David Hingtgen

I'm pretty much agreeing with Graham here----internal payload is almost nothing, and has almost no close-range air-to-air capability. And if you want it to carry anything more than 2 JDAM's for offense, your stealth is gone. The F-35 is superior to a Harrier in every way. However, most everything is. But to make it an F-16/18 replacement? Very apprehensive about that. It should be used for a niche stealth role, IMHO. Of course, if we had naval YF-23's (or even F-22's) we wouldn't have that problem... (I am a fan of *big* planes---they are inherently better IMHO---you don't see them heavily modified to add fuel, fuel tanks, range, fuel, missiles, pylons, more pylons, and more fuel every five years---they're big enough to carry decent fuel and payload as is). If nothing else, the F-22 is big, and that right there solves a lot of problems. Big enough to start with. Coota---you're right, the intake wasn't stealthy on the -32. One of many reasons the X-35 was way stealthier.

Same way nuclear ships do. Shielding. And you can probably rather easily incorporate extra shielding into an over-tech flightsuit.

Yup, the Fujimi has by far the best fit. But it still needs work on the intake undersides, IIRC. And now they're hard to find/expensive. I currently have the following attitude towards models: if there's a good affordable diecast version, I buy it. Thus, I buy 1/72 and 1/400 planes, and 1/18 cars. There are currently no ships anywhere near the price/quality range I want. Ironically Franklin Mint makes one of the cheapest, the $600 Missouri. Which is painted totally wrong. Everything else is either painted even more incorrectly, or costs several grand. Thus, I slowly build my own ships. Finish/fit aren't as good (I am not that good a modeler---mass-produced stuff made by poor laborers in China can and will do a better job than me), but at least they're painted right, which is VERY important when we're talking about camoflage schemes. Nothing annoys me more than seeing an all-grey US battleship, when NONE were ever painted like that. Even in peace-time, there should be 2 or 3 colors on the decks. Dragon's planes rock because they are basically pre-painted diecast versions of Hasegawa's kits. At half the price. (And this has me fearful that Dragon's F-15E will have the same errors as Hase's)

That 1/64 Corgi looks to have a nice finish, but it's the infamous "almost but not quite a D", and the overall shape just looks off. Too short/squat. Anyways---I want a consistent scale if at all possible. Dragon's F-15 is delayed, but it IS coming. (March is current best guess). Ironically, the weapons sets are already out, so you can tell how the missiles will mount, since the AIM-7's are clearly intended for F-15's only. (Makes me wonder what they'll do for the F-14---Phoenix only?) Tamiya---all F-14's are inherently more difficult and time-consuming than any other plane, which is why I don't build them. Even a Tamiya. Also, the excessively high price is another. (Their 1/350 ships are several times larger, fit better, yet cost a lot less) I'd like one of the Gaincorp Flankers, but the price is a bit high. Will snag one if they ever go down. The Su-35 looks especially neat.

Which explains why I have stress marks and a chip in my Sideswipe's arms. You know, it's impossible to TF Smokescreen like they show it, too. Dear Hasbro: how hard is it to photocopy the Japanese black and white instructions? A monkey of moderate intelligence is able to do that, can't you. Why do you persist in doing your own, messed-up instructions lacking half the steps which only lead to broken TF's? And anyways--the ugliest cars are the Focus, and Echo. THEN the PT cruiser and Aztek.

Yeah, but like 99.99999999999% of space is empty. On TV, everything always takes place practically in-orbit, or near a really cool-looking nebula, just so stuff looks interesting. But you can assume that most of the time, you'll be in a pretty featureless area--aka "deep space". Not "3 hours out from Earth".

I've always been fond of the "giant mirror" theory for space camoflage. Just chrome-plate the whole plane. And depending on how scientifically sound the plot of the movie is, it might deflect lasers too!

I'll second that--the gun handle will "click" into place at like 80% retracted---push harder and make sure you've got it 100% retracted. The clearance is small, but it is there--and there won't be any if the gun's not completely closed up.

zentrandude---frontal area is the critical for stealth, at least for fighters. Then rear. (For all). mikeszekely--whoa, hey---I give the YF-22 the edge in close combat, but BVR? Where do you get that? YF-23 is stealthier, and faster--it can launch AMRAAMs from longer range at a higher speed (the two go together), and is harder to detect/counterattack.

The main problem is requiring visual ID of targets. And even that doesn't work sometimes. Doesn't matter if you've got a 100-mile range missile, if the rules of engagement require you to actually see it before you shoot it. F-14 is still #1 in that regard. PS---the "real" name for the F-117 should be the A-11A. Right after our beloved Warthog.

Sorry, not my area. Now, if you want to talk about what scale an Alternators F-15 should be...

24-hour light-grey stealths? Isn't that what F-22's are for? Still, light grey is what they were painted years ago when they operated in daylight. Need more pics to evaluate the scheme's pattern. The F-22's scheme (which is modified from the 80's F-15 scheme) sure wouldn't work on the F-117...

Yes, black does suck on Earth, at night. That's why B-2's are dark grey, not black. (F-117's are black just because the AF wants them that way). Earth NEVER gets *pitch* black, only very dark blue. 99% of the time, a ship or plane is spotted because it is darker than it's background--and black is darker than anything, even the night sky. Surprisingly, on a moonless, utterly dark night in the middle of the ocean, white is supposed to be best. Of course, that rarely occurs. If there's ANY local light, it's the worst. Stealths ARE quiet, but it's a side-effect. The real goal is to make the engines cooler, to lower the IR signature. However, that's also the best way to reduce noise. Airliners try to have as cool exhaust as possible to make them quiet, fighters do it to reduce their heat signature. Of course, nowadays, it's a good idea for airliners to have lower IR signatures too... The methods are very similar, as regardless of what you're trying to do, it's going to happen by mixing the exhaust with the ambient air more rapidly and thoroughly. The latest 777 engines even have serrated exhausts. It all goes together.

Cdr Fokker---there's no true, accurate, definition of STOVL vs VTOL. It's whatever they feel like calling it. Has been ever since the days of the early Sea Harriers. I've seen X-35B's on TV take off and land vertically. That's good enough for me to call it VTOL. Kinght26---yes, they're all fugly and pointless, but if they're going to build them anyway, they might as well build the better one. I'd still rather have more Block 50 F-16C's though. Sigh, on IMPORTANT things like the front-line ATF, they pick the wrong one. But for a Harrier replacement, THAT's what they spend time analyzing...

Head to Wal-Mart. Not a big selection, but they've *always* got tons of Monogram $10 1/72 F-14/15/18's to work with. Cheap, decent kits, and something you'd probably want a model of anyway. No sense (IMHO) working on a Mustang when you're trying to practice on a VF-1. (Honestly, F-16's and F-18's are among the easiest to work with, as models go--F-14's are inherently not that easy, and F-15's are moderate) It's all about the intakes, and forward fuselage--neither of which most WW2 plane kits even deal with.

Yeah--the -35 is one of the few ones where the obviously superior plane won, and everyone agreed it was better. Buddhafabio's got to be the first person I've ever seen say the -32 was better. And a key thing WAS the -35's engine design--the -32's was markedly inferior (especially if you watched the NOVA program), and everyone was saying one of the most important things for a new VTOL plane was to get away from the Harrier-style design--and the -32 didn't. It also REALLY helped that Lockheed partnered with BAe. Remember--Boeing's never designed a successful fighter, and still haven't. They do the guppy-mouth again and again, and it's rejected every time. And when the "obviously ex-MDC guys" suggested giving it a YF-23-style tail to get a massive boost in stealthiness, they rejected it. The X-32 got further than most Boeing designs before being rejected though. Plus the fact that a production F-32 would have been redesigned to be a delta-winged plane! THAT'D sure delay the program!

Chronocidal--both the YF-22 and YF-23 beat anything we have today, hands-down. Don't worry about them being agile enough to replace the F-14. (of course, we need a navalised version for that to happen). But no other plane can carry the Phoenix, it's just big. And certainly can't carry it internally. However, a key part of a missile's range is the speed it's launched at. Since YF-22/23 supercruise a lot, they'll almost always be able to launch AMRAAM's at high-speed, giving them a nice boost to their range. Still not a Phoenix, but still a good range with very high speed. But of course, with the YF-23 being inherently faster than the -22, it can launch them even faster. The YF-23 is big, but is also has an incredibly low wing-loading, lower than even the YF-22's. It also has MASSIVE control surfaces, most notably the tail. As for costing money to make---Northrop sure knows how to build exotic stealthy shapes, the YF-23 coming straight from the B-2. (That's why it's stealthier than the -22---Northrop's stealths are much stealthier than Lockheed's). The F-22, while generally conventional, still uses lots of pioneering/expensive methods to build it, like its entirely beam-welded center area. Strong, light, and expensive. F-14 did it for the wing-pivot area, as it was critical. F-22's doing it for much of the plane.

Yup, F120's certainly would have cost more to maintain, with all the extra moving parts--basically like an internal thrust reverser in design/complexity, and thrust reversers aren't all that reliable, as systems go.

