David Hingtgen

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.

The gear is "ultra-Russian" to the point of being a stereotype. Could be Kawamori's design, could be Hasegawa guessing.

If you tell me to look for a Flanker in there, I can see it---but I too think it's much more F-18-esque. (Honestly I don't like any of M0's planes)

The main obstacle is jettisoning the pylons. I'm sure there's some plane somewhere that can (F-111?) but generally that doesn't happen. As for covers: moving doors for any stealth have very fine tolerances, and are generally hydraulically boosted for a TIGHT fit. The smaller they are, and the more there are, the harder it is to do. I'm amazed they got it to work for the F-22's gun. To make a bunch of little powered doors for each little attachment point would be a significant challenge. (And a single large one to cover the entire pylon/wing interface area probably wouldn't be practical). I sure hope the F-22's covers aren't in the "hand-sealed before every flight" category.

Jettison the *pylons*?? That'd be a neat trick. Also--the F-22 requires special "stealth" covers over the attachment points when pylons aren't attached. I'd presume the -35 would need something similar. Simply removing the pylons won't restore the stealthiness, you'd need to cover up the holes, etc. Hard to do mid-flight.

You want to make an F-14A into Shin's F-14? That'd be an insane amount of work. Start with the rear fuselage, then new engines, and new nozzles, a new chinpod, modified wing glove, nose gear door, etc. Shin has basically an F-14D, with the cockpit of an A. It'd be a LOT easier to start with an F-14D, and add the cockpit of an A. And hey--many of Revell's F-14D's are "screwed up" in that they have the cockpit of an A instead of a D. Just what you need. (Though the rear fuselage is still wrong, as it is in 90% of F-14B/D kits)

Not only is the VF-1's gear sequence reversed since it retracts back, it's inverted, since the VF-1 wheel ends up facing down, but F-14 wheels end up facing upwards. PS--if you need F-14 gear pics, ask me, I have many of my own. PPS--the F-15's gear sequence is the same as the F-14's, just simpler-looking. And here's a video showing an F-15 lowering its gear: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/technology...r/gear_drop.wmv (yes, framerate is low)

Wasn't there also Coca-Cola Cat?

Just FYI, I've seen this for advertised for only $29.99. I know Best Buy did so a few weeks ago.

Honestly, I get hit less in this game than AC4. While missiles seem even MORE likely to hit, I find it much easier to dodge them. Except SAM's, or if multiple people get on you--you are so dead (or at least, hurt really bad) if that happens. Don't expect it to be at all sim-ish, just SLIGHTLY more realistic than AC4. Stealth has a huge effect, the YF-23 will almost NEVER get a missile launched at it, unless you pretty much hover over a launcher.

Got Ellen! Yup, just gotta shoot down Albert and Ellen every time they show up, and with Ken. (And even if only one of them shows up). Note, there is a mission with Albert (the last mission before you get her) that you do not need to (and I don't think you even CAN) take him down. I'll try to avoid spoilers: Immediately after "Up Stream" (the last one where you need to take down Ellen, the "elevator" mission), you'll have another mission at the same location. "Meteor Rise" I think. Albert's there, but this is a "mission goals" ONLY fight. You can safely ignore him. (I did--I even looked, but he doesn't show up on radar, or is so far away he's off-screen) BTW, since you need to use Ken here, you'll want the F-22. No other plane of his has the raw power required, not even Flankers. (You will spend a LOT of time at very high altitudes, in vertical climbs) Agility and speed are pointless here, it's all about thrust/weight ratio. Anyways--her default colors are much like Ruth's, but redder. Initial plane is a Tornado F3 (finally, but it's already outclassed the moment you get it), next plane is--you guessed it, a Flanker. Su-33 "Flanker E". This is your standard Su-27 with canards, nothing more. She gets a new call-sign and insignia too, but I won't spoil it unless people ask. (And something else changes, too). Shin: for an AC4 comparison. Basically, it is noticeably graphically and musically inferior to AC4. Plane control surfaces and flight characteristics are further off. However, the flight model is a touch more realistic. And there's a LOT of planes. And the missions are certainly unique. I still think it's not as good as AC4, but let's face it--AC4 rocks. It's like saying "this isn't quite as good as Super Mario Bros 3"---nothing likely ever will be. AFDS is still quite good, and certainly the best flying game since, and one of the best ever. Story isn't all that deep (I love AC4's story, small as it is), but it's neat, and the replay value is insanely high, with the various pilots. I know I've got to go through a 3rd time to get some more missions opened up. PS--more gripes: F-4E is rated the same for turning as the F-16, and OUTRANKS it in thrust. Sheer numbers, yes, but the thrust ratio is far inferior. Also, the F-15ACTIVE and F-15E are single-seat. The F-15 is probably the toughest of all planes to tell single from dual seats (since it's so big, the canopy change is subtle), but they are single-seat. PPS---I currently recommend the F-16 for the Leopold/Railgun/Barrel mission. Sheer size. Noticeably slower than an F-15 flat-out, but better pitch and yaw response---VERY important in this mission. Also, this mission is one of the few with NO aerial enemies, and almost nothing on the ground. You can use ANY plane. (There is an intercept before it, but you will likely die many times trying this mission, so go do the intercept with an F-15C or something, then go back and save---you'll have plenty of spare turns). Finally--my current (hey, works 50% of the time--that's great compared to others) is to stay in the bottom barrel, and only move out of it when it's firing. I still gotta try the X-29 and YF-17 in this mission, they may be even better. :;edit:: I typed so long Graham got his reply in before me. Another thing is that AFDS has many more missions than AC4. At least twice as many. Am I the only who doesn't find the voicing annoying? I'm ok with it. I don't LIKE it, but I don't really care. And I always enjoy backstory, even if it is generic. Ruth and Holst actually have the longest ones so far.

