David Hingtgen

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)

For FOTR, there's the normal one, the extended one, and the extended one with bookends. I got the non-bookends extended one, for it was on sale for only $7 more than the regular version was, and came with a free ticket to see TTT, (which would cost about $7 otherwise) thus negating the price difference. I don't think there's any difference content-wise between extended and extended w/bookends.

1. Hey, whoa, hold on. FSW IS NOT INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. PERIOD. Yes, every plane that's FSW so far is inherently unstable. Because they wanted it to be, not because of FSW. F-16 is unstable, and it's got normal wings. You could very, very easily make a stable, FSW plane. You can also make unstable, normal planes. I mean--every F-15E ever has been dark grey. Just because that's the way they're painted. F-15's are not inherently grey, dark grey planes are not necessarily F-15E's. Same with FSW and instability--there's only been 2 built, both unstable *for other reasons*. Not because of FSW. PS: instability=center of gravity aft of center of lift. Nothing more than that. Put a big, huge, heavy engine in the back of the plane (like the F-16 does) and you will be unstable. Want a big heavy engine in the tail (like an L-1011) but don't want to be unstable? Move the wings (the center of lift) back. Look at most any passenger plane with rear engines--the wing will be VERY far back, to keep the center of lift so far back that the center of gravity can't be behind it. Having the wings so far back like the YF-19 actually keeps it fairly stable, since unless those engines are SUPER heavy, there's no way the center of gravity is behind the center of lift. (X-29 is such a funky plane it'd be unstable no matter what, regardless of its wings) Again--stability is determined by how far aft the center of gravity is compared to the center of lift. If it's forward, you're stable. (more forward is more stable). If it's the same, you're neutral. If it's aft, you're unstable. The YF-19's center of gravity would have to be like behind itself to be aft of the wing's center of lift. PPS--stability and all always and only refers to pitch. Roll stability is a simple function of wing dihedral/anhedral. NOBODY will ever, ever want yaw instability, it's bad and means you'll break up. Even the super-unstable F-16 has multiple ventral fins so that it's nice and stable with regards to yaw. 2. While it's usually not simply the plane's fault (as was implied with the YF-19 for simply being hard to fly) you will usually lose quite a few planes early on due to systems failures, etc. F-15 was notable for its LACK of losses. F-14 lost the first plane on the second flight. Had to wait until they built a 2nd F-14 to continue flight testing. Of course, the best early crash is the YF-22, they caught that one on tape. (Another reason the YF-23 should have won--it didn't crash! )

Ehh. Hasbro said "It is our goal" to have the stacks the same as the JP version. That's their way of saying "if they don't pass the safety test, at least we tried". It's like how stuff is advertised *may* *help* prevent gingivitis/leprosy/bankruptcy. Hasbro didn't say "it WILL have long stacks" they said they'll try. Now, why give such a roundabout answer, when a simple yes or no would suffice? If they were definitely going to be long, they'd just say "they'll be the same length". Regarding diecast content, they flat out said Prime would have it, and Alternators would not. But on the stack issue, they skirted around the question. Not a good sign. "It is our intention that the Masterpiece VF-1's will have a large amount of diecast and excellent paint jobs"

We've had this discussion before, with me writing a lot of it: FSW doesn't do sh*t, asides from making you one heck of a radar target. There. (longer answer: it delays tip-stalling at high-alpha due to inverse span-wise flow thus granting greater stability/control for low-speed moves -----that's what it does. Doesn't affect roll, pitch, yaw, or anything else) So you can do an extra-slow "slow speed pass" at an airshow. ::note to self--go find multi-page FSW thread I wrote on the old board:: Supplement: why then are so many FSW planes manueverable? Because if you look at the Su-47, X-29, etc, you'll notice they have canards. THAT is why they can move. And the Su-47 has vectoring, too. You'll notice the Su-37, with vectoring and canards, but no FSW, is about as good as it gets. Same with the F-15ACTIVE. If FSW was so great, don't you think the F-22/23/32/35/Rafale/EF-2000/Grippen might have had it? Nope, but most of them have canards and/or vectoring for their superior agility vs older planes. YF-19's my fave valk BTW, but I sure won't give it any points for manueverability based on FSW. (Yeah, it looks cool, but doesn't mean anything). It's CANARDS however.... (note that the YF-19 has canards, the Yf-21 doesn't---that's the difference, IMHO). However, YF-21's have way better vectoring. (My vote for agilty under most all conditions is the YF-21, the YF-19 would be easier to fly at high-AOA/low speeds---like a Hornet)

Try a lot of paints. See what you like. Every color from every brand is different. Even similar colors from the same brand can behave differently. PS--almost all gunmetal is evil. Inherently nasty color. Also, jet exhaust just plain sucks, do not use it under any circumstances.

