Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Midway on July 03, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
-
I don't know whether to post this here or in help, but I notice that moving the rudder in an aeroplane, for example, the ME 262 (and others) from right to left and back again causes an immediate swing of the nose of from 45 to what seems to be almost 90 degrees while moving at 200 to 300 mph.
I have never piloted for real and am no expert on aero dynamics, but it seems that wind resistance at these speeds should not enable an aeroplane to move along the yaw axis this easily. :headscratch:
I wish for the aero dynamics to be as realistic as possible. :aok
PS: I do have scaling enabled on this axis.
-
Are you using full rudder trim that direction as well when you test it?
-
Are you using full rudder trim that direction as well when you test it?
neg. I have autotrim on.
-
I have a feeling midway can't judge angles very well.
-
I have a feeling midway can't judge angles very well.
See film below... note the compass degrees at each extreme.. swings almost to North heading starting at 45 deg and to past 60.
Rudder extremes example.ahf (http://www.4shared.com/file/8WSFF4NW/Rudder_extremes_example.html)
Also note how fast I can swing from one extreme to the other.... Can a real aeroplane do this flying almost 300mph? :headscratch:
Maybe it can... I don't know, but it just seems very loose and almost like swinging from a chandeliers feeling to me.
-
15 degrees of compass movement is way short of the 90 you where quoting.
-
15 degrees of compass movement is way short of the 90 you where quoting.
15?
Film shows it almost touching going full north (say to 10deg) to then 70deg.... 70 -10 = 60deg.
So 50 or 60 degrees of movement from one extreme to the other mulitiple times in a few seconds.
I don't know the exact extremes, but the point is it swings somewhere between 45 and 90 degrees which seems like a lot at almost 300mph.
I wish that I either be told that this is in fact realistic or that it be corrected. :salute
-
:salute
15?
Film shows it almost touching going full north (say to 10deg) to then 70deg.... 70 -10 = 60deg.
So 50 or 60 degrees of movement from one extreme to the other mulitiple times in a few seconds.
I don't know the exact extremes, but the point is it swings somewhere between 45 and 90 degrees which seems like a lot at almost 300mph.
I wish that I either be told that this is in fact realistic or that it be corrected. :salute
:salute Midway, in a real aircraft, 1 or 2 things could happen real quick with the situation you describe. You would either, assuming you are maintaining wings level, snap roll in the direction of the nose movement and wind up in a flat spin! Or, in the worst case, structural failure could result from a yaw of the magnitude you describe.either one is not a pleasent situation. You can get away with that in Aces High, but not in a real aircraft.
-
:salute :salute Midway, in a real aircraft, 1 or 2 things could happen real quick with the situation you describe. You would either, assuming you are maintaining wings level, snap roll in the direction of the nose movement and wind up in a flat spin! Or, in the worst case, structural failure could result from a yaw of the magnitude you describe.either one is not a pleasent situation. You can get away with that in Aces High, but not in a real aircraft.
Should be fixed in Aces High. :old:
-
Should be fixed in Aces High. :old:
You're basing your assumption that something is wrong with the flight model based on your lack of knowledge of aerodynamics..
ack-ack
-
Don't forget #3 - things can bend before they break
-
Should be fixed in Aces High. :old:
Works fine, try it with any non-nancy-boy plane with more delicate/tempermental yaw characteristics. Some planes can keep the tail behind the prop easier than others.
-
You're basing your assumption that something is wrong with the flight model based on your lack of knowledge of aerodynamics..
ack-ack
No. :rolleyes:
Based on my belief using basic intuitive reasoning that such extreme movements seem unrealistic. :)
AKAK :bhead
-
No. :rolleyes:
Based on my belief using basic intuitive reasoning that such extreme movements seem unrealistic. :)
Oh but you are, you're just not bright enough to realize it.
Are you basing your claim there is an issue on fact or on belief? Please provide data that shows there is an issue with how the rudders are modeled incorrectly in game that consists more than "your belief".
ack-ack
-
Oh but you are, you're just not bright enough to realize it.
