David Hingtgen

Things I forgot/corrections: You start the mission with drop tanks, but they automatically jettison like 2 secs in. Noticed that the Tomcat drops the pylons, too--I honestly don't know if that's right or not---it's very rare to see a Tomcat with drop-tank pylons only---they either have the pylons AND the tanks attached, or nothing at all. Real F-22's drop their pylons with their tanks, but I think that's kinda unique. F-14A's still have glove vanes deploy. C'mon, they've been gone for nearly 20 years now... AMRAAM has no minimum range, I must have been doing something wrong earlier. It'd have been really neat though IMHO, it's the super duper godly missile otherwise---there has to be SOMETHING to make it inferior in some way to some other missile... (like a minimum range) Sparrow and AMRAAM have identical ranges, about 3x that of a Sidewinder. Noticed that there's a counter in the plane select screen, and it counts down as you assign planes to wingmen. Perhaps you can only have so many of various types, and/or have to buy them. Thus, your squadron couldn't have all F-22's unless you could afford them . Would make it more interesting, having a mixed fleet, etc. "Yeah, all of you get 4th-hand F-5A's, I need to save up for my Super Tomcat's custom high-vis paint job..."

Well it's technically the Official *US* Playstation Mag, could be availability/compatability issues.

AFDS lets you set the throttle exactly where you want it, from idle to full burner, in like 1% increments. You don't need to hold it down. And you can "double click" from any setting to get full burner or minimum idle instantly. Wonderful setup, IMHO. AC4/5--let up on the button, and it just defaults to "moderate thrust". Full non-burner, and full burner are about the only other settings you can hold accurately, and full burner requires you to press down HARD, and hold it. It's nigh-impossible to get like 70%, 90%, min burner, half-burner, etc. Wing sweep---well the demo's calibrated in km/h, not knots, and it's really messing up my "accuracy checking". I did notice a "mach 1" condensation effect, much better than any other game. But sweep was definitely determined by speed, not throttle. Actually seemed too slow IMHO, since the F-14's wing sweep actually occurs over a rather narrow band (pretty much Mach .75 to 1.25--- Mach .5 to .75 is only like a 2 to 4 degree change, and nobody notices) F-14's don't do "inbetween" sweep very often (unless they're really dogfighting), it's usally in or out. I'm definitely going to play some more tonight. PS---the demo has the full long video that you can download from Namco's site as well.

Thread necromancy! Anyways---am I the only one who picked up the latest issue of Official Playstation Magazine? *PLAYABLE* Ace Combat 5 demo! Thoughts/notes: Demo only has F-14A and F-18E. Jolly Rogers/low-vis respectively. And wow are they paying attention to the new paint rules, the Super Bug has the tailcodes off the rudders, and moved forward. Overall combat is changed a little bit---you select the planes for all 4 people in your element (yourself and 3 wingmen). So don't give them all A-10's and then issue "cover me" while fighting Flankers... Overall, the realism is up a bit. F-14 has a definitely more "heavy" feel compared to the Hornet. Thankfully, the ailerons are gone, but still no differential stabs, which is the F-14's primary control. S. Bug was good, but there's no airbrakes, only rudder toe-in. (And I think it should be toe-out, not toe-in). S. Bug's LERX's seemed too thin/long to me, too much like a Legacy Bug's. AIM-7's now are like real ones--you must maintain a radar lock until the target is hit. But they are powerful and will take down large aircraft in a single hit, where you need like 4 AIM-9's to down a C-5. C-5's and C-130's will drop a million flares if you use Sidewinders, I had like 6 in a row miss. And 20mm doesn't do much to big planes like that. AIM-9's are still your "4 dozen of them and can hit anything, but are weak" weapon. They launch off the rail like THAT, you don't even see them. Wonder if they'll bring in AIM-9X's later. (Actually, I'd really like to see the AIM-9 be air-to-air only) AMRAAM's are far superior to the others---faster, long-range lock-on, fire-and-forget. I hope they make them not too easy to get in the real game, or it'll instantly make the S. Bug the best plane, due to sheer number of AMRAAM's it can carry. However, I did note that they added in a minimum range limiter--no 1-mile AMRAAM launches. It is medium/long-range only. Get in close, and you'll need a Sidewinder. I'll play more later and see how the Sparrow does, real Sparrows can actually get in pretty close--might be the only advantage the Sparrow has. No Phoenixes in the demo. Overall difficulty is definitely up, mainly due to a bit more realism, and I'll say smarter AI. The bad guys actually launch countermeasures! And they will gang up on you to protect what they're escorting, taking down C-130's are not a piece of cake 60-second mission. Graphics--noticed there weren't any of the neat follow enemy/target/missile views, hopefully the full game will have them. I actually thought AC4 looked a bit more polished, could also be a "demo" thing. Outside view is more like AFDS than AC4--as in, you're really close to your plane, too close IMHO. And yes, you still need to press down HARD to get afterburner, which is probably my #1 complaint about the entire AC series. Why can't they do like AFDS and let you just select your thrust level? Or at least reduce the amount of pressure needed to get afterburner.

