David Hingtgen

Ok, VF-0 has at least ailerons, if not flaperons. Any pics of it flaps down? BTW--if it's moving its ailerons like THAT, why the heck isn't it using its spoilers????

It's all about the deployment angle. The orginal F-15's had much smaller airbrakes, that deployed to a more extreme angle. But it caused lots of buffeting and affected the trim a bit. So they redesigned it (Block 15 I think) and almost all other F-15's have the much larger airbrake that deploys to a more shallow angle, to get the same braking without the bad aerodynamic effects. Almost all other jets have smaller brakes that deploy to a more extreme angle--F-14/16/18. The Tornado has a similar situation to the F-15: very large brakes that deploy at a shallow angle. The king of airbrakes however, is the F-8. It could slow the thing down in a vertical dive. Drag of the airbrake when fully deployed has always looked to me like it is equal to the entire rest of the plane! So in summary: the VF-1's airbrake is actually pretty normal, maybe a BIT undersized, no matter what angle it deploys at. VF-0 looks to have an improved version, in that assuming it deploys practically straight up to be effective, it has holes in it to alleviate buffeting. F-15 couldn't afford the drag holes would cause, for it had to be FAST.

Triple AMRAAM launchers? Interesting. Wonder if they look like triple Maverick launchers. (only triple-missile launcher I can think of in the real world)

A slotted flap is generally easy to distinguish from an aileron (at least when deployed). And double and triple slotted flaps are obvious even when retracted. A simple flap (like on 99% of fighters) is impossible to tell from an aileron. It's simply how it is used. A flaperon is one that acts as both, or either, depending when and where it's used. And yes, you can simply reprogram the computer, and "convert" an aileron into a flaperon. It is simply how its used. Now, F-16's have flaperons because their entire trailing edge only has one gigantic control surface. So it must be a flaperon otherwise it'd have to give up something. Used more like an aileron though. (FBW can make anything happen) F-18's have inboard flaps (only used as flaps), and outboard flaperons (normally move as ailerons, but when you select flaps down they'll go down too--but they'll still move as ailerons, with "down" as their new neutral position---of course they can't go all the way down as a flap, since then there'd be no more "down" to move to for roll) F-15's have inboard flaps, and outboard ailerons. No flaperons. (It looks like it should have flaperons, but it doesn't---no slats or leading edge flaps--the wing's just that big it doesn't need anything to land other than small, simple flaps inboard) AFAIK there's conflicting info on the VF-1, but I think it's all flaps. VF-0, I'm not sure. But as a rule, the way those plane's control surfaces are, they look to be like the F-14/VF-1. No ailerons, no flaperons. Just flaps, and spoilers. Same as the Tornado. Now, the F-14 and VF-1 and VF-0 have clearly different types of flaps (since the F-14 is unique, and most people who try to copy it fail since they don't know how they REALLY move), the arrangement is the same I think.

I think a big part of it is just that even the most casual airplane fan can tell it's the wrong type of F-14. I think 99% of sales were for the decal sheet, to use on another F-14 kit.

