David Hingtgen

Only in battroid mode. My fave VF-1 is an armorless 1J in fighter mode.

Somewhere on Lockheed's site there's something about "The F-35 has comparable performance to the F-16" when talking about agility. And it's Lockheed's own ultra-pro-JSF site. If the F-35 could meet or beat the F-16 in that category, they'd be certain to mention it every other sentence. Instead, it's merely comparable. (Or they use some other very similar term, I forget, but I know we discussed it in a previous thread about the JSF) PS--I'm not at all a fan of F-16's with too many things added on. Heck, I don't like the Block 40's because of that. Best line I've seen this week regarding the F-16F: "Hey, if you stripped off all that junk, you could probably make a nice light-weight fighter out of it" I've never liked heavily modified aircraft. Better to start from scratch, or do like the Super Hornet and actually redesign it from the ground up. Don't just keep tacking parts on. F-15E is such a great design (IMHO) because so little had to be done to it. Exception: if the redesign actually looks more "right" than the original. But this usually only applies to stubby airliners, that look better-proportioned when stretched. And the stretch usually outsells the original several times over.

I thought it was only the USAF that was "anti-satanic". The US Navy has plenty of squadrons with the EXACT same name that the USAF banned. And I know the USMC is fine with them, half their squadrons seem to have Hell or Devil in their name. Of course, the USAF also no longer allows "gender specific" names and anything non-p.c, but still allows "Knight" to be used despite the fact that traditionally a true knight must be a right-handed Christian male...

That pretty much changes daily. I think the best rumor is that VA-174 will come back as VFA-174. That or VFA-106 will expand.

Best number I can find is 35. So that's about 1/4 of all F-14 losses.

F-14's strength? Basically, everything. Swing-wings rule. The F-14 is quite literally good at everything. Not the BEST or "top 2" for most things, but pretty good. High-alpha, rolls, turns, acceleration (w/GE engines), speed, climb-rate (again, GE), etc. It just can't be all that all the time, it'll depend on what position the wings are at. It can change how it'll handle as fast as it can move its wings. It'll never out-alpha the Hornet, but it'll beat many planes in that category under many situations. Won't out-roll the F-5, but with the wings out and spoilers up it can make a 90-degreee bank like *THAT*. Wanna accelerate fast in a straight line? Put the wings back. PS--also, the F-14 is superior to the F-4 in every aspect AFAIK. And presumably at least matches the F-8's nigh-legendary dogfighting agility. PPS---F-14's do like to spin though, possibly the all-time worst fighter in that regard. Needs more yaw stability---but there's really no room for more ventral fin and more v.stab and still fit in a carrier's hangar.

Ah, THAT Tomcat. One of the very few museum F-14's that actually did fly with the squadron it's painted as. (90% of all F-14's in museums wear either VF-2, VF-41, or VF-84 markings, even if they didn't fly with them). Though it didn't fly with VF-84 in the configuration it's currently in. (It's in final 1990+ config, not 70's/80's when it was with the Jolly Rogers) That F-14 is very famous--it is the subject of the famous painting, and was about the most-filmed plane in "The Final Countdown". Note that I can't find any reference to it being AJ202 as painted, only AJ204 and 206. Will have to watch movie more closely, see if I can find which it was marked up as then. As for P-51 and A-10: simply becuase they're the most common planes at airshows. If there's more types, you'll get a bigger formation. PS--font's all wrong for the "VF-84" and bureau number. Not that BOEING cares about how Grumman painted up their planes.

Ultrasaurus is still my fave zoid. Big-a$$ guns that move. Walking battleship.

I'll be waiting. BA #7 is one of the very few B-model Hornets the Navy has. VFA-125's about the only other user of them.

Which is why I prefer the cold, soul-less experience of purchasing online.

Yes, but the only part of FAS anybody cared about is the "specs on military equipment" part of their website, which is almost always the first result to come up in google, and is the #1 reference people list whenever they mention an F-15's speed, M1A1's weight, cost of an AIM-120, etc. And with Globalsecurity's "specs on military equipment" being 99% identical, I figured it was a good idea to point out why, and why it is now the "preferred" reference/source. (Of course, 90% of the text of BOTH sites about planes is pretty much a giant quote from World Air Power Journal, it's usually faster/easier to search their site than go through my 50 volumes of back-issues)

Only decent weight/power comparison is combat weight, which is arbitrarily defined as half of max internal fuel, and a "decent" weapons load (go for half). So an F-15's combat weight would be the base weight of the plane, half internal fuel, 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, and about 600 rounds of 20mm. F-14's are usually calculated at 4xSparrow, to average out the wide range of missiles possible (Phoenixes really skew the average weight, they weigh as much as 5 Sidewinders). PS---20mm ammo weighs .56 lbs each, for an M61. You'll have to look up Euro stuff yourself.