Are you basing your claim there is an issue on fact or on belief? Please provide data that shows there is an issue with how the rudders are modeled incorrectly in game that consists more than "your belief".
ack-ack
Not being an aero dynamics engineer or RL pilot, unable... Ergo my raising the issue hoping real pilots either confirm or refute my belief/intuition. :)
Do you have anything more useful to add? :)
-
Should be fixed in Aces High. :old:
the thing midway is that we arent flying real airplanes in real combat. in real life fighters wouldnt think of doing the dumb things we do in ah like slow down to stall speed, attack formations of buffs alone, i can name hundreds of things we do that werent done in rl.
but this isnt real combat in real planes. this is a game and something has to give for the sake of making it easier to play. you can rip the wings off a spit16 really easy. try doing it to a pony see how successful you are. I have only done it twice and both times i was surprised as hell.
semp
-
the thing midway is that we arent flying real airplanes in real combat. in real life fighters wouldnt think of doing the dumb things we do in ah like slow down to stall speed, attack formations of buffs alone, i can name hundreds of things we do that werent done in rl.
but this isnt real combat in real planes. this is a game and something has to give for the sake of making it easier to play. you can rip the wings off a spit16 really easy. try doing it to a pony see how successful you are. I have only done it twice and both times i was surprised as hell.
semp
The flight model can still be improved if there is something unrealistic about it -- no matter how people want to use their aeroplanes in Aces High.
-
So you are stating that Hitech a rl pilot doesn't know how a rudder works and has incorrectly modeled it in game correct midweeb.
-
So you are stating that Hitech a rl pilot doesn't know how a rudder works and has incorrectly modeled it in game correct midweeb.
Well, I am sure he knows how a rudder works, but I am also sure he can take a look at the ME 262 flight model to see if there is an opportunity to improve this aspect of it... and whether said opportunity may exist elsewhere.
Flight models for historical aircraft do present opportunities for improvement, on occasion. :old:
:)
-
Midway I'm sure you can improve your posts. Most things are not perfect and can be improved. Everyone would prefer it if your posts were better, even you. Better posts would help to make the game better. Please improve your posts as soon as possible.
-
Midway I'm sure you can improve your posts. Most things are not perfect and can be improved. Everyone would prefer it if your posts were better, even you. Better posts would help to make the game better. Please improve your posts as soon as possible.
:aok
-
Midway I'm sure you can improve your posts. Most things are not perfect and can be improved. Everyone would prefer it if your posts were better, even you. Better posts would help to make the game better. Please improve your posts as soon as possible.
:headscratch:
Original post said it all, I believe... subsequent post provided film support. :salute
Nuff said. :)
-
The flight model can still be improved if there is something unrealistic about it -- no matter how people want to use their aeroplanes in Aces High.
no I dont think so midway. see most of us have never flown or will never fly an airplane. so the game has to make it easier for us to actually be able to fly. it's a give and take between realism and the ability for the non flier to actually be able to fly a cartoon airplane. you make it realistic and this game will go from being a game to being a flight simulator used to train pilots to fly in real life situations. if you make to make it real, there's a couple of places i can post a link to but they wont charge 14.99 per month. you will be looking at thousands.
semp
-
The flight model can still be improved if there is something unrealistic about it -- no matter how people want to use their aeroplanes in Aces High.
Again, what is unrealistic about it? What evidence do you have that will show that the rudders are modeled incorrectly? You don't even know if there is anything wrong and you want them fixed...lol.
ack-ack
-
I don't know whether to post this here or in help, but I notice that moving the rudder in an aeroplane, for example, the ME 262 (and others) from right to left and back again causes an immediate swing of the nose of from 45 to what seems to be almost 90 degrees while moving at 200 to 300 mph.
I have never piloted for real and am no expert on aero dynamics, but it seems that wind resistance at these speeds should not enable an aeroplane to move along the yaw axis this easily. :headscratch:
I wish for the aero dynamics to be as realistic as possible. :aok
PS: I do have scaling enabled on this axis.
:airplane: Midway, just remember, this is a "flight simulator" game and there is just so much the computer programmer can do, (without spending a whole lot of money), and I think overall Hi Tech has done a outstanding job with a game that you can play for 50 cents a day. He has tried to pay attention to small details which makes this game soooo much better than other on line flight sim's. Next time you fly a B-29, take it up to 15,000 feet or so and do some "takeoff and departure stalls, full power", with gear down and 50% flaps. Having flown the 29 for a little over 900 hours in the middle 50's in the USAF, Hi Tech got it real close to the real thing. You don't get the tail buffet as in the real one, as you have no control over the cowl flap settings in the AH game. Shut down 2 engines on one side and do some approach to landing stalls, gear down and full down flaps, you might be surprised how real the ole bird reacts. As they say in the south, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth", just ride and enjoy the free ride!