My kind of thread. I'll just go in order: 1. 12 AMRAAM's on 4 launchers? Not with anything that exists nowadays. Practicality? None, DRAG, DRAG, DRAG, and weight. Also, 12 is more missiles than even the most heavily-armed dedicated fighter carries nowadays. You're just weighing the plane down needlessly. Do you actually plan to take down 12 enemy planes yourself in one mission? (And you shouldn't be, for this isn't a 2D shooter where it's you vs the world--the military does not send 1 good pilot to take down the entire enemy fleet) 2. Yes you can mount stuff on a swing-wing. The F-14 is about the only swing-wing plane that doesn't. Whether the pylons swivel with the wings to keep everything aligned varies. Most do. 3. Depends on the launcher. AIM-120's fit literally anywhere, but AIM-9's can only be rail fired. They are generally interchangeable on most modern aircraft. (Any AIM-120 launcher can also accomodate the AIM-9, but an AIM-9 launcher cannot take AIM-120's) AFAIK, the Hase weapons set 5 includes LAU-128 launchers, which are the F-15's inboard pylon launchers. And they can carry AIM-9's. They are horizontal, not vertical. (Missiles go on the sides, not the bottom) See here: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/lau128a/lau128a.htm I have that set coming soon, I'll let you know exactly what's inside. (From the pics, it looks like there's more than just LAU-128's, I'm hoping for -127's since they're much harder to find) 4. Flaps. Boy is that a question. Let's see. From what I can tell, VF-0's have only flaps, no ailerons, like an F-14. So everything on the trailing edge is a flap. The "little rectangles ahead of the flaps" are spoilers, more on them in a bit. And they do hinge upwards. Flap's main purpose is to increase the amount of lift a wing is producing. Secondary purpose is to increase drag. On airliners, they are used only for takeoff and landing. On modern fighters, they are often SLIGHTLY deployed to gain manueverability for combat. (F-15's about the only one that doesn't do this). How exactly they move is a plane-specific thing. The F-14's are unique among all aircraft in the world AFAIK. I'd need better pics to comment on the VF-0's. (So many terms are just "tossed in" for Valk info--especially convergent/divergent nozzles, fowler flaps, etc--all these aviation terms, which are just added in to sound technical, regardless of if the valk actually has those features or not) Spoilers--generally the most multi-purpose and IMHO useful thing a plane can have. Spoilers can either make a plane roll, descend, slow down, or in some cases ascend. Airliners tend to deploy exactly how many they need, as much as they need, but fighters tend to use all of the ones on a wing together. Spoilers generally work all together, or left/right wing on a fighter. If you want to roll right, put the ones on the righ wing up, do nothing on the left. And vice-versa. If you want to descend and/or slowdown, put them ALL up. What happens depends on the plane and how much you put them up. Now, some planes (most notably the F-14) have a nifty little feature called DLC--direct lift control. This is used for approach/landing. This is so you can alter your rate of descent/angle, without altering the plane's own angle. This is important, and neat, especially for carrier landings. Simply: you can go up and down, without pointing the nose up or down. To do this, DLC puts all the spoilers slightly up. This is the new "neutral" position for the spoilers. Then, DLC automatically slightly increases or decreases the spoilers' extension based on pilot commands. The lift of the wing changes, without changing the aircraft's position at all. Pure up and down movement. L-1011's also do this. Finally--spoilers are the fastest-acting thing on a plane, nothing moves faster. Nearly every airliner has ground-only spoilers (for they are too powerful to ever use in the air, even for an emergency descent due to cabin pressure failure or something) and they are FAST. I always watch for them, but on a 767 they're so fast you can't see them. They are simply UP the moment it's on the ground. Amazingly fast.

Nah, with the announcement that all S-3's are to be replaced by (guess what) Super Hornets, all we need is 1 simple design that can carry 100 Super Hornets and nothing else.

Good, because I remember 2 versions of each plane as well. I just happened to have had all the ones Hasbro decided to put up instructions for.

Heh, I had 1 of each type of those. They actually instilled "what's my fave squadron" for a lot of them. I know I had the VFA-131 F-18, and 94TFW F-15, I've been looking for pics on the 'net to try to jog my memory as to what squadron the F-16 was. Japan still uses F-4EJ's in some roles I think. :;edit:: Wow, Hasbro still has the manuals up at their site! http://www.hasbro.com/pl/page.game_and_toy.../dn/default.cfm http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...tSunDowners.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...atintheRing.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...BlackWidows.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...netWildcats.pdf I can't believe it. Hmmn, F-14 was Sundowners (VF-111), F-16 was Black Widows. That makes sense--my fave F-14 (and all-time everything) squadron, and my fave F-16 wing.

From what I can see, they replaced Mitsubishi T-2's. Most all the other F-15J's replaced F-4EJ's, and F-4EJ Kai's, though not as aggressors. (Yes, Kai really does exist as a term for custom/upgrade in the real world, not just mecha animes)

There are only 2 YF-23 schemes. They were painted exactly like F-15's. One overall 36118 gunship grey, YF-23 AF87-800, PAV-1, the PW one. And one in your standard 1980's F-15C compass ghost scheme (36375 overall with 36320 patches), AF87-801, PAV-2, the GE-powered (faster) one. The Dragon diecast fighters can be summed up as this: diecast versions of the Hasegawa 1/72 kits. There's no formal announcement, but it's really, really obvious that there's some connection between the companies on this. However, accuracy does of course suffer, since there's only the one mold/version.

