David Hingtgen

::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.

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.