Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on August 05, 2007, 02:20:02 am
-
:eek2:
http://www.metacafe.co.il/watch/326057/israeli_pilot_land_saftly_with_one_wing/
-
Thats NUTS!
-
Holy ****.
-
My bro told me about this a couple of days ago, I didn't believe it at first... that is nuts. Kudos to the pilot, but I think his wife would have prefered him to eject rather than risk his neck. Unless he's really just Anakin in disguise... he seems to be in the same category of pilot. :lol:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/326057/israeli_pilot_land_saftly_with_one_wing/
-For people that want English controls in metacafe. :p
-
I saw this on the History channel when it played - pretty freaking amazing :) But this is actually pretty old IIRC, like sometime from the late eighties (didn't watch the clip, so apologies if it said it there).
-
He's right. It's really old. It's been used over and over again though as a testament to both the F-15's stability and Piloting ability.
-
I've read about this many times now. Its a completely fascinating story...its a true testament to the pilots ability, a bit of luck, and some really great engineering in the F-15. Given that most of the plane is considered a lifting surface you can start to understand how he managed to keep the thing flying.
-
and when I play flight simulators... I only manage to get my b17 ejected when it has one wing...
-
Ummm well...B-17s don't fly so well with just one wing...
-
heheh, "solo wing pixy". nice job, anyway, any landing you can walk away from, and all.
-
usually the hard roll induced by loosing a wing will prevent the ejection system from functioning, or black the pilot out with alot of gs, or at thev ery least make it difficult to reach the eject handel. then theres the matter of timing it right, even if the system works, you want to be sure you triger it when youre pointing up otherwise you would reach the ground alot sooner than expected. at ground level the ejector seat is supposed to give you enough altitude to enable a safe chute opening with plenty of time to decelerate. so if youre only at a couple thousand feet, and you eject inverted, there goes your safety window.
instead he put his plane into afterburn. the extra surface pressure on the plane helped stop the roll. then he determined that his plane was still controllable. and why waste a n airplane if you know you can control it and get it home. nort to mention who would want to eject at that speed?
-
Holy crap...
as he said, "you fly fast enough that you're like a rocket--you don't need wings". Hmm... can I get into the F-15 program? :P
-
He also had his tail wing, so that would've helped.
-
probbibly had to put his stick hard left to to stop the roll while at the same time using some right rudder or differential thrust to compensate for the drag difference. then keep his nose up a little higher to improve lift.
-
IIRC, the A-10 has made it back with only a wing and a half...
-
An A-1 Skyraider did the same at least once.
-
An A-1 Skyraider did the same at least once.
With a wing and a half or just a single wing? I've never heard about flying back with just a single wing.
I've seen some remarkable battle damage to A-10s, P-38s, and Corsairs that you think would have brought down the aircraft.
-
aircraft like the a-10 (and military aircraft in general) have alot more wing area than they actually need. in essence they are designed so that they can loose some. ive heard stories about planes coming home with less than a wing, but ive never seen any in-flight video, only photoes of the damage with the plane on thr ground. it has alot more impact seeing that bird fly without a wing.
-
An A-1 Skyraider did the same at least once.
With a wing and a half or just a single wing? I've never heard about flying back with just a single wing.
I've seen some remarkable battle damage to A-10s, P-38s, and Corsairs that you think would have brought down the aircraft.
I was replying to jr2 - I meant just a wing and a half :)
-
Another aircraft tidbit about wing breaks...the F8F Bearcat was actually designed with break points on the outer wings so that in the event of a high G pull out or other airframe straining move the wings would snap at a predetermined point and the plane would still, in theory be flyable. It wasn't perfect so they took that feature out of the F8F-2.
-
IIRC, the A-10 has made it back with only a wing and a half...
I've heard one coming back with one of the engines and side of tail section blown off
-
Yup..tha A-10 is a tough one
-
Designed that way too...I love how the cockpit area is often called an "armored bathtub". A very visual sort of description. The A-10 is probably the best CAS aircraft ever built. It takes all of the lessons of WWII and later CAS aircraft and combines it into a heck of an aircraft. They were going to phase them out but apparently they have been so useful recently that they are upgrading and extending their lifespan into the 2030 range I think. They still want to replace them with F-35s or F-16s or some sort of nonsense like that but I think they will just keep them going until they can't.