Eh, it'd be a few years. That's pretty far down on the list of stuff to do. (USS Iowa, VF-111 F-4B, DKM Tirpitz, IJN Yamato, an entire 1/350 battlegroup, and a few F-16's are ahead of it)

Hmmn. Kind of a "modern-day VF-111" what-if, with a bit of VF-31 tossed in. Neat. And the blue-grey top and white belly is very much like a real shark. It always surprises me that of all the many "F-14 squadron" VF-1's, and all the shark-mouth VF-1's, nobody (AFAIK) has even done the quintessential one--the very famous shark-mouthed F-14's of VF-111. Maybe I should, with all my VF-111 decals and all. (Being my fave squadron, I have no lack of shark mouth decals)

I miss those little icons... And wow, that was "forever ago" in Macross-fan terms, predating HG realizing that Japan had gone ahead with Macross without them.

PS--in the "I don't believe this" category, they got the F-35 perfect, and it's even a production version with cascades for the lift-fan exhaust. Of all the planes to "get right" it's that one, and not the YF-23... PPS--don't hit the airbrakes in an F-35, for you will STOP and go through the "transformation" sequence. (They got all the little details) Just as slowly as the real thing. It can get out of it a bit faster though. It's still by far the best VSTOL you can buy, just reduce speed by turning (it bleeds speed like few others), not by airbrakes. (Which for VTOL's means "move nozzles to hover") Still, nothing like a vertical afterburning hover in a JSF while taking on Flankers... PPPS---I was liking the F-35 quite a bit, until I realized I DIDN'T HAVE A GUN. FB-22 doesn't have one either. ::edit:: Oh yeah--I believe some planes become available through sheer progression through the game, but most are simply "1 for each mission you complete with that character". And it has to be a real mission, not a "Standby" mission using up the rest of the phase. For Brian, it's easiest to just wait until the Super Hornet is available (progression, phase 7 or 8 I think), then use it to win a few missions to earn more planes for him. Honestly, he's got nothing good besides the Super Hornet, since there's almost no mission which is totally lacking in enemy fighters. Super Hornet is the only plane so far with any anti-air for him. I think that in general, "good" planes are from progression through the story, while all the "other" stuff comes from # of missions completed with that character.

I always use an F-14 for the night/radar mission. Why? Because you can zap Pierre from 10 miles away with a Phoenix. Makes life easier, rather than trying to dogfight inbetween 200 buildings and Vietnam-level SAM's. F-15ACTIVE works too. Thus Graham---you probably want something besides an A-10 to take down Pierre. The F-14 (heck, all the planes, since it's not a sim) can get quite slow, plenty enough to fly around inside the radar areas. Pierre likes to hang out right in the middle of the city, so dodge those mobile radars like crazy--they will zap you faster than almost anything else in the game. PS--are you trying to take out ALL the radar? You only need to take out any one of the "corner" ones, then zip inside and kill the core. I died several times trying to kill ALL the radars in each "clump". Haven't bought an EF-2000 yet (I think 2 people get it, not just John), since I got my S-37 at the same time. Currently going for Ellen. Quasi-confirmed theory is that in every mission in which she or Albert appears, you must shoot them down, WITH KEN. I just beat the canyon mission as such (Used Mig 1.44 of all things) so should be downhill from that point. I'm not sure what triggers what. There's certainly something similar with John/Francine. Also, this time around (yeah, Phase 9 of second runthrough) I didn't get Ruth's hospital ship mission. From what I can see, for most things, you pretty much have to use that character all the way through, with few exceptions. As in, despite using Ruth 80% of the time, and winning with her, I still missed one of "her" missions, and "her" ending. (I think you need Ellen too, for Ruth's final stuff). Currently stuck (again) at the Leopold barrel mission. So easy, but 100% luck IMHO. Just depends on its firing sequence. If it does a "center" one after a side, you're screwed. Also annoyingly, sometimes 4 missiles won't take it out, and I have to go through AGAIN. Using John, as this has a Francine encounter just before it (one of those "intercept" missions). I like F-15's for this mission, power/acceleration---the faster you get through the barrel, the less chances it has to fire at you. No plane can run down it faster (unless you can line up from far away and dive right it--I like to get beside it, and make a hard turn right into it, then run down it as fast as I can, hitting the airbrakes at the last second to slow to hit the target) Whew!

