David Hingtgen

Yeah, squadron's got about the best selection there is. But you'll probably want to try larger scales---a 1/48 P-51's a LOT smaller than a 1/48 valk. PS--a lot of the "colorful" valks you see in Japanese hobby magazines etc are based off of 60's and 70's Navy planes--F-4's, F-8's, A-6's, A-7's, and early F-14's.

But the YF-21 has *two* gunpods. All in all, the original's the best to me--VF-1 !

The bottom-most pic posted by Burn looks the most do-able, but still too "everything" that I mentioned. (Tail-heavy, lack of wing, etc). PS--just saw a Super Hornet demo on TLC last night, I was honestly impressed--it can do a WICKED tail-slide and practically post-stall manuevers. Now if only it had some speed and big missiles, it'd be a decent interceptor...

Best landing gear? Now THAT's my kind of topic! Of course, most valks seems pretty similar after the -11...

That's easy, VF-11. Though I'm not really TOO fond of ANY valk's nose. Ironically, I do like the F-18's nosecone more than just about any other. The plane as a whole is a different matter...

It's simply too tail heavy, that's the main thing. Too much weight too far aft, on too small wings. And no tail. Expand the wing into a big cranked delta, and that'll solve most of the problems. Bigger wing (thus more lift), more aft center of lift, no need for a tail if you make it a true delta. Basically, you want to make it look like an F-16XL/VF-11MAXL.

Burn--those count as verticals. Look at an F-22 or F-18. They're angled just as much as the Legioss, but are still the vertical stab, and still require full-size horizontals. F-14 has moderately canted stabs, likely the VF-1's inspiration. (While common nowadays, F-14 was pretty revolutionary for a jet in having two fins, canted outwards) A canted vertical stab does almost nothing, control-wise. If you pull both rudders inward, you can gain a moderate pitch-up when combined with the elevators. But nothing more, no actual pitch control. Works almost exactly like adding nose-up trim. (Good for carrier takeoffs, but not in combat) YF-23 is one of the few planes with true "flying tails" that can do anything and everything, and it has an utterly unique control system. (Also, its stabs are SO out-canted, they are actually more like horizontals that have been bent up---yaw control is B-2 style, from the ailerons) And of course, YF-23 uses the WHOLE tail to move, not just control surfaces on the trailing edges.

Here's an A-4, about 1,000x better proportioned than a Legioss: (and it's got a tail, too)

renegadeleader1: A-4's fly because they actually have a tail, and don't have 70% of their weight aft of their center of lift. (Center of lift should be AFT of center of gravity, not ahead of it). Also, their wings are proportionally MUCH larger. That's why A-4's are such good planes--their lift/weight ratio's probably better than the F-14/15/16/18. An obvious fact overlooked by many people: wings are the most important part of a plane. Don't spend 80% of your design time/money/effort on the tail and engines, the wing's the important part. Tiny wings=not good. See F-104's service history.

I had to go find out what a Legioss was first... (I know of the term, but not what they are) Well, my brain says overall "brick with wings" but I can't really find anything specifically "wrong" with it, other than it looks like a 1/48 kit built with 1/72 wings. Wing/body ratio is even worse than an F-104, but F-104's flew. It's just ungodly huge at the back. Pretty much everything aft of the cockpit. More like a box with a triangle grafted on the front. It's like a 747 carrying 2 or 3 shuttles on its back---just too much volume/mass for its size. I can't phrase it right, but you should understand what I mean. All in all---I don't think it'd fly. ewilen--your post appeared while I was typing. I did mention in my first draft of my reply that it wasn't FAR off from being a cranked-delta, but for a delta-wing to work (as in, no h.stab) it generally either is, or isn't, a delta. And this isn't. Wings are too small for it to work. Delta's basically work by having the center of lift spread out over such a large area, and so "matched" with the plane's center of gravity, that the plane has little/no natural pitch tendency. Can't do that when the wing's so small, thus center of lift is so small, and with that big a back end, the center of gravity is way out there...

That's just what I'm talking about--there's a whole bunch of little slots and flaps around the sides of the engine, and I want to know what they do. The most intriguing theory is that they can move enough to actually vector the exhaust for yaw, not just "tweak" it. If so, then the F-22 actually has 3-D vectoring, or thereabouts. (Or the oft-said "2.5D") And something like "pssst..it actually has 3D vectoring" could be tried to kept secret for a while...

No, I meant only the ventral bay. Inside that, it can hold either 6 AMRAAMs, or 2 1,000lb JDAMs, or 2 500lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMS. Since the F-22's stealthiness w/external ordnance is on par with that of a UPS truck, most people only talk about the internal carriage. And 2,000lbs are surely not going to fit. It was designed to hold AMRAAM's, nothing else. They BARELY got the smaller JDAM's to fit, so they could call it an F/A-22 instead of an F-22. If you want to count external ordnance, the thing could carry practically anything you want. It's bigger than an F-15E. As for vectoring--I need close-up, interior, angled shots of an installed, final engine in an actual F/A-22. No prototypes of any kind. Most F119 shots are test engines, and in YF-22's. Nozzles tend to change a LOT before a plane's in service. And I do not know whether what I'm looking for is actually part of the engine, the vectoring nozzle, or the plane itself. Most drawings do show that they exist, but not exactly how they work, or if they even do anything other than sit there. (As in, do they move, rotate, pivot, translate, etc? All of them, half of them, etc) And if so--how/when/why? Vectoring only, counteract yawing action, general nozzle control, afterburner control, etc?

