David Hingtgen

Happen to get a pic of the F-16's nose gear door landing light housings? (Seriously--I need a photo of them from both the front, side, and rear---I forgot the last time I saw an F-16 that had them)

You know, you never see chaff pictures, just "massive flare release" pics. Anyone have any pics showing chaff being deployed? That'd make a nice companion to this one.

Usually can't get *too* close to the demo Super Hornet, but two years ago I lucked out and found one from VFA-2 on static that was 100% "rope free". Anyone need pics of the compressor fan "stealth baffle"? Nothing like sticking your head up the intake for detail shots. PS--it was so new the gear bays were spotless and gleaming.

Pencil/graphite is also a good choice because that's what causes a lot of the small "dark streaks" you see on real planes--it's the graphite lubricant from the actuators and hinges.

Basically--yes to all of the above! Christopher Titus is hilarious, Stacey Keach is awesome, and Cynthia Watros is hot. One of the few shows I liked enough that I taped it to ensure I wouldn't miss it. Also--everything I find says the box set is only seasons 1 and 2, and thus 31 of 54 eps. So there should be another box set later.

Got my full-length mini-Maul. It's DARK and unpolished. Rather "brown" as metal goes. Like a very steely-bronze. Very cool. Ends/emitters are polished and bright. The "conical with fins" parts near the ends are plastic though, wasn't expecting that. Don't really see a reason why they are, they're not TOO complex of a shape. Not as heavy as you'd expect.

Those of you up on Flankers know that the -30MKI is by far the best version, so here's the latest "watch and be awed" video. Only 800K and one manuever, but it appears to be a kulbit going into a post-stall roll. Or something like that. http://www.archakov.com/video/su30mki_2005.avi

5 gunpods has been done for airshows (because it looks cool) though 2 is the max for actual combat. (Because they're nearly 2,000lbs each) Also, they have such recoil that 5 gunpods is equal to 20,000lbs of thrust---opposite the direction of flight. That'd make you stall pretty quickly. Final comment: In Vietnam, the Navy had a much better kill ratio than the USAF, despite never having guns, and never using gunpods.

Germany's F-4's are very potent. F-18 radar, very modern ECM, new HUD, retrofitted HOTAS, digital displays, all coupled with AMRAAM's. At BVR, that would make it among the very best there is. Agility doesn't mean much at 20 miles.

Quick little update: It seems that, after several years, Dragon has actually put small holes on the fuselage corners of their F-15, to allow those previously-useless Sparrows that had posts on their fins to attach. This is different from other recent Dragon F-15's, which had Sparrows permanently glued on to the fuselage. Of course, Dragon decided to do this on their newest release, which represents a 2003 or so F-15C in the new Mod Eagle scheme, and should be loaded with nothing but AMRAAM's, not Sparrows. Of course, this latest change to the mold makes it impossible to load it with AMRAAMs. "Dragon---only we can mix up parts and variants this much" Can't wait to see AMRAAMs on a Tomcat, I just KNOW they'll do it someday...

::edit to add snippet:: First AIM-9X's have been seen on operational Super Hornets this week. Super Hornet is MDC design, not Boeing. The engines had to be the exact same size so as to fit in the rear fuselage. While every part and panel line may be new, the overall size/shape of the fuselage (minus the extension) is identical to the original. If it was a different shape with different engines, they couldn't sell it to Congress as an "upgrade" to an existing plane (therefore cheap). But since it's the same "proven design" fuselage only stretched, with a newer version of the F404, it was much easier to get funding. New designs ALWAYS come down to how it's sold to the bean counters. Same reason the F-22 is now called the F/A-22, despite having 1/10 the bombing ability of the "don't have an A" -14D, -15E and -16CG. If something is multi-purpose, or simply an update to an established design, it's automatically perceived as being cheaper or more economical. For the opposite reason the Ticonderoga-class went from being destroyers to cruisers---Cold War, and cruisers are bigger/more powerful than destryoers, and Congress wanted big powerful ships---so they were redesignated to get more approval. Exact same ship, but now called a cruiser, so Congress thought it was now a more powerful design. You call/design it as however Congress will fund it---either an all-powerful war machine, or the most economical weapon ever. The pylons are angled because wind-tunnel tests indicated possible problems with separation for some weapons---either they would hit the fuselage, or each other, when released. Still, angling the pylons doesn't really make them any further from each other, and only slightly changes the inboard pylon to fuselage distance, and only at one end. Angling them out along a different axis (bottom edge outwards, instead of the leading edge outwards) would have been better I think, and wouldn't have increased drag. The outboard pylons are angled bottom edge out (in addition to leading edge out). Or, simply change all of the pylon attachment points so all the pylons are spaced out more---they already had to change half of them anyways for the drag-inducing method they went with.

