David Hingtgen

I use microSET, but I always make sure to put some on the model itself, where the decal is to be applied. That way, you have some under the decal, not just brushed on top. For me, I believe a key thing about decal application is letting the solution WORK, then blotting out the excess water. The decal isn't "on" until it has taken on the same texture as the paint it's laying on. THEN you get to start blotting out that last bit of water trapped under the decal. Getting the decal to conform, getting the water out, preventing silvering, and decal solution, are all parts of the same step, really. It all goes together, and there isn't truly a set order. I myself tend to use massive amounts of microSET, and brush and squeegee away until the decal has conformed to the surface (and if it's conformed TIGHTLY to the surface, that means there can't be any water under it, can there? They go together). It takes time---the solution won't soften the decal enough to conform in 10 secs. Decal needs to be soft, to be able to really get tight against the surface. I've never liked microSOL, as I really, really fiddle with my decals to get them perfect--but no touching when you've microSOL'd a decal! Yes, my method takes time, and goes against what most people say (I like to apply over rough flat finishes, hate gloss, never use strong solutions) but I do get amazing results, I can decal with the very best.

Nothing ruins a plane faster than overheated wheels and brakes.

Where and how? Also, the problem of snagging the cable with one and not the other still remains---instant massive yaw, likely destroying the plane. When you snag the cable, it is trying REAL hard not to move, it is pulling the hook with tremendous force as it reels out. (They're adjustable for how hard they'll pull--if you set it for an F-14, and an F-18 landed, the cable wouldn't budge an inch, and the F-18 would probably have its back end ripped out, or be stopped in midair instantly and fall to the deck) You hook one, that part of the plane stops moving, and the rest will swing around REAL fast. Which is why real planes have the hook mounted perfectly in the center. Sometimes you will see a "split" one with multiple attachment points to the fuselage, but it always ends in one central hook.

For a legal international air record, clock starts at brake release. (Of course, the YF-19 wouldn't legally be a plane according to their rules)

Just gotta echo everyone else: 2 hooks are a BAD idea. VF-19: non-arrested landings for normal fighter jets require thousands of feet. Prometheus needs to be *gigantic* to be long enough to have room for a normal roll-out. (Never seen a valk yet with reversers, nor drag chute) Plus, it'd slow down air operations. One of the oft-forgotten benefits of an arrested landing is that it only takes like 2 secs, then the plane's already moving out of the way for the next one to land.

If we go with 60km up, in 48 secs, you only need (average) Mach 4.5 to do it. I know we had a LONG thread about this before, but Knight26 is the one who calculated out all the numbers. (I probably could, but not without re-learning basic physics of acceleration, G's, etc--which I don't feel like doing tonight) As has been mentioned, velocity and acceleration are totally different things. Still, even a YF-19 doesn't have near the power to accelerate like that. Sure, if you started at high speed and could maintain it, you could do it easy. But from "stopped on the runway" no way. I wonder if Isamu meant more like "48 secs from very low altitude". Not taking into account the time needed to take off and accelerate.

It'd be quite difficult for that to work when faced with multiple radars. An SR-71 once had no less than 280 Soviet radars tracking it (they were testing new ECM stuff). Surely, there'd be overlaps etc, that you couldn't counter one without amplifying another. Then there's the sheer power factor----a dedicated AWACS could just overpower it, that no small fighter would have enough power to absorb and counter it. Still the best way to try to get a stealth---use so much power, that even if only 1-trillionth of the signal makes it back, it's enough to detect. Or like above--use so many radars from so many positions, that something will reflect somewhere.

Most aircraft do add stuff up top. (Most any avionics "hump", and F-16 CFT's) A-4 and F-8 are about the earliest jets I can think of with prominent additions to them as they evolved. The F-15 (and valks) are the only ones that put it along the sides of the belly that I can think of at 4AM... (going to bed now)

Asides from the VF-17, any stealth valk has active stealth, not passive stealth. As in, there's a really high-tech little box that the pilot flips to "on" when he wants to be stealthy. You could equip an UPS truck with that, and then it'd be stealthy. Pure tech, not design. Remember, little tiny things can make a plane's radar cross section go up 100-fold. YF-21's canopy bumps alone would make it un-stealthy. If you want to be stealthy by physical shape, every little cubic millimeter must be shaped right.

