David Hingtgen

1. Despite being the biggest fighter, it's almost as unstable as an F-16. Unstable=really wants to pitch up, rapidly. (it is not technically unstable--an F-16 is barely unstable, a Flanker is as barely stable as it can be, without being *un*stable. It's like +.01% stable) 2. Vectoring helps, but isn't all. Raw engine power is a bigger factor. Mainly, Flankers have massive tailfins, set well back. Basically, it pitches up so rapidly, and has so much energy/interia from its massive thrust, that it keeps going whichever direction was going, despite twisting about its axis. Think about a somesaulting gymnest in midair--they can twist about in all directions in midair, but they will overall keep going the way they were going when they launched into the air. This is the same thing, just with 25 tons of metal. So to do a kulbit, you just give full power and head up, then cut the power back and pull back as hard as you can--you'll keep going up due to inertia, but start flipping due to the very effective tailplanes. More power you have, the more you can flip. 3. You can over-ride the FBW in a Flanker, exceeding the normal limits on pitch rate and G's. (F-22's have had a similar feature installed--more like "normal/high" though, not "normal/whatever you can take") 4. The most commonly pointed out usefullness for all this is to get a missile lock on anybody. It's not defensive, it's offensive. If you can move like that, you can get a missile lock on anybody in any direction. Yes, if you do this defensively, you're likely dead. But if you do a mid-air-180 to lock on to someone and blow them up, you don't have to worry about your lost energy. 5. It's a Flanker. It can recover energy like *that*. Most powerful engines in service tend to let you do that. Same reason F-16's pull 9G all day long--bleeds energy in an instant, but they've got so much power they don't really care. PS--I have seen this on TV. Either TLC or The History Channel. Haven't seen it in a few years though. Even more impressive on a big screen. (if anyone ever sees that its going to be on, post a note here and tape it! Pretty much the whole show is Flankers) I'm going to see if I can find out the name of the show.