This'll explain the FAS/Globalsec link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/pike.htm So technically, no, they're not the same. It's just the same head guy/web designer/info.

This comes up a lot: FAS.org is DEAD because it's now globalsecurity.org. Globalsec updates like 50 times a day.

In wartime, it's usually more important to identify who's who, than to try to camouflage. See D-Day invasion stripes and the Luftwaffe's ident bands. I mean, if the JASDF ever went up against other F-15's, it'd be easy to tell who's who in a dogfight based on color.

About the most blue you'll ever see is VF-143.

Really really blue? Nope, don't know of any. Besides the Blue Angels, which is basically the YF-21 scheme. Might want to check Canadian F-18 schemes, nobody "out paints" Canada. Can't recall any that are mostly blue, though most have a lot of blue.

....too....many....potential...Hulk-Bond.....jokes...can't...contain...

No. They land WAY too fast, and would snap their gear struts in half from the impact. Plus the fact that an F-15 pilot etc flat-out wouldn't have the training to land on a carrier. (or more actually, they wouldn't let anyone try, because if you miss or screw up, you'll probably kill several hundred people on deck and destroy about a billion dollar's worth of aircraft in a fiery explosion)

Most planes do, for exactly the reason that F-15 used it: a heavily damaged aircraft probably isn't going to be able to make a normal landing. And even if it could, the odds of the brakes working aren't good (assuming you've got massive hydraulic system leakage/damage from losing a wing). Even F-117's have a hook. It's just that F-14's etc have a MUCH stronger one as it's going to be used all the time, as opposed to once. F-15/16/etc hooks are often used as hold-backs for engine run-ups, that's actually the best time to see one.

My guess would be 50th Anniversary of the JASDF.

While we're on SR-71's: The SR-71's normal top speed is limited by the compressor inlet temperature, not drag, thrust, airframe heat, or anything else. Much like the Concorde, it can go as fast as it wants, until a certain "thing" reaches a certain temperature. On the Concorde it's the nose temp, on the SR-71 it's the compressor inlet. It varies depending on local temp, altitude, etc. SR-71's can't go as fast over the tropics (nor can the Concorde) for they are hot enough that even at 60,000ft+ it's still a few degrees warmer than normal, thus dropping max speed a bit. SR-71 (everything about it) is designed for Mach 3.2, to the point that going Mach 3.1 or 3.0 actually decreases range--going slower will actually increase fuel consumption. Real life flights proved that 3.23 was the optimum actual operating speed. Normal max is 3.3, unless you plan on destroying some expensive parts. Now, I have conflicting numbers from sources I trust, that say either 3.37 (intakes) or 3.5 (wings) is when the bow wave from the nose directly impacts the airframe, which is THE limit that you utterly can't go past without serious damage. The difference could come from A-12 vs SR-71 noses, or even different types of SR-71 noses. (There's lots of different ones, they could be changed every mission for different equipment). Now, one A-12 is said to have reached Mach 3.5 and landed safely but had serious damage. Also one SR-71 is said to have hit 3.5 literally running away from SAM's and MiG-25's over Libya, also with serious damage and making an emergency landing. (Mildenhall?) So I give credence to 3.5 as being the absolute limit for an SR-71.

More pics: http://www3.nsknet.or.jp/~zuka/px/50thANNI/50th.htm From what I can tell, the top and bottom have totally different patterns--much more white underneath.

The F-15K will probably be the best F-15 overall. It is designed to fill both the F-15C's and F-15E's roles. It is basically a lightened F-15E with better engines. Don't think it'll have CFT's, but should have most/all of the targeting equipment, etc. Was originally slated to have 29,000lb F110's, but I think they've upped it to 32,000lbs, same as the latest F-16C's. Note that the F-15C has 23,400lb engines. That is a SERIOUS power increase. More than even F-14D vs F-14A. Air to air, it should easily beat any other F-15. Better radar, more power, and without the drag/weight of CFT's. Also has the structural strengthening of the E so it can pull more G's with more weight than the C. For strike, it won't have the range/payload of the E, but should be just as accurate and all-weather capable.

Strange. Most of the time when a company wants an all-black Hornet, they do the real one. Though it's an F/A-18B, and thus you need a 2-seater mold.