-
:headscratch:
Original post said it all, I believe... subsequent post provided film support. :salute
Nuff said. :)
So you think people should just assume that the best is already being done?
Original rudder modeling did it all? Is that your point? :D
-
:airplane: Midway, just remember, this is a "flight simulator" game and there is just so much the computer programmer can do, (without spending a whole lot of money), and I think overall Hi Tech has done a outstanding job with a game that you can play for 50 cents a day. He has tried to pay attention to small details which makes this game soooo much better than other on line flight sim's. Next time you fly a B-29, take it up to 15,000 feet or so and do some "takeoff and departure stalls, full power", with gear down and 50% flaps. Having flown the 29 for a little over 900 hours in the middle 50's in the USAF, Hi Tech got it real close to the real thing. You don't get the tail buffet as in the real one, as you have no control over the cowl flap settings in the AH game. Shut down 2 engines on one side and do some approach to landing stalls, gear down and full down flaps, you might be surprised how real the ole bird reacts. As they say in the south, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth", just ride and enjoy the free ride!
I fully agree with you and very much appreciate your RL perspective and HTC's well developed flight model. All I am saying is this one area of the flight model maybe could use an adjustment, assuming HTC has an interest in doing so. It just has an unrealistic feel to it which might be easily improved or explained as being realistic. I don't know for sure but thought I would make the wish in case it might be considered.
It is just a wish and request for review and most definitely not a complaint.
:cheers:
-
So you think people should just assume that the best is already being done?
Original rudder modeling did it all? Is that your point? :D
:bhead :bhead :bhead :cry :bolt:
-
earl1937 , with you experience of B29s, how fast could you go, maintaining a set of 3 buffs in formation ?
The reasoning about the question is : how should a correct formation be flying in throttle %.
Now in Arenas Bf110g2s can't even catch a set of lanc's at 20k, and B29s ,, bye bye :)
<S> earl
-
I fully agree with you and very much appreciate your RL perspective and HTC's well developed flight model. All I am saying is this one area of the flight model maybe could use an adjustment, assuming HTC has an interest in doing so. It just has an unrealistic feel to it which might be easily improved or explained as being realistic. I don't know for sure but thought I would make the wish in case it might be considered.
It is just a wish and request for review and most definitely not a complaint.
:cheers:
Unrealistic feel to it says the person who admits he has never flown a plane. Do you realize how moronic you sound when you post. How can you claim unrealistic feel to when you have never flown?
-
Wouldn't mind getting rid of the instantaneous snap from one side to the other if thats something that couldn't really happen.
But if you're asking for HTC to reduce the effectivness of rudders, well all I have to say is that Hitech is a pilot, and not an idiot. Add the two together, and I think its reasonable to assume that the deflection you get from the rudders are reasonably accurate.
-
Unrealistic feel to it says the person who admits he has never flown a plane. Do you realize how moronic you sound when you post. How can you claim unrealistic feel to when you have never flown?
Have been in many RL aeroplanes quite often, from small single and twin props to a variety of corporate jets. So I do have some sense of flight. I made my wish and put my question on the table. I will leave it at that now even though you think it moronic. Like I said at the beginning, if some RL pilots want to say it seems realistic to them, I certainly would accept that. Sounds like one has already opined that in RL what I describe is unrealistic and should result in a snap roll / flat spin or structural failure, both of which Aces High models in other situations.
Wouldn't mind getting rid of the instantaneous snap from one side to the other if thats something that couldn't really happen.
....
Agreed and this is my question / wish, if, as you say that couldn't really happen. Which is why I wasn't sure if this is a help forum item or a wish forum item.
Now, more than nuff said on my part. :)
-
Midway even if stomping the rudder in level flight would cause a snap roll that doesn't indicate a problem with the rudder modeling. A snap roll would be caused by unequal lift on the wings even if it was initiated by the rudder. Your question is really about yaw stability and damping at high speed. The point I tried to make earlier is that you can assume that HTC wants the best flight model possible in a MMOG given our hardware limitations and you needn't feel like they are waiting for you to remind them to do this.