The Fujimi 1/72 F-14 rocks. I build them instead of the Hase. They are a new, recessed line mold, and very nice. Rubber tires, photo-etched canopy mirrors. (plastic tires also included). Fuji and Hase were in direct competition at that time--they both brought out nice, new 1/72 F-4 and F-14 kits the same year. Fuji's fit MUCH better, and include the best Phoenixes you can buy.(many people buy Fuji F-14's for weapons, and put those on Hase kits). However, the Hase's had slightly more accurate cockpits, and you know how airplane modelers like cockpits, even if you do need a quart of putty to make a Hase fuselage smooth. Quick Fuji 1/72 F-14 reviews: The A kits---include early and mid gun vents. Has all late ECM bumps. (Just slice them off if you don't need them--but you'll need them for 1982 and later). The aft "armpit" bump is a little bit off---later kits (mainly F-14D's) include subtly different more correct ones to replace them with. Decals are typical Fuji/Hase style--thick, but useable and nice. Comes with Phoenix decals, always useful. I have a stack of Fuji F-14A kits. (Though I do plan to snag 1 Hase A for the boattail for my Wolfpack kit, as the Fuji doesn't offer the pre-block 75 tail option, but I don't think Hase has the pre-block-75 gunvent---gotta kitbash if you want a 1974/75 Tomcat) Most Fuji kits come with decals for 3 different squadrons. Current releases are Jolly Rogers re-release (also has Black Aces decals, and Swordsmen) and Black Knights. (pretty sure that one should have the new ECM bumps and new forward fuselage for the new gun vents--but you never know, I don't personally have that release) A+/B kits: so rare you don't really need to bother, basically the D kit minus the chinpod. Fuji F-14D prototype, red/white scheme. This is what Shin's plane is. Kit is RARE, went for 35+ bucks new. Has new nozzles, and new rear engine fairings. You have to slice off the back end of the original kit (nice scribed lines inside to do so), and install the new "F-14D" back end. But these new parts will not get you a production F-14B/D. Current Fuji F-14D kits, 2003 Bounty Hunters markings. Includes all the F-14D parts mentioned above, plus the dual chinpod. No D-style cockpit at all. Realizing the prototype has a different back end, the instructions don't have you use the "F-14D prototype" back end parts, and include new, better nozzles. But you still have an A's afterburner duct, and fairing (the fairing is the most visible difference, after the nozzles). Also includes a new left forward fuselage, with late-style gun vents. (Some late A and A+/B kits include this new fuselage as well). Will make a GREAT late F-14A kit, like the Black Knights and Black Lions had. Also a nice source of GE parts, since you get 4 fans, 4 burners, and 4 exhausts per kit (trust me). I use the burners on F-16 kits, since Hase F-16's only have PW burners, even if they give GE nozzles. Or basically--the Fuji F-14D's are like nearly every other "almost" F-14D kits--new nozzles, but not the engine/fairings themselves. But make the best late F-14A's, since you get a whole new forward fuselage, as opposed to the various "insert" pieces the Hase uses to make the new gun vents. I myself have a Hase F-14D arriving tomorrow, and am going to see if it's easy enough to use the Hase's back end/cockpit on a Fuji, to see if I can make accurate, well-fitting F-14B/D's. (Due to the "cutting lines" for the prototype F-14D being present in ALL Fuji F-14 kits, it should be very easy to slice the back end off--which is right where the Hase back end should start--and since there is a slight "step" there in the real thing, they need not fit perfectly) Fuji F-14's fit together very well, and the flaps/slats are much easier to assemble, both up and down. So... If you want Shin's F-14, at the moment any Fuji F-14D would be perfect, so long as you cut off the back end of the engines at the obviously scribed line, and use the prototype F-14D back end. (Only the prototype F-14D release says to do this, but all F-14D and even I think some A+/B releases include the parts to do so) And I will post a nice Hasegawa 1/72 F-14D preview tomorrow too (assuiming UPS is on time), as I'm sure many will be interested in that, since that would also be pretty close to Shin's. (And I know the D kits have some A parts as well--you might be able to make something VERY close to Shin's easily) PPS---the Fuji's build unlike every other F-14 there is. Most kits have the the actual engine area molded to the big lower fuselage half, with a long "3/4 intake" you attach to the lower fuselage, right where the fan is. Fuji's have the entire intake and engine area together, but split left/right. There is no lower fuselage piece. You have the left glove, left intake, center tunnel, and right glove and intake. And all those separate parts attach to the upper fuselage. But because of this, it FITS. (Though you do need to smooth out the inside of the intake, putty between the nozzle and inflatable wing sweep area, and remove a very visible mounting pin--but that is a lot easier and less work than puttying a Hase intake, engine, nose, and wheel well together IMHO). The forward fuselage is very similar to a Hase, but more of a zig-zag cut.

I wasn't aware there was any sort of argument going on. Sorry if you interpreted my comments that way.

