David Hingtgen

The red for the headrests didn't go so well--brand-new paint, thus NO evaporation had occured, so it was thinner than I expected! Runs... But anyways, I wasn't going to retouch anything in the cockpit, since a dry-fit showed only the side consoles were visible when the canopies are on. Size reference: the whole cockpit tub is a bit shorter than my thumb, and slightly wider. My current (on hold) big project is my USS Iowa, I'm do "quick" kits right now just to have a sense of accomplishment. And it's still raining too often to airbrush much, so I'm reverting back to spray-cans---thus SR-71 and Blue Angels, since black and BA blue come in cans. Nothing with a complex paint scheme or details/weathering until the weather is nicer.

Even if we're putting a mostly black cockpit into a black plane with a closed black canopy with small windows, we modelers just HAVE to detail the cockpit!

SR-71's operate in afterburner continuously--almost no other plane does. It doesn't get THAT much hotter than a normal plane, but an F-15 will only be in 'burner for minutes at a time, not hours. That's the main difference. And thus, no metal can withstand it. So the afterburner section of an SR-71 is pure bright white ceramic. (that gets a lot of people, and they think the painting instructions are wrong calling for bright white engines) It does "bake" a bit, so unless it's brand-new it won't be *pure* white. I just looked at some dinner bowls (seriously) and went with 36495 light grey--lightest grey I had, and next to the BLACK of the rest of the plane, it looks pretty darn white inside. The nozzles themselves are burnt titanium, and I almost always go with plain steel for titanium, unless it's an exterior skin panel--steel and titanium look nigh-identical when "burnt". The kit is the 80's Monogram kit (there are no GOOD SR-71 kits--you can either have good detail/fit but overall quite inaccurate shape--Hasegawa, or standard Monogram--but a very good overall shape---I went with shape). And no kit has good decals, and there haven't been aftermarket decals in years. Basically, you can't make a GOOD SR-71 without a LOT of work, and custom decals--so I'm just throwing this together in like a week, just to have a Blackbird on the shelf. (Sorry for the thread hijacking, but this doesn't warrant a new thread). Anyways, the nozzles are utterly featureless inside, and the the afterburner duct is half as long as it should be---and I didn't feel like scratchbuilding the whole interior of the nozzle/duct/burner/flaps. So I just "adapted" the paint scheme as best I could. Also, since the plastic is black, rather than post-shading, I just painted the nozzles with steel, always brushing in the same direction---thus the black plastic shows through a bit, and I have the appearance of streaking. (Hard to detail and impossible to wash or drybrush when you have nothing but an utterly smooth interior--there should be obvious nozzle segments inside, but it's just not worth it on a kit that'll end up being at best a "C"---so I just lazily streaked the interior). For the afterburners/duct/ring/bypassdoors themselves (one big molded piece---thanks Monogram) it's 36495, with a bit of drybrushed steel, and I actually had to go with a gundam marker to blacken in the hollows between the rings (molded solid in the kit). SR-71 engines are so big, they're an inch across even in 1/72, so you've got to do something, even a kit with as un-detailed engines in this. And with the white interior, you can really see into them. Anyways, here's the burners, with and without nozzles. I might later airbrush a really thin brown mixture in, for some more "baking". Might try chalk to really streak the exhaust nozzle interior.

You know, *once* I did get a truly perfect cut. Happened on my PG Wing Zero. But anyways---I too (after learning my lesson early on) cut away from the part--but many sprues have only like a 2mmlong "thin connecting section" between the piece, and the heavy main sprue and so you can't get too far away from the piece---and nippers that don't meet well tend to tear the plastic, rather than slice, and it's enough that it sometimes tears into the part itself. (Hard to describe). And if you go like 5mm away from the part itself, you're always into the main part of the sprue, which is very thick and hard to cut. Basically--I was just wondering if high priced ones offered any significant improvements. Apparently not.

I *love* those afterburners. I just painted my SR-71's burners last night, but you can't really do much on a Blackbird, being ceramic white and all--no metal paint there! (Though I did drybrush some steel, for that "blasted porcelain" look) Anyways---the white paint helps a LOT IMHO. You can't really tell it's overall grey without out it. Yes, it's Tomcat-esque (and the pureness of the white makes the grey look warm, rather than cool, IMHO---even more Tomcat-esque). However, with that white nose, it instantly reminded me of the standard Su-24 scheme. (one of my fave Russian schemes) See here: (Bad pic, but all the good ones are 150K plus--but this shows the pale grey w/white nose well enough)

Every VO mech directly parodies another more famous anime character, not always mecha though. I can never remember what the Apharmd's are though... From what I can quickly remember: Temjin: Gundam obviously Specineff: EVA-05 Fei-Yen: Sailor Moon Angelan: Belldandy Cypher: nothing specific IIRC, besides being a variable fighter. Pretty sure if you google the subject you'll find a definitive list.