-
He has autotrim on and he's not commanding full trim in the direction he wants to turn the rudder.
He will never see the same amount of yaw as someone who isn't limiting his gameplay with settings.
-
Now you are contradicting yourself midway.
-
He has autotrim on and he's not commanding full trim in the direction he wants to turn the rudder.
He will never see the same amount of yaw as someone who isn't limiting his gameplay with settings.
Trim does not limit full deflection.
-
Doing that rapid a rudder movement in a pitts which I have flown a very small amount would incur two results on me as a rookie pilot in my very limited experiences.
1)annoy my instructor
2)smash my head repeatedly against the canopy sides
although that would be only at 120mph, not 300mph so :headscratch:
-
Doing that rapid a rudder movement in a pitts which I have flown a very small amount would incur two results on me as a rookie pilot in my very limited experiences.
2)smash my head repeatedly against the canopy sides
Done that on 4 point rolls more then once.
HiTech
-
Done that on 4 point rolls more then once.
HiTech
HiTech saw my question / wish and could be considerring it's validity. :banana:
Here is another film of the same effect at a starting speed of close to 400mph.
http://www.4shared.com/file/_ZHr6xFN/rudder_extremes_350_plus.html
:salute
-
It's different when your chair is moving. :lol
-
earl1937 , with you experience of B29s, how fast could you go, maintaining a set of 3 buffs in formation ?
The reasoning about the question is : how should a correct formation be flying in throttle %.
Now in Arenas Bf110g2s can't even catch a set of lanc's at 20k, and B29s ,, bye bye :)
<S> earl
:airplane: Appreciate your question. Normally, we would have a IAS of 260 to 280, which depending on altitude, would produce TAS of 310 to 330. What I have found in Aces High, a manifold pressure setting of 35 inches and 2300RPM gives you a good true airspeed, yet slow enough to be accurate on bombing and easy for the guys who, for what ever reason, can catch up and join the lead formation. The most lethal formation that I have found in here is the inverted "V" formation.The lead bomber element at 18,000 feet, second element at 17,600 feet and at my 4 O'Clock position. Same thing on other side, a element of bombers at 8 O'Clock position. All other elements of course, form up the same way right and left of aircraft ahead and 400 feet higher. If you have, say 5 bomber elements, (3 aircraft), the top would be at 18,000 feet, the bottom two elements would be 800 feet below the lead bomber. This gives you a very effective "killing zone" behind the bombers as well as in front or from the top.
-
Done that on 4 point rolls more then once.
HiTech
People always wonder why pilots wear helmets. :aok
HiTech saw my question / wish and could be considerring it's validity. :banana:
Here is another film of the same effect at a starting speed of close to 400mph.
http://www.4shared.com/file/_ZHr6xFN/rudder_extremes_350_plus.html
:salute
Just because you can't fly better, doesn't mean you have to try to limit the rest. :devil
-
Is there a difference in how an aircraft with jet engines pushing equaly from the rear versus 12-13 ft dia prop blades rotating in front of the aircraft pulling it forward responds to rudder inputs in this situation?
-
Is there a difference in how an aircraft with jet engines pushing equaly from the rear versus 12-13 ft dia prop blades rotating in front of the aircraft pulling it forward responds to rudder inputs in this situation?
:airplane: Good question! Most single engine aircraft, be it a P-51 or a J-3 Cub, the rudder effectivness is aided by the slip stream caused by the prop. In a heavy multi-engine jet aircraft, nose wheel steering is the "norm" until VR is reached, then the rudder effectivness is a must. In a heavy multi-engine prop driven aircraft, such as the B-29, again the rudder is not as effective until you reach 70 or 80 knots of airspeed. The best answer to your question is by viewing in F-3 mode, different aircraft sitting on the runway for take-off. You will notice right away, the single engine aircraft all have much smaller vertical stabilizers and rudders, than does the bomber aircraft, which all have much larger vertical stabs and rudders. This is of course, is a requirement by the need of speed in the single engine aircraft, where as the heavy iron requires more directional control, hence the larger stab and rudder. Hope this is helpful!
