My second was "aren't freakishly tall people generally excluded from aviation billets?" Or is that only combat roles? Or an obsolete stereotype held over from the 1960s?
In other hole-related news, the liquid nitrogen is gone, the shed is gone, the hole is closed, and the sidewalk has been re-poured. This phase of Hans Gruber's nephew's plan appears to be complete.
Different aircraft will take people of all shapes and sizes. There are different anthropomorphic measurements that will preclude certain people from flying certain aircraft due to the shape of the cockpit or other items.
For example... the 2 rear ejection seats in an S-3 would shave off the knees of a dude with a femur longer than XX"... and nobody with an upper body ratio of X:X could fly an A-4 because their helmets would be in constant contact with the canopy. For Hawkeyes... a person needs to be able to reach the escape hatch with the seat in the fully-down position. I know that there are qualifications like that in all aircraft. I have a 6'8" buddy who flies SuperHornets with no problems. I know a 5'1" girl who flies the Prowler (rest in peace EA-6B). Being tall, however, is way better than being short. I'm 6'4" and you can take your tiny cockpits and shove them... I want a nice big fuselage that I can walk around in and take a **** occasionally.
And nobody ever really looks good in a flight suit, they always add 30lbs, no matter how many combat flights and how bad-*** a warrior she might be. However, when you hang 30lbs of gear on your torso and some headgear that Dark Helmet would be jealous of, looking good in a photo just comes natural to me.