Ultimately they will probably be replaced by an armored UAV or some sort.
-
This has great potential as a new kind of weapon.
-
Designed that way too...I love how the cockpit area is often called an "armored bathtub". A very visual sort of description. The A-10 is probably the best CAS aircraft ever built. It takes all of the lessons of WWII and later CAS aircraft and combines it into a heck of an aircraft. They were going to phase them out but apparently they have been so useful recently that they are upgrading and extending their lifespan into the 2030 range I think. They still want to replace them with F-35s or F-16s or some sort of nonsense like that but I think they will just keep them going until they can't.
Ultimately they will probably be replaced by an armored UAV or some sort.
from what ive heard theyre being upgraded with a new avionics and a new glass cockpit. replacing the a-10 with something like f-35 is stupid. the a-10 is good at flying low and slow. its got the armor to endure lots of ground fire. it can also loiter over a combat area for a lont period of time to be available as the ground forces require. it all comes down to wing shape, a steep wing just isnt good at low and slow. you need a nice big straight wing for that. and only at 8 or 9 million each, thay are a bargian for the amount of damage they can do.
-
... They were our most feared weapon in Gulf War I, perhaps II as well... along with the AC-130 Spectre. Both loiter for a long time, dealing out incredible amounts of damage.
-
And from the Transformers movie we can clearly see that both of those types work fairly well against transforming alien robots :D
-
And from the Transformers movie we can clearly see that both of those types work fairly well against transforming alien robots :D
I was just gonna say... ;)
Man, when that AC-130 opened up I got chills.
-
the movie's got nuttin on the real thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfThQygJ_2o - A-10 brining the hurt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk - Minigun POWR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbP89YAVblg - C-130's show of force
-
now do you understand my unhealthy fascination with gatliung guns :D
-
Gatling guns are great and all, but gatling-gatling-gatling guns (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44988.0.html) are better. :D
-
Watching the "related" videos... they're cool!
-
I'm not so sure about the engineering work here, the then McDonnel Douglas team had underestimated the lift caused by the body of the aircraft which initially led them to the argument it is impossible to fly without the other wing. There are other related incidents (i.e. Did not think about that when designing the thing!) like the ammo belt of a fighter originating from a certain country that was sucked inside the engine. The interesting part was that the engine inlet was before the ammo belt ejection hole and the belt was sucked forwards while aircraft was also moving forwards. You never know the aerodynamics and vortexes around the fighter, if you don't check it in a wind tunnel I suppose.
The F-15 pilot did something interesting which was litting the afterburner in that situation, this is completely opposite of what the procedures would dictate. Well, some people simply have the intuition and do instinctively right and also tend to be in right places in the right moments. I think that the fully story concluded that the pilot was first demoted for disobeying the command to eject (he had a flight instructor sitting in the Weapons Systems Officer seat) and then promoted to major for saving the aircraft.
A-10 is a very tough and well designed airplane, but I would still think twice about its survival abilities in modern threat environment. In Vietnam US Air Force learned that the range and accuracy of AAA fire was a lethal threat to slow aircraft, while faster bomb trucks usually came back unscatched. Nowadays, also Surface to Air Missiles are a grave threat.
-
Teh A-10 is very manuverable and can fly very low. ;7
And nuke...yer not the only gattling fanatic over here! :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSYa0yJQqg <--- watch dis one! Gattling tribute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf9bCebm4aE <---- Scientific analysys of why a gattling gun is so good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCjDjQF6rjg
-
In Gulf War I, the A-10 was known to have survived direct missile hits... one of the engines stalled. The pilot simply spooled it back up and left the area. ;7 Go read "Warthog"; excellent book.
EDIT: Nuke & TrashMan, looky here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCWrL6VjsY&NR
-
The Indonesian in me is cringing at how much ammo (read: money) is being wasted, while the soldier in me is crying '**** YEAH'
-
A-10 is a very tough and well designed airplane, but I would still think twice about its survival abilities in modern threat environment. In Vietnam US Air Force learned that the range and accuracy of AAA fire was a lethal threat to slow aircraft, while faster bomb trucks usually came back unscatched. Nowadays, also Surface to Air Missiles are a grave threat.
