Hawg11

The version you have says Su-30 (it can be downloaded from lockonfiles, AFAIK). The game in question says it is a Su-35 simulator? Are you sure it's the same developer?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml "But there has been much discussion in aviation circles, he said, about the Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain ridge while trying to land at Cali, Colombia, in 1995. All 159 people on the jet were killed. The plane's ground-warning system alerted the crew they were about to hit the mountain, but the crew did not retract the plane's speed brakes as they tried to climb. They hit the mountain ridge about 250 feet from the top. The speed brakes on an A320 would have been retracted automatically, Airbus points out."

Is this a non-profit organization making the movie? Looks pretty "Hollywood" to me... http://www.imdb.com/rg/TITLETRA_CLICK_SCRPLY/wmp-300k/title/tt0475276/trailers-screenplay-E27051-10-2

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." RICE: ...in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/ The New York Times Thursday 10 February 2005 Washington - In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission. The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021705W.shtml Indeed.

Check the upper right hand corner of this shot...Still, it's AI for now... http://games.1c.ru/uh1/gallery/uh1_4.jpg

Ideally, any SA threat is eliminated by fast movers. Then the A-10s have a field day. Although it's not out of the realm of possiblity for a single ship to fly over the target area to root out an SA threat.

Evans & Sutherland would be the folks to team up with, in a truly perfect world.

I did my best to google lsa2, lsa, etc., to no avail. I also tried searching for "Panorama" which, according to this screen, is the software used to create maps in Lockon. http://www.lockon.ru/img/technology/pic1_22.jpg Panorama uses a .map extension, so if you know of any software using .map files, let me know. It may be as simple as renaming a .map file to .lsa2.

The real Red-Flag is at Nellis AFB, Nevada. I'm not sure about where to get the movie....

I haven't seen the movie yet, but have been to the real Red Flag. Using pods mounted to the planes, they can track each aircaft (and ground target) in real time from the ops center projected on to three very large screens. It looks almost like a video game.

More about the liquid filled G-suit... http://www.michaelbehar.com/scientific/defying_03_02.html http://www.autofluglibelle.com/html/statements.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-suit "As the pilot is subjected to G-forces, the liquid is pushed down to the pilot's leg by the same G-force. The result is a much faster response than the pneumatic version. Preliminary testing shows that pilot wearing the Libelle G-suit can withstand a force of 10G with ease while the same pilot can barely withstand 9G wearing a regular G-suit. 'Libelle' is the German word for dragonfly, the inspiration for the idea."

I'm not sure if the mirage uses it, but it's reported that using a waterfilled G-suit, pilots are able to sustain 11 G's as though they were 9G's.

Maybe it was the F86 I read that about? "As sufficient aerodynamic data were not available, Bell developed a precautionary backup in which the entire tail plane could be moved as an emergency measure. The solution worked so well that it was later adopted as standard on all supersonic aircraft. It also became a well-guarded military secret, accounting in significant part for the ascendancy of F-86 Sabre over Mig-15 during the Korean conflict." http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/stuff_eng_bell_x1_part1.htm

It had an elevator trim, (kind of like the trim tabs on the A-10), which, in turn, moved the entire control surface (unlike the A-10, which uses the trim tabs only to adjust the heavy elevators. It essentially lets the wind do the work). *I think* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_(aircraft) "Supersonic aircraft lack elevators, because of early supersonic flight research that revealed that shock waves generated on the tailplane rendered separate hinged elevators ineffective. Instead, on supersonic aircraft the entire tailplane moves to control pitch." Hmm, so yeah (now that I think about it), I guess the hinges do probably work. Damn! I hate being wrong. Anyway, they aren't elevators in the conventional sense...and, instead, are used to rotate the entire stabilator. Sorry, it says I have to spread more rep around b4 i can give it to you again. Now I've gotta go re-read my history. I could have sworn I read that the horizontal stabs were disguised with paint.

It was discovered early in flight testing (for the X-1) that while supersonic, elevators were too unstable. The X-1's horizontal stab. actually rotated as a single piece. It was disguised (due to the emerging cold war) with paint to make it look like an elevator.

Rgr that!

Be the first to correctly identify why most fighters' horizontal stabilizers rotate as one piece (as opposed to elevators).

Hehe. I accidentally deleted the wrong post. then re-entered it for clarity. Here's some more information about ground effect being possible to break through by a real fighter pilot. http://www.freeweb.hu/f15e/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=10;t=52

Rgr. Cheers.

Being a professional photographer I can field this one with absolute certainty. Yes, if the shutter speed is fast enough. As to the speed limit at airshows, the only restriction is that they can't break the sound barrier, in the US.

I would!

See above. I flew, and landed 3 times, the F16 simulator at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

http://www.freeweb.hu/f15e/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=10;t=51 Question by SwingKid: "F-15C with F100-PW-220 engines, no CFTs, no armament, but full internal fuel. Shouldn't it be able to accelerate like a rocket in a pure vertical climb (even if only slowly)? The engine thrust seems to be greater than the weight of aircraft and full fuel load combined, no? I imagine that in practice, the fule load for "viking" takeoffs might be reduced, to allow a safety margin, but I don't know how much - or if this would actually mean the Eagle can't climb like this with full fuel." Final answer by Yeti (F15E piot): "...predicting vertical performance is much more complex than simply comparing aircraft weight and rated engine thrust."

Actually, I flew an Cessna (minus takeoff/landing) once and the F-16 sim (including takeoff/landing) at EAFB, Alaska. Regardless, I was right about the last thing Swingkid and I argued about (link available upon request), and I'm right about this.

Pass dat 'ting around, Mon.