-
The very large vertical stabilizer on the B-17E, F and G was added due to insufficient directional stability at high altitude for accurate bombing. The B-29's vertical stabilizer was large to start with based in prior experience with the B-17 series.
-
The very large vertical stabilizer on the B-17E, F and G was added due to insufficient directional stability at high altitude for accurate bombing. The B-29's vertical stabilizer was large to start with based in prior experience with the B-17 series.
:airplane: My friend, hate to disagree with you, but since you brought it up about the vertical stab and rudder, the size of which is dictated by the VMC, with 2 engines out on one side! The larger the rudder is, the lower the VMC with 2 out on one side. Has nothing to do with high altitude bombing! The dosal fin area was added to enhance stability in all flight realms in the E, F and G series, along with other improvements in the aircraft in general.
-
Directional stability has a lot to due with bombing accuracy. The flying wing bombers (YB-35 and YB-49) both scored very low in bombing accuracy due at least in part to yaw instability.
I've read the big tail on the B-17 was added to improve stability in yaw, even so the airplane still wags it's tail quite a bit...at speeds well above Vmc.
-
Directional stability has a lot to due with bombing accuracy. The flying wing bombers (YB-35 and YB-49) both scored very low in bombing accuracy due at least in part to yaw instability.
I've read the big tail on the B-17 was added to improve stability in yaw, even so the airplane still wags it's tail quite a bit...at speeds well above Vmc.
:airplane: You could be right! Would be very interesting to read engineering notes of flight crews who tested the 17 and 29. You fly an aircraft which always, or I have been told in the past, had directional problems with the loss of 2 engines on one side. The U.S. Navy was very interested in the B-24 as a anti-submarine patrol aircraft, but because they spend a lot of time "low and slow" in their normal duties, they elected to go with the single vertical stab and rudder, again concerned about the VMC with 2 out on one side.The Privateer was externally similar to the Liberator, but the fuselage was longer to accommodate a flight engineer's station, and had a tall single vertical stabilizer rather than the B-24's twin tail configuration. The defensive armament was also increased to 12 .50-in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in six turrets (two dorsal, two waist, nose and tail), with the B-24's belly turret being omitted. Turbosuperchargers were not fitted to the engines since maritime patrol missions were not usually flown at high altitude.
The Ford Motor Company (which produced B-24s for the United States Army Air Forces) had earlier built an experimental variant (B-24K) using the single tail of a B-23 Dragon.[2] Aircraft handling was improved, and the Air Corps' proposed B-24N production model was to be built by Ford, but the order was canceled on 31 May 1945 and the B-24N never entered production. The Navy's desire for substantial redesigns, however, had sustained interest in the new tail assembly.
The Navy eventually took delivery of 739 Privateers, the majority after the end of the war, although several squadrons saw service in the Pacific theater in the reconnaissance, search and rescue, electronic countermeasures, communication relay, and anti-shipping roles (the latter with the "Bat" guided bomb.)
Being a B-24 pilot yourself, I am sure you can appreciate concern about the "moment arm" of the rudder in the vertical axis! But anyway, was an interesting thread! To bad we can't have more discussions like this..Brings back a lot of memories when learning the ins and outs of the old 29C.
-
Unfortunately the WWII era manuals on the airplanes didn't have nearly as much info as a modern POH has. For instance for both the B-17 and B-24 there is no Vmc listed. In the B-24 book the section on two engines out on takeoff starts with "This shouldn't happen to a dog!" While I agree with the statement it doesn't give the pilot a lot of info on how to handle the problem. I think in large part some of the numbers simply weren't known, testing had not been as detailed as it is today when aircraft are certified. Quite probably neither would be able to be certified today as a civil aircraft, they each have some flight characteristics that today wouldn't be tolerated. (stall characteristics, adverse yaw, roll performance to name a few)
-
Anyone ever had their feet hurt the next day after flying around thunderstorms for a few hours?
The top of my right foot is killing me today.
HiTech
-
Anyone ever had their feet hurt the next day after flying around thunderstorms for a few hours?
The top of my right foot is killing me today.
HiTech
Might I suggest an alternative... There is this cool game/flight sim without thunderstorms that lets you...