Lots of various answers/comments. If Oceana closes, they'll likely re-open Cecil field (Jacksonville, FL). Oceana is realtively "new", Cecil field is the tradtional "massive east coast USN air base". And it's a lot more open. Don't have to contend with Langley for air space. And yes, Super Hornets are loud for reasons I don't know. As a rule, the more modern a jet engine, the quieter it is. Though F100-229's are said to be loud, I've never heard one. But F414's are sure loud in a Super Hornet. (Although IMHO it's more the sound itself, not the loudness---I find a droning, buzzing little Cessna overhead far more annoying than the roar of a jet, even if it is louder---and the Super Hornet has a "ripping" sound that is more irritating than most modern jets--it is not a roar, it is a rip). Kind of like how some particular cell phone rings can be insanely irritating, even though they're no louder than other ones. Super Hornet engine. It is underpowered. Go way back to the F-18A. F-18A had F404-400's, which are less powerful than late-model J79's. The Hornet's engines were nothing more than a more reliable, lighter version of the J79. Pretty much the same size. No more power, and only slightly better efficiency. F404-402 is a bit more powerful, but still below an F-4J/S engine. The F404 is overall a wonderful engine for ease of use, maintenance, reliability, and is far more "pilot-friendly" than the F100, TF30, and maybe even F110. But it is really no more powerful or efficient than a J79. Super Hornet has F414, which AFAIK is more of a "high-temp" version of the F404. Gets the power by running hotter and faster, not pumping more or nor compressing it better. It is a "sped-up" F404---and you run into over-temp problems REAL fast following that path of engine development. Still, according to this press release, GE says they can eventually get up to 25% more power, which would give an installed power of 55,000lbs to a Super Hornet. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/..._20020722i.html (I really wish there was more recent news than 2002) Heat, and speed of the exhaust lead to noise--my best theory for why Super Hornets are loud. "It's like a Super Tomcat, but makes more noise for less power". Re-engining: a quick look shows nothing compatible size-wise, though the J79 is quite close--which'd be pointless.

Busy day today---got my tracking number for my full-length mini-Maul, and ordered my mini-Sidious, and 2 mini display cases. (Shipping's insane on the display cases, I need more than 2 but hope to get more later, not direct from MR to save on shipping)

Think I understand what you're saying now. And I certainly know the answer to the last sentence: They re-routed the re-entry because of Columbia---if something went wrong, they didn't want it to shed parts all across the Southern US, or any populated land. Thus, it's over water for as much of re-entry as possible--both the Florida and California approaches are over water for 90+ percent of the time. They especially want to avoid being over land during the most dangerous part--by the time it's over land it's done with the actual "firey descent" and is simply gliding around. I believe this is also why they waited for 24-hours etc between approaches---it's not simply needing a window, but a window where they can also avoid flying over populated areas, which is now more of a concern that before.

Basically: if at all possible, they want to land in Florida. Ferrying the shuttle on the 747 back to KSC takes a lot of time, and a lot of money. Staying in space another 24 hours to hope the weather clears in Florida effectively costs nothing, and poses no danger. It was a 24-hour wait for weather, not to get the right orbital alignment. But, since Florida weather wasn't getting any better, and they didn't want the shuttle up there for days and days and days waiting around for good weather in Florida, they decided to just go for the next possible landing---Edwards. If the weather had been bad at Edwards on that orbit, they might have waited one more orbit, and then see if Edwards was OK, or possibly Florida would have cleared by then. If neither was clear by then, they would have gone to White Sands on that orbit. They can wait a day or two for better weather with no problems, but anything more is going to be taxing on the crew. They were already one day "late" to perform more experiments since the rest of the fleet is now grounded, and they decided to wait yet another day for Florida weather to clear---any more delays would have been 3 days over the expected return. Here's maps showing the tracks for all the possible landing tracks--various sites from various orbits. http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/landing.html

Ace Combat 2 had their own take on it, having the "F-15S" which was more like a "Super Eagle" than anything---lots of little changes, but it has the canards, which are the main point. The first F-15 with canards was the "Agile Eagle". Next, adding 2D thrust vectoring was the F-15S/MTD---this is in Ace Combat 4, but mistakenly called the F-15ACTIVE. Also in Air Force Delta Strike, also called the F-15ACTIVE. It is also in Ace Combat 5 with the correct name. Finally, there is the F-15ACTIVE, which is like the F-15S/MTD but has 3D vectoring. Technically it's the NF-15B ACTIVE. Most everyone confuses the two, despite being really easy to tell apart, since nearly every website mis-labels the pics. Interesting note, it is all the exact same plane modified many times---the original TF-15A prototype, #71-0290. Better known as the very first F-15B. The canards are actually F-18 stabs. S/MTD=Stol/Manuevering Technology Demonstrator ACTIVE=Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles

1/18 orbiter would be nearly 7 feet long, the whole shuttle would be over 10 feet.

