David Hingtgen

Try to explain as best I know: A showbird is basically any plane that is high-vis. However, 99% of the time, they are the CAG and CO, and are called the CAG-bird and CO-bird usually, even though they are "showbirds". But, when the squadron and modex can match, they usually paint that one up in high-vis instead of the CO's plane. Then, that plane is referred to as the "showbird", since it has no other name, not being the CAG's, etc. VFA-105 is currently assigned 4xx, but will transition to Super Hornets in a year or two and will probably get a 1xx or 2xx, so they might get a showbird---105 is especially colorful as sqaudrons go, you can bet they'll put as much color on every plane as possible. My fave squadron, VF-111, had "2xx" modex for DECADES, and never had a plane #111. All in all: every squadron can have 2 high-vis planes. Normally CAG and CO, CO normally not as colorful as CAG. But when the modex and squadron numbers match, that plane usually is assigned instead of the CO plane for high-vis. Or that plane might be used for the CO, with "01" being an "ordinary" plane in the squadron.

Also, the Hornet has always been primarily (almost purely) for attack. Air-to-air for a Hornet is a rare event. It's an attacker that can fight, not a fighter than can also bomb. Sure, the YF-17 was designed for the same role as the F-16, but by the time the F/A-18 came around, it was supposed to carry bombs 90% of the time. Kind of ironic, as the F-16 has been going more towards attack all the time as well, Hornet just "got there first". And the F-15E, and F-14D... Everything plane's going more towards attack, if you think about it.

Navalised YF-23 kinda sounds like that... (If you configured the front and rear missile bays like a B-1B---have a movable bulkhead---then you could easily fit some Phoenixes inside by removing the bulkhead---the YF-23 has a deep, long bay as opposed to the -22's wide, shallow bay)

Actually, that's the "Show Bird". Generally, that only happens when the modex and the squadron number match. That doesn't happen very often. See, this is plane #103 of squadron 103. It is neither the CAG, CO, nor XO plane. VFA-102 does this for plane #102 (which is normally the XO plane but has no special markings). Most squadrons cannot do this, especially any squadron that's only 1 or 2 digits. VF-103 couldn't do it until the late 90's, since they were assigned "2xx" modex numbers up til then. I think you usually see the CO plane's "high vis" sacrificed when this occurs, since I think you can only have 2 high-vis planes per squadron. Thus the CAG plane and the "number matches the squadron" Showbird, rather than the CAG and CO planes. So VFA-103 will probably have #100 and #103 in high-vis, rather than 100 and 101. :edit: Just learned that the CO might get the "number-matching" plane instead of the "01" plane, so that he gets a high-vis plane. Thus the CAG and CO planes are 00 and 03 instead of 00 and 01 like normal.

I'll start with a list of every ECM "bump" possible on an F-14. Front to back: 1. On the left nosegear door. Rather flat, but large. 2. Directly ahead of the glove vanes themselves (or where they'd be), on each side. 3. Underneath the gloves, but still near the vane itself. On each side of the plane. 4. Similar to above, but a bit more inboard, a bit more aft, and a bit larger, again on each side. #3 and #4 always go together, thus an F-14 either has all 4, or none. 5. Starboard v.stab, very tiny, on the very rear tip of the top of the fin--just below the red light. 6. Very extreme rear of the boattail/beavertail, next to the fuel dump pipe. Now, a late F-14A and all F-14B's have all of these except #5. An F-14D has all except 3 and 4. Early A's have none, mid A's have 2 and 6 or: 2,3,4, and 6. 2 and 6 are the most common, anything from 1980+ will have them. Shin however, has only 4 and 6. 2 ALWAYS occurs with 6, in every one I've ever found. He has an impossible mix, but it matches what Fujimi would have you do to their F-14D kits (asides from #2, which Shin also doesn't have). Also, Shin's plane has the same problem as the F-14's in Ace Combat 5--no gun vents. There's 3 types on the F-14, but Shin doesn't seem to have any. Finally--Shin's engine fairings are too short. (Or the burner duct is too long, but I suspect the former). It's like it has the B/D shape but is too small---it doesn't extend all the way aft to the nozzle itself. Now, B/D ones don't TOUCH the nozzle, but they get very, very close. Shin's has a noticeable gap of black between the rear of the fairing and the nozzles.

16A according to an FAQ, though I seem to recall getting it before that, and going through 16B instead...