I think it was designed for that sort of environment. They still have a limited standoff ability with the Mavericks so they don't have to fly right overhead but I guess the best use of the A-10 is in conjunction with a F-18G and F-16CJ's all running SEAD. Not that you want to get hit but the A-10 was designed to fly into the thick of things. I don't think the modern environment has changed all that much since the A-10 was designed. Certainly in the counter insurgency world having a dedicated CAS aircraft is paying off as well.
-
The Indonesian in me is cringing at how much ammo (read: money) is being wasted, while the soldier in me is crying '**** YEAH'
when you consider that the ammo in these guns is far cheaper than air to ground missiles, it seems lest wasteful. so in an air to ground or air to air role, its well worth having one.
the low caliber gatling guns used in choppers and on humvees has its role set as a fear inducer. the second you see that gatling gun roar to life and open up, you jump into your foxehole and pull your helmet down over your eyes. now i admit that when on the ground, the oppritunity for gross overusage of ammo is alot greater. rather than a pilot who has a half a second window to pull his trigger, you have some gung ho soldier wio is abit trigger happy and has orders to lay down suppression fire, that ammo is gonna go quick.
as a suppression weapon is where that fear comes in to play, your job is not to hit the enemy, but to get him down on the ground while you either advance or retreat. if you should happen to hit the enemy, which is much more likely with a gatling, so much the better. you wont see gatlings issued to individual soldiers as standard issue any time soon.
-
You can't really miss with that thing...the density of fire is simply redicolous. (see second vid I posted for details)
You seen that vid where a guy shoots at a car from a minigun mounted on a black van? The car looked like swiss chesse*100... it's amazing how it's chasis didn't simply collapse under it's own weight with all those holes...
-
oh yea and you can kill stuff with it too :D
miniguns make excelent turret guns, no matter they be implacements or on a vehicle. with that kind of tracer density, its impossible to miss, the trick is learning to let go of the trigger, and not to get carried away. :D
-
Regarding A-10 survival ability, it is manueverable and nimble, but it doesn't have speed. When avoiding flak, the speed drops some amount and the maneuverability goes also down.
Remeber that the current infrared guided AA missiles are can form an image of the aircraft on the sensor head. This means the missile could home in engines, but is more likely designed to hit the cockpit. I wouldn't be surprised if Russians already had such systems among their SAM launchers. Also bear in mind that A-10 can fire only a couple of Mavericks before the aircraft is inside the range of the close range AAA or SAM systems.
An aircraft that couldn't fulfil its mission objectives and was forced to turn back home is a victory for the air defenses, it doesn't need to be destroyed. In War Against Terror (is this the real campaign name?) the A-10 has surely been effective, there is no doubt about it as there is nothing that the enemy could have done to it. Take a look how well the Apaches fared in Iraq to get a view of the times when the enemy actually can do something.
I never really understood the need for Gatling gun, except the aerial combat and even there the effective rate of fire is about the same as the single barreled cannons. The videos, while impressive, are also misleading. Here the targets are clearly marked and the chopper is flying quite low. There is not much need for a high density of bullets if there is no visual of the enemy. And from the psychological aspect of having a gun that has huge rate of fire, me, I think I would be past caring if I got hit either by 3 or 30 bullets.
Well, I can give out that I'm from the old school where they said that the best density of bullets is one bullet/dead body, or, even better, one bullet/injured person. Don't need to carry that much ammo around then (Did anyone get the joke?). There is also another advantage on this, namely it is very difficult to tell where that single occasional bullet came from that took down you comrade. Personally I think that the huge rate of fire actually fixates in shooting a single target rather than killing or disabling the current target as effortlessly and effectively as possible. By the way this is coming from a person who needed three to five bullets with a machine gun to took down moving (by electronic means if anyone wondered) targets 500 m away. If you are a superpower and have good supply connections, it might be more sensible to differ from this line of thought.
However GAU-8 I'm not so sure of, was it really better to design a tank buster gun and then construct an airplane around it rather than lofting more Rockeyes in a single pass?
-
Why a gat gun?...becosue you're not close so your'e less precise... try hitting something with a machinegun from 1-2km.
Yeah, a A-10 mows down a tank and everything in it's sorroundings.. but at least it rips the tank apart...
