lovemigsVery nice pics guys, thanks and please, keep them coming absolutely love the MIG-29 and especialy have a soft spot for any twin seater – leave alone the MIG, way too cool:cool:
lovemigsAhh, don’t we just love this Government. Haven’t they spent their pennies well :rolleyes:. Now if only that Drama about Blair last Thursday on C4 would happen in 2010 :p!
2 years to go before I leave this dump of an island!
Ohhh are you coming to Australia? give us a yell when you get here…:D
lovemigsAhh, don’t we just love this Government. Haven’t they spent their pennies well :rolleyes:. Now if only that Drama about Blair last Thursday on C4 would happen in 2010 :p!
2 years to go before I leave this dump of an island!
Ohhh are you coming to Australia? give us a yell when you get here…:D
lovemigsSome of his arguements make it difficult for me to believe he’s more than a guy who feeds in data, runs the software, and then gives it back to the engineer. If he’s actually a structural engineer then he ought to know better with some of his arguements.
Fair enough… all I’m saying is, maybe we could be more respectful and polite to each other even when disagreeing:)
– You just got me thinking actually, when you mentioned you don’t know what Flex is doing for a job.
Would it be good idea to start a thread (in GD maybe) where people can actualy specify what they do for living?
I think it would be interesting to know who does what, although there would be people that perhaps can not reveil exactly what they do…hmmm
lovemigsNot necessarily.
Why not?
– It is nothing wrong with being respectfull towards someone who has the qualifications and experties, even if you don’t believe them or not agreeing with them….:)
I for one, not necessarily believe (or disbelieve for that matter) his explanation, but I do respect his opinion and knowledge in that area, certainly he is more of an expert in that area than I’m….who knows one day we might know the whole story, with a lot more details.
cheers
lovemigsI am also aware of media-brainwashed zombies who brainlessly swallow every official version that is being given to them, no matter how stupid…
Well Flex, I don’t have any particulear opinion as to the reason why they collapsed or why they did so quickly etc, or who exactly did it, but I’m certainly keeping an open mind as to any logical explanation either way…
I certainly don’t believe (unless proven otherwise) that American goverment or officials were invcolved in the attacks on WTC, but I’m not dismissing the possibility of maybe them maybe knowing that it might happen.
As wether that Bin Laden did it or not – I don’t know after all the people who say that he did it and they have evidence are the same ones who had “evidence” and said a lot of other things that proved to be false or outright lies
In order to achieve other goals – war on terror, defence spending war in Iraq possibly now war on Iran???! etc etc, maybe they had to let it happen (WTC)?! Maybe they didn’t stop it, but not necessarily they were involved?!
Who knows, think about it, if they prevented it what would they achieve? – “well done boys etc” – maybe increase security etc but hardly justification for more or less unlimited power (and budget) to attack anyone you like and change any law you like…but actually having the attack taking place opens a lot of possibilities……you have all the public support in the world.
Don’t try too hard to convince these guys here of your theories etc, some of them are the same ones who believed that Iraq had WMD and was going to use against USA and that Sadam had links to Al Qaeda and he had something to do with 911 etc, ’cause GWB told them so, after all that was proven to be pure lie etc, they were told they went there to “free” the Iraqies etc and help them get rid of Sadam.
Well, 3000+ US soldiers killed and thousands more Iraqies killed – was it worth it??? for what??? to get rid of Sadam – the only person able to hold the country together and have all these violent people living together and have some sort of stability and piece in a contry that is impossible to have any other way – democracy? in a place like Iraq? give me a break…
Well, some people will still fight tooth and nail to convince you that is the case ’cause George told them so…in a matter of months or 1-2 years they’ll pack up and go – they are going to leave Iraq in a state that is 10 times worse than they found it, then they’ll come up with other reasons…
Hey look on the bright side, it could be a good thing that people like you are not taken seriously, and your theory or explanation accepted, at least you don’t have to watch your back all the time…..:)
For the record I’m not a big fan of Sadam or Iraqies for that matter (although have nothing against them either) or anything else, if anything – the reason I’m pi$$ed of is because of the coalition losses and also Australian troops being involved and in harms way – for what??? for someones lies? and to distroy someone’s country in the process…
Well, I’m sorry for using my own brain instead of believing George Bullsh!!t
lovemigsThe indications do not support an F-15 being shot down by an Iraqi fighter. If you’re trying to claim it was an Iraqi fighter, the burden of proof and responsibility is on you to support your claims, the burden of proof does not rely on others to disprove you.
