David Hingtgen

Update! Schultz finally posted, and they always have more comprehensive schedules. http://www.schultzairshows.com/demo.htm Most notably, like 3x as many Tomcat demos!!!! One only a 3.5 hour drive for me...

I've got some Hase 1/72 F-18's coming this week, I'll let you know once I've opened them up. The only other real choice is the Italeri. But Hase's can be found for $8 MISB, so price is not a factor here. AFAIK, Hase only has the "original" mid/late-80's F-18 mold, it's one of the few not to get a new one. (Mainly because the F-18 is new enough). So it's certainly not up to "new for 1995" mold standards, but a lot better than their 70's/early 80's stuff. For the C/D, they just added a few sprues, it's still basically their original F-18 kit. (They do offer the prototype F-18, that's what's referred to as the old mold--but it's not REALLY an F-18, and is never offered as a "real" one with "real" squadron markings, so you don't have to worry about it). I've heard something about the latest issues having resin replacement exhausts, but I've never found one or seen a confirmation. I plan to get their Wildcats CAG F-18C when it comes out in a few months, and that'll confirm, being the latest F-18 they've got. And I've heard nothing but praise for their Super Hornets, btw. F-14's---you've REALLY got to check. They issue old and new all the time, sometimes even with VERY similar box art. Common ones I know: 532 and 533 are old mold, 364 and 366 are new mold. (yes, numbers are backwards) Most common F-14A's you'll find offered. BTW-- If you're looking for an F-14A, and plan to use aftermarket decals, I'd pay good money for a set of kit 366's decals. That's the good mold, with VF-111 decals. I just want the decals, for I like the Fujimi's for F-14A's. (Easier to build)

Boy, that's hard to describe. A chine is a chine. Umm, how about: "Thin, flattened section of structure attached/blended the fuselage, along the sides/nose". Basically, look at an SR-71 head-on. Now remove the fuselage itself from the center, You're left with the "edges". The chines. F-16 is similar, they go from just aft of the radome to the wing-root. (Not quite LEX's like a Hornet, but close). BTW---lack of *yaw* stability can't be countered with FBW. F-16 has very large ventral fins, despite being probably the best example of a plane with FBW. http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbir...976-2001-08.htm Here--start at the nose-probe, and head right across. That's the chine, heading right and slightly down, until it gets to the wing. It's the line separating the lit and shadowed parts. Or here http://www.sr-71.org/photogallery/blackbir...976-2002-01.jpg start at nose-probe, and head left. Again, separates the lit and shadowed areas. You can't really draw a line where the fuselage stops and the chine starts. It's just the "edge". Since most planes have nice round fuselage sides, this is the exact opposite.

250-300 million? As if. I like McCain too, but that's one of those "including the cost of the pilot's breakfast, runway maintenance, fuel for 30 years, every missile it'll ever shoot, and enough paint to keep it pretty for inspection" numbers. Plus an extra 100 million. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/f-22-cost.htm Well sh*t, they cut them from 339 to 276!!! Of course the price goes up. We've already spent $29 billion on the program, if we cut the order down to 10 fighters, it'll be 2.9 billion per plane. Sigh, at this point (low numbers) I wonder why we even build them. There were supposed to be 750+, to replace the F-15. Now it'll be like 6 wings--Training, East coast, West cost, Japan, Korea, and Europe. I also recommend reading the Air Force's comment on why they need F-22's, it's about 99% of what my response for why we need F-22's was going to be. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007397 Of course, F-35's getting all the funding it wants...

There's a few more photos of the Have Blue(s) in WAPJ issue #19. I reference it often for it is both the main F-117 issue, and the "F-14A/B/D comparison" issue. Best pic is an up-close detailed one of Have Blue #2 in flight, from below, with its elevons deflected. You can really see how different its flight controls are from an F-117's.

There's paint, then there's RAM. And some RAM comes in a spray can. It's all generally black but I don't know if you need to use special paint to overcoat it. (Even B-2's and F-117's have insignia, warnings, etc painted on). So there's either grey radar-absorbing paint, or you can put regular paint over RAM sheets or RA-paint. And of course, there's the "goopy" RAM used to recover exposed screw-heads, since there's no stealth-screws.

I sure can appreciate the 101 modex number. And yellow live warhead stripes on the missiles.

You know, weight doesn't equate to size, for ships. (I don't think there's ever really been a way to compare ships via some "size" stat, other than just making a scale model and finding out the volume of it that way--displacement, weight, gross tonnage, etc all have little correlation/relevance, even among ships of similar size and type--only exception is REALLY similar type, like any carrier using Forrestal-style of deck design)

Noyhauser--I've gotta say you're weird as modelers go. From all I've seen, people who "stock up" like me make up like 95% of modelers. Many of us technically fall into the "collectors of plastic and decals" category, with an occasional actual BUILDING of a kit.