-
1-2 km distance is already pretty much for a gun which doesn't have a scope. And even for a rifle with a high magnification scope it is quite long away. So what I'm trying to say is that one should not even try to hit a target 1-2 km away with a machine gun.
The aircraft cannon is a different thing then but that was already covered. However, I still don't understand the need for the tank busting gun. If anyone had more info about this I would be more than happier.
-
bullets are cheaper?
-
Also to get back on topic, it seems A4 Skyhawks have received some damage also.
The link: http://www.skyhawk.org/
Check out the Combat damage & mishaps and the TINS tales subpages. There are some parts in TINS tales that totally crack me up. The time I wished I wouldn't have to fly... Also there is a story about a Hornet aviator who had to land the plane with other engine shut down and other using full afterburner. And of course the humor page. Definetely worth checking out.
And if you are interested in aviation, http://www.f-16.net/
is a good place also. I have wasted countless hours of my life reading some of the best crew chief stories there. Also some more or less funny bits like listening music in a U-2 and transmitting the tunes back to ground control. If it only hadn't been Britney Spears...
Not to mention a B-1 blowing F-16 out of the runway (they didn't put a kill sign on that bomber after that).
Is it only me or do other people find aviation humor totally hilarious?
Mika
-
gatling guns also have somewhat of a shotgun effect. at about a 4km distance the gau-8 puts all its rounds in about a 10 meter circle. with a hundred rounds fired a tank in that circle is almost entirely certain to be hit. scopes arent currently feasable on aircraft (especially if youre using the aircraft to aim). still it would only take a single gau-8 round to punch through most tanks.
a single barrel gun for the same type of round could be articulated on a gimbal system and aimed very accurately by the targeting system. just put the target on the cone, give the gun a second to aim and pull the trigger when the hud starts beeping. the problem with that is that the barrel for this gun would be incredibly long. it would need a support frame because you dont have 7 of them providing structural support to eachother. you couldnt mount it on the outside because of the drag involved, and to mount it internally you have a minimum pivot angle of only a couple degrees. and you would still have that scatter radius. the gatling gun would still do a better job.
another field of reserch being homing bullets and bullets supplemented by rocket motors. which i figure would make it possible to hit targets 10 klicks out. of course all the actuators, sensors, fins, and motors take up bullet mass and explosive material. you still need room for a depleted uranium shape charge.
-
I think you misunderstood my question. What I wanted to know was the reason of developing the tank busting gun instead of using rockets and Rockeyes. With, admittedly, there is not much thought behind in this (I didn't calculate the cost estimates), but I would think it would be cheaper to carry more iron bombs in the target area instead of developing a flying tank buster cannon. There would be no need to remain in the target area after bombs have been dropped. I don't think 30 mm depleted uranium slugs are cheap either, but bombs would be there in any case even if A-10 would not exist.
Mika
-
What else are you going to do with depleted uranium?
-
One thing... all the bullet debris is bound to have a large negative effect. Shooting off thousands of rounds creates thousands of pieces of debris. It would make many covert-ops unsuccessful, as bullets that are deflected by hull armor could possibly damage support ships, transports, freighters, gunships, and even cruisers! The sheer number of these bullets would likely create a negative effect on attacking fighters and bombers.
-
I think you misunderstood my question. What I wanted to know was the reason of developing the tank busting gun instead of using rockets and Rockeyes. With, admittedly, there is not much thought behind in this (I didn't calculate the cost estimates), but I would think it would be cheaper to carry more iron bombs in the target area instead of developing a flying tank buster cannon. There would be no need to remain in the target area after bombs have been dropped. I don't think 30 mm depleted uranium slugs are cheap either, but bombs would be there in any case even if A-10 would not exist.
Mika
A tank-busting gun is versatile, easily maintainable, more precise, cost effective and can have a lot more ammo on an aircraft than a bunch of dumb bombs - and as history has shown, strafing runs with the A-10 are quite effective :)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/GAU-8_avenger.jpg)
wow
-
The Warthog is one of the best troop-support craft available, but it's being withdrawn in favour of Helicopters and some new VTOL craft iirc.
