David Hingtgen

I'm presuming the Airbus tanker would have been based off the A300-600R or A310-300ET. That said, the engines, avionics, and gear would have come from the US. By far the highest-value parts of the plane, could be 50% of the total value. Heck, 15-foot-diameter aluminum tubes are cheap. Jet engines are not. Newer Airbuses have more European equipment, but the A300/310 have a very large percentage of US products. Not to mention that most of the 767 is made in Japan, Italy, and Canada. (And if you choose Rolls-Royce engines...)

Can you say "YF-22 vs YF-23"? (Man, the F-35 has got to be about the ONLY plane to ever "rightfully" win a competition--and then probably only due the the -32's utter fugliness, not it's vast inferiority)

My point is that we don't need KC-135 replacements, as you said, they'll last quite a while yet. But we DO need more BIG tankers, and the KC-767 sure isn't that. Bigger than a -135 yes, but certainly not a -10. And a KC-11 would have added another 100,000lbs of payload over the -10. Heck, we should just make 747-400F tankers. LOTS of fuel/cargo, and a built-in cargo-loading hinged nose. And the upper deck could be used for electronics, mini-surgical suite (like a C-9), VIP's, etc. Could probably refuel 4 or 5 planes at a time, with a 213 ft wingspan.

Nit-pick: no military MD-11's exist, and the EF-111's already retired. Comment: not buying MD-11's as KC-11's was frankly stupid. KC-10's are considered nothing less than a strategic asset due to their far superior cargo/fuel capacities compared to a KC-135. A KC-767 is inferior, despite being my fave airliner. (And the MD-11 is my 2nd-fave airliner). If the KC-10's greatest asset is simply size, and the MD-11 is bigger, why wouldn't you snag some? Especially with MDC being quite desperate to sell, could have gotten them cheap. Won't happen now of course. 767--much smaller than a DC-10, how will that help? 707-320's and 767-200's have nigh-identical MTOW's. Size-wise, they're really really close. (Though KC-135's are a bit smaller than a 707). 767's have wider bodies, but aren't overall much larger. Though I do wonder if the USAF isn't going to order HEAVILY strengthened airframes to vastly increase the KC-767's max weight, to or beyond 767-300/400 levels, as they ordered tremendously powerful engines for them, more powerful than even the highest-weight 767-300ER's use, and far more powerful than ANY 767-200 variant uses. (Boy did that get off-topic)

Here's how I painted mine, because there's few things I hate more than mixes (like companies who only give info for ONE brand of paint--2 parts this, 3 parts this, 1 part that---when another brand of paint has the EXACT color you need). Absolutely nothing on Earth could give a more perfect match to the pink than Testor's "Hot Magenta" right out of the bottle. Anyone who's painted a Mylene valk will agree with me. There's not many yellows out there, I used Insignia yellow, since that is what planes almost always use. Russian interior green for the cockpit overall. Gunship grey for the darker grey accents. And I don't really recall any other colors, though Dark Gull grey is always good for cockpit details.

The yellow nose is because that's how many planes (especially navy planes) are. Go look at some F-14 and F-18 pics.

Unless Cheney orders the jigs destroyed, thus ensuring a permanent halt. PS--a new F-15 fighter would cost about $80 million. At least, that's what F-15K's cost. F-22 isn't that much of a jump, especially considering its capabilities. Inflation is a tremendous factor. Even using late-90's numbers can cause a HUGE difference in comparing price. :edit: Heh, stuff was posted while I was typing. Just FYI, East German air bases already had new currency and road signs printed up to replace all the Belgian/Dutch/West German ones, for when the "last gasp of capitalism" occurred and they rolled across central Europe. PPS---know why nobody buys Russian planes? Customer service/support is zilch. Need a new engine? Wait 6 years. And that's why some people don't buy US planes---we're finicky, and may or may not send parts, depending on the current politcal mood. Service/support is MANDATORY for planes.

J A Dare: yes. The Super Flanker can out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, out-gun, out-radar, out-missile, and just about anything else, over the F-15. The F-15 has no advantages, other than if it jettisons every single thing it has, it can out-run the Flanker. Which is probably the best tactic at this point. As for F-15 vs other new planes---it's all the electronic gizmos mainly (missiles+radar especially), plus much greater agility. Basically--they pick it off at long-range, and if it happens to become a close-in fight, they're much more agile. The F-22 however, has incredibly advanced gizmos, and is extremely agile. Probably not #1 in every category vs every other plane, but overall most likely the best. IIRC, all the "simulations" usually show the F-15 losing 10-1 against most of the planes I mentioned, with the F-22 winning 2-1 against the planes I mentioned. (Of course, 2-1 is considered pretty poor by US standards, but it's a heck of a lot better than 1-10)

I'm fond of the "sand and dry fit as much as possible BEFORE gluing together" method. I'd much rather sand plastic than any sort of filler. Of course, there's only so much you can do without filler. (For the first time in oh, a decade, I glued together some F-14 parts yesterday) PS--do you plan to paint the lift-fan blades? I know Hase says grey like their surrounding bay and the cockpit, but that just seems so wrong to me, though I haven't seen them in the animation.