Just some neat stuff: VFA-103 Shornets demoing. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/655545/L/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/655546/L That's Boeing's big thing this year at all the high-end/industry demos---using "regular in-service" F-18F's, fully loaded, and doing the "Farnborough" demo, as well as including nearly all of the "Rafale-exclusive" (well, they used to be) moves. They're really trying to show that it can do this all the time, not just stripped down for an airshow like a Flanker. They keep upping the load--was 4 AMRAAM's, then 6, now 8. And always with 2 Sidewinders. Next they'll have to add drop-tanks or swap AMRAAM's for HARM's. Interview with Capt. Snodgrass, F-14 pilot GOD: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/interview...s/index-pf.html Trust me, you have seen pics of him flying F-14's, and probably read about stuff he's done. If it was cool/incredible/impossible, and involved an F-14, he was probably the pilot.

I have several books of that series, but nothing set post-Vietnam. Annoyingly, they did the USAF F-15 book on Enduring/Iraqi Freedom?!?! "F-15C's spent many hours circling around, looking for something to do". Most everybody presumed the F-15 book (when they announced it) would be about Desert Storm, being the only US F-15 air-to-air combat. The F-18 book's a bit better, but again, Desert Storm would have had a lot more "neat combat scenarios" to write about.

VF-1's v.stabs aren't canted enough to act as h.stabs. They're rudders only. Ventral fins only affect yaw. VF-1 derives 100% of its pitch control and stability from thrust vectoring. Also, the F-117 has elevons for pitch control. While its rudders are arranged in a V, they are not ruddervators and do not control pitch. (according to some---I think a lot of places just ASSUME they're ruddervators because they're in a V, but WAPJ says they are ruddervators--WAPJ is good, but not perfect) Even if the VF-1's stabs were canted outwards enough, the rudders are far too small to act as elevators for a fighter, which leads into my next point. Every conventional fighter for decades and decades has had slab/all-moving stabilators, I doubt the VF-1 would go back to WWII-style tail surfaces.

Not really, IMHO. But there's worse airplane movies out there.

Afterburn what? Wouldn't it be more like "afternuke"?

I'll at least respond to this: If someone's going to make such a detailed analysis, it'd help to use the right plane. Nice Seven *FIVE* Seven drawings there. Of course 757 drawings don't match up to 767 impact holes...

My point was that in space it's not a jet at all, and cannot work even "similarly" to one. In space (IMHO) it really needs nothing more than the combustion chamber. And is then a pure and simple rocket. (With a rather exotic fuel source and exotic exhaust composition, but still a basic rocket)

If it's in space, it must act as a rocket. Can't have jet engines in space. Jets work because of the AIR. No air=no jet. Taking the air away from a jet is like taking the water away from a ship's propeller---you can spin it as fast as you like, but it's not going to do anything...

You could just remove a few, but upgrade the rest to triple-turrets, thus not reducing the number of barrels.

Are those laser/energy turrets or somesuch? Because conventional large turrets usually have several decks of structure below them, and if that's the case then it looks like 50% of the hull volume is occupied by turret barbettes!

I figured they might have been inspired by the all-black F-14's (both an A and a D, at different times, both called Vandy-1), or the all-black Top Gun F-18. (Which is not the SDCC one, they made a totally fake one for that). Finish used on real all-black planes: F-14A: matte black. F-14D: gloss black. Not super gloss, but glossier than "semi-gloss". F-18B: really glossy black.

Going OT here, but better to put in this thread than start a new one: F-14D Vandy-1 will soon be put on display at Oceana. With its all-black scheme stripped off!!!! Yeesh. Wrong coast (the plane spent every day at Pt Mugu, and is said to have never made a carrier landing), and they're going to put it in low-vis. Why even bother? There's hundreds of "generic grey" old F-14's they could put at Oceana, with dozens of them already there! Why take Vandy One away from its home (and the home of Phoenix/AMRAAM testing), and strip its paint? It'd be awesome to see a pure gloss black Tomcat in a museum, but at Oceana it'll just be another one of many old grey F-14's there...