As for the landing, incredible, I think it would have stood less chance if it had only lost half a wing, I think the tailplane assisted stability because there was nothing to block airflow through it, so it acted almost exactly like a 'spare' wing, there's probably some freak condition where the imbalance in surface area is largely balanced out by the unevenness of the airflow at high speeds or the like.
-
One thing... all the bullet debris is bound to have a large negative effect. Shooting off thousands of rounds creates thousands of pieces of debris. It would make many covert-ops unsuccessful, as bullets that are deflected by hull armor could possibly damage support ships, transports, freighters, gunships, and even cruisers! The sheer number of these bullets would likely create a negative effect on attacking fighters and bombers.
??? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
He means that in space nothing would stop the shrapnel, bullets, etc from ricocheting all over the place... except for the heavy, gigaton explosion resistant armour. ;)
-
We're talking real life, not Freespace here....besdes, don't bombs have shrapnel too? When you blow up a ship parts of it will fly in all directions..
-
Regarding the A-10 performance in general, I listen to the professionals' (in this case, former US attack pilots) opinion:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1806.html
In another thread a Vietnam veteran wrote that a A-10 would probably have been slaughtered over Hanoi due to the slow speed and difficult target location. Even the F-4s got their share of AAA. But there was little losses from A-7s or A-8s. This is said to be due to the accurate weapons delivery system, which doesn't exist in A-10. And also A-7s and A-8s dropped quite a lot of ordnance in Vietnam.
-
Mika I see a variety of divided opinions there. Seems to be that the Air Force doesn't particularly like the A-10...its not really part of their ethos but the Army loves the plane in comparison. No doubt thats why the A-10s are currently being upgraded to the A-10C configuration with more sensors, smart weapons, a new cockpit, and all sorts of goodies for the fleet. When they do end up replacing it...it'll probably be an armored drone like I said which is obviously the best option because then you don't worry about loosing a pilot and in theory a drone could be small enough to be launched from a near frontline position.
No matter what happens its always the CAS plane that really seems to make the different. In the 1930s it was all about the strategic bomber and how it was going to revolutionize warfare where massed bombing raids would bomb the enemy into submission. Without going into the details and the horror stories, historians are convinced that the strategy didn't particularly work. Instead, while the strategic bomber factored into the Western European theater in a semi-significant way, in the Pacific only for the last year of the war truly, and almost no involvement in the Eastern European theater it was the CAS aircraft that ended up being the key essential item.
For the Russians it was the IL-2, the USAAF found the P-47 worked great as a CAS aircraft, and the RAF stumbled upon, tripped over, and then finally accepted the Typhoon as probably the best tank buster/terror weapon (because in actual reality Thunderbolts and Typhoons killed few tanks physically but terrorized the crews, made roads impassable, and boosted Allied morale). The Germans tried a few different combinations with less success (Stuka, Bf110, Hs-129, etc.).
I think no matter what happens you need something that can go low and slow that can support the troops directly. Attack helicopters are good but I think they are even more vulnerable than an A-10 which might be able to absorb a few SAMs...the attack helicopter doesn't get that sort of advantage. Whoever your army is...you need something that can do the job.
I think the Russians are quite content with the upgraded Su-25T which is somewhat similar although perhaps faster. Its still a bit of a slug.
-
IIRC, the A-10 has made it back with only a wing and a half...
A-10s can fly back with one engine and 2/3 of a wing gone... if discovery is to be believed.
-
I've seen the photos & read the testimony of the pilots... they can. They can also absorb 57mm shots to the cockpit from the underside... "titanium bathtub" XD The A-10 is excellent for CAS, because it has a loiter time of ~2 hrs ( DS I ), depending on how far it is to the front lines. It can wait there for instructions from the ground crew. Whereas an F-16 or F-15, you are lucky to get 20-30 mins, because they then have to get more fuel. Also, the A-10 has the advantage of slower stall speeds, so that the pilot can actually eyeball the target after shooting at it, and if necessary, make another pass. Waiting for recon photos to determine whether a target is taken out or not is a little bit too late. Not to say that the F-15/16 doesn't have its role... they are good for CAP & other missions... esp early on in the first assaults, you need the dash-away ability when taking out the AAA and SAM sites for the A-10s. After the area is halfway secure, the A-10s roll in and destroy the remaining threats to the ground forces, and then provide CAS for the troops. Helicopters are wonderful for this, but unfortunately, they are extremely vulnerable to AAA and SAMs.