Yeah, and it's now the VFA-143 Pukin' Dogs. And they're getting E models instead of F. (They swapped with VF(A)-211, who'll be getting F's instead of E's)

A few pics here: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.sear...inct_entry=true Link to best picture in good but not huge size: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/717630/M/ Black US insignia and black intake triangle--nice touch. Though yellow would be even better. (Hey, VFA-105 often does bright green intake and national insignia) Apparently you can't paint the IFF box on the nose, and the rudder edges are still grey.

Which can be 100% blamed on Cheney. If he hadn't ordered the jigs destroyed, Grumman could make any part needed. No plane can last long without spares, but most planes have spare parts made for YEARS after production ceases. Same with cars. F-14 didn't have that luxury, no spares were made, even for brand-new planes. You can still order new E-2 and A-6 parts (and whole fuselages if needed), the F-14 is one of the few planes that has had its jigs destroyed.

Ingress/Egress speed is always nice. A loaded F-14B/D is MUCH faster than a loaded Hornet (baby or super). And doesn't have to refuel as many times on the mission.

IRST etc ranges are always "ideal" not "real world". 300 miles? Yeah, it can probably detect the IR signature of a nuclear blast against the absolute-zero background of space at that range. But not jet exhaust against the Arabian deserts... TCS range--depends on how big the plane is. I've heard they can tell a 747 at 70 miles, but it's only good for fighters for 10-20 miles. PS---while we're talking about F-14's, it seems VF-101 might get 1 more year to do airshow demos.

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/headlines/839672.html That's one hell of a "bug", auto-formatting all your memory cards in your PS2. This message posted because I know quite a few people here have PS2's.

But it matches the Fujimi kit so well, ECM bumps and all... All in all, same as what Nied said: An F-14B with new chinpod and ECM antenna arrangement. Still, it's missing the ALR-45 antennas, which all B's and D's and most A's have. They go together with the extreme aft one next to the fuel dump pipe (which Shin's does have). If an F-14 has the ECM bump on the boat-tail, then it has the one right ahead of the vanes as well.

Paint the canopy from the outside. Don't clear-coat it, unless you plan to use Future. Applying Future to clear parts (or any part) is its whole own category which I am not qualified to expand on.

Found something: The original MiG-35(modified MiG-29M) proposal had canards:

In detail, it doesn't match anything. Heck, it's missing several small distinguishing features of the MiG-29 itself, much less the Fulcrum-A, C, M, etc. IMHO, it's closest to a Fulcrum-A. Knight--C's have the bulged dorsal hump. That's the main thing for the C.

I'd need some good pics. Particularly side views. I'm not good with MiG-29's, I need a perfect profile shot or thereabouts. Directly above might work, but side view much preferred. If you want to discuss Shin's F-14 on the other hand...

Take out the Su-37 and give us the 30MKI. Anyways, my want list: Multiple weapons per plane, like AC4. If the planes are to "evolve", have it happen a LOT faster. I personally would like planes to simply "appear" like in AC4, but have the WEAPONS evolve. Think about it--the F-15C would start with AIM-9J and AIM-7E, but would eventually have AIM-9X and AIM-120C (for a QAAM/XMAA combo), and would be top of the line--just like today! And the Hornet could start with like Harpoons and Walleyes, and move up to the JSOW and SLAM-ER. The military upgrades weapons a lot more often than planes. And most plane upgrades don't upgrade the PLANE, but the weapons it can carry. The F-14B is a rare example of a plane that performs significantly better than the predecessor, and only because the original was never supposed to have that engine permanently in the first place. The F-16's engine growth is constantly countered by its weight growth, which is only used to carry new weapons. Nowadays, high-tech avionics are equal to, if not more important, than speed/agility. A passively-tracked target targeted at long range by an AMRAAM, will counter most anything else. You don't NEED a EF-2000, you just need a fancy radar and AMRAAM's--the latest upgraded F-4F's have that, and are considered to be about as good as it gets for long-range fights. That'd be AWESOME in AC6----you start out with an F-4F, and over the course of the game continually upgrade it, until it can hold it's own with an F-22 (so long as you don't get in close). Also, I would like more "restrictions" on planes. AC5 had a LITTLE bit, as in Flanker OR F-15 on the first run, but AC4 did it better IMHO---simply by PRICE. In real life, you can't pick from all the world's planes on every mission. I did like in AC5 how you (usually) had to pick a Naval plane for missions from the carrier. AC6 should have more expensive planes, so that you can't buy 4 of every new plane that shows up. Either make new planes fairly expensive, or limit to a certain nation's planes or military branch, or something. That'd greatly enhance replay value---one run, only US planes, one run only Russian planes, and another run only European planes. By the 4th run, you've unlocked like 95% of the planes and can use most anything you want, which then unlocks the all-purpose JSF.

