David Hingtgen

Though everyone knows I'm not the biggest Hornet fan, I'm the first to admit they tend to have awesome high-vis schemes. ESPECIALLY black-tails. I like black-tail Hornets even more than black-tail Tomcats. VFA-14 is likely to have the best-looking E-models for quite some time. Unless of course they're forced to repaint... However, you might notice they've already had to take the letters off the rudders. When delivered, they had BIG "NH" lettering on the rudders. Now they're much smaller and moved ahead of the rudders, even on the CAG.

Sea Harrier pilots are exceptionally good. There are usually only about 24 people in the UK qualified to fly it in combat, known as the "Dirty Two Dozen". The Harrier is hard to fly (one of the JSF's main requirements is that it can be flown by an average pilot, as opposed to the amazing skill needed just to hover a Harrier), and to get the most out of it, you have to be GOOD. And they are.

::edit:: Hmmn, did some searching. Found at least 2 sites that specified that was in fact diving speed. One site lists the FA.2 speed as .94 low, .97 high, which makes more sense. If F-15C's can barely do 1.1 dry and clean on the best of days, it is unlikely a Shar will do better. FRS.1 is probably slightly faster than the FA.2, but not much. You know, I feel really stupid that I didn't head to the Harrier sites I have book marked. I'll go check them now.

VFA-41 is also said to have gotten an exception, but they are also an early user---you can assume all future squadrons will have to follow the new rules, and VFA-41 and the other earlier ones (VFA-102 almost certainly) will have to repaint. VFA-102 already did partial repaints earlier to move the lettering off the rudders, now they'll have to get rid of their diamondback stripes on the nose to comply with the "no stripes" rule. That new rule also explains why no vagabond stripe on the new Jolly Rogers.

The new rules might apply to all squadrons. VFA-14 is believed to have applied for (and received) special dispensation, being the first ex-F-14 E-model user, or something. They might have to repaint the CO plane as well. From what I can see, now only 1 plane per squadron is allowed any color, painted rudders, or stripes. The current theory is that somebody is on a MAJOR power trip, hates Shornets more than anyone else, and enjoys changing the rules every week and making people repaint Hornets 24/7.

Actually, AFAIK Maverick's plane was from VF-51, while Iceman's was from VF-111. And I believe most carrier scenes are actually of the Ranger. Just off the top of my head. PS--while we're here, the whole "no rudder paint" is quite true for Super Bugs. And there's new rules limiting LOGO SIZE!!!! That's why VFA-103's markings are as they are--they're the first to come from the factory following the new rules. Also, they've been cut to one colored plane per squadron, no exceptions. Also, no fuselage stripes/bands. VFA-2, despite winning every color scheme and markings award at Farnborough just a few weeks ago (with their normal colors no less, not painted up special for the show like all the other planes), has already been forced to repaint some of their low-vis planes to follow the new rules, so they're even lowER-vis. And their gorgeous CAG and CO ones might not last much longer.

AV-8B: Mach .89 low alt, Mach .91 high. Sea Harrier: Mach .99 low alt, Mach 1.25 high. GR3, GR5, etc would be slightly faster than an AV-8B. AV-8A's and C's would be identical to that.

Hmmn. Kinda depends on the final F-35 weight! The Harrier (by necessity) has a combat power/weight ratio exceeding 1. The F-35 is around that, depending on the model and how overweight it is. The Harrier (any version) is not a good turning aircraft in any respect. However, there are some very unique moves it can do in a vertical fight. (The Harrier can Immelman like nothing else---vector the nozzles to directly down (which is then up) or reverse at the top of the loop while inverted). It can also move forwards or backwards (with respect to the ground, not itself---the plane is technically moving up or down) while in a vertical climb or dive, to force an over or undershoot. If you spend a little while sketching out its attitude and nozzle positions, there's a lot of neat stuff you can come up with. (Besides the energy-killing "put the nozzles in reverse while flying forward"). And don't forget its vernier arrays (reaction jets in BAe nomenclature), which many people don't even realize are there--how else can it turn when at 18 knots airspeed? Its alpha limit is technically 180 degrees. Sea Harriers are far more manueverable and faster than a GR or AV-8B BTW.

Well, a few F-15C's have AIM-9X's now, we can assume F-15K's will be built with that capability, though I don't know if Korea will get them. We need some USAF F-15K's and add in helmet-mounted-cued AIM-9X's...

I see 4x ASRAAM usually, for standard UK JSF loadout. Either way, the UK certainly seems to intend it for shorter-ranged air-to-air more than any other user. Of course, with the Sea Harrier gone in a year, and the JSF not coming for quite I while, I wonder what they intend to use their carriers for in the mean time.

And GL can fly through space much faster than light-speed. (Otherwise Kyle STILL wouldn't be home) PS--I'd much rather see Jade fighting Starfire.

Well, the F-5 just blows away most anything in roll rate, it's seriously like 720 degrees per second. Wonder what its improved brothers the F-20 and X-29 can do... But for major fighters, I think the Flanker is quite high for its size and should definitely be investigated. F-14's can do a hyper-quick 90 degree roll, but 180 and 360 rolls wouldn't be simply 2x and 4x the 90-degree time. Generally, roll rate and sustained turned rate are opposite ends of the same scale. High roll rate=low turn rate, and vice-versa. Instantaneous turn is more determined by pitch rate and alpha capabilities than anything else. (since it's basically "roll 90 and pull back sharply")

Wing loading (calculated by moi): F-35A at combat weight: 71 lbs/sq.ft F-16E at combat weight: 97 lbs/sq.ft (weights based on what appeared a few posts ago) Some comparisons: F-16C Block 30: 88 lbs/sq.ft (the best air-to-air Fighting Falcon) F-15C: 66 lbs/sq.ft F-14: 90 lbs/sq.ft (this can be lowered by sweeping the wings--when the wings are back the gloves become more effective and make more lift, and can increase the effective area, and can approximately match the F-15's low loading--but only at higher speeds) I think the "effective" wing area when swept is about 800sq ft on the F-14, because the wings and gloves act like a giant delta wing. Best-case wing loading: 64 lbs/sq.ft. (but with huge energy bleed in turns) F-4J: 78 lbs/sq.ft F-8E: 68 lbs/sq.ft F-18C: 91 lbs/sq.ft F-18F: (really rough guess): 81 lbs/sq.ft F/A-22: 65 lbs/sq.ft YF-23: 60 lbs/sq.ft

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.