I can get you a shot of EXACTLY how the pins go into Super Hornet gear if you want. (Crawled on the ground for those pics) As for missiles: you'll generally find them all over on the pylons/rail right above them, but not ON them very often. However, you'll find one hanging off of a protective cover on the nosecone pretty often. Here's one I saw on an F-16C:

Well, the big thing is locking on to something to the rear. Are UMM-1's heat-seeking or radar-guided? VF-1's sure don't have rear radar. (Flankers do) Anyways, if there's still any debate left, I vote for ECM stuff for any extra space. Every single F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 upgrade ever involves more ECM stuff and antennas. (One of the primary reasons it's so hard to tell F-15A's from F-15C's nowadays is that F-15A's have been upgraded with nearly every antenna and ECM bump that the C's have)

Above all else, hang them from the pitots and probes on a plane (especially around the nose). They're there to prevent dust/dirt getting in the openings. (The vinyl type that actually covers things)/goes over them Also, be sure to put some on the gear struts. The type which is more like an actual tag, hanging from a pin. Pins are generally used to lock something open or closed.

Gerwalker: markings aren't low-vis. They're grey, but since they're light grey on dark grey (or dark grey on light grey) they still contrast highly. Low-vis markings are very hard to see against the background. Hagan--I liked the space example, I'll use it for the next example: For space, low vis probably would be black, and low-vis markings would be VERY dark blue or VERY dark grey. If you used any other shade, they'd have high contrast and show up easily. Here's some low-vis markings on an EA-6B:

re: delta wings and swept wings w/stabs Inherent difference. Wing, vs tail+wing. No matter how swept, an F-14 or Tornado's tail isn't part of the wing, and thus acts very different than a delta winged plane. Elevons alter the wing's characteristics itself. A tailplane is an external, independent source of pitch (possibly roll) control. Deltas suck, IMHO. And canards are superior to tailplanes. (The BEST is to have canards AND tailplanes--see F-15ACTIVE, F-16 CCV) Anyways--more controls are better. Cars with 4-wheel steering are rare, but they can turn better than any normal car ever will. Same with planes. A plane with canards and tailplanes will out-turn a *similar* delta. Yes, a modern Mirage will beat an F-4, but so will ANY plane that's 30 years newer. It's because it's new, not because it's a delta. A delta with canards (EF-2000, Grippen) should beat any non-canard delta there is. And to have canards and tailplanes--well that would be the F-15ACTIVE or Super Flanker, ungodly manueverable aircraft capable of moves which don't even have names yet. (Yes, vectoring's part of it, but it's mainly the canards+tailplanes--vectoring isn't amazingly wonderful, at least certainly not US-vectoring) Basically--why have just one method of control (elevons) when you could have 2 or 3? And with 2 or 3, you can use them independently. Left canard down, left stab up, right aileron up, right stab neutral, right flaperon neutral, right canard up, left aileron down, and left flaperon up. I have no idea what that would do besides a left yaw, and you'd need FBW for sure, but combos like that is why a Super Flanker can do just about anything. Delta-winged planes have a LOT fewer combos available. As for VF-1 pitch control: yes I guess that'd work in space if you used verniers, but in the air it'd be far less effective than vectoring or conventional controls.

Yeah, high contrast sure looks cooler (not many modelers do low-vis, it's so boring) but then it's not low-vis, it's high-vis. Vis=contrast. You've almost got a disruption/deception scheme there, which is the opposite of low-vis. Low-vis doesn't mean "grey" it means "little or no contrast". There's low-vis green, low-vis blue, even low-vis pinks. And of course, lots and lots of high-vis grey. (Nearly all WWII pattern ship camo is high-vis grey--- it's what I'm painting my USS Iowa in) Please note I think it's an awesome paint job, it's just not "low-vis".