Well, I was going through some pics in my Macross folder and realized I hadn't taken a good look at Shin's F-14 since before M0 Ep1 actually came out. Anyways, looking closely, I realized it is AMAZINGLY close to a Fujimi F-14D prototype kit. It is *so* close to a Fujimi F-14D kit, that I think they actually made the CGI model from that. I mainly believe this because it has the same error(s) that AFAIK has only occured in Fujimi F-14D kits, and no other----and that no real F-14 has this combination. (I've learned a lot about subtle F-14 differences over the past year, with models/books/airshows and what-not). Anyways: 1. Shin's F-14 has a single ECM bump under the glove. This is known as the armpit location for F-14 ECM bumps. However, they never ever come alone, always in pairs. Also, it is "one bump-length" too far forward. F-14D's do not have any in this location at all, and late A's and all B's have two there. And the one Shin's has is in the "wrong" spot for anything. BUT---Fujimi's F-14D kit is like this---a lone bump too far forward. Hmmmmmmmn. 2. While the rear fuselage fairings are more squared than an F-14A's, and it has GE engines, they are still too round and too short for a B/D, and have too short of an afterburner duct. Only one F-14 ever had ones like that---the F-14B prototype, which was later converted into an F-14D prototype. And that is what Fujimi's F-14D kits are based on. (This is why everything I've ever read says the Fuji F-14D is accurate--it has parts for a "new" back end---however, it's not a B/D back end, it's the B/D prototype back end--but nobody but me ever notices) 3. The AMRAAM's are attached to the glove pylon wrong, 45 degrees off. Want to guess what kit has the glove-mounted missiles 45 degrees off? (Hint, starts with "Fuji") 4. You know how Shin's got the cockpit and seats of an F-14A? Guess what style cockpit and seats Fuji mistakenly puts in their F-14D kits? 5. In otherwords--Shin's F-14 is *exactly* like what you get in a Fujimi F-14D kit. Close, but not quite an F-14D---has an A's cockpit, fictional ECM arrangement, and the engines of an F-14B/D prototype, not a "real" F-14B/D. 6. Based on all this, I'm betting they used a Fujimi F-14D kit as *the* reference, and actually intended Shin to have an F-14D. (Unless they actually did want Shin to have a one-off F-14, and knew exactly what the Fujimi kit was---but then why follow it so perfectly, and not just make your own Tomcat?----if you want something unique, don't exactly copy something else no matter how unique it may be)

More likely a YVF-1A. (But then again, where's the YVF-0?)

I honestly think the massive amounts of old Monogram and Airfix kits here in every US hobby shop is part of the reason lots of kids don't get into modelling. They should just be banned. Most "beginners" just walk into a hobby shop, wanting an F-14/15/16/18. 90% of the kits will be cheap ones, and they buy those, while the $20-30 Hase/Fuji/Tamiya sit on the shelf. The encounter horrific fit and basic molding problems, and never try again. If people started with Tamiyas, things would be different. (Tamiya beats ALL for fit) It's like the opposite of how it "should" be---beginners need high-end kits so they can learn how to build, while more experienced (and masochistic) people can buy the cheap kits and add a quart of putty to them... (Sorry for the hijack/rant, but I do feel I wasted a lot of money, time, and effort on bad kits when I was younger---all my Hase's and Fuji's turned out better, but it took until I was in my teens to realize the good stuff came from Japan, and cost more, no matter how Airfix-Monogram-Revell-centric the local hobby stores were) And then there's the whole "you mean there's OTHER paint/glue/tools besides Testors?" great discovery.

Hey hey, this was supposed to be an "ooh and awe" thread at the fancy moves. Not a tactical air combat manuevers discussion.

Yeah, it's edited like a WWE match IMHO. Show move, then crowd reaction. Repeat. Anyways--most Su-35/37 demos are from a big European airshow (Paris, Farnborough), though that one strikes me as likely being at a US base in Japan etc. Plane itself is Russian Air Force. Many Su-27 demos you see will be from the Ukrainian Air Force.

::edit:: Never mind.

Unlike most Super Flanker videos, this one's of very high quality, though they tend not to show the recovery of the moves: http://bemil.chosun.com/movie%20link/SU-35.wmv Well worth the download. Doing "manuevers"---like most Flanker moves, a lot of the stuff isn't named yet, and I can't describe them, other than "holy sh*t". http://www.archakov.com/video/su37.mpeg Low quality (quick download), but still the single most impressive thing I've ever seen. 1 minute in: a *double* kulbit manuever. Think 4 cobras semlessly linked together PS--you know, since smoke tends to trail out from BEHIND a plane, imagine what must have happened in the preceding 2 secs before this pic was taken:

Despite the fact that I am obviously rather anal about aircraft details/accuracy, I have learned over the years that the number 1 thing that annoys me in kits (unless it's so inaccurate it's just sad) is BAD FIT. I refuse to buy poorly-fitting models nowadays. Fit is the only thing I'll sacrifice accuracy for--which is why I buy mainly Fujimi F-14's, not the Hasegawas. I will sacrifice a little accuracy for a lot of fit. (not a lot of accuracy, but a little). And I have hated every Airfix I've ever built, and do not plan to ever buy another. I'm sure they make a decent kit somewhere, but I've yet to encounter one. (Their 1/144 L-1011 was almost decent)

