David Hingtgen

Well I've been going through all my F-14 kits and decals lately, plotting what I'm going to make in the upcoming years. (Hey, with how long even a "simple" kit takes me, it'll be a while). I'm always annoyed when I see 5-day kits that look way better than my 5-week efforts. Anyways, I've come to the conclusion that I have too many Fujimi F-14's and parts. So I'm wondering---since Fujimi F-14D's will result in the most accurate-to-the-show model of Shin's F-14, does anyone need one? They are AFAIK utterly unavailable in the US (I shop at lots of online stores) , but I've got a few from HLJ etc, and I also (due to my large stash of Fuji F-14 parts from previous kits) have enough parts to "make" an F-14D from an F-14A or A+ kit. I can offer MISB (only 1), or plenty "open box/bags, but utterly unstarted" ones I can make from A/A+ kits and the extra D sprues I have. I also have one which has like 6 engine-area parts removed from the sprues (nicely, I was test-fitting) which of course would be cheaper. So, is there any interest from all you people who have the Hase M0 kit decals but want the RIGHT type of F-14, etc? I'm not looking to make profit or anything, just clear out closet space and make enough money to snag an F-14B or something. Also, I'm wondering how much interest there is in a Hasegawa guide for Shin's. Or maybe just F-14's in general, since VF-1 lovers tend to like F-14's too. A few parts would be more accurate than the Fuji kit for Shin's (weapons/pylons/wheels mainly) but it's generally more available and the "preferred" F-14 kit in the modeling community. I'm going to talk about it anyways, but the more interest, the more detail I'll go into, and expand into general "Hase F-14 tips" more.

I vote for right-side up in fighter mode. I mean---what if *all* the markings were right-side up in battroid mode? Fighter mode would have the markings all over the place. The gunpod is the only thing where it can look sort of right in both modes, but everything else only looks right in fighter mode.

I too spray outside. Any tips for best results? What humidity, temp, etc?

I couldn't believe he put the forward half on AFTER he decaled either! Only with a Tamiya could you even consider doing that. Anyways---Gunship grey (as a rule) is about the most opaque, even color there is. You could put it over flourescent orange primer and it wouldn't look different. I think that's what made the technique work. It's much darker than it photographs, they always look much lighter in photos than they really are. It is the color of a stealth bomber, and that's a DARK grey.

http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/howto/masa/masa.htm Quick F-15E nit-pick: FAST packs fit close, but not flush and smooth. Eliminate the gap, but do not "blend" it in at all. Of course, my 1/48 F-15E won't look 1/10 as good as his. (It's in the "getting puttied to be primered" stage at the moment, also working on nozzles and weapons) PS--"hand-spray"=airbrush.

There's about a billion Pokemon planes nowadays, newest one's less than 2 weeks old. (and the gaudiest yet) Come on over to an airliner/model plane forum and you can listen to us b*tch about them 24/7. Flight attendants have to wear special uniforms on them, BTW. And no, they look NOTHING like the above girl. Think "if your kindergarden teacher worked at Disney World".

Well I'm going out paint-shopping today, see what I can find. Ghadrack--have a part number for the Krylon? There's about 50 different primers from them, I own several. Haven't actually tried #1318 yet (grey primer). Hope it's better than the white primer (1317 I think). Also, ALL kylon says metal and plastic, it just depends how big the lettering is. Ostrich---how's Motomaster on plastic? Especially softer plastic. Also Duplicolor I thought was lacquer. If I was going to put up with the smell of lacquer, I'd go with Tamiya sprays.

That's not really the issue. The F-16 can move its stabs over 100 times per second. Even something as "ponderous" as an airliner can move its spoilers faster than the human eye can see. There is no need for a "faster" activating control surface, as a 20-year-old 767 can get 60 degrees from its spoilers in a fraction of a second. The issue with the extreme control surface positions is basically that the airflow simply wouldn't go with it. Spoilers can go to 60 on the ground because when they do that, their only purpose is to utterly and instantly stall the wing, disrupting all airflow across the wing's upper surface. That is why they never ever do such a thing in the air. It is also why there is no setting beyond 60 degrees---you cannot affect the wing anymore beyond "completely stalled". Maybe a slight increase in drag, but that's it. A similar situation would happen with any control surface going to such an extreme angle. An elevator that's like 70 degrees up will be utterly stalled, and totally ineffective. An elevator at 30 degrees, with smooth airflow, will be far more effective.

