G.J.S

“Possibly”. However, I flew late ‘80’s to very late ‘90’s, I doubt that ‘which side’ would change, I really cannot see why one side would be more favourable than the other. It may be the preferred side now, who knows. But I cannot see any reason to change?. There isn’t any hard and fast ruling that dictates joining one way over the other - as long as tanker crew gives the join instruction, you follow their direction. We always joined off port wing, echelon if more than single ship, and left via stbd wing - waiting there until all receivers in your flight have topped off, then you exit as a flight following the tankers ‘kiss-off’.

No problem. However, I’ve always joined from port and left via starboard. A couple of “straight ins” when fuel critical, but never personally stbd first.

The only thing I could suggest, without actually seeing the install, is to use some sort of substantial masonry bolt via the attachment points for the units. Sort of an upgrade if you will. Depending on unit weight, you may need something that extends at least 4 inches into the brickwork. Exchange the bolts one for one and you shouldn’t have to remove the unit. If the wind causes movement, it’s either going to be the anchoring points, or something about how the unit sits in the attachment frame? Unsure chap, wish I could see . .

1., yes - lowest fuel is the winner (subjective!), and takes priority if very low. 2., After the shout out about state, generally no - everybody knows the procedure- and everybody will be aware of who goes next etc based on states. 3., Doubtful, but I’ve only ever used RAF and USAF with drogue. 4., Absolutely! Typically on a war footing (the Persian Gulf War 1 being a prime example) tanking is performed with no comms. You get assigned a bracket - altitude, type, time etc - and that’s your tanker. He will be expecting you. Your only comms being the belly or basket lights. http://www.navedu.navy.mi.th/stg/databasestory/data/laukniyom/ship-active/big-country-ship/United-States/ATP/ATP56A.pdf

Is there a building manager?, or do you own the property? Building manager - it’s his/her problem, once you notify them of a loose unit, the onus is on them to sort it as you are paying for a property plus all services expected with it. If you own the property - bit difficult without actually seeing the offending unit.

Some very good images there, personal favourite- the night strafe!

Research the quote starting “never look a gifthorse . . . . “

Early ‘E’s! Beautiful shots Sir. I had the pleasure of F-4 for 3 years, before converting to another type due to F-4 retiring (RAF), but by god - what a ride!

Okay I’m done. Yes the 50 has a brake chute as standard, the chute release cable is down by the pilots knees right by the cassette player. You pull the cable and as a warning to other pilots in the vicinity, a brass band pops out of the chute tube after the chute itself, playing “Sweet home Alabama” at many decibels.

Hello again, the block 50 does not use a drag chute if you imagine the 50 as the base model of a car - customers can order the drag chute ‘as an option’ - but it does not come with one as standard.

True, although as stated, it’s the USAF b50 that is represented. Also Poland use 52+.

Problems on the production lines???

Wrong block, 50’s didn’t have the chute pack.

Bet that’s a pain in the ar5e . . . Sorry, had to!

ED & developers give you the tools, how you use them is entirely up to you. Unlike women, planes don’t mind if you use other planes, planes don’t mind you talking about other planes, nor do they mind you looking at other planes on the internet . The differences between the A-10’s are very marked. The original A was very much a grunts plane, dependable, easy, tough. The C & C2 are much more systems intensive, and will require familiarity and frequent use to get to understand them, and use them effectively. But I agree, the A-10 has a certain something that is highly addictive, myself I prefer the A.

Could be an interesting area . . . .

Congrats Thinder - you are my first 'Ignore'! Your profile says 'retired', yet your spelling and general demeanor says mid 20's at a push. Your YouTube also says 'young person' in every way possible. Enjoy.

Okay . . . friendly warning now . . . be VERY careful. And if you must place a piccy of the YF-23, look where the hinge is for the tail, at any sort of AoA - the tail is in the airflow and little to no blanking. Pills taken - what did you fly? And for gods sake - spellcheck!

Typhoon - has limited inlet spill due to the leading edge flap, and the - albeit curved - flat plate splitter. This new "checkmate" design has literally a fat gaping lip, the spill from the inlet edge I can envisage as being not insignificant, in part due to the forebody shape ahead of the inlet which will impart a 'parting' effect to the local airflow at higher AoA. X-31 I remember well. TVC and a long moment arm via the canards give the research platform high AoA performance. Would be fairly good post-merge, assuming it lasts that long. HARV, yes I'm familiar with that program also. How do I figure my assumptions? Lets just say I'm 'very familiar' with aircraft. The hinge - for the V-tail, the hinge is surprisingly high up away from the fuselage. That - along with the high angle - would lead to blanking of the surfaces at high AoA. If the hinge-line were lower and the angle not so great, then the blanking effect would not be so pronounced. I have followed your tip. As for the reams of research papers on uber-maneuverability, a very large percentage of the findings point to types that would either be of limited utility in the real world, or represent idealistic end goals that require a great many preceding technologies to be developed before they can be used in any meaningful way. Some do find their way into production articles however, but only those that rely on . . . . . . I cant anymore, this is boring the pants off me enough that I am sat here firing skittles out my nose into the waste paper bin that's about 6 feet from me . . . I'm getting about 70% in though! May I ask your background? BAe? Similar? True - its like putting lipstick on a Hippo.

I will still uphold my assumption, there are just a few things about the layout that scream “problem”. Unless they are relying on computers, even a donkey could fly if you strap a suitably programmed FCS to it, but first and foremost you need to learn from design errors or incompatibilities, and not ignore them because the computer can pick up the slack.

How long has the Caucasus region been in DCS? Only NOW you’re going “hang on a minute!?!”

Xilon would love some of the names given to airbases that are used more frequently than their actual names, he’d have a head fart.

But there IS an airstrip there . . . No infrastructure, but there is a strip. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Kutaisi,+Georgia/@42.2470424,42.6249297,4995m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x405c8ce30e54af2d:0xfbec41b2d626656f!8m2!3d42.2662428!4d42.7180019?hl=en-gb

And having a dress blues rematch with Hoser . . .

RIP Snort.