Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (27325)	11/18/1997 4:04:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

85% is the pilot. Iraqui pilots had little combat experience and not much airtime. Also they were not flying the top equipment. During the Korean war the yanks flew against Russians who were WWII aces and it was a different story. Vietnam too. The MIG is a very nice plane to fly. The fifty hour engine I don't know about. The Canadian GE turbines with niobium blades are faster and better too but they don't burn out. Maybe the latest drawingboard testers are vectored and will jink fast but a Mig with its superior wing area will out turn a F15. Turn the planes around and the results would have been the same. Also the Mikoyan Gurevich 29 had a tube computer for a reason. It was to run a very high power radar that was jam proof and it was also to avoid electromagnetic pulse from H bombs scrambling the memory. CF100 had the same design. Russian MIGs have little nav equipment because they are vectored by a mother station or a glonass system. -----------------------------------------