Thanks so much! After checking online, it seems the new Revell one even has the markings I'd like to do. (Ukranian AF, airshow demo colors). Now I just have to find one... (many of the more recent Revell kits seem impossible to find--they're everywhere for a few weeks, then utterly disappear--like the new F-16C kit)

Don't think this has been mentioned yet: Temjin test-shot. Seems they'll be 1:100. http://www.hasegawa-model.co.jp/VIR/ank/ANK2.html Looks to be all 'extreme closeups' not any overall pics.

Honestly, I think your wingtip antenna looks better than the kit's. Maybe you want to break the other one off and replace it? Seeing this build-up makes me want to build a Flanker... (my local shop has a Hase 1/72 one with very neat decals, but $40 full retail is a LOT for any 1/72 plane)

Well I've never liked that VF-103 uses the name, to me the "real" Jolly Rogers are VF-84. But they of course aren't the originals either! I do tend to dislike moving names around---why get rid of VF-84, and then 1 day later re-name and repaint VF-103? Why not just get rid of VF-103? Half the reason they picked VF-103 was because nobody knew "The Sluggers" and they wouldn't be missed. (Also, they had F-14B's, but it still would have been easier to just give the F-14B's to VF-84, rather than rename and repaint every Jolly Rogers thing in the entire Navy, and fill out 250,000 "change of squadron" forms) So the same thing probably happens in the Macross universe---squadrons come and go, and get renamed.

F-8's ROCK, just so everyone knows. Anyways, with the F-8, they didn't have the skull and crossbones, nor much black at all. But they DID have flaming intakes with a flaming eyeball! Now we just need the "Flaming Eyeball" squadron. And yes it looks more like a checkmark, but it's supposed to be a VERY angry eyebrow for the eye. PS--sorry for the thread hijack!

Quick nit-pick: There is no F8U-2M. There's a -2N, but they didn't fly it. They have simply the F8U-2. AKA the F-8C. One of the few squadrons not to upgrade to a D/E model later. (Browsing the official site, I notice it's their fault as they list an F8U-2M --apparently the webmaster's not an F-8 fan) I like the UNofficial site, btw: http://www.almansur.com/jollyrogers/jollyrogers.htm Most importantly, where the official site merely says: 1959 May: Formal request submitted to CNO to transfer the "Jolly Rogers" name and fin-flash over to VF-84 The unofficial site gives the full story, which is hilarious IMHO, and certainly among the best as Naval legends goes (this is where the story of the actual bones got started: http://www.almansur.com/jollyrogers/vagabondshijacked.htm The story goes back farther, to VF-17 in WWII. (or did you skip it on purpose? It is mentioned at the official site) ::edit much later:: Ah--it's meant to be the history of (S)VF-84, not "The Jolly Rogers". I get it now.

Somewhere in Iowa: 41° 38' 45" -91° 34' 40"

Ack, forgot my reference pic--shows both red edges, and a nice blue nav light.