Don't even bother with Airfix. Their best is worse than Hasegawa's worst. It's simple. Is is a plastic model of something? Then you want Hasegawa or Tamiya. Possibly Fujimi. That's about it, barring the rare really good Revell kit, or lately, Academy. (Academy tends to be of high quality, but questionable accuracy---sure, it may be cheap, 1/32, with ultra-fine engraving and 500 weapons, but be sure to see if they got the BASIC SHAPE right). I highly suspect Academy just follows line-art drawings extremely accurately for most of their molds--thus every "little engraved detail" is right, but they haven't actually crawled over a real one in a museum to see how the basic shapes and curves actually fit together in 3D. Their 1/48 F-15 is the best example of this. And Hasegawa's specialty is modern jets, so go with their F-15. Tip: Anything that happens to actually be in Japan, is likely to have a VERY accurate kit from Hasegawa. Of course, like almost all Hase kits, there's a new and an old version. And for some reasons, Hase keeps pumping out the old ones (like their M0 F-14 kit) alongside the far superior new ones. I just snagged their 1/72 Sundowners F-4B/N reissue, and it's wonderfully accurate. Hase has F-4's down pat, no less than 4 v.stab tips.

Huh. That is an *old-school* fan spinner. Looks like it's from the 60's. (Hey, I've stuck my head up many an intake). Wonder if that actually follows Kawamori's intentions/design, or is Hasegawa just guessing/swiping F-4 parts? Military jet blades haven't changed appearance much over the years, it's really only evident in airliners. Ever seen a GE90-115B's blades? "Wicked" is the only way to describe them.

Ah, AMT/Ertl. Nothing like gluing 3 strips of styrene together, to get a thick enough strip to fill a gaping trench... ::edit:: Tornado's, B-1B's, most any swing-wing plane etc, use inflatable air bladders to fill the gap when the wing's fully forward. Yes, neat arrangements of panels and doors would look better, and they always try it, and they always get messed up. So they just use big inflatable bags. Basically, one above, and one below. As the wing "exits" the area by sweeping forward, they progressively inflate to seal the gap. B-1B's and Tornado's are by far the easiest to see, I'll find some pics later. F-14's are very hard to see, due to the shape, the cover over it, the sealing plates above, and the fact that the wings are always swept back at every airshow, otherwise I'd have my own pics of the F-14's system... F-111 seal: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/f111indetailjr_3.htm Note the pic with the extended wing, pointing out the hinge line with an arrow. The whole panel aft of that pivots up and down about that hinge to open and close the gap, inflating and deflating the grey airbag as it does so. This is how most every plane does it. When the wings are back, the bags are deflated and the panel is lowered flush to the surface. When forward, panel lifts up and bags inflate. (Yes, it seems kind of backwards, why not just always keep the moving panel down flush---there's some aerodynamic pressure shift caused by the change of wing position, and the moving panel takes care of that) PS-- I'd call the triangular parts on the intakes a strake, though a large one. Almost an LEX, but not quite. Kind of like a streamlined version of how the F-15 uses its intakes like an LEX.

I'm always available if you need clarification/explanation of aeronautical terms. Ailerons and tailerons are totally different things, and I actually know what a "convergent-divergent" nozzle is...

I'm wondering if this is a US vs JP thing. I have a Takara Prime, and his stacks have NO flash, and the only sprue scab is on the undersides of the stack's mufflers---and it's plated over. Never noticed any on his bumper. For a "realistic" grill that'd take layers and layers of parts. Even worse if there's a screen over it. "Chrome plated" plastic parts are vac-metallized, generally. "Real" chrome, is literally chrome-plated---as in, electroplated. Can't electroplate plastic, never will. I've always felt the main difference in appearance comes from the clear-coats in the vac-metallized process. That's also what's responsible for many "not so shiny" chrome parts in models. They're usually chromed, but with an additional "almost, but not quite" gloss clear-coat over them that tones it down just enough so that it looks more "real". Radd--few people are more disappointed with his truck mode than me. He's the exact opposite of an Alternator--instead of a "perfect" car, he's a perfect robot--and the truck mode suffers a *lot* for that. My #1 request would be bigger fuel tanks, or at least reverse how they're hinged--they're always angled, and only on "straight" when you press them in while transforming the legs--couldn't they have done it the other way, so they look right most of the time?