YF-12, not YF-71. (Just a nit-pick, they're all Blackbirds) And it could fold to the side, not retract. (I know, I'm being nitpicky again) Anyways---the reason for the YF-12 needing the ventral fins was because the tips of the chines on the nose were cut away for the radar. A-12's and SR-71's have full-length chines, to the very tip of the nose. When the YF-12's chine was cut away just that little bit, it needed no less than 3 ventral fins to replace the loss of stability. The Blackbird design really needs that chine on the nose. While the Blackbird's chines do help with stealth, their main function is the overall stability of the aircraft. Smaller versions can be seen on the F-16.

The average modeler has about a 10:1 ratio of unbuilt and finished kits. Or maybe 50:1 for some people. I currently have 6 F-14 kits, and need to buy 1 or 2 more. And 0 finished ones! I also have small piles of unbuilt F-16 and 18's. I need to snag a VF-1J and YF-19 though, to add to the pile. Then maybe someday build them and post pics up here.

While vac-formed, and not *mass* produced (but easily available), the Transport Wings 1/72 747-400 has a 38.5 inch fuselage, 35.5 inch wings, and has a fuselage several times the size of a B-36's. The 1/48 B-1B is Revell. A local shop has one on their top shelf. I look at it every time.

Whaaaa?!? I've got more hot pink female Virtual On figures than valks! Or maybe I shouldn't say that so loudly. (I like female robots in general, and the Fei-Yen design especially) Yes, most VO designs are ugly, but a few rock. (mainly the ones that are overt parodies of anime characters)

IIRC, MiG-29 radar systems actually use vacuum tubes. Airframe: good. Avionics: bad. As for IR---F-117's have a *tiny* IR signature. They are quite sleek, little drag for kinetic heating. And their exhaust is about as cool as a jet engine's can possibly be. It'd be one heck of an advanced IR sensor to lock on.

Well yeah, an incredibly sleek delta-winged all-white plane with a nearly flat and featureless upper surface probably will end up looking a lot like your standard "delta" paper airplane.

Hmmn. All those F-15 and F-16 schemes just don't work on the VF-1, IMHO. (Plus the totally messed up serial numbers bug me, but only because I actually know how the numbering scheme works--unlike the Navy, Air Force serial numbers actually make sense). There's some F-14 schemes lower on that look good. (man, like 99% of VF-1 schemes and squadrons are from real life, we need more people to actually invent some new squadrons and schemes--there's got to be more than Blue Roses) Of course, you kinda need bored drunken sailors on shore leave to come up with the REALLY good squadron names, like the SHWFOTS. (Brownie points if you know who that is, and what the "official" name is)

Assuming it's like other Wave vinyl robots, there vinyl has always seemed very "plasticky" to me. A good thing, IMHO. It can be sanded, just go easy. As for cutting---you know how you can cut paper just by drawing it across the blade of a scissors, rather than actually "using" the scissors? It cuts best like that. Put the blade in, and just push/pull the blade through the vinyl in one motion, don't "saw" the vinyl. Go slow, and it'll cut really nicely. Overall--go slow. It'll cut and sand nicely, if you just go slow, with little pressure and movement. Fewer, longer strokes are better than many small rapid ones. (I've only built ONE vinyl kit, but it was a WAVE 1/72 mecha, so I'm presuming it'll be similar) PS----fill the legs with weight. Lots of it. Like, solid lead from the feet to the thighs. Unless you've got the perfect stand to hold it.

I've never formatted it nicely, (it just starts right in) but here's my PG W0C tips: http://members.aol.com/ncc42768/PGWingZero.doc Written only like 2 days after assembly, so it was all fresh in my memory.

That is a problem, even I get bored at airshows waiting for the "good stuff". 3 hours of hammerheads/torque-rolls gets old. Just alternating jets and props would help a lot. Even a Cobra manuever would get old after the 25th in a row that day... Honestly, since single-ship military demos aren't all that common, most of the time I go simply for the static displays, to get up close to modern military jets. Of course, if there's an F4U flying, I could watch that all day. Best-sounding plane ever. (Sorry, P-51's sound great, but the F4U sounds even better)

And this is a *Studio Nue* drawing. Of a Valkyrie. That appeared in DYRL.

Or a quick pale blue repaint, for a VF-19A?

IMHO, all PG wiring is either: A. Completely wortless. B. *Barely* adequate. Just solder everything. Quicker and easier than trying to use some combo of plastic and screws and springs.

All you really need is "left" and "right". Anyways--just ask here for any symbol meanings you don't get! BTW--which PG kits? I have a mini-FAQ for assembly tips for the W0C.

Technically, a leading edge flap could be anything. But it's generally assumed to mean Krüger flaps unless otherwise specified, and is how I usually read it. And a hinged leading edge is just that. Mainly because a flap is a small piece, but the "hinged leading edge" is the whole front of the wing, not really a separate piece. Could also mean droops, but they're downwards-only (being a specific type of hinged leading edge). (Being an airliner buff above all else, high-lift devices are a specialty of mine, airliners have used and invented most every type). Coolest flap name: Zap flaps! (Which are like sliding split flaps)

A bit overdone? Most groundcrew would be fired if they let a military plane get like that.