If you read/click all the links, you'll see that test-firings of ones even 33 years old still performed to full specs. Old, but still working fine. Rocket motors sure need periodic replacement, but at this point it's purely for environmental reasons, not degradation. Next thing you know, they'll want to re-engine every Sidewinder and Sparrow and Phoenix... (AMRAAM's have less visible smoke, and if it LOOKS clean, people think it is clean)

Go for it. Then I'll make a nice long illustrated "F-14 variants" guide to put up here (along with kit reviews/comments) so everyone can make an accurate Shin's F-14, or whatever F-14 they may want in whatever scale they want. (I do this often, but usually for airliners, not fighters--but I do know my F-14's) Yeesh, not only did Hase release the totally wrong type of F-14 for Shin, they did it with their older raised-line mold.

Hmmn, plesantly surprised to see so many VO fans here. I use (in order) Fei-Yen Kn (I own no less than 7 different Fei-Yen models/toys, they out-number my valks), Angelan, Temjin, and Cypher. A while back I was so strapped for cash I had to sell my DC twin-sticks. Also, everything I read (from people who actually KNEW what VO was, not some catering-to-the-masses mag) basically said VO:OM was ruined for the US release, so I passed on it. I will not play a slow Fei-Yen. So I'm pretty much a VO:OT (JP) player, and still waiting for a nice good sequel. (Only current system I can play imports on is my GC, though I am considering a JP PS2 if I find one cheap) Yeesh, 6AM, should have gone to bed hours ago...

I'm guessing he means when the wings are swept ALL the way back, the high-speed mode. Effectively folded, in that they take up very little space that way. Minor semantics issue.

Neutral grey plus a little purple? That's pretty *darn* close to Dark Ghost Grey. FS36320. Heck, that's basically the original WWII formula that it came from. 1 part white, 1 part black, and a touch of the new (1943 compared to 1941) "purple-blue" pigment. (You can make ALL WWII camo colors from black, white, and 1 of the 3 possible pigments---never more than 3 ingredients)

Sorry, just finished college a few months ago. If only Iowa taught aeronautics.....

Ok, I'm up to about my 3rd set of sprue nippers, having spent 8 to 17 bucks each for various brands, and none have been quite good enough, IMHO. (latest pair is the sharpest ever, but most mis-aligned) They're always mis-aligned by *this* much, thus making a truly flush cut impossible. I have read that the $30 ones from Tamiya are quite good, and am wondering if anyone has them. Or any other recommendations for ones that are very precisely aligned. And narrow would be good too, "bent" ones don't help much, they're still simply too big to fit between the main sprue "stalk" and the part many times. Also would like recommendations on the newer bent-tweezer-style nippers, and if they are sharp and precise enough to make them superior to a "careful X-acto". ::edit:: Title got cutoff somehow, should read "Willing to spend $$$$$ if they're good"

Yeah, but when good guys and bad guys fly the same plane (Desert Storm, Iraqi and French F1's) being able to get an optical image (vs IR) can sure help. Even if it only adds 1 more mile to the "positive ID" range. TISEO came about on late F-4E's I think, never read much about it. Got my F-4 book out at the moment, so might as well see what it says. ::reads:: Introduced on Block 48 F-4E's, which is also the block that introduced manuevering slats. Closed-circuit TV, multiple magnifications for target ident/acquire. Yup, looks like it's the predecessor to the F-14's TCS. Especially considering they're both made by Northrop.

You know, I keep thinking "F-14's have a nice high-magnification camera, just for long-range BVR identification of bogies". It's very simple, so why aren't we putting it in more planes? I read they can identify most any plane at 10 miles, many larger fighters at 20 miles, and 747's at 70 miles. A nice zoom-lens solves a LOT of ROE problems for fighters.

No, I'm saying that the Revell F-14D is inaccurate enough, that that is what it would be like (using a Hase w/F-16 engines). It'd be like every other inaccurate attempt at a GE-engined F-14. If you want an F-14 with GE engines (like Shin's), a Hasegawa B or D is the only way to go, period. (Though I do plan to graft on the back end of a Hase D onto a Fujimi A to make a "Fujigawa" F-14B--don't know if it'll work, but I'm sure going to try) If you want Shin's F-14, you have two options if you want the "major external features" to be accurate: 1. Take an F-14D, but use an F-14A/B cockpit/seats. 2. Take an F-14B, but remove the ECM bumps from under the wing gloves, and add the F-14D's dual chinpod under the nose. Other late F-14 features are basically squadron or aircraft-specific, like the ECM bumps on the glove shoulder, and dorsal antenna configuration. (B's and D's tend to have a noticeably larger, more triangular forward dorsal antenna, just behind the cockpit) The "shoulder" ECM bumps are very common, but not guaranteed. (They are often listed as a B vs D thing, but it's untrue, I've personally checked at airshows)

I just saw those yesterday---I will buy any and all models they make of Fei-Yen or Angelan. Just gotta hope they do them, and not 100 Temjin/Raiden variants. Wave already did a bunch of them.