3 kids with mythical powers: http://www.tvparty.com/sat77.html Right column, 2nd one down. Young Sentinels / NBC (debut) Cartoon series about three teenagers (and their robot) who are trained on another planet to battle villains here on earth. The three take on the qualities of Hercules, Astraea and Mercury thanks to their mighty alien boss, Sentinel One. The show was retitled 'Space Sentinels' midseason.

LOL, I chose Dodo on another forum, but didn't know if it'd be well-received here. X-29 armament: FSW wings must be inherently strong and very stiff, could easily take lots of missiles. I doubt they'd be on the belly though, the F-5 family has an especially "important" belly shape, it's quite sculpted, not flat. Kinda hard to see, easier to see on the early F-5A's etc. I think it may be area-ruled, but never seen it described as such. Not quite a lifting body, but probably contributes to high-alpha ability and their very low drag. Of course, I haven't seen an X-29 up close in years, can't recall if it has an F-5 belly or not. (Something the check next time in DC--the Smithsonian has their X-29 mounted so you can practically touch it from below) I love X-29's, BTW, they'd simply rock as a production fighter. Just imagine an F-20, (which has an F-16's turning ability or even greater), but with insanely good high-alpha capabilites beyond even a Super Hornet... Just an FYI for those that might not be aware--an X-29 is little more than an F-20 with new wings. LOTS of parts (and major assemblies) can be interchanged. In fact, the first X-29 was converted from a "spare" F-5 they had.

Blatantly stolen from another forum: What will the F-35's name be? Chicken, Turkey, and other birds too fat to really fly are the most-suggested. Naval version? F-35 Penguin.

I like it better now. Like the "pincers" on the wings, but not the nose. IMHO, needs a new "nosecone". And I get a "big observation window" vibe from the front end too. Goes along with the nose. Just MHO. Like the new design a lot at the moment. I would bulk up the center-rear area though, vertically. Either overall, or just add some "pods" top and bottom. More volume.

From the first "cranked out this morning" version, I definitely got a ST shuttlecraft vibe from it. Or maybe more specifically, a Runabout.

I do like the new shape, but it reminds me of a smaller ship. "Small sleek fighter" vs "big blocky command carrier". Though, that's more like a "big sleek heavy fighter-bomber" IMHO. Could of course just be the lack of hull details in the "rough sketch". Details make things seem bigger!

As opposed to all that non-gratuitous, intellectual and meaningful T&A.

F-16XL was single-engined, and had a delta, possibly super-critical wing. F-16's also have an inherently larger fuel fraction, and the XL was also a fuselage stretch (purely for more fuel), not merely re-winged. All things pointing to better range. Also, I think it could carry a greater number of medium bombs. Sure, F-15E's can carry dozens of 500lb dumb bombs on the CFT's, but what's the point in having it carpet-bomb? Larger smart bombs are its forte, and the XL had lots of more widely-spaced hardpoints for that. F-15's aren't limited by weight of the large bombs, but their physical proximity to each other. Even the F-14 encounters that problem, since it has to use the Phoenix pallets to carry bombs. But with that big cranked-delta wing of the XL, you could hang big bombs all over. Not like, 8, but you could probably have many more large/medium bomb loadout options than the 14 or 15. When an F-15 has a really big paveway on a CFT, that's the ONLY thing it can carry on that CFT. Waste of the 5 other hardpoints. And medium-large ones are usually limited to 2 per CFT. (I can never keep paveways straight, there's SO many variations, and there's more sizes than just 500/1000/2000lbs--so I just say "small/medium/medium-large/large/huge") F-16XL was to be the E and F models, single and twin-seater. Only in the last few months has it been decided to call Block 60's E's and F's. As for the F-15E being chosen: time/cost. F-15E's are little more than a stronger F-15D with more electronics. F-16XL is practically like a Hornet going to a Super Hornet--lots of major changes, that take a lot of time and money. MDC had F-15E prototypes flying very soon after they got the contract.

Hmmn. Don't think I've ever read anything about the XL in a fighter role. I'd presume a rather large loss of power/weight ratio, for even if it had the newest F110's, it still wouldn't make up for the structural and fuel weigh increase. F-15E's heavier than the C/D, but not by much, and the latest engines more than make up for it. Only generalized comment I can make for a delta-winged F-16 is that it would probably have better high-alpha performance, but at a cost of increased energy bleed and drag. (All deltas have inherently better high-alpha performance primarily because they require higher alpha simply to fly--Concordes land VERY nose high compared to other airliners simply because they're delta-winged)