David Hingtgen

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.

More interesting F-8 records/facts: http://www.cloudnet.com/~djohnson/records.htm

Well it is a Lakenheath F-15E, which means it has -229 engines. This is the "F-15E with the high-power engines stripped down to air-to-air" scenario, with a far superior power/weight ratio than an F-15C. You'll note the CFT's aren't attached and there's no WSO. It's effectively an F-15D with 25% more thrust. This combo has a ratio not far off from your standard Flanker. And the F-15K should weigh less, and have even more power... 30 years, and the F-15 STILL rocks. Big engines+big wings=awesome fighter, period.

Based on what apparently happened at Farnborough this year, I'm thinking the F-15 has far better high-alpha performance than is generally believed, check this out: F-15E in a high-alpha tail-slide.

Actually, that's lightsheet. I think NOW you can get small flourescents cheaply enough to do an Excelsior, but even just 2 years ago it wasn't practical.

Eh, the Art Asylum NX-01 sample/prototype/pics in all the ads/ looked GORGEOUS. The real thing had approximately 99.9% fewer paint apps. A big thing for me is lighting up--and I want them BRIGHT! The Art Aylum ones aren't any better in that regard than the Playmates ones. Only good way to light is via Lightsheet or flourescent IMHO. Not too often I put up a pic of one of my models (because I feel that 99.9% of mine suck and aren't worth taking pics of):

Umm, RAM is the missile Knight26 works on, the CIWS Phalanx replacement. Yes, it's a missile so fast and accurate and awesome it'll replace bullets... *R*olling *A*irframe *M*issile. It spins for stability (thus, rolling airframe). Thus needs fewer fins etc. I'm sure Knight26 has WAY better photos than I, so I won't post any. NATO launcher=Sea Sparrow launcher. AKA newer version of BPDMS, Basic Point Defense Missile System. BPDMS=Sparrows in a Mk25 launcher. Looks like an ASROC launcher. NATO=Sparrows in a Mk29 launcher. Rather unique, 2 sets of 4 boxes, separated by a space.

I built the Bandai Ent-E myself. Honestly I'd have rather built the un-lit ERTL kit and painted (and putty/putty/putty and more putty) it myself. Bulb-life---no idea.

Which one's that? Nimitz class, but can't tell past that. (Other than it's not the Reagan). The one I just posted is the Stennis, you can just see the numbers on the flightdeck.

Hey, I said ask Knight26 like 6 posts ago... PS--small update from Navy: http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14451 PPS--you can never have too many pics of aircraft carriers: