David Hingtgen

Seems I'm wrong. Those aren't for the F-14's nosegear steering. They are however, the links that raise and lower the catapult strop. But they sure look like and are in the right position to be the steering links. Now if I can only find the steering mechanism... I also found out that the little part of the main gear that sticks into the fuselage is called the interlock strut, and it is to help support the main gear, by giving it another attachment point to the fuselage.

I really want planes to stall in prolonged/tight turns. No more 1080's until you get behind the guy. There's a reason planes have both an instantaneous and a *sustained* turn rating... (as well as minimum speeds for a given bank angle--no 80 degree banks at 200kts) Plus I want F/A-18's to have massive drag and all that entails. And I'll be checking to see if the Super Bug's pylons are all messed up, just like the real one's. Acceleration characteristics would be nice, but are generally ignored (boy would it alter high-speed/high-altitude fights--F-4's would QUICKLY become a much more popular choice). (And Super Tomcats would actually be at a disadvantage) And I'd take the F-111 if the goal was speed, speed, speed. Probably outmanuever the pig that the MiG-25 is, and actually have a decent load-out.

Many schedules aren't finalized until later (ESPECIALLY Blue Angels) but here's a good start: http://www.stevesairshow.com/fighters04.html F-14/15/16/18, A-10, etc http://www.stevesairshow.com/jet-teams04.html TBird/Angels F-14 demos are down a lot from last year, several squadrons disbanded or transitioned (VF-2, VF-154, etc). However, nowadays if you get a Tomcat demo, the odds are VERY high it'll be a Super Tomcat. Fewer Hornets, too. (Though it could just not be finalized, the Navy isn't nearly as "into" airshows as the Air Force---they finalize later, do a lot fewer shows, and have no official sites for the demo teams)

500lb bombs don't weight EXACTLY 500 pounds, btw, if someone's trying to calculate explosive percentage. Also, the bigger the bomb, the higher the percentage explosive. It's still ROUGHLY half and half, but a 2,000 pounder would have a notably higher percentage than say a 500 pounder.

Dang, it wouldn't be that much smaller than the 1/48 Blackbird I built, and bigger than any of the teen series.

I'd have to do a bit of searching for exact numbers, but one of my best books says "roughly" 50/50 for all Mk80-series bombs. And that is part of the "General Purpose" designation. Those with 65% explosive are "demolition" bombs, and aren't nearly as common. (They also tend to be larger--3,000lbs+) izzyfcuk---the hard part is trying to remember the JDAMs, much harder, for they're not in order. Mk81/82/83/84 are 250/500/1000/2000 lbs--easy. But JDAM's are like 31/30/29/32 or something, in ascending order of size. I always have to look up JDAM weight/numbers. (It would have made sense for them to number the JDAM's in order, so of course it wasn't done that way)

It's exactly what we want. If we want sims, we go play sims--plenty to choose from. If we want arcade-style, we play Ace Combat.

That reminds me---one of the best things about AFDS is the wingmen have a brain. Unlike every other game ever, if the mission is to bomb something, and you take like an A-10, your wingmen can actually fight well enough to keep the Mig-29's off your back. In most games, no matter what, you need to load up on AMRAAM's to defend yourself, no matter how ground-oriented the mission is. AC's wingmen are usually pointless.

Darn, I forgot to mention the F-16 CFT's. However, I don't think it's Block 60, as it's now official that the Block 60 is the F-16E/F, and they also have the Dorsal Spine, not just CFT's. (Though if the spine is there, then the game's got Block 60's) Flanker fetish--ugh, 60 of AFDS's 130 planes were Flankers. All that, and no F-8's, no original F-4's, etc. I sure hope maybe they'll model the F-14's flight controls right this time. Doubt it though, I think they've convinced themselves they're right. PS--F-14's are more manueverable than most people think. They are right up there if not surpassing the F-15 at high speeds. The F-14's wing loading is much much lower than most people realize. Swing wings do rock, the F-14 has almost none of the disadvantages "traditionally" associate with them yet every advantage.

EA-18G Growler, electronic warfare replacement for the EA-6B Prowler. See, the idea is to not only get rid of the Tomcats, but all Grumman aircraft. 6 (maybe only 5) Hornet squadrons per carrier! 2 squadrons of F/A-18E's, 1 F/A-18F's, 2 F/A-18C, and 1 EA-18G squadron, that's my guess. Though E and C will be interchangable for a while. Maybe add in an F instead of a C.

I always go with Magicbox for news/pics: http://www.the-magicbox.com/Mar04/game032504a.shtml F-14's look to be D's, and even appear to have the correct rear fuselage. Yes, sure looks like that's an EA-18G Growler. (Though I'd like to call the E/F/A-18 just to make fun of the Hornet's designation) And of course, the big question is if they'll have the YF-23 and other prototypes. (I LOVE AFDS's inclusion of the YF-17, the Hornet's predecessor so rocked--I like F-20's a lot too) PS--SpacePirateNeko---those ARE gameplay screens. (At least all the ones I've seen at Gamespot so far, and all the ones at the Magicbox) If you saw AC4, you wouldn't be surprised AC5 looks like this. Nobody can get the PS2 to pump out graphics like Namco, they even surpass Square IMHO.

I'll be back in a few days, getting the demo. (not that I nit-pick flightsims or anything)

Yup, nothing like carpet-bombing for using up old bombs. The most common loads for Hornets and Intruders in Desert Storm were Mk.82 LDGP bombs. And dumb bombs can be pretty accurate, that comes down to pilot skill. (and a good pipper with CCIP can help a lot too!) Quick bomb review: Mk.82 is the 500lb, Mk.83 is the 1,000lb, Mk.84 is the 2,000lb. And to stave off a question: weight is total weight, not weight of the explosive. Assume around 50/50 explosive/casing. (Shrapnel from the casing might actually do more damage than the explosion itself)

Any low-vis Tomcat looks just like that pic. Sometimes nicer, sometimes worse. It's simple--corrosion control/prevention. Any little spot that looks less than perfect, gets sanded/primed/painted right away at sea. And they only paint the exact little spot, not the whole panel, so it looks really patchy pretty soon. (Crews would like to do a whole panel at a time, it'd make the planes look a lot better, but the Navy says no) And paint batches don't match anyway. And sometimes you're out of Dark Ghost Gray and need to use Light Ghost Grey. AC4's X-02: It's a YF-23 with switchblade wings embedded in the leading edges. (And new engines, ventral fins, folding stabs). But it's 80% YF-23, much like AC2's XFA-27 was mainly an F-14. Angel's Fury: a quick explanation of canards is that they are basically the opposite of horiz. stabs. Unless you're an F-16 or X-29 or anything else purposely realyl unstable, a plane's center of lift is aft of its center of gravity. That is basic stability---if lift is forward of center of gravity, you're unstable. ::tries to find pic:: Ok, more extra stuff than I wanted, but it shows it well: Big black vertical line (W): center of lift from wings. Yellow dot: center of gravity. Lift pulls up, gravity pulls down. Imagine if you attached strings to the center of lift and center of gravity, and pulled in opposite directions (down from gravity, and up from lift). Since lift is aft of gravity, the plane will tip nose-down. Not good. Now look at the h. stabs---the big black line labled T. That's the force from the tail. It is small, but aft of the wings, and pulls down, thus righting the aircraft, thus level flight. That is how most planes fly. If a plane weighs 100,000lbs, you actually need like 120,000lbs of lift from the wings, since the tail will probably be pushing DOWN with 20,000lbs of force, to keep the plane level. So---what's another way to keep the plane level? The exact opposite--a small tail pulling UP, AHEAD of the wings. Which would be canards. Generally seen as superior, since they add to the lift of the wings, rather than trying to oppose them from behind. Best example is takeoff--you're at the end of a runway, trying to get lift to get off the ground--then to pull up, you push DOWN with thousands of pounds of force on the tail----not the best way to get UP. You can kind of think of it like this--to make a balanced force against gravity, you can have either a huge lifting force from the wings and a downforce from the tail, or a medium lift from the wings and a small lift from the canards. Tailplane downforce generally is more stable, but canards are lighter and quicker. Thus you see airliners with tailplanes, and many fighters with canards. You also see many modern fighters with tailplanes instead of canards--why? Well, some designers just don't like canards (this is why F-16's don't have them). Heck, it's the reason most don't have them. Also---it is easy to add a canard for additional stability/control, like you see on the X-29 or S-37 or the XB-70. It is however very easy to add a "bad" canard and have a really messed up plane if its the ONLY source of pitch stability. SAAB is certainly good at it, but many companies/designers are not experienced with it. Canard-only designs are AFAIK harder to design than tailplane/h.stab designs. Finally---you're much more likely to see canards on a delta-winged plane. Look at XB-70, most modern European fighters, etc. It mainly has to do with how elevons work on delta-winged planes, and especially the "takeoff" situation I mentioned. Also, since delta-winged planes are generally quite stable in pitch anyway since they have such huge wings and a spread center of lift (unless you design it not to be), they usually use canards as a supplement, not the only source for pitch control. (Since it's usually the wing itself for pitch control----look at a Concorde---nothing but the wing). So in summary a YF-19 would probably use its small canards simply as an additional source of pitch control, since it has thrust-vectoring like almost every other valk for its primary source of pitch stability/control. Canards (like most any control surface if you want) can also be used differentially for roll control, but the -19's are so small it's probably pointless. "Supplemental" canards are awesome to quickly pitch-up (the main move fighters do) because if you have a normal tailplane--that means you've got a downforce at one end of the plane, and an upforce at the other--and you will very quickly rotate the aircraft about its axis like that.

::major edit because I was totally wrong:: See post below.

The main reason for the XB-70's folding tips was for yaw stability. The bigger they made the tips (by moving the hinge location), the smaller they could make the v.stabs. It was that or ventral fins, which'd add drag. The folding tips DID help with the shockwave-riding, but not much. They simply increased the effect. (more like "made sure it stayed under the wing") Also, the shockwave it rode was just the one from the intake. The whole theory requires the shockwave to remain below the wing. The nose and canards did of course make shockwaves at high speed, but they were just like any other shockwave. The XB-70, for the wave-riding to work, required a specifically shaped and located shock, thus the big giant intake/engine box. (Technically it's actually more like "boosting the pressure from the wing's shockwave and using that" but everyone calls it wave-riding) The wing makes a shockwave, and like all waves increases the pressure--but with the addition of the intake under the wing, you get even MORE pressure under the wing and thus more lift--and for little or no additional drag because the wave is trapped under the wing) You'll note most fast planes have nice smooth/curved bellies under the wing--SR-71, Concorde, etc. But the XB-70 stuck that big huge intake box below right behind where the shockwave would form, and the shockwave had nowhere to go so it increased the pressure.

A. I usually post LATE you know. And I've got a weird schedule for the next few weeks. B. On something this important/complex, I usually like to do a quick review. Ok, let's go on one of my fave topics. (quick note: wave drag=drag created by the formation of a shockwave, as in when you go trans/supersonic) Noyhauser--your first paragraph strikes me as pretty wrong regarding FSW drag. Sorry, please correct me if I'm wrong. Also sorry if I come off negatively. I think you're mixing the nose's bow wave (and wave drag) with parasitic drag or something. (I have no degree, I just read a lot--I could be wrong) Forward-swept wings (generally, assuming similar characteristics) have less drag at transonic and supersonic speed than aft-swept. It was one of the design goals of the X-29. The spanwise flow (inboard on FSW) is irrelevant to wave drag, for the airflow effectively ignores the sweep (it doesn't travel right along with leading edge), it goes straight across the wing at a right angle to the leading edge (or at least it's only accelerated in that direction) ---that is the basic inherent property of sweep. If it wasn't, sweep would be nigh-pointless, as increasing sweep increases the structural length of a wing, increasing drag. It's only because sweeping it decreases the wave drag more than it increases the parasitic (skin) drag, that we do it. This shows it pretty well: http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/High-S...phics/Sweep.GIF Only that vector component of the air is accelerated, leading edge to trailing edge, not along the leading edge. You could have wings a mile long, but if their chord is only 20 feet, then the air only cares about the 20 feet. Sweep basically "breaks up" the airflow into its component vectors. http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/pot...es/image446.gif Thus, we only deal with the U1 vector, not U(infinity). (in the pic) Note angle A--sweep angle. For almost anything involving mach/sweep, etc, you use Cosine A. (Actually, 1/CosA if you want the new critical Mach number) :::yeesh I'm tired::: Actually, this is more of a general supersonic drag theory question than FSW question, for as I mentioned above, it's simply Cosine A. And it doesn't care which direction. 45 degrees forward and 45 degrees back will have the exact same effect regarding drag, since it's the cosine of 45. (Asides from the minor minor differences FSW and ASW have----it's really close, the only reason it's mentioned a lot is because airlines would kill for 1% less drag for fuel savings). Anyways---drag (parasitic) of FSW and ASW (aft-swept, AKA "normal" sweep) wings is really really close, but FSW is slightly better. Both ASW and FSW have the air move across a greater distance than a simple straight wing--which direction doesn't matter for drag, only for how it flies. (Maneuverability, lift, etc). We're not talking manueverability here for the YF-19 (otherwise this'd be a LONG post), so we can just talk supersonic flight/drag etc. (sorry for this being written disorderly like this, I've had a rough 24 hours--I'll edit/followup/etc later--everybody be sure to ask what you want clarified) So---IMHO the YF-19's aft-sweep at high-speed is pretty pointless/impossible. Asides from the whole "it won't fit" problem, you'll also encounter the airflow going sideways across the airfoil. If it goes from -45 to 45, then you'll have the air going exactly across the airfoil sideways. And that lift is 0. If you put a 747 on the runway, and get a 200mph wind going from the side, it's not going to fly. You can't twist the air 90 degrees and expect lift. Heck, the F-14 only changes it 40 degrees betweeen min and max and loses most of the wing's lift. (60% loss off the top of my head--which is why it relies more on fuselage lift at high speed). However as Noyhauser brought up, the YF-19 relies (like many planes) on body lift at that point. It'd work if the YF-19's aerodynamic enough for it to rely 100% on body lift. (The wing roots are its only chance to develop enough lift, YF-19's fuselage is so not a lifting body, unlike an F-14) Now, as for drag----well, when you go REALLY fast, sweep becomes pretty pointless actually. Sweep only increases the critical mach factor (the point at which you form a shockwave on the airfoil). However, as I mentioned---that decreases wave drag, not parasitic drag. Also, the more you do this, the less lift you have. So you start having to go to delta wings, bigger wings, etc. Eventually you're going to be flying a very skinny, very heavy triangle. (Like a Concorde, but even more so). The limit is basically Mach 3.5 for a practical plane, well under what YF-19's do. (Not that any valk flies below what it SHOULD based on sweep, but the YF-19 REALLY goes too fast). At really high speeds, (Mach 5, like YF-19's go), you actually want no sweep, as the parasitic drag from additional structure due to sweep outweighs the decrease in wave drag. Look at the X-15---straight wings. Or the F-104---over Mach 2, nice straight wings. Having small wings decreases the drag, and being straight they produce lots of lift, so you CAN have small wings and not fall out of the sky. ::looks for graph:: Big important point Sweep is so you can use a normal (subsonic) airfoil in a supersonic environment. And it's only useful up to a point. Beyond that, you want a supersonic airfoil, which doesn't need sweep, because it's designed for it. But it's really bad for subsonic situations (like takeoff and landing). Ok, I think that's it for tonight. I'm sure I've put a major error in there somewhere. This is like the "super question" for FSW, since it pretty much combines normal sweep, forward-sweep, Mach number, both methods of achieving supersonic drag reduction, and just about everything else. Honestly, to fully explain it, I need to do a full "Mach and shockwaves" post, and "shockwaves and drag" post, and a "drag/shock/sweep" post. Plus a "forward vs aft sweep" post. I'll check here again as early as I can tomorrow. 3PM central at the latest hopefully. Quick (hopefully) summary: 1. Drag-wise, FSW and ASW are really close, slight advantage to FSW, advantage greater at high-alpha. (Can't talk planes without mentioning alpha, especially not FSW planes). 2. The point of sweeping wings (in either direction) is to allow them to use normal airfoils (which are great for low speed and subsonic handling) in supersonic environments as well. But they have a practical limit. They're pointless for Mach 4, 5, 6, etc. 3. You can't mix FSW and ASW on the same plane, as the airfoils would become utterly ineffective. But that assumes you're only using the wings to fly, which many high-speed planes don't. YF-19 could use body-lift. (We'll assume it does, otherwise it couldn't fly at all in high-speed mode). 4. THUS: If the YF-19's body itself, or just the non-sweeping wing-roots had a supersonic airfoil, they would work quite well at ultra-high-speed, since the wings would be worthless, but they'd be in their element. (Though since the YF-19's wingroots are highly swept, they could use a subsonic airfoil--depends on exactly how much lift the wings make)

Sorry for the delay, I don't check the FanWorks page too often. Anyways--I've never found a "rotation" mechanism on ANY plane. My guess is it's internal, or so small it looks like just another generic hydraulic line or wire bundle on the strut. I've got my own personal F-14 pics which beat anything you'll find anywhere else, and the best I can offer is it might be this (as well as the similar-looking thing on the right side of the strut). However, AFAIK, it's pretty much only the wheel and its axle that rotates, not the entire lower half of the strut. (Also interesting to note, and never mentioned anywhere AFAIK, is the small door opened in the fuselage itself for clearance for a projection from the gear--far left side of the pic, a little bit above center--left of the top of the spring) ::edit:: After looking at it closer, I really don't think that's it, and that the black line is simply paint, not a separation line. IMHO, the mechanism should closely resemble nose-gear steering parts, since it's basically the same thing--but there's nothing like that on the main gears, from what I can find. (If anyone wants to model nose-gear steering, let me know)

Nope, that was Bumblejumper. Bumblebee can be red or yellow, and Cliffjumper can be red or yellow. On TV they were consistent, but toys---all mixed up. Red Bumblebee is just that, red Bumblebee. Same for a yellow Cliffjumper. However, there is a toy which is neither Cliffjumper nor Bumblebee's mold--Bumblejumper. I think it may only come in yellow, not both. ::edit:: Nope, comes in red too. And apparently even blue! http://www.toyarchive.com/Diaclone/Microma...perRedMIB1.html

Gotta agree---I doubt it'd do a thing, and probably do more harm than good. Would certainly be worth experimenting on spare stickers, just to see what happens.

Knight26---there were tons of decoys used in Desert Storm, F-18's and I think A-6's especially tended to launch them. Launch 60 decoys, make Iraq think there was a major strike coming on, they launch planes and SAM's that way, then 10 minutes later the REAL strike package comes in from another direction, and the Iraqi's are stuck reloading, out of ammo, and with overheated AAA barrels. TALD--tactical air launched decoy. Exact same designation as is being used here.

I tried looking up the disease, but couldn't find it. I'm guessing it was made-up disease, so that it could be very "visual" for on-screen.

SV-51 is ugly in a fugly way, as opposed to the F-4, which is ugly in a beautiful way.

Here goes: Ventral fins are basically "extra" vertical stabilizers, but mounted below instead of above, and they never actually move nor have a rudder attached. There are several reasons you may have ventral fins: (their purpose is for yaw stability--which on most planes is handled soley by the vertical stab--but sometimes the v.stab isn't enough) 1. Can't make the v.stabs big enough without causing a problem. Fairly common on single-finned carrier planes----if a plane needs a 20-foot tall stab, but the hangar deck's only 15 feet tall, you've got a problem. So you make it as tall as you can, and make up the difference by putting ventral fins below. (there's no problem with having a shorter rudder---you can just increase the size or double-hinge it). You generally go with 2 ventral fins, because if you only had one it'd probably have the opposite problem as the fin up top--too big down below, and scrape the ground. 2. High angle of attack/high alpha. Yes, alpha is everything to all aircraft--you cannot fly at zero alpha FYI. Anyways, (and this is THE reason the F-16 has them) at high-alpha with the nose high, the fuselage is almost certainly going to be blocking a lot of the air from reaching the v.stab, or the v.stab will get "stagnant" air, thus you've got a serious loss of yaw stability, in addition to your already probably marginal stability overall at high alpha. So what to do? Add ventral fins. Being underneath, they won't ever have their airflow obstructed at high angles of attack, and in fact usually get their best flow under those conditions. 3. F-14's: due to their widely spaced engines, they need a LOT of fin area to maintain yaw stability incase of an engine failure. The almost-final F-14 design had one BIG fin, and 2 folding/retractable (very much like you see in the aforemention Macross ep) ventral fins, also very large. But as you can imagine, it looked kinda funny, and had "fitting in a carrier hangar deck" problems---would probably have had to fold the v.stab too, if they went with it. But that's a lot of moving parts and mechanisms, and just didn't look right. It was a lot easier to just go to 2 medium-large v.stabs, and 2 smaller non-folding ventral fins, to get the required area. High-alpha may also have an influence here, but my guess is the widely-spaced engines are by far the main reason, especially in light of speed restrictions on Super Tomcats. (Tomcat has as much fin area as it can, would need a third central ventral fin or something to get any more---ventral fins almost scrape the ground the way it is) 4. VF-1: well, it too has widely spaced engines, but with all its verniers etc I don't think it'd need ventral fins. But they can't hurt, and they look cool. (the REAL reason is F-14's have them---VF-1 ventrals look identical to F-14's, which are like no other plane's) 5. Why don't F-15's have them? Really tall v.stabs (no high-alpha probs), and really close together engines (no engine-out yaw probs). The original F-15 design did have ventrals though---when they were removed, they made the v.stabs taller. You'll also note the F-15's v.stabs are mounted on booms extending from the rear fuselage, and are actually aft of the engines--this also helps, being further from the fuselage. Similar for the Hornet (close engines), plus the Hornet's stabs cant outwards and thus aren't blocked at high-alpha, thus they needn't be very tall (they have a lot of area though, their chord is almost as great as their height--Hornet v.stabs are frankly mounted in a weird position, far forward--most planes couldn't have that much chord in a v.stab--exact opposite approach from the F-15).

Real ventral fins don't move. Full aerodynamic explanation available upon request. (IMHO VF-1's wouldn't need them, but it's possible) VF-1's only have them because F-14's do.