Hey, nobody else takes tailpipe shots, the world needs to know! (Actually, I'm in it more for COLOR, than anything else---"jet exhaust" simply isn't specific enough a color of paint) Of course, I need to know if the the side-mounted supplemental flaps really do exist, that'll take a GOOD shot of the interior of the nozzle... Official site: http://www.f-22raptor.com/ Unofficial site: http://www.f22-raptor.com/ Anyways, air-to-ground maxes out at 2 1,000lb JDAM's. But the preferred load is 2 500lb JDAMs plus 2 AMRAAM's. (it'll fit) F-22 is heavily AMRAAM-optimized, it'll take them if at all possible.

I believe Italeri has an actual F/A-22, 1/48.

F-22 was "uglified" from the YF-22. YF looks better... (And of course, the -23 beats all, coolest-looking plane EVER) Anyways, OT is another tailcode for Eglin. The wargames/testing part, not operational squadrons.

So far, only Smokescreen's out AFAIK. So I too will hold out until Sideswipe's been found. Normally, Iowa is quite good at getting new TF's, but lately it's been pretty poor. Silver(blue)streak is just so cool however, I might import him from Japan.

Yellow/brown is pretty much world-wide for all armed forces. Red's about the only alternate color you'll see--I think Norway does red... They're intl' warning safety-stripes. I could look up all the colors if you want, but yellow means live warhead, brown means live rocket motor. Overall body color was white for about 30 years, which is what you see on screen most of the time for Macross. Now that they're 36375 grey, Macross has changed to follow suit--thus you see grey missiles in M Zero. PS--fins are bare steel, nosecones usually white. (Until we make grey nosecones---nosecones are made in color, not painted--and we've got a LOT of white ones to use up)

I've played too many games to list anything less than "top 50 for each genre" so I'll just list those with the best story, IMHO. Not in order: Xenogears Ace Combat 4 (short but very good) FF6 FF7 FF10 Chrono Trigger Valkyrie Profile (must..have..sequel...) Ninja Gaiden (hey, for 8-bit, it was deep) Shooters that are simply cool: Thunderforce 5, Darius Twin, Panzer Dragoon Zwei

Well, about the ultimate Tolkien site is: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm Everything, every book. As I recall, there's multiple blue wizards originally (as in, like 4,000 years ago), but I get the feeling that in the time of LOTR, most wizards aren't around anymore. Either dead, gone somewhere else, or simply don't care about mortal's problems, etc. There is no account for most wizards. Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast are about the only ones we know much about.

Fairly common mistake on recent JP TF's. World's Smallest TF's have it all over their boxes.

ewilen---those aren't contrails. Basically the opposite--only visible at low altitude. Contrail=CONdesation TRAIL. Not vortex trails. If you see something coming off a wingtip, or strake, or even flaps, it's caused by a vortex. This is also the "cloud" enveloping the Concorde's wings at high AOA. (Concordes fly via vortex-generation, unlike most aircraft) Now as for a sonic-boom-style cloud: well that's yet another thing. For that, as you approach Mach 1, the air gets SO compressed it literally squeezes the water vapor out of the air and all the vapor has nowhere to go so it condenses, thus making a visible cloud. The end results all look the same, but the reasons are different.

Contrails are ice crystal formations (actually a cloud, just an unusual shape), formed by when the hot vapor exiting an engine's exhaust encounters the cold dry air at high altitude, and it takes the right temp/pressure/altitude to do so. Also, the vast majority of water vapor in contrails comes from the surrounding air, not the plane itself. No contrails in warm air/low altitudes. And no contrails at extremely high altitudes. Thus, no contrails in space, since the pressure is zilch, and water vapor is zilch. PS---contrails are nearly identical to when you can "see your breath" in cold weather---warm moist air from your mouth condenses when exposed to cool dry air.

Awesome---especially for those of us who don't like stickers/decals on their cars: http://www.hasbro.com/transformers/pl/page.../dn/default.cfm

Yes, but that's not my point. My point is that how quickly they are reached is also a factor, and can be a GREATER factor than simply how many G's there are. Yes, 10G's will knock most anybody out. But pilots who can hold normally hold 8 or 9 G's with few problems, will find themselves knocked totally unconscious from only 5 or 6G's, if the onset is rapid enough.

If you're trying to make an FS model, I suggest getting the Macross Design Works book. Page 98 shows how -19 gear works. Hard to describe, but I'll try: To retract, the main strut retracts back and to the side, to lay diagonally across the well. There's a small horizontal strut that connects the main strut and the wheel. This facilitates a "Z-fold" so that the wheel can fold up close to the main strut and lay flat across the wheel well. Here's a bad, quick, drawing showing it folded up.