Oh, and always be cautious when listening to "expert" opinions from the Air Force... they are the ones that said that WWII fighter pilots should fire at maximum range, and the pilots hard to learn the hard way (ie, getting shot down) that they needed to close within 300 feet for better accuracy. The Air Force also sent in the B-17s (Flying Fortresses, right?) without fighter cover, where they got decimated. The Air Force took a fully functional, prop-driven B-2 (flying wing) variant, and, because the inventor refused to give the blueprints to a competing company that the Air Force wanted to use, destroyed all prototypes and blueprints. The Air Force initially did not want anything to do with the F-15, Boyd had to trick them into using it... they didn't want the F-16, either (the F-16 is one of the most manueverable craft ever). I could go on... read the books Boyd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29) and Warthog... (oh, yeah, one of Boyd's close friends helped develop the A-10... had to wrangle the Air Force into producing that, too). Oh, a note about the Boyd book... he seems to either have a bunch of very devoted followers, they seem to brag on him a bit much, IMHO... but he had some bright ideas (look in the wikipedia, Energy-Manueverablility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Maneuverability_theory) theory and OODA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop) loop.
-
Regarding WWII stuff, according to my understanding the US Air Force was part of the army during the time, and while especially US ground generals were inexperienced using the airborne weapon systems. This is also the case in Europe before Spanish War. After that, it became quite clear for some Europeans that the bombers will not be able to support themselves. I don't know why this information was not transmitted to US, but this was known in Europe a long before US realized it (Vietnam). Besides, because the air force was commanded by the army, it is not a surprise that the army wants the ground pounders while ignoring the significance of the air control. This is also the case with then air force generals never having any flying experience at best and explains the bomber generals which were not accepting the F-15 or F-16. The air forces have been separated from the ground forces ever since due to the drastically different strategies and tactics.
Also regarding Boyd, while his contributions remain significant for US, this might not be the case for all the air forces in the world.
Here's something what is not really well known around, please read all the pages in both links:
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/zimbo-01.htm
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fineka01.htm
Their vision and experiences are scaringly close to Boyd's. Or is actually Boyd's, the only difference being that these guys never designed an aircraft. Tactics and organisation wise (turn rates and turn radius!), get inside the enemy decision loop etc. etc., it is exactly the same deal, only 30 years earlier. And I wouldn't bet my money they were the first ones either.
Mika
-
Prolly not... Boyd was just trying to compile all of that into something useful that could be taught. He probably used those sources, as well as others.
-
I think it is not about compiling 'all' of that, since the FAF system is the 'all' by itself! I see Boyd formulated the equations for energy-maneuverability theorem and then pushed it all forwards by urging the USAF to build fighters that do not lose energy as efficiently as the earlier ones. So, Boyd's contribution is in the aircraft building, not in the tactics or in the strategies. You could also say teaching, but the stuff was really taught and applied at least (meaning that someone else might have figured it before 1940s) 30 years before Boyd wrote it. Maybe 'popularizing' would be a better word.
More so, take a look at the current Swarming doctrine. This is a doctrine that US armed forces use against Iraqi opposition in current war. It is again the same stuff which was used here 70 years ago, the same stuff which was applied in your Independence War and in early Napoleon's wars, the same stuff Mongols used when they started their raids and the same stuff Sun Tzu wrote in the old China etc. etc. etc.
So in short, there is nothing new in the doctrine, it is simply common sense and it should happen by itself in a well-trained army. And it is effective as the beginning of the current war showed! The only problem is that the doctrine was never intended for lengthened occupation if the occupied territories proved unwilling to co-operate! That is the reason there is not enough troops in Iraq at the moment.
Mika
-
...right.. "popularizing" would be the correct term. I know he compiled all of this research & stuff and tried to get the AF to see the benefits... with limited success.
-
Holy cow! I definetly raise my hat to the pilot of that F15, GJ :yes:
-
Interesting the course this thread has taken... :lol: from pilot skills, to avionics, to the A-10, to gattling guns, to usefulness of specific plane types, to aerodynamics...
-
Mars, random beamage with no useful post = no. Post deleted. And hey Gortef! :)