David Hingtgen

This is pretty YF-21-looking:

And I already posted a perfect 3-view line drawing of the YF-23 a few posts ago. Anyways, here's another pic:

Uxi, sure you don't have -22 and -23 confused? I mean, how could the YF-22 (with FOUR tail fins of different shape) possibly look more like the YF-21's TWO fins, when the YF-23 has TWO fins set at the same angle as the YF-21 with the same shape fins? That's always been the #1 thing---YF-23's tail configuration is utterly unique, and the same as the YF-21's. (Somewhat belatedly known as a pelican tail due to proposed X-32 configuration)

VF-19A or VF-19S? Big difference.

And hey--gotta use the YF-22 to compare, not the F-22. F-22 wasn't around when the YF-21 was designed. YF-22 and F-22 are not the same plane, it's like YF-17 vs F/A-18F. F-22 has different nose, h.stabs, v.stabs, and most importantly pretty much an all-new wing compared to a YF-22. (Plus a lot of other little things)

Ok, "all over" is too strong a term. How about "obvious"? Also, check out the top of the engine nacelles for some hexagon patterns. (The YF-23 has them BETWEEN the nacelles, the YF-21 has them on the nacelles.)

YF-21 is a ,modded YF-23, hands down. Nothing's from the YF-22. (IMNSHO) The engines in trapezoidal nacelles above the main fuselage clinch it. PS--you know those diamond/hexagon vents all over the YF-21? Only one other aircraft has vents like those--the YF-23. (Y/F-22 uses sawtooth style)

This is the month of "sequels that sucked from series I love". Virtual On, Rogue Squadron, Megaman X. At least the new Castlevania's supposed to be good, and Jak 2.

That's so messed up I don't know where to start. Thankfully other people have posted the right info. Can't name something after something that doesn't have that name. I mean, c'mon. What's next, the Macross itself was named after the USS New Jersey? "They're both big ships"

There's so many Flanker variants I don't even try to keep them straight. I know *some* Flanker has rear radar, and that's good enough for me. Of course, equally difficult is the sheer act of firing a rear-facing missile, as no matter what, it's going to be launched while the plane is going forward at 500kts, so it's got to go from -500 to 0 to 1500 kts quickly, if it's going to be any good. (Micro-missiles seem to be so agile it might be better to launch them forward and then have them do a 180)

No, I'm too young to be a former anything. But I've had airplane books since I was 4 (couldn't read until I was 5, but I had them--I've had basic air combat tactics books since I was 6). And since the YF-19 is my fave valk by far, I've read everything on FSW I can. (There's not much, it's pretty simple--inverse spanwise flow, that's it--and that doesn't affect much on a plane).

Top 2 are the YF-23 and F-15C. Other highly-ranked ones are the F-14, Tornado, F-16, F-4, F-8, SR-71, B-1B. For older/other stuff: FW-190A, F4U (Merlin-Mustangs be damned, the F4U is the coolest-sounding fighter ever), P-38.

FSW has nothing to do with pitch-rate in normal flight. Doesn't make it seem less stable, doesn't make it faster. Also, a rapid pitch-up leads to high AOA, the FSW's reason for being, where FSW is *more* stable. Thus a YF-19 doing a rapid pitch-up would be more stable than say an F-16 doing such a manuever.

Things to consider: YF-19's canards have a heck of a moment arm due to the long "neck" of the plane. Control effectiveness is "size X distance from axis". And it's got a LONG distance from the pitch axis. (Wouldn't be too good for rolling, or drag-induced yaw, but sure as heck has plenty of pitch authority). Also--high speed=lots of airspeed. Even a 1-foot control surface has authority with 1000kts of air. (Unless people want to get into a compressibility discussion)

NO IT DOESN'T That's twice now. FSW isn't unstable. Period. Doesn't give instability, doesn't make things more prone to be unstable, nothing. It has the same effect as painting the plane green. Nothing. As I said a page ago, it actually makes it MORE STABLE at high alpha. The exact opposite of what most people seem to think. An FSW plane can hold extreme angles of attack without rolling off to the side due to the reversed spanwise flow. Very few aircraft can hold greater than 45 alpha and have ANY manueverability, and almost nothing can hold 60 and not fall out of the sky. But FSW gives you a bit extra. (not a lot, like 5-10 degrees). Man, if the old boards weren't down I'd go copy my whole "FSW and what it does and how it works" from there... Anyways, in response to Lightning 06: Nope, YF-19 has 1D vectoring (but 2D nozzles). It's one of those things where everybody gets things confused--like centrifigual and centripedal force. (It's CENTRIPEDAL on a roller coaster--though 9/10 of text books and TV shows say centrifugal). Regardless of what compendium says, it's 1D, it's clearly shown in a close-up. (Using it to roll, ironically). Lots of people think up and down count as two. No, it's 1. It's a freedom of motion. Best analogy: trains. The engineer can make them go forward, or back. One choice, no others. Cars have 2--front/back, left/right. 2 choices, in any combo. A YF-19's engines (and F-22 for example) can only go up/down. Yes, they may be used differentially to give a left/right roll, but they themselves cannot go left/right (if they did, they'd give yaw--and you almost never see pure yaw vectoring). To do this, you have 2D nozzles. Think of a "normal" nozzle. That's considered 1D---1 dimension about an axis. A circle (which is a line). (Geometry be damned, that's how works with planes--standard nozzle is a 1D axisymmetric cone--equidistant about the thrust axis). But for your standard "flat rectangle" vectoring nozzle, it's not a cone, so you need 2D to describe it---the top/bottom, and the sides. Different dimensions/non-syemmetric (it's a lot wider than tall). Now, to get actual 2D vectoring (left/right) you need what is called the 3D nozzle. Which is really a hyped-up 1D nozzle. F-15ACTIVE or any REALLY modern Super Flanker. Basically a 1D nozzle that can fold and flex a bit at any point to subtly shift itself.