Yes, F-18 parts (canopy, airbrake) don't like to fit in the "closed" position. Inherent to the mold. The F-16--well, if you want an A, I think they're nigh-perfect, accuracy-wise. The C's would do for EARLY C's, but they're trying to depict block 40/50's. In the "only Dragon does this"---they've molded separate intakes---yet don't use the bigger intake on the ones that should have them. F-15A/B/C/D should be amazing, I'm planning to buy a bunch. I've seen *early* F-14 shots, but so small I couldn't even tell what type it was, much less how accurate. However, DW does seem to have an agreement with Hasegawa (it's obvious if you own both DW and Hase 1/72 planes) and so that give me hope for the F-14. But since they messed up the late-model F-16C's... BTW---Dragon's known for taking a LONG time between "announcement" and "arrival". I'm still waiting for my Northwest MD-80's, which were announced over a year ago. The VMFA-232 F-18 was announced 2 years ago, and we still don't have it---even though another manufacturer has already come into existence, made an F-18, and done that squadron in that time! Ok, where to buy. Well, http://www.theflyingmule.com is a great place. If it exists right now, they've got it. (Though Super Flankers are ALWAYS sold out---there's no US distributor, very hard to get period--the manufacturer is REALLY missing out on a market) Take their own pics, nice ones too. http://www.petescollectibles.com is often recommended, though I've personally never ordered from them yet. http://www.onmarkint.com/ is probably the most comprehensive place, lists just about every thing ever made, with pics. PS--almost any modern YF wouldn't be made. YF-16 and YF-17 only have 1 paint scheme to sell, and couldn't use many (if any) parts from the F-16 or F-18 molds. (Though 99% of the world wouldn't notice the YF-16 difference). I'd love a YF-23, but again--only 1 scheme per mold, unless they just ignore the engine differences. As opposed to an F-14A mold, where they can sell 20 high-vis and 20 low-vis schemes.

Ironically, my first DW fighter was an F-18. Couldn't resist my fave squadron in their all-time best-looking markings. VFA-25 CAG, 1990.

Plenty of Gaincorp reviews/pics at Diecastaircraft.com, "Other scales" forum. Anyways--the DW F-15E has NONE of the features of the E. It's like having a 2-laser-head VF-1 and saying it's an S. When the only thing that makes a VF-1S an S is the 4-laser head, a 1 or 2 laser head is most certainly not an S. Also, the DW F-15E's CFT's are not a C/D's CFT's either. AFAIK, only 1 set exactly like that was ever made, the prototype CFT's. So they're really only right for one of the test F-15B's, basically. 71-290 and/or 71-291. Which would ironically become the ACTIVE and F-15E proof-of-concept planes. Not to mention the DW F-15E is missing every single other F-15E-specific thing I can think of. But c'mon--an F-15E that is physically incapable of carrying bombs? That's just wrong. What's next, a bomb-less B-52 model? How about an F-14 that has no missile trenches in the belly? BTW, the best DW jet is the F-18, hands down. (Though they designed it for AMRAAM's on the wingtips) AMRAAM's on the F-14: possibly. I'm wondering how the Sparrows will fit, if at all. I'm thinking it may be Phoenix/Sidewinder only, based on how the Sparrows are designed and how the real F-14 carries them. But the DW AMRAAM/Sidewinder mounting system is identical, and so far any position can carry either. So you can probably put an AMRAAM on a Sidewinder mount if the DW F-14 ever comes out. If you really wanted, you could just glue them in the Sparrow trenches.

Dragon's 1/72 diecast has slowed down tremendously lately, and their plastic 1/72 wasn't very accurate. They're big on 1/400 military diecast lately. Lots of 707 variants, P-3, KC-10, B-2. We all hope for B-1B and XB-70 and B-52...

It's got an Su-34's gear, quite distinctive. Makes a lot of sense to use that style, the modeler certainly knows his planes.

::double post::

That was NASA's plan, but they never did. Sent them off to museums, engine-less after that. The engines went to separate museums. There's an ex-YF-23 F120 somewhere that's pretty easy to see, maybe the AF museum where the XB-70 is.