Um.... nvm. :bolt:
-
Unfortunately the WWII era manuals on the airplanes didn't have nearly as much info as a modern POH has. For instance for both the B-17 and B-24 there is no Vmc listed. In the B-24 book the section on two engines out on takeoff starts with "This shouldn't happen to a dog!" While I agree with the statement it doesn't give the pilot a lot of info on how to handle the problem. I think in large part some of the numbers simply weren't known, testing had not been as detailed as it is today when aircraft are certified. Quite probably neither would be able to be certified today as a civil aircraft, they each have some flight characteristics that today wouldn't be tolerated. (stall characteristics, adverse yaw, roll performance to name a few)
:airplane: You sir, are correct about the lack of fully exploring the flight envelope of new aircraft, back in the old days! Fortunately, we now have "wind tunnel" testing to establish those "V" numbers. I do recall an old gentleman, who starting flying the mail in the early 30's, then the "hump" for about a year, then was transferred to a B-24 outfit operating out of Queensland, Austrialia, talk about establishing some minimum flying speed IAS. If I recall correctly, if they weren't at the "number", the plan was to crash straight ahead with wings level, rather than roll inverted over the runway and ending upside down on the pavement. From some of the comments I used to hear from the old heads, who flew 17's and 24's in the big war, handling at slow speeds with full loads was at best a "crap shoot" sometimes because of the short field lengths they had to work with back then. There was never any consideration for a "balanced field length" or accrearate and stop distance computations until the B-29 came along. Anyway, there had to be some interesting situations during the WW2 area, because they learned a lot of things by trail and error. Not a good development program!!!
-
Anyone ever had their feet hurt the next day after flying around thunderstorms for a few hours?
The top of my right foot is killing me today.
HiTech
You whack it on the bottom of the panel in a downdraft?
To answer your question....No.
-
You whack it on the bottom of the panel in a downdraft?
To answer your question....No.
On bumpy days the RV likes to wag its tail, holding the rudders solid stops this. But on days where I am not just sitting back monitoring and looking for airplanes, some times my feet will be pushing hard on the rudders holding them, with out me realizing it.
Skirting between thunder storms VFR does not make for a relaxing flight.
HiTech
-
1966 Cessna 150D square fin, Ft. Worth to Kelly AFB.
I had the opportunity to watch lightning cross between thunder heads while we were threading openings between thunder heads to get back to Kelly. Looks like something out of a science fiction movie when the lightning discharges across clouds. We stayed away from those looking for bigger openings. There were other places that the sun shined down through low light showers from behind the clouds making rainbows near the ground.
Later that year the same opportunity to look at thunder heads and shower rainbows in a restored Bobcat as a passanger and again rear seat in a T34 avoiding thunder heads. Texas always impressed me as a place wit alot of tall clouds. 63 I saw Peshawar from the air in a Taylorcraft Austor (J/5 Aiglet) when the first monsoon fronts leading with lightning strikes were arriving out of Inda. Then it rained and thundered almost nonstop for 2 weeks and turned that part of Pakistan into a mud pit.
-
Donner pass was fun riding through on the way to land this weekend, had a good headache the next day. :bhead Didn't help the sky was making baby Theads above.
-
Decent to land at TRK begins around minute 5.
http://youtu.be/T3jmEWZWSjs
.
-
Decent to land at TRK begins around minute 5.
http://youtu.be/T3jmEWZWSjs
Will probably still take 20 minutes for youtube to finish uploading/processing and for it to be ready to view.
:x You're a real pilot too, huh? :rock
-
:x You're a real pilot too, huh? :rock
I help fix them, not break them. (not yet, maybe soon, going back to school for A&P first, and even then its a long way to the front seat of this bird.)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0104.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0106.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0115.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0113.jpg)
(^ two bonified Tuskegee Airmen for Friday dinner)
-
I help fix them, not break them. (not yet, maybe soon, going back to school for A&P first, and even then its a long way to the front seat of this bird.)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0104.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0106.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0115.jpg)
(http://i675.photobucket.com/albums/vv115/Babalon84/CAF%20SoCal/Truckee%20Air%20Show%202012/IMAG0113.jpg)
(^ two bonified Tuskegee Airmen for Friday dinner)
Awesome. :rock