Toothpicks! Far more useful than most people realize. I mainly use them for gluing, and stirring paint. But have hundreds of other uses (stick them in small holes to hold parts, great for holding wheels, sticking in gaps to open stuff up, gently prodding things into place, small shims, and even more uses if you carve/sand them) Oh yeah---STIR paint. Shaking is bad (air bubbles) and not even 10% as effective as stirring. I like flat toothpicks, BTW. Sand paper: 280, 320, something in between, and 600 grit are the basics. Anything rougher is too rough for most models, anything finer is only for final polishing usually for clear parts. Though 1000/1500 can be quite useful if you need a really fine finish for painting. 2000+ is "polishing clear parts till they gleam". Good cheap source for sandpaper: auto parts stores. Though I love the Testors stuff, since it's on plastic sheets, not paper sheets. Flexes easier. Emory boards. Yes, the things for nails. See if you can get a girl to buy them for you, if not just suck it up and buy a half-dozen bright pink nail files. VERY useful. Cusioned, large flat sanding surface. Buy "fine"---usually 280/320 grit. Gives nice even sanding without gouging. Airbrush: I've had great success with the Testors $18.44 set at WalMart. Certainly a good buy to "try out" before you spend $100+ on a airbrush you won't use. $18 won't be able to do 4-color German splatter camo freehand, but it'll lay down paint nice and smoothly if you just want to spray something overall Ghost Grey or something.

But my point is that it's not seamless if you have to swap discs... Swapping discs=not a seamless presentation, thus defeating the point of re-editing credits/openings.

Open 2-rail/3-rail etc railings are photoetched of course, but some ships have solid railings. Basically a thin, half-height soild wall wrapped around a curve. Notably the original bridge installation on the Iowa's. And as I often model ships as-built, and most kits are "as late as possible" I often rely on low-production/garage conversion kits. I doubt even the best company could do a flexible yet nice and thin Iowa-class bridge solid railing out of resin, or the half-platform supports connecting the bridge to the FFC's 40mm gun director platform. Etc. Very thin, very small resin bits (so small they're transparent) are more fragile/brittle than very thin, very small plastic bits.

Yeah, the VF-19F/S would suck a$$ in an atmosphere. No ventral fins, no canards, smaller wings (thus smaller moment arms).

Yeah, but all my planes are plastic. It's the SHIPS that I have problems with resin with. Ever seen 1/700 or 1/1200 scale railings? 1/350 platform supports? When made to scale, they're so thin they're transparent. That's the stuff that's brittle. If it has any thickness at all it's fine, but when you have individual rivets engraved at 1/700, it's pretty darn tiny. (Sometimes the paint ends up thicker than the piece). The thinnest 1/72 aircraft wing is nothing compared to 1/700 ship bits. (Ever seen a 1/700 20mm gun? Those things are TINY)

Big difference between folding up for high-speed, and MORPHING. XB-70's folded their wings for high-speed flight back in the 60's. (Which I'd bet good money is the inspriation for the YF-21 doing it, since the XB-70 is where Kawamori got the name Valkyrie)

Nope, just the one, Escaflowne itself.

Ehh, for small/thin pieces, resin is just plain brittle/fragile. Plastic, while weak, will bend. For big pieces, resin's like a rock.

I don't think you could fit 10 hours onto one disc to do a nice big seamless presentation. You'd have to swap discs, or at least flip them over. And it'd take quite a bit of editing. End of FOTR was Aragorn and co hiking uphill in the forest, opening of TTT was Gandalf fighting the Balrog. Not too seamless. Or even if you put it on multiple discs, it's still a lot of swapping/switching, which isn't too different from just watching all 3 in a row on separate discs. Thus defeating the point of a seamless presentation.

YF-21's a heck of a lot sleeker. The primary drag consideration for high-speed flight is wing leading-edge sweep angle. More is better. And the YF-19's got a negative number!! Anyways---the YF-21's wing beats just about anything you could imagine. The F-16 has an "automatic reflexing" wing, (basically a rapid-response hinged leading edge) and that's a big reason it's so awesome---so good they designed it into the F-22 as well. A much better discusiion would be YF-19 vs VF-22. (which doesn't have BDS, morphing wings, or other fun toys---simply compare the two planes as they are, no gimmicks)