Sorry, I saw them earlier but was waiting for someone else to respond, since I haven't built a Bandai for like 1.5 years, and forgot some. I'll do my best though: Let's just start at the upper right pic, and go across. 1. Glue, I think. Probably refers to fast-drying cement, the thin stuff. 2. Sticker. Kanji in the circle is the specific sticker to use. 3. Dry transfer decal. Letter in circle is the one. 4. Use sprue nippers to remove--delicate part. 5. You shouldn't be building models if you don't understand that. 6. Black piece should be inserted after/go inside white piece. This is often for putting ball-sockets in joints, etc. Most often seen in MG/PG hands. 7. Repeat on other side. Often accompanied by the parts numbers to use on the other side. 8. Pound (or squeeze really hard) these pieces into place. Yup. I recommend using pliers and a thick leather-bound book as an anvil. This is usually used for small metal pins. Or just anything that has a TIGHT fit. 9. This piece is SUBTLY shaped to have a distinct left/right or top/bottom. Look REALLY close to make sure you don't put in in upside-down. 10. See #6, but opposite. 11. Duh 12. Optional assembly--pick one. (usually open/closed canopy, etc) 13. Use screwdriver. (Although I've always thought it looks like a DON'T use screwdriver icon) 14. I really don't know. Now, as for parts listing: Looks more like the "other" parts list to me--wires, contacts, bulbs, etc. ::tries some quick katakana translation:: Wow, I'm not getting anything out of that. Though of course, I've never had even a day of formal instruction in katakana. Sorry, can't help.

Yeah, you could say the VF-0 has a chine. And depending on how the animator is feeling that day, maybe the -19 and -21 too. But it's subtle/rounded enough I don't know if it'd really do anything. Sharper is better, basically. I don't really know how "sharp" the VF-0's is. But the YF-23's is fairly subtle (small, but razor-thin), and it sure works. (You'll find chines are rather stealthy--in addition to the SR-71 and YF-23, the F-16 has a noticeably smaller RCS than the F-18, and most other fighters) Low quality, but perfect pic of a YF-23's chines:

If you should ever want an A/B, you can just buy a C/D, and not use the C/D parts. Price is the same. (and send the C/D parts to me!) Latest-issue Hase A/B/C/D's cost 19-21 bucks though. Blame Marco Polo. It's to the point that it's cheaper to import and ship from Japan, than to get a US-distributed one. Plus they like to charge an extra 10 bucks for the larger decal sheets, like their utter infatuation with "Chippy Ho!" and the 20 variations thereof. I believe you could make an entire squadron with nothing but all the different Chippy Ho kits.

Iraqi air war: A few MiG-25's, which everyone knows is about as good a dogfighter as a B-52. A somewhat larger force of MiG-29's, flown by less-experienced pilots with little training. Finally, the main force with the best pilots and training was Mirage F1's. That is not a top of the line air force. Better than some, but certainly nothing notable. A bunch of Super Flankers or Rafales would be FAR more effective than that, and would beat the F-15 every time, unless we had like a 10 to 1 numbers advantage. (Another reason we need a LOT of F-22's) And I've gotta reiterate the "appropriate" use of air power. Air power (heck, and cruise missiles) are often misused as a very expensive way to carry ordnance and blow stuff up, when something else could do the job faster and better. Best example: Vietnam. A certain bridge (one of the many bridges the US went after) hadn't been taken out, despite nearly a year of air strikes, and 100 air crews lost in the attempt. So they brought in the USS New Jersey. BOOM. It was gone in an hour. Not merely a broken span or pylon like an LGB strike would leave, but practically vaporized. Use the right weapon, the right way.

Yeah, seamless intakes are pretty much non-existant for 1/72. Just FYI, F-18A's are expected to be the next "drone" targets, once we run out of F-4's to convert. (And that'll be soon). So there's certainly lots of surplus Hornet-A's out there. Just a note---kit 366 is listed at greatmodels.com, which is where I've been ordering from lately. (Right now, F-14 stocks are low in the US--as you should know, Hase tends to make a bunch of kits at once, but only every couple of years--and there's not many F-14's at the moment--used to be tons like 12 months ago, now there's ZERO B's, almost no D's, and a few A's) Plenty of F-18's though. http://greatmodels.com/ Just a search for "366 F-14" will bring it right up. Or if you find it at a local shop. Boxart is key, there's like 4 VF-111 F-14A's out there! Most have a head-on pic, but this one is from above. And note the "cartograph" decals logo in the upper-right corner.

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.