Like I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If I understand correctly AWACS and other radar indicated that there were no hostile or unidentified aircraft in the area. There were documentation of SAMs and AAA in the area, so it is logical to assume that their loss is probably due to SAMs or AAA.
In the case of Scotts F-18 there were SAMs exploding in the area, so they assumed the aircraft was lost to a SAM. Because of the war they had too many other urgent things to do than to review the tapes. After the war they re-examined the AWACS tapes and found that there was an unidentified aircraft close enough to Scotts aircraft it could have shot Scotts aircraft down. Also the behavior of bogey supported an ATA missile launch. Scott asked for permission to fire on the MIG, but the AWACS was unable to reasonably identify it. The ROE prevented Scott from attacking the MIG, the MIG ran, so Scott proceeded with his mission, judging by the radar tapes the MIG doubled back and snuck up behind Scott and shot him down. I think his wingman heard an explosion and saw a flash, but assumed it was just another erroneous SAM and they assumed there wasn’t a MIG in the area. Since it was night and they were under radio silence, they didn’t notice he was missing until much later. If I understand Scott had a firing solution, but was not granted permission to fire, Scott would have likely gotten the kill, but since he didn’t get permission he ended up getting killed.
well, interesting story and explanation as to what happened and how it happened, and of course you have credible sources and links for that so we can verify as to that is exactly what happened, since what everybody else is presenting here or claiming you are asking for evidence or sources…?:)
lovemigsat the moment I’m on my laptop still in bed and the picture bellow is on it.
On my other PC (no.1) there’s a nice JAS-39B, my back up one has another SU-27, my PC @ work has JAS-39C:)
regards,
LM
lovemigsat the moment I’m on my laptop still in bed and the picture bellow is on it.
On my other PC (no.1) there’s a nice JAS-39B, my back up one has another SU-27, my PC @ work has JAS-39C:)
regards,
LM
lovemigsgood stuff flex thanks already watched the first one.
I haven’t seen it before (this particular documentary)seen parts of it but I already knew what to expect as I always read between the lines anyway.
good stuff
regards,
LM
lovemigsgood stuff flex thanks already watched the first one.
I haven’t seen it before (this particular documentary)seen parts of it but I already knew what to expect as I always read between the lines anyway.
good stuff
regards,
LM
lovemigsHere’s one of a Tomcat missing half a wing and another of one landing with one wing all the way back (they actually tested this in flight testing). Also just because I happen to see it while searching for the Tomcat photo, a photo of a B-52 landing with no tail. Also real.
would you happen to have the stories behind the first and third photos – was it a combat damage or accidents/midair collision etc.
It is always interesting to see how sometimes planes with extensive damage still able to be controlled and safely landed.
thanks
lovemigsIt’s not necessarily the center tunnel that creates the lift. It’s anything on the upper fuselage that makes the air go faster than the air underneath the aircraft. On the F-14 and 15, the cockpit shaping (and it’s blending into the rear fuselage) and engine bulges play a part.
I understand that, and do agree with your explanation, just what I was trying to say in regards to the 29,27/30 and F-14 – was that being “thinner” in that section etc it is a bit more of a propper airfoil section etc i.e. more aerodynamicaly efficient etc…it is like you have your two wings (L+R) and have a (short span) centre wing…hope it make sense.
regards,
LM
lovemigsHas enough to land with one wing. 😉
absolutely:)
but please don’t do that @ home:D
lovemigsSorry for not quoting your entire message as it has appeared a bit too long.
I only can answer you with the same words I have already written: something lighter, more survivable and more nimble would have been better. Sure its loadout would have been more limited than the one of the Thud was, but given the poor efficiency of dumb bombs it would not have made any real difference, I think.
So let me sum it up and repeat: a smaller, lighter, twin engined, twin-seat tactical bomber with great armor protection of the vital parts, something along the lines of a twin engined MiG-27 on steroids.. Even with a half of the useful payload of the Thud it would have done exactly the same or very similar job as F-105s have. That is my opinion, don’t ask me for proofs.
sorry to get involved in the conversation between the two of you, but the way I interpret it, he was asking for alternative that was available or in service @ the time (hence he said besides the f-4 phantom) rather than theoretical alternative…
I mean is rather easy for most to analyze the shortcomings and past mistakes and propose something better, but @ the time maybe nothing else was available…? My personal answer is I am not aware if there was a better aircraft for the job (besides the f-4)
Sign In