VG wing plane with its wings swept isn't a delta, nor does it fly like one (though basic supersonic airflow over the plane is similar, which is the point in doing it--deltas are very good at flying fast). It simply has its wings very close to its tail when they're swept. Also, if such a wing has ailerons, when the wing is swept back that far, they can't do anything, as they're sideways into the airflow. This is why nearly every VG-wing plane uses spoilers instead of ailerons for roll at low speed, and tailerons instead of ailerons at high speed (with wings swept back). So even if you wanted to use ailerons or something for pitch, you couldn't, as they'd be flying sideways into the wind. A VG wing, swept back, can produce lift, nothing more. On an F-14, all functions are disabled when fully swept--no flaps, no slats, no spoilers. ALL control is from the tail. Same with a Tornado--tail only control when wings are swept. (I personally would like to see a VG plane with 45-degree canted stabs, so that you've got a back-up if something goes wrong--an F-14 at least has SLIGHT cant and twin-rudders if something goes wrong with the stabs, but a Tornado has a single fin with a small rudder--if its stabs have trouble when the wings are swept, it has almost no control until the wings are back out--which takes several seconds, and at 800+mph, that's a few seconds too long) Finally: I'm always confusing the F-16AFTI and F-16 CCV---same idea, though. (intake-mounted movable ventral canards) Here's the CCV, which is what I was actually thinking of: http://www.afwing.com/images/f16h/ccv.jpg Here's the AFTI: http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/old/f16148.jpg

Missed some stuff on my last post, replies to various things: Elevators can't be on the wings, that's like a rudder on the wing--just simply isn't. Delta-winged planes can have ELEVONS. Variable geometry isn't a factor, no plane has wing-mounted elevators. F-15ACTIVE: just the one, modified from the F-15S/MTD, which was modified from the first F-15B, which was the original TF-15A. Quite the plane. Has worn the red/white/blue Bicentennial scheme all throughout. F-117 is overall a delta-winged plane, thus has elevons. V-tailed Bonanzas do have standard ruddervators on their tails. It's not all-moving like a YF-23, but works the same.

Closest thing I know for an air cushion is for Vietnam. Launch a century-series (I can't remember which) off of a truck-mounted rail-launcher. 0-300 in 5 inches. Recover was via a really big air cushion. Takeoffs worked well, unless the rocket refused to release after takeoff. Landings--well, worked, at least once. Not nearly good enough to justify further development. Ventral fins--yeah, they folded in Ep 27, but they wouldn't do anything, and real ventral fins can't move a plane. Exception is the F-16AFTI (or ATFI? whatever) which had like, independently-controlled ventral-canard-rudders mounted at 45-degrees under the intake lip. Could do some amazing things. Basic rule: any slightly modified F-15 or F-16 can out-manuever any "stock" anything. Those planes have incredible potential, adding canards/vectoring just makes them insanely maneuverable.

My car was built with a HUD, nyah. (Why do threads here always turn into car threads?)

Oh yeah--the F-15S/MTD was insanely manueverable, as was (is?) the F-15ACTIVE. Beats an F-22, I think. F-15ACTIVE is still the fastest vectoring aircraft ever, and can vector at twice the speed of most planes. (Just because you can vector, doesn't mean you can vector at high speed--the ACTIVE can though) IMHO, that's even more important--when you're slow, you're already manueverable, vectoring can't help much--but supersonic, you've got zilch agility--and vectoring is a BIG influence there---if you could remain supersonic, yet be reasonably manueverable, that's a heck of an advantage.

What, no pics? 1. 20th Ann Prime. (pre-ordered) 2. UP FEF-3 4-8-4: 3. CR SD80MAC: 4. Lots of 1/400 DC-9's. http://www.sma-models.com/400/images/photos/DC9s.jpg 5. Maybe the new 1/72 F-15E's will be out by then. 6. Maybe Escaflowne, I need to see lots of pics of the final version before I decide.

Nied--I'll have to go read up on F-22/AMRAAM some more to reply. (I do love a good discussion) ewilen--yup. Vectoring nozzles for pitch (and roll should certainly be possible). Verniers could help a bit. As for roll--there's LOTS of ways to roll. The spoilers would be a lot better than wingtip thrusters/verniers. (Unlike an airliner, a fighter's spoilers are pretty much used only for roll and are often the primary/only means of roll) (yes the F-14 is an exception) Canted rudders: not canted enough/big enough to do much. Yes, pulling them both in will *help* pitch you up, F/A-18's do it all the time, I'm sure F-22's will too. But pushing them both out/down won't do anything to move you--it's a powerful airbrake (it is in fact how F-22's slow down--they have no spoilers, no dedicated airbrakes---they just push both rudders out). The only plane with tail surfaces canted enough to have a downwards pitch is the YF-23 (of course) and that's because they're actually more horizontal than vertical. It's not really fins canted out, it's a tailplane canted up. (it's not canted at 45 degrees out, it's 50 degrees out from vertical--thus 40 degrees up from horiztonal)