I'd join, but I'd quickly become known as "that guy who only points out all the errors on the models". I'd buy an F-14 in an instant from them, if it actually was accurate to a specific type, and not a mish-mash of various Tomcat parts. (Their Hornet is neither A nor C, their F-16 is kinda a C-Block 25 but not quite, etc) I wouldn't be surprised if their Tomcat had parts from both 1975 and 2005...

I considered bringing up SpaceShipOne, but basically: That's about the only ship that method will work for. It's no faster than an SR-71. Think of it as a really, really slow space shuttle that cannot orbit. Far slower, far less energy to bleed off.

Geostationary things tend not to ever come back. They don't worry about re-entry. And it doesn't take a lot of fuel to stay up---they are up very high and so gravity only has a slight effect--it takes years for their orbits to decay. Only a few nudges every once in a while, if that. Shuttles are often used to help "nudge" satellites back up, giving them a few more years of use. After a couple decades, they all fall down and burn up. All the GPS satellites are a good example. They're not burning tons of fuel 24/7 to stay up. They'll come down, eventually. Will take many years, and their small fuel supply can nudge them back up a few times---but they'll need replacing eventually, once they burn up on reentry.

You can't "slowly" come down. Basically---To stay in orbit, you have to go fast. If you slow down a LOT, then you'll come down FAST. Which of course, "friction from dropping straight down" is just as bad as "friction from a 40 degree angle of attack". There is a narrow band of re-entry angles where it is feasible. Too fast/steep, you'll burn up even worse, too slow/shallow, you won't slow down enough and will bounce back up into the atmosphere. Basically--the shuttle comes down the only way it can. A certain rate, at a certain angle. If you try to slow down a LOT prior to re-entry, you will simply DROP through the atmosphere and burn up due to hurtling downwards through the atmosphere, as opposed to burning up due to hurlting forwards through the atmosphere. The shuttle comes down at just the right angle that it can bleed off speed/energy at just the rate that it can withstand the heat. Other angles are either too hot, or won't bleed off the speed. Now, things like the Apollo capsules etc. do slow down a lot in orbit, but then come down FAST, almost vertically compared to shuttle. But that's because they're one-way trips, and cannot be reused. They get REALLY hot and vaporize most of their heat shield--because it's a one-time sacrificial heat shield. The shuttle is designed to survive re-entry and not vaporize its bottom half every flight. Thus, it has to take a more shallow approach than a Mercury/Gemini/Apollo re-entry.

If you took a lot of fuel up with you, you could burn it just before re-entry and slow down a LOT. The shuttle has only enough fuel remaining in orbit to slow down from Mach 25 to about Mach 22. To slow from Mach 22 to Mach 0.2 or so, it uses the atmosphere. But taking up that fuel with you would mean you have no weight/room for any sort of payload. You'd go up into space, do nothing, burn your fuel in the retro-rockets to slow down, and come home. Kinda pointless. It's not the power of the rocket, it's the fuel and economics, and how it relates to payload.

That's kind of my point---with no friction, you don't slow down. If you try to come down "nicely" and not heat up----you'd be coming straight down at 17,000mph. Not good. If you want to slow down so you can actually land on a runway, you NEED to bleed off the energy somehow. If you avoided all friction on the way down, the shuttle would arrive at the runway going Mach 25 with 2 seconds to go... Also--you can't really "hover" quite like that and come straight down. The Earth is rotating at about 1,000mph. Always have to take that into account. You have to go 25,000mph just to escape gravity. AFAIK a shuttle actually controls its altitude by its speed. Speed and orbit are utterly related. It's not like a plane. You can't simply "push up" on something in orbit and have it stay there--you will need to adjust its SPEED or it will come back down to its previous altitude/orbit. Conversely, if you change its speed, you will change its altitude. I have never really understood it, as it is literally rocket science and LOTS of math.

Basic transfer of energy/heat. (Very poor terms for physics will follow, but I'm pretty sure of the concept) To send a shuttle into space, you need to use massively powerful rocket engines to accelerate it to Mach 25. To get back down, you need to bleed off all that energy it has. Best way to do that is to convert it into heat--the shuttle USES the friction of the atmosphere to bleed off the speed. No different than how your brakes slow down your car--they convert the energy of motion into heat via the friction of the brakes rubbing against the wheel/disc/drum etc. That's why brakes get hot. Shuttle doesn't have brake pads to rub against a disc, etc, so it uses its tiles to rub up against the atmosphere. Same result--lots of friction, you slow down, and parts of the vehicle get hot. In other words--you need to basically "get rid of" all the energy you used to put it into orbit in the first place. Coming in at an angle and heating up is among the best ways to do it. If you want to come in very slowly and avoid friction, it'd take forever and a day to get back.

In a word---yes. Foam has always broken off, but it's never caused a problem---until Columbia. Shuttles have also lost tiles on every flight, but it's never been a problem---yet.