If I knew I was up against Zentradi, I'd probably ask for a miniaturized HEAT round. Regardless of whether he's in a battlepod, or just wearing a stylish officer's coat, you need serious damage to take them down.

Gotta pipe in here: So how wold YOU represent chrome-plated parts on a truck model, besides "cheap" chrome-plated parts? I mean, nothing looks like a real Freightliner's chrome stacks and bumper, than actual chrome. Chrome looks bad on Camaro engine block models, because they're not chrome in real life. But truckers LIVE for chrome. Now, "shiny" fuel tanks usually are stainless steel, not chrome, but that's an exception due to operational necessity. (And air cleaners sometime, but Prime's are internal so you can't see them).

The A-16 was a dedicated CAS F-16, to replace the A-10. Didn't go for it. (I think they used F-16 #2 for testing--if you ever see an F-16 painted like an A-10, that's it). Testing went well, so they started putting gunpods on ANG F-16's. Then "the real world" showed that they didn't work well at all. Thus ending CAS-equipped F-16's, and most certainly a dedicated purpose-built CAS A-16. BTW---speed sucks for CAS. Slow=accurate. Best Vietnam CAS by far was from the AD-1. Prop plane. Best CAS now? A-10, the slowest jet we have.

Hey, of course the F-35 could fill the F-16's CAS role, since the F-16's CAS role is pretty much non-existant. The A-16 was cancelled, the gunpods on a regular F-16 suck hard, and the Air Force pretty much gave up on having the F-16 do any sort of dedicated CAS. If they're in the area, you can call them in, but it's about 5th on their list of roles they can fill.

Yup, I use pure CA for ALL gap/seam filling. Never tried the baking powder version myself though. And yes, you should mask to prevent loss of detail when sanding. (Though you often have to re-scribe detail regardless of how you fill seams) Also, always use a curved sanding implement, unless you've got an utterly flat surface. It'll help you sand just the CA, not the plastic. CA dries funny when used in large quantities, I swear shape affects it more than area/thickness. Timing's important, check it every 30 mins or so. (I let it dry naturally, no accelerator---this way I can get to it when it's 80 or 90 percent hard)

Everybody needs to read this: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/feature.htm And part 2: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6b.htm RAAF (Australia), F-22/F-35/Eurostuff/F-111/F-18 comparisons. GOOD stuff.

Yup, military stuff is pretty much called what people call it, despite official names. F-111 wasn't officially the Aardvark until the day it retired. For all of its active life, it had no name. And then there's nicknames which are used so often they act like the "real" name. See the Fairchild Thunderbolt II. Which is much more commonly known as the A-10 Warthog. Finally--how often do you hear the term "Lancer" for a bomber? (B-1B)

Actually, he's not. His wheels are undersized for his scale, and the "real" Prime should have a 45-foot trailer. However, most all modern trailers (and toys/models thereof) are 48 or 53 footers. Combined with needing smaller wheels to match Prime, 1/32 is "undersized" but ends up looking right. My guess is Prime's 1/28.

Re: RCS. Has little relevance to size of the plane. F-18C's have a smaller RCS than F-18A's. And E's are bigger than C's, but have smaller RCS. F-16C's have a smaller RCS than F-16A's. B-1B's have a smaller RCS than any other plane except "true" stealths. A-12/SR-71 are also in that category. (Yes, the SR-71 was designed back in the late 50's to have a low RCS, and it does---just not low by modern standards---it was ahead of its time in EVERY way) And one of the stealthiest (if not THE stealthiest) planes is the very large B-2.

I'm saying they'd probably still have an RCS smaller than most fighters, but still 10 or 100 times or more their "normal" size.

F-117's have a radar RCS equal to a small ball bearing. Remember how a loose screw will just kill its stealthiness. (They did redesign the screw-heads though) F-35 or F-22 with pylons--- maybe as stealthy as a B-1B, if they're lucky. Of course, the "new" stealths are probably not as stealthy as the F-117/B-2, and have "looser" tolerances I believe. Stamen0083---yes, an F-35 w/pylons would have an RCS like an F-16. Think of it like a nice pure white tablecloth. Then you spill spaghetti sauce on it, and stain it. It's ruined. Yes, 99% of it's fine, but that one little spot just screwed everything up. Same with adding an external store to a stealth plane.