Most people (including me) accept the YF-23 as faster because: 1. Just look at the thing. 2. Northrop has historically built very sleek aircraft with awesome acceleration. 3. The early YF-22 designs couldn't have supercruised, they had to go to NASA and continually tweak it until the drag was low enough. Point two: This is more than a "notch" in the h.stabs.

Northrop/Grumman bought out Newport News, so they are #1 now. End of Northrop? Combination of A-12 and YF-23 losses, plus losing their OWN DESIGN, the Hornet. But how McDonnellDouglas legally acquired the rights to a Northrop design is another story. One I honestly don't know much about, only that it (like always) involves Congress, and "well it depends on who we export it to--is Saudia Arabia going to buy any?" If the Northrop F-18 (that's the original name) still was Northrop's, they certainly wouldn't be hurting for cash, and certainly wouldn't have partnered with Grumman, who had the anti-Hornets in the form of the A-6E and F-14. (The A-6 was in production longer than most people realize) Northrop still makes a LOT of the Hornet (and Super Hornet) parts, since it is their design, but the rights/money all goes to MDC (and now Boeing). Finally--Northrop never ever was even treated half-a$$ well by the govt. They ranked below Vought and North American and Rockwell, money/favors/lobbyist-wise. F-5, F-17, F-20, and F-23 were all never bought by the US. (Well, asides from like a dozen F-5E's for the USN and a tiny USAF F-5C order) Because you know it's practically impossible for congress to buy the best, sleekest, fastest, coolest-looking plane. Northrop relied mainly upon export sales, since every other nation was like "hey, this rocks, and is way cheaper than MDC/Boeing stuff". But as the 80's and 90's came along, having a "USAF" plane became more and more important. So if the USAF didn't buy it, nobody else really did either.

Minor changes in wing sweep? Not to mention a new underside, and completely redesiging the internal structure to accomodate the new gear. The main gear went from forward-retracting into the belly, to side-retracting into the wings. Adding a gear well into the wing's pretty major, and that's a LOT of systems to re-route and add. Also, changing the wing sweep means every other angle needs to be changed to match, if you want to keep the whole "parallel angle"-style stealth going. But since they were going to get new stabs and relocate the intakes anyways... Finally--a new fuselage is a lot easier (aerodynamically) than wing and tail mods. Heck, the A300-600ST is fine with practically a wholly new fuselage compared to an A300-600R, but keeps same wings. (And add simple end-plates and dorsal kinks to the stabs to compensate for blanking effects) But the same stabs overall. Also, the F-23A would have been notably even stealthier, due to the "optimized" back-end/nacelles. Yeesh, might be up there with the B-2 and F-117 at that point. PS--I love to point out that LOCKHEED said the YF-22 was more manueverable at low-speed/high-alpha. It was never mentioned or rumored or anything by anyone else. PPS--while we're here, why didn't they go with THIS design for the JSF: The Lockheed/Boeing X-32 JAST:

If you go to northgum.com, they don't even list aircraft as part of their business. JSF radar development is the closest thing. Northrop and Grumman's plane-building days are over.

Nied--c'mon, the Super Bug's 25% bigger overall. You think that only cost 1,000lbs? 99% of the sources I find list a 23,000lbs empty weight for the legacy Hornet. 29,000 seems way too high. Anyways---whoah, the YF-23 was a heck of a lot closer to a production plane than the YF-22 was, now that the F/A-22 is practically a whole new plane. The YF-23 was considered further away when they'd have to add a gun, radar, modify the back end, and stretch the forward fuse 2 ft for a Sidwinder bay. THEN, Lockheed decided to do a complete redesign of practically the entire -22. There's no way the mods to make a operational -23 would add up to the new wings/stabs/intakes/nose/gear/canopy of the -22.

Simple. Since they were pretty much forcefully kicked out of the plane-building business, they figured they might as well get a monopoly on the ship-building business. Now they build the carriers that the Super Hornets live on.

Yup, never heard about the last one. Can't really find any info, can't even really tell it's air-to-air. From what I could tell, the danshistory numbers I used were F-4's only. If you include the F-105, the numbers drop a LOT for the USAF. And the USN's easy to tally--the only things shooting were F-4's and F-8's. Well, asides from the lone lucky Skyraiders that occasionally bagged something.