I was at the hobby shop today (needed paint for my SR-71) and noticed just how many types and brands of glue there were. So my question for wm_cheng: What glue(s) do you use? I noticed Micro-weld had the consistency of water (it's rarely in stock, so maybe it sells out quickly). I've always gone for the thicker ones (Testors MM in the black container), as I like a minute or so to VERY precisely position parts, but then of course it takes a while to set and is bad for gear doors etc, as they like to fall over the moment you let go.

Sub-compressors are still compressors. (Usually called "boost" stages and GE is fond of them, but still compressors). And all the locations and appearances still look like compressors. Especially #50. You could show that drawing to every aviation fan you find, and 100% would say it's the first stage compressor/fan and they'd all agree that's NOT what a turbine looks like. The turbines of each section would be well aft, and hidden. You could draw an arrow to where they are, it's fairly obvious on the drawing. IMHO, it both looks like (according to the drawing) and makes sense (how jets work, regardless of whether they run off kerosene or flowers) that it should be: 22. Low-pressure compressor. 50. High-pressure compressor. Or booster compressor, if you want. Might be better for a "thermonuclear reaction turbine". And then somewhere around #46, would be the actual turbine stage(s).

A big factor is how the power is used. An EA-6B, doing barrage jamming like they often do, is emitting all its power over every frequency, in every direction, with every amplitude and pulse pattern it can, trying to mess up whatever it finds. Thus any PARTICULAR radar emission will only be jammed by whatever small percentage of the EA-6B's total power happens to be on the same frequency going the same direction, etc. If you don't know exactly what to jam, where, you're wasting like 99.9% of your power on "worthless" frequencies and directions and thus the "correct" emission is only getting less than 1% of the power you're putting out. If a fighter with a powerful radar goes to pure altitude/vector mode (generally the simplest, but highest-power and range mode for an air-to-air radar), that will overcome most jamming, unless the jammer can quickly determine what frequency and direction in which to concentrate the jamming. Which of course, is a whole other part of ECM etc---identifying threats and other emissions so as to know what you should emit, where. The quick summary comparison is a machine gun---spraying thousand of rounds a minute around randomly is pointless if 99.9% of your shots are missing. Better to fire like 200 rounds, that are aimed well. PS---if mainly BVR was expected to be how fighters fought in the near future, the ATF wouldn't have been required to be as agile as an F-16, nor have the best thrust/weight ratio ever. They would have said "as powerful a radar as you can, with lots of upgraded AMRAAMS". Sure, there'll be lots of BVR engagements, but they sure expect to have their fair share of dogfights.

"Forward dorsal" is fine. You'll note the dictionary definitions don't have naval/aeronautical usage in them.

And the counterpart: if you have enough power, you can burn through the jamming. That's basically how the MiG-25's radar works. And also why its hard to defeat an F-14 radar.

Just a note: most Desert Storm Tornado strike missions flew with terrain-following radar turned off. Pure skill, low-altitude high-speed flying. (Very few planes can do that as well as a Tornado).

Just hope they make it an F-15A, and not a current F-15E.

Update: 1. The yellow decals look fine when put over blue. I think a big part of it is the very "aqua" color of the decal paper itself. Still decidedly not *Blue Angels* yellow, but about as good as you can get without layering multiple pale yellow decals over each other. Good enough. (And painting the yellow is not an option, unless you happen to have a very large "US NAVY" mask for the wings, mirrored, and tapered to fit an F-18 wing) 2. Still will have to mix some paint to match the decal's applied appearance, to paint the wingtip launch rails. 3. I did take a pic, showing the applied decal color and how well the airbrake fit, but accidently deleted it off the memory card itself, not my C: drive. Oops. (And it featured everyone's favorite flower-covered placemat, too) As for QF-18A's: Well, we haven't run out of QF-4's and QF-106's, but they only number in the dozens. F-15's, even early A models, are generally too big and valuable to make into general-purpose drones, they'll probably be kept in reserve, at least most of them. Air superiority fighter, and a heck of a good one. F-14's won't do at all---they are generally flown until they're ready to fall apart. No hours left on the airframe. Any F-14 available isn't really fit to fly. And the maintance cost is so high. Any F-14B/D is generally kept in reserve in good condition. You never know when we'll need a REAL fleet-defense fighter again. F-16's---any F-16A can be converted to an F-16 ADF, or the F-16A MLU, which is what many NATO nations are doing. Modified F-16A's are VERY capable planes, and we can always sell off what we don't need. F-18A's however, have no real update program, and are frankly very limited in capabilities. F-18C vs F-18A is like F-15E vs F-15A, for what weapons it can use, and nifty stuff like FLIR, LANTIRN, etc. F-18A's are little more than a small A-7, technology-wise. Neat cockpit and radar, but the weapons systems are still 1970's. And they're cheap, available, LOTS of hours left on the airframs, and easy to maintain. By far the best candidates for the next line of drones. But so far, AFAIK nothing at all has really been done or studied about it.