David Hingtgen

Basically. I remember looking at the Neo-Geo box many times at Software Etc and Babbage's.

The IRST is a non-issue, as the PAK-FA obviously uses Plasma Stealth™. End of the British Harrier:

Then it's a bad design. Valks shouldn't NEED armor to look decent. The VF-25 certainly stands alone. (the DX version, is another matter).

Actually, having forward-swept wings means your wings should be mounted further back, as center of lift should be aft of center of gravity*. Look at the X-29. *Unstable planes, by definition, do not follow this rule. However, extreme instability would require so much correction that I believe it's "aerodynamically inefficient"---I know of no unstable plane that is highly unstable. They're all "barely" unstable. The F-16 I know actually had an alternate wing-mounting location built-in to the design--if they couldn't get the unstable version to work aerodynamcally or FBW-wise, they would simply move the wings a few inches and make it stable. The main point was that it's a matter of inches.

If you do that, all you've got a VF-25 with the wings on backwards.

Gripens are awesome. Especially Czech ones. Very slightly NSFW in some places, but totally PG-13 at most: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30377648/211-Squadron-Kalendar-New

I thought you were referring to the Pegasus's water-injection system, when you made your "run on water" remark.

Hey, water-injection defines the early jetliners. Few things cooler than a seemingly coal-powered 707 climbing out... http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-707-123/0541868/L/ Last airliner I can think of designed with water-injection was Northwest's DC-10's.

Wow, that's the most blatantly-against-the-rules political post I've seen in a while..

Personally, I found an F100-229E starting up worse than a Pegasus. A Pegasus is loud, but the -229E is "piercing". It's like an explosion vs a dentist drill----one may be louder, but the other seems to go straight into your brain... As for the PAK-FA kit---I think part of it may be that the drawing "magically" has no actual cockpit behind the glass---that makes it look like there's much more open space. Is there a side-view of the actual kit? Adding in the pilot and coaming will make a big difference I bet.

YF-21 canopy never did "lock" into an open position, nor even have much friction--you just opened it as far as you wanted and hoped it'd hold when you let go.

The CRJ1000 is a 100-seater. It is directly replacing the Fokker 100 with its first deliveries. (which itself replaced many a DC-9). Soon it will be nothing but RJ's, except for over-water flights it seems. Dear airlines: there is nothing "regional" about a Dallas-New York flight... (which according to my latest Delta timetable, is all they offer---that would have gotten you an L-1011 some years ago)

I'm just gonna toss out a spoiler reminder. Just 'cuz it's in a trailer somewhere, doesn't mean it's not a spoiler.

Almost news: Yamato is now part of HLJ's "our price".

Can you stretch an airliner too much? Yes, yes you can. I'd love to know the climb performance/TTW ratio... http://qa.airliners.net/photo/Bombardier-Aerospace/Canadair-CL-600-2E25-Regional/1525641/L/

The F-16XL was an amazing plane, its load/range capabilities were insanely better than a stock F-16. Not sure exactly how it'd perform vs an F-15E though--IIRC they were quite close. The F-16XL would cost less to buy per plane, as it's smaller with just one engine---but the F-15E would cost a lot less to initially develop. And you could imagine how much stuff a current F-16XL would have tacked on by now, it'd make the Block 60 look sleek... NASA has both of the XL's, I know at least one still flies fairly often. PS--the production version would have been F-16E and F-16F. Much like the F-101, I think the 2-seat version of the F-16 looks cooler. PPS---an F-16 with a bigger wing is basically an F-2. 25% larger IIRC.

Big disconnect between critics and "everyone else" at Rottentomatoes etc. Seems "the masses" like it quite a bit more than the critics. As do I.

I'm the one who made that a formal rule in the latest revision, and am usually the one who enforces it--but not this time. Still, I never close the thread--I retitle it.

The F-16 is already on its second intake design (unless it's got PW engines, when it still uses the original). It's pretty darn-near perfect as it is--as the later, improved one is nigh-identical to the original. The F-16 was designed from the start with a modular intake assembly to allow for changes etc--that's why it was so easy to change to the 2nd (MCID) design. If anything newer was that much better, you can bet they would have upgraded it by now. Intakes are over-rated in their effect on power/speed. Look at the Super Crusader---can easily outrun many planes with 'fancier' 'optimized' inlets with just a J75 for power.

Yeah, Koto does tend to do 2nd runs if something's really popular. Hadn't heard about it before though for this one. I didn't like how the Phoenix one turned out, so I passed on it. (disappointed, I very much would have liked one to go with Rogue)

Rogue sold out pretty much upon release. They're a bit smaller than you might think---but my copy of Rogue is one of the best figs I've ever bought.

Yup--few things more slippery than a bath mat that's lost suction.

Everybody likes canards except the F-16's designer. They increase overall lift, contribute greatly to pitch control and flow control, moderately to roll control, and can also act for yaw and braking. And can also act as a backup "anything" if an aileron or elevator etc should be damaged.

5 years, that might be a record for "delayed response" here at MW. Anyways, just got back from seeing it. Pleasantly surprised. Given its length, I can't think of any way it could have really been done better. A few "combining" moments and minor changes, but overall pretty good IMHO. I think we all know that doing EVERYTHING in the book would have taken 3 or 4 hours... Bodes well for future movies, if they can be done this well considering time/budget. ::edit:: Addendum---most every negative review criticizes on lack of plot. True, but not really. More like "lack of exposition/explanation". WHY they're doing what they do and going where they go isn't really able to be gleaned much from what's on-screen. But seriously---if you read the books, you know why. Anyone seeing the 3rd movie and STILL hasn't read the books---why? Seriously, I think every negative review comes from those who haven't read the books. Yes, you probably would be pretty lost with no background. But if you HAVE read the book---they do 90% of what's in there. To me, that's a lot of plot. They just don't directly talk about it in a contrived monologue to the audience disguised as an internal narrative like most movies do to spoon-feed their viewers...

Welcome to my world.