1962 was the big "official" change. Where possible, things made sense. (F8U became F-8, F9F became F-9, F4H became F-4, but sometimes it just didn't work and the A3J became the A-5, etc) All you'd ever want to know about designations: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

Well, they wanted contradictory things (of course): They wanted a long-range, supercruising stealthy plane, that was good at picking off bad guys from a distance with AMRAAM's---that would also beat the F-16 in its element. Those things don't go together. Northrop sacrificed some agility to get a lot more speed and stealth, Lockheed sacrificed a lot of stealth and speed to get some more agility. The Air Force "officially" ranked speed and stealth as more important than agility---based on all of the above, the YF-23 should clearly have won. But then things changed (read: lobbyists/politics, and lots of little things creeping in like hangar size and access panel height), to the point that they decided the YF-22 would be built. Plus the whole "YF-23's only a demonstrator, would take a LOT of work to make a workable plane, whereas the -22 can already fire AMRAAM's" argument from the pro-22 people. And then of course after it won, the -22 got new v.stabs, h.stabs, wings, intakes, cockpit, and forward fuselage... The -23 would have "only" needed a new forward fuse/weapons bay, cockpit, and rear fuse... Heh heh---22 vs 23 is about the most common Macrossworld aviation topic, after "how valk engines work in space" and the like. mike---from what I've read, the YF119 was picked because it was low-risk--it was just a much-improved F100. The YF120 was a flat-out new type of jet. It was a variable-stage hybrid jet---not a turbojet, not a turbofan, and of course not a turboprop. People have been trying to make one for decades, GE finally succeeded, and it friggin rocked. But being so new and unique, it was considered too risky. Obviously, the fighter people and the commercial people never talked, because that type of engine is exactly what they've been asking for, for a Concorde replacement---it's pretty much assumed to be required if you want an economical SST. You need like super-duper-cruise--exactly what this is designed for. The F119 is sheer power, the F120 can optimize itself to be ultra-efficient when supersonic, and ultra-powerful when sub-sonic. Basic history of aviation: nothing spectacular ever comes of slow, steady progress. Be risky, take leaps and bounds. B-47, 747, F-4, F-14, SR-71, B-2----the really good stuff is always very different from what comes before, not just an improved version.

The lists are separate---thus we have 2 people saying different things for V. V in itself is VTOL, but V as a prefix is VIP. H can be search and rescue, or Helicopter. Yes, there's a lot of overlap (The A, B, C, F are the same in each), but some are different/exclusive, depending on if it's being used as a primary or secondary mission designator.

The YF-23, with the least powerful engines, was faster than the YF-22 with the most powerful engines. The YF-23 is inherently faster due to being way sleeker. It's so sleek, it surprised the engineers and pilots with how fast it accelerated on its first flight, how easily it supercruised, and they immediately stopped broadcasting its speed the first time it went to full 'burner after supercruising with the YF120's to hide just how fast it was going. It's really fast. So, no matter what engine it has, the YF-23 is faster. But if it's got the 120 engine, then it's WAY faster.

The weird F-117 camo wasn't just suggested, some WERE painted pinky-beige and blue. Go look at the prototypes, etc. In-service ones are black, because the USAF did refuse that scheme and the various other varations. Pink IS the overall best camo for all things. Ships, planes, tanks.

Because that might actually prove something. No F-14 vs F-15, no YF-16 vs YF-17, no YA-9 vs YA-10, no X-32 vs X-35, etc. It allows Congress to fund whichever one looks better on whichever papers they want to read. If they actually FLEW against each other, then there might be a clear winner, and the lobbyists wouldn't get their way. PS---mock fight, it's so the YF-23. Faster supercruise (thus can launch missiles from farther away with a greater chance of hitting) and much stealthier (it could lock on the YF-22 before the 22 even knew the 23 was there, and harder to lock on for retaliation). And if they get in close, the YF-23 has a way smaller heat/IR signature, hard to lock on to with Sidewinders (entrenched nozzles with heat-absorbing tiles, and a sleeker airframe for less kinetic heating). As opposed to the YF-22's vectored thrust nozzles, which is a giant moving beacon to a heat-seeker... Of course, I'm biased.

Unless of course, you've grown up around trucks all your life, and you know exactly how stacks are supposed to look for various types of trucks, and that's the first thing you've looked for in a model or toy truck since you were 5 years old. To me, chopping Prime's stacks is exactly like cutting off an inch from a VF-1's wingtip. Utterly unacceptable. Here, everybody would never let a company live down a "clipped" wingtip on a VF-1. But since most people don't know why trucks have stacks like they do, they don't care. And so long as ANY truck has stacks that short (and some do) it's ok for them. But not for me, for Prime shouldn't have short stacks, for he hauls a high-cube dry-van---which require the tallest stacks among all trucks. And finally---they cut the mufflers down too, which you simply can't do.