimode radar and electronics suite, eh? How many countries would that be perfect for?

SRPATTERSON, what brought you to Breckenridge from Kansas??? I grew up and still have a place outside of town there and fondly remember the great airshow they use put on (:( , alas) and the occasional visit to the airport and Ezell’s shop. Haven’t been a while, so, what else do they have in the works there right now? Take care….

It’s funny, Deino, I recently did a Google search for info on the CSA and 95% the info I found dated back to the original concepts in the early-mid nineties. The only bit I found mentioning it recently was a U.S. Navy blurb stating it was still being considered at some point, but nothing definite. Likely, it is not going to happen. The S-3 is being phased out in favor of helo ASW by the Seahawks. They were particularly usefull when there was concern about Soviet Navy attack subs getting close enough to inflict damage on CBGs, but that’s no longer a real concern and they believe helicopters can handle the vast majority of current sub threats. Also, it doesn’t appear there’s any real need for a new airframe for AEW other than the Hawkeye. I think you will see Vikings for years to come in the US-3 cargo and KS-3 tanker forms, but nothing else….