About as long as it's existed, thought not in the VERY beginning. Lurked for a few weeks/months at first.

Won, only needed *3* more missiles than I had the last time. (Took like 10 more tries to get to the end again). Go with the YF-23. Graham--next time I'm using my FB-22 on that mission. New planes: Vic Viper--not all that wonderful, like a YF-23 with less power and more HP. F-15ACTIVE: ironically, AC4 has an S/MTD but they call it an ACTIVE. This game has an ACTIVE, but they call it an S/MTD. Sigh--circle vs rectangle, that's the difference. Most people learn circles and rectangles at the age of 3 or 4. Haven't flown it yet. (hey, I'm getting planes faster than I'm flying missions). X-32: not bought on account of fugliness. F/A-35B™ : not yet bought on account of low funds. HiMat: sure it's agile, but sucks in all other categories. Skipped. F-102: can do anything, poorly. But cheap, bought it just to have it. More Flankers. Umm, Su-30MKI, and a single-engined variant. And a modified Su-35. And another Su-30something. And probably others I haven't looked at yet. Yes folks, 130 planes, with 110 of them being Flankers.

It's exactly what an "F-15XL" would be. PS--update. Final mission. As you might imagine, there's a LOT of stuff to blow up. I am beyond ticked, for having gotten to the very final thing to blow up, I've run out of missiles. And there's no gun in the YF-23!!!! I have died, staring at the final "boss". I've tried high-end ferrite-coated Flankers (wtih guns), but there's enough baddies in the area that I usually die, or am low enough on HP to not make it to the end. (need the ultra-high stealth of the YF-23, or insane agility--or both) Sigh. If I had like 10 more missiles, I'd be watching the credits... (Yes, I'm trying to win with Ruth--F/A-22 unavailable, and I don't have anything *really* good for John). Think I'll try some more YF-23 runs, and try to conserve missiles. (Gotta work out the best strategy on the 2nd-to-last thing--I used like 50 missiles, I know it's got to take less than that)

I still want to see you do a ship or an airliner some day. (Hey, Hase makes nice airliners, I'm sure you could build one in a day or two)

Xenosaga 1, no question. I'm very partial to redheads. And now Shion's like a Japanese girl who dunked her hair in henna... And I much preferred KOS-MOS' original design, too. Tatooed forehead not nearly as good as the visor. And being an adult doesn't work as well with the whole "naive android" thing. I think the biggest issue however, is that they no longer fit. Look at all the other characters--they were changed *very* little, if at all. That just looks weird, when some characters all of a sudden look like they're from a different series. (That's a gripe of mine in anime, too---when some characters are "realistic" while others are as deformed-cartoony as it gets---keep it the same, one way or the other) It'd be like having FF9, but then sticking Tidus in. A dozen SD people walking around, then a "real" person shows up on screen.

When I beat the canyon mission (about 3 more tries), I basically stayed low, circled back TOWARDS the canyon as soon as I could to go after the baddies, then made one long slow loop along the rim, taking out all the fans in a single pass. Of course, I got tossed about a bit, but I think going really slow helps--you travel less distance in the 1.5 secs you're totally out of control, minimizing odds of hitting wall. Well, let's see: F-15U: interesting concept, haven't bought it yet. FB-22: neat! Haven't actually used it yet. (Though they give it the X-44 name) YF-23: of course, utterly rocks, better than the F-22 in all categories. I had to repaint it, no pink YF-23's for me! Control scheme totally wrong, they have it set up like a delta-wing, using the flaps as elevons. Yeah. But due to using the ruddervators as rudders (which it shouldn't) it has AMAZING yaw control. Physical model surprisingly good, and they even did the moving trench exhaust right. No gun though. Accurate for the prototype, but the real thing would have had a gun. F/A-22: can't turn worth sh*t, anyone know why? Power seems a bit low, too. Yet more Flankers. Su-27LL (PS)U something something. Seriously, like 6 letters after "27". Apparently the very first Flanker to have vectoring nozzles. F/A-18E: Brian's first good plane. Surprisingly well-modeled, though I think the speed brakes may be off. (But hey, a lot of places get it TOTALLY wrong---Super Hornet's have an entirely different speed brake system than regular's--I'm quite surprised they got as close as they did). X-29. Bought it because it was cheap. More F-14 analysis: pylons in wrong spot (forgot to mention last time), Phoenixes aren't Phoenixes, and while it DOES have a dual chinpod, it's two of the same pods... YF-12A: surprisingly accurate. (asides from the flight model, which is off by about 1000% in most aspects). Fun though. And free. PS--I love the YF-17. Because it's what the Hornet SHOULD have been. Superior in most every way.