Well I went and took a look at my 20%? done USS Iowa and noticed that whatever "Testors in a can" base coat it has, it's a lot lighter and smoother than the Light Sea Grey I've been using lately. I THINK it might be Light Aircraft Grey, in the "regular" line not the MM line. Now I just have to find some, that's an uncommon color that not even many hobby shops have. But it does look much nicer than most any other "grey in a can". (It was over a year ago when I did my Iowa's primer coat---with tri-color camo on resin with a 5-color hull, you'd BETTER primer)

Spray enamel works geat for a battleship hull, but not anything small or with crevices. And it's not nearly as smooth as airbrushing. Inherent orange peel. Lumpy base coat=lumpy top coat. Though I might experiment with various colors--spray 36118 is pretty nice, but too dark for just about every final color. I might just go with it anyways, unless I find something better. Tamiya spray cans are awesome, but the smell is the worst of any paint on the planet. I have yet to *airbrush* *Tamiya* but hand-brushed Tamiya has only *slightly* better adhesion that hand-brushed Testors. As in, say, painting a cockpit sill black, or the instrument coaming, or an ejection seat. Airbrushing vs hand brushing makes little difference, if any. Of course, I read over at the finescale.com forums that one guy airbrushed Testor's acryl 36118 over bare plastic and it withstood duct tape. I have read many people use Polly S plastic prep immediately before airbrushing. Any one have any experience with this?

Ok, I have found out after switching to acrylics a little while ago that they utterly don't adhere to most bare plastics at all well. However, they stick to enamel paint like glue. But, if I have to prime every kit by airbrushing enamel over it first, that pretty much eliminates all the benefits of acrylics--easy clean-up, and no strong solvents/thinners/smells. An airbrush clean-up session after using enamels is about the most hated thing there is for me, modeling-wise. And the mixing/thinning session beforehand is almost as bad. Also, 99% of my airbrushing experience is with acrylics, don't want to start over again. Is there any way to get acrylics to adhere to bare plastic well, or is there some nice and easy way to primer kits? Acrylic primers are utterly worthless, they don't stick one bit better than acrylic paint. PS--yes, I wash my parts before painting. Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It's the plastic and the paint, not any sort of mold release oil that's the problem.

http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=6042 Matte tan boots are certainly better for the desert than shiny black... Anyways--you know, the Air Force and Navy spent 50 years finding out that patterns of grey was the best camo for almost any plane in any condition, strange that it took until now for that idea to make it into uniforms. There is no desert camo for an F-15 you know, grey is still the best. Even the RAF doesn't repaint Tornados into desert camo anymore, they paint them grey now for Gulf service. And you'll see plenty of grey tanks in the Gulf nowadays.(Marines)

Is there any quick and easy way to get all the sanding dust out of fine panel lines after a sanding session? It's even worse if you've been wet-sanding. The stuff just sticks like glue sometimes.

Very true. Most "normal" manuevers you don't see much move unless you're really looking for it. Watch a 747's ailerons--for a normal bank, they move MAYBE 1 or 2 degrees. Even a F-16 rolling around has only small movements. Could certainly be the animators are exaggerating everything so that people notice it.

::edit:: preface to everything below. It's in gerwalk--that kind of obliterates all aerodynamic consequences etc, since it's using engines in its feet for lift and verniers for control. Explanations below are for a real plane actually flying, not a giant mecha hovering around that just happens to have F-14-esque wings stuck on. For the first pic, well frankly it depends on the alpha. Spoilers would be much more effective and controllable than moving the entire trailing edge up that much. If the airfoil was perfectly symmetrical and had the proper alpha it could produce a downforce, but I'm guessing it's nearly symmetrical, since it has slats, and wouldn't be producing a downforce under almost any circumstance, just a loss of lift. Second pic: the spoilers are deployed enough to utterly stall the wing. Yes, he'd be slowing down, as he dropped like a rock due to instantaneous and total loss of lift from the wings. It doesn't matter what anything else on the wing is doing, that spoiler position is nothing short of "drop out of the sky". Third pic: like the second pic--it's just too far. You need a morphing wing so as to be able to do that and have it work--needs to be curved a LOT. The airstream simply won't follow that. You've got a massive, stall-inducing airbrake basically. Like the 2nd pic. Even the most agile fighters at low speeds rarely move a control more than 45 degrees. 60 degrees is extreme (spoilers only for up and generally only on the ground, or maybe only a few of the outboard ones, and that's beyond the max for even multi-slotted curved-profile flaps). Nothing does 70/80/90 while actually flying. And most importantly, all those controls only affect a small part of the wing. Here, the VF-0's moving the entire trailing edge.