I have no problems in turning this into a "What do you want in AC6?" thread. Anyways--a high-vis F-14A VF-1 Wolfpack would require a lot of different parts, to be accurate. VF-1 and VF-2 first planes were Block 70 and Block 75, quite different externally from your "standard" F-14A's of Block 90 to 115. Different nose, gun vents, v.stabs, rear fuselage, drop tanks, wheels, cockpit. I spent like an hour last night in the "hangar" really looking at the planes. Things I found: 1. F-15C is more like an F-15J with a USAF left v.stab. It's ONE piece away from a J. 2. ECM antennas (glove, intake, and nosegear ones) on all the F-14's are messed up. So are the gunvents--they seem to be non-existent. 3. F-14D has A/B seats. Strange that they got the new HUD right, but missed the much more obvious seat change. 4. Flankers are surprisingly accurate, ECM antenna variations, v.stabs, ventral fins, IRST's, etc. Even tail-stings seem to vary. 5. F-16C is still the "impossible" mix of F-16 parts that AC4 used. It's like a Block 25 tail on a late Block 30 body with Block 50 details all with a Block 15 cockpit. ::grumble grumble:: (I am a big F-16 fan, it just never comes up here on MW)

Yeah, a PSP makes 1000x more sense. I doubt I'll buy a DS, but a PSP is a defintely possibility, ESPECIALLY if there's an AC game.

Hey, anybody take a look at Nintendo's GBA SP release list? Copied this from Gamespy: February: Ace Combat (Namco) Hmmmm. More Mobius 1? Blaze? Of course, it PROBABLY WON'T BE A REALISTIC SIM, since there's only 4 buttons.

That diorama's not mine, I just linked to it. I *wish* I was 1/10 that good. And I still plan on a guide for Shin's someday, I think I'll take a poll on whether it'd be acceptable to merely write on how to do it with a few pics, and not actually make one myself. (As it's too cold to model now, so any modelling might have to wait until Spring)

My "mini spiral hand drill" is basically a small pin-vise with a "roller" that spirals around a slotted shaft. The spiral refers to the actual main part of the drill itself, not the bit. If you made a Twizzler™ out of brass, that's what the main part is. You can drill MUCH faster and easier than with a pure pin-vise, but it's still far slower and more accurate than the slowest power tool. ::looks around:: I think there's a fair chance many people consider what I have a pin-vise, and aren't aware a "true" pin-vise is even simpler. Here is the exact one I have: http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?M...roduct&ID=60348 In the photo, the roller is being gripped by the thumb and middle finger. That moves up and down the shaft, causing the drill to rotate. The uppermost part of the drill is on a bearing, allowing you to hold it in place with your pointer finger (as in the pic) while the drill spins below it. There's many variations you can figure out on how to hold it, and how to rotate it---it's kinda fun to "play" with and see how all the bits interact.

I think AC4 had more "memorable" music, with more clearly defined melodies. AC5 is more "ambience". Think of a movie--sometimes the music is "obvious" and closely tied to the action onscreen---that's AC4. Sometimes, it's just "background noise" while characters are talking--that's AC5. However, the best of AC5 beats the best of AC4's music, and AC5's good music still beats AC4's "good" music. Heck, I think a lot of it is that both have the same number of good/great songs, but AC5 has a dozen more missions, those dozen songs are "meh". It's like Namco can only come up with a dozen good songs for a game, which means that's enough for most AC4 missions to be good, while AC5 is filled out with some blander stuff. All in all, it's definitely along the same idea, but you'll probably have a distinct preference for one. It's like comparing Star Wars and Indiana Jones music. Very close in some aspects (for obvious reasons) but you'll rarely confuse the two.

Rant warning. I've never liked the really "limited" "one thing and one thing only" X-planes. WTF is the point of such an utterly useless plane that can do something? There really should be some sort of "usefullness" clause attached to most records. At least the X-prize etc require a certain amount of payload/passengers. The X-29 was *this* close to being an operational fighter. Heck, the X-1 was just as close. The F-8 is a great example of setting USEFUL records---many of its records were not "absolute", but were more impressive--it was not the FASTEST plane, but it was the fastest one for a 100km trip, 1,000km, and coast-to-coast. I am not at all impressed by the recent 10-second-long Mach 6+ runs by planes that get a 50,000ft head-start from a B-52. Let's see Mach 4, starting from the ground, for an hour. THEN I'll consider it more impressive than the SR-71. Next thing you know, they'll be firing winged needles at the ground from orbit, and claiming "fastest plane ever" 1 sec before it smashes into the ground at Mach 30...