You're modeling too fast for me too keep up! Anyways: 1. The "humps" are obviously inspired by the F-14's glove stiffeners, but for the VF-0 appear to be either conformal tanks, avionics humps, or simply bulges for internal fuel. In real-life, the odds definitely favor avionics humps, but since the Macross universe has such high-tech stuff, it's unlikely.(and the fact that there's TWO of them) Also, since we've never seen them off--my vote is that they are actually permanently attached fuel tanks. Remind me a lot of a CV-990's Kuchemann fairings that way. 2. Well, the "weathering reference" pic has the wings at mid-sweep. The streaking appears to match the airflow when the wings are completely un-swept. So the question is--at what wing position does weathering tend to occur? My answer: wings don't tend to weather much. But the basic rule (for real planes) is that weathering goes straight back, with the airflow. Even if some fluid is dripping down, the streak will go STRAIGHT back. 500mph air tends to influence liquids a lot. (most "weathering streaks" on a plane are something leaking, just a little, somewhere). 3. The cylinder on the nose gear is almost certainly for steering. It should stay white. Nose-gears very rarely have brakes, BTW. Most SAAB planes do though. 4. ::edit:: new weathering pic---rant time, but I think a LOT of model planes are over-weathered, and not very accurately. It looks nice, and brings out the detail, but it still doesn't look "right" to my "airplane-lover's eye". (panel lines are rarely seen, it's the rivets you see, if anything) And that CGI is just wrong. A locomotive would look like that, not a plane. That plane is simply DIRTY, not weathered. Maybe it's based in a coal mine or something. 5. You want mottling? Go here, best I've ever seen, with step-by-step instructions. I plan to do a Hornet like that, someday, when I have 5x my current skill. http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/Fea1/901-10..._Gok/fea901.htm And here's how he did it: http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/tnt1/101-20..._Gok/tnt119.htm 6. It's spot-painting. Navy doesn't allow "whole panel" painting, only the EXACT spot that needs it gets it. And they will use whatever color's available. And even if they do use the "right" color, it won't match due to fading.

I already mentioned this above, but the latest Navy planes do have red edges. I fully expect the F-35's will too. It's FS 31136 btw, Insignia red. I can provide plenty of pics if you want, F-14B, F-18F. I don't know if I'd try to paint, or use a marker. I can tell you in real life they're very nicely applied at the factory, but they're pretty haph-hazardly retouched later on. Edging ranks pretty low on the "paint accuracy priority" list for the Navy! BTW---I'd like wheel-painting tips. I've never been good at it. (Been doing my SR-71's lately, and it's especially hard with the aluminum tires and all, and it's nigh-impossible to do nice tread detail on them) SR-71---complete opposite of normal, paint-wise. White engines, auminum tires, red-brown wheels, titanium gear, titanium bays, black seat cushions, etc. Except of course the nose-wheel, which is "normal".

Low-vis? Maybe. The 2 grays are perfect--very hard to distinguish. (Many real-life 2 and 3-tone low-vis grey schemes look like 1 single color, the difference is very subtle after only light weathering/fading). As for the blue--doesn't strike me as *too* far off from 35237, which is the "blue" color for a low-vis Tomcat. Since it's got a 5 in the second digit, that means it is a true blue, not a bluish-grey. While most planes and schemes are 2 or 3 shades of grey, the Tomcat does use blue for its standard low-vis scheme. (Often the blue is omitted, thus leaving 2 greys--but if all 3 are applied, the 3rd is blue). Looks pretty close to 35164 though, which AFAIK isn't used in any aircraft low-vis schemes--however that color is used for SHIP low-vis schemes.

Never seen an official explanation, but I'm guessing it's exactly the same as the intake warning triangles (also a Navy-only thing)--just that much more visible, for safety.

Well, I'd say it depends on how you equate the UN Spacy to the US Navy. As a rule, valks go with US Navy practice, rather than Air Force. And the Navy has red door edges! Even brand-new Super Hornets do. That's just how it is. Now, you will find Navy planes without them, but that's rare. I don't know if there's specific exceptions, or "incomplete repaintings for maintenance" or what, but they do exist. But like 90% of Navy planes will have the red door edges. However, I don't really recall seeing them on any valks... But then again, the VF-0 is certainly the "interim" valk, and could follow "older" practice.

Navy planes do red. The entire "well", and the backside of the brake itself. The same red they use on flaps/slats, and gear-door edges. Air Force likes white, but sometimes makes some areas grey. Chromate---ever seen that yellow-green primer in a bomb bay or wheel well, or the interior of most any freighter? That stuff. Most WWII planes used it everywhere, and was still common for many jets into the 60's. Still your standard B-52 interior color, and I bet you'll find it lots of other places too--I know there's a lot used for tanker planes.