F-16CJ has "C" as part of the name. It's a single seater. A 2-seat SEAD F-16 is the F-16DJ. The HARM is apparently pretty easy to deploy, F-15C tried it out too. The Maverick is the only weapon I've heard of that is often considered "difficult" for a single-seat plane. (I think A-10's don't have problems due to going so much slower)

At this point, I'm wondering if the animators have any clue what they're doing, and if they've talked to Kawamori at all about how the VF-0's controls work. The second pic makes absolutely postively no sense at all, unless it was on the ground trying to slow down after landing. But it's flying in that pic. 1st one, makes slightly more sense than the first, but is still "huh?". 3rd one---there's a limit to how far flaps can go before they stop working, and that is well past that. Another "huh?" PS---got my Hase weapons set V yesterday, it also includes both style of LAU-129 launchers (F-16) for AMRAAMs, so those'd work great for anywhere you'd want to mount some AMRAAMs. Or SAMRAAM's. Missiles are easy to modify, just clip the fins at some angle, and it'll look like something else. Just don't clip an AMRAAM's fins at an angle parallel to the body, for that'll be the AIM-120C, not a "new" AMRAAM.

Neither do I, it's just mentioned so often I pretty much accept it as truth. I know, I know, (especially with how often FSW is said to be inherently unstable). Could be totally wrong! I usually like to UNDERSTAND why something is the way it is, rather than just accept it. Thing I learned today: FSW has less induced drag than normal swept, and almost no tip vortices/wake. Just another plus. (And I know WHY it is thus)

For any given speed and sweep angle, (for those speeds where you have to worry about a shockwave) forward-swept creates less profile drag. And lots of little things that add up to significantly less total drag in most any situation. The longer and pointier the nose, the easier it is to keep the wings within the nose-generated bow wave. That works for any plane. Tip flex: the flex is the problem, not the solution. Flex leads to increased local alpha, which leads to more flex and higher loads, until the wing breaks off. Swept-back wings have the alpha/loads decrease with flex, so there's no problem. New materials can make a wing induce twist as it flexes, (kind of like instant local washout) to counteract the effects of the flex. But those are expensive, hard to work with materials. And it adds weight. This was for a long time the main anti-FSW argument: to make it strong enough to work with a metal wing, it had to be so heavy it countered out all the advantages. Then graphite/carbon/kevlar/composites etc came along, and we could make a LIGHT, strong, flex-countering wing, and we got the X-29 and later the S-37. Maneuverability: eh, better slow-speed/high alpha control. Nothing more. Glorified F-18. Finally--if you're going really fast (as in, Mach 3.5+) it's far better to use a supersonic airfoil, than to use sweep. Look at the X-15. Or, the F-104. Mach 2+ with a wing almost as straight as a Cessna. Of course, supersonic airfoils suck at low speed, and sweep is generally preferred, but at really high speeds no amount of sweep will be as good an airfoil optimized for high speed. There aren't really many disadvantags to FSW, only that the materials needed to make a stiff and strong one are costly and hard to work with, as well as needing to be heavier to be stronger (related to the first). And it's the most un-stealthy thing you can do to a plane, which is why nobody's going to design a fighter with FSW right now, when stealth is all the rage.

Pretty much. Of course, you can't fold up a LOT of the flaps, or there'd be so much vertical area created you'd start having dorsal fins. Still, most swing-wing planes have the wings positioned high enough that when swept, they are actually just ABOVE the engines, which is how they get away with it. Actually I'm not sure why the Tu-160 doesn't do that, for it ALMOST can, if the wing was just slightly higher. Basic rule of aircraft design: someone, somewhere, has already tried it.

If they'd just animated it a bit differently, it'd work. (well, probably not STRAIGHT back, but at least more than say the Yamato one can, and more than you'd achieve by just going as far back as you can without cutting a slot in the fuselage sides) The Tu-160 can sweep its wings much further than you'd think. It does this by folding the flaps up vertically. Much like how carrier planes fold the tips up, but inboard and cut at an angle. It basically folds the flaps up against the sides of the fuselage and gets them out of the way so the wing can sweep WAY back. The YF-19's legs' sides are vertical enough that you could do the same things This pic shows it down (horizontal) but you can easily see what part will move up out of the way if the wing were to start retracting rearwards. http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/tu-160_files/tu_160_23.jpg (the bottom part is just a fairing and doesn't move, the wing slides along on top of it--basically like the metal part of the wingroot on a Yamato -19)

pfft your suposed to say something unrealistic not geek it up Hey, what did you expect from *me*? A more realistic post would have gotten a funnier answer, along the lines of: "Yeah, but you can get -229E's for a lot less, and they're like 99% as good, check ANG bases"

Exactly. I don't want a Growler for Wild Weasel, give me an F-16CJ. Once it's fired off the HARM's, it's armed (and built) to be the best of the F-16's for air-to-air combat.

I believe there's more Hase F-14 kits with that serial than any other, especially considering how many Pacific Fleet squadron and Black Knights releases they do. Probably just the most common serial that Hase's decal makers do.

$180,000 for a pair of *-229* F100's? Seems waaaaaaaay too cheap. -100's or -200's would be a lot cheaper than -229's. -220's still in demand.