David Hingtgen

My argument is that the VF-0D isn't a trainer, it's a fully dedicated front-line striker. Any plane can be used for training, but that doesn't make it a trainer. And if I was a toy company, I'd make the really cool interesting plane that was on screen a lot (blue/grey two-tone VF-0D) that people keep asking for and voting for in the polls that's new and different from what they have, not the dull boring lackey plane that was on screen for 5 mins, did a Cobra, then flew away on green magic feathers (low vis VF-0A). Nor the "just like your 1/48 Roy, only slightly less angular" VF-0S.

You don't completely redesign the plane for a trainer version. It'd completely defeat the point. If you're going to use a canard-equipped delta-winged VF-0D as a VF-0S trainer, you might as well use a B-2 stealth bomber to train F-15 pilots... Planes vary a lot in handling: F-15E guys do not train in the F-15D, despite the F-15D being a dedicated F-15 trainer. It's too different. The VF-0D is far too different from the VF-0A/S for training. And again---having Edgar in the back seat is about as useful for Shin's piloting technique as a puppy in the back seat. There is nothing trainer-esque about the VF-0D in any way IMHO. Just because all the newbies got them just means they were all being trained in that plane. You don't go train a bunch of random people in random jobs in random planes. The VF-0D guys all train in VF-0D's, and VF-0S guys train in VF-0S's. If it was a mix of VF-0A, S, and D types that would have made no sense, as they'd all have different capabilities and responses and little training could have occured---might as well have trained them one on one instead of a group in that case. Roy can train any pilot because he's just that good. And specifically he was training them in "basic movement and controls of a valk", not anything really specific that a VF-0*D* instructor was needed. But they needed to be flying D's to get used to its specific handling characteristics---you wouldn't put a guy in a D to learn how an A or S handles because it'd handle completely differently. And if Kawamori is keeping up on aircraft trends (as I'm sure he does) he may very well have noticed that some of the biggest trends in the last few years have been canards (especially with delta wings) and the two-seater versions being more prevalent. Perhaps Kawamori was intending to show that dedicated single-seat fighters (VF-0S) are on the way out, with the two-seat multi-role version (VF-0D) as the most common type?

We've seen Kawamori do the XL thing before. VF-11MAXL. He's obviously a big fan of making normal fighters into delta-winged strike fighters. Delta-winged versions of his valks appear in some design works sketches too I think. PS about the VF-0D: If it was a trainer, then there'd be an instructor. You don't send up two rookies doing different jobs in a trainer. Trainers have a rookie pilot in the front, and an experienced pilot in the back. If the VF-0D was a trainer, Roy would have been in the back seat instructing Shin, not Edgar trying to learn how to work a new type of radar. PPS---two-seater fighters are becoming more and more common. The Super Hornet, Super Flanker, Rafale, and I think Typhoon have all seen their orders switched around to become mostly two-seaters. At this rate, single-seaters will become rare and notable.

The B-1B has F101's, not F110's. Though the F110 is based on the 101. So is the 118 (B-2 engine). Prototype F-14B had F101's as well. Just for people reading the thread, the following F-16's have F110's: C and D block 30, 40, 50, 50+ E and F block 60 And don't forget the F-15K with the SG's.

I want a D, and only a D. And only if it's Shin's blue one. I really don't see the fascination with the VF-0A/S design, and am not going to buy one no matter how they paint it. I personally would only buy a D model VF-0 from Yamato. (And really want one)

Only later F-15E's have the higher power engines--1991 and later I think. (Same time as when they got the Type V CFT's with the auxiliary scoops). The original F-15E (1986 to 90) has the same engines as the F-15C and Type IV CFT's. Basic F-15E airframe is about 3,000lbs heavier than a C's IIRC.

The P-38 did poorly in Europe because: 1. NO supercharger. England didn't order them for theirs. Talk about KILLING high-alt performance. 2. Engines not handed. The contra-rotating props on a P-38 are VERY obvious, I've never seen such slow, obvious props on a plane. But England's weren't, and there were severe balance/vibration/torque effects because of it. 3. Bad fuel. No WW2 fighter flown nowadays can come close to its 1940's performance, since the ultra-high octane fuels just aren't around anymore. And England never did have the fuel P-38's were designed for. If the engine was supposed to get 1,000HP, then England only got like 900 because the fuel couldn't deliver any better. Basically, England ordered a cheap, stripped version of the P-38, and it truly sucked. It'd be like ordering an F-15 without afterburners, and running it off of diesel fuel. The US's versions in Europe did better, but still had to contend with British fuel. Also, they were earlier versions, all the kinks weren't worked out. In the Pacific, the US used full-spec late-model P-38's with high-grade fuel, and they kicked ass. No different than P-51A vs P-51D. They're famous for the last, high-power version, not the early version. PS---AFAIK the "fork-tailed devil" name is pure myth brought about by Greene in the 1960's. (Almost everyone here probably has a book or two that credits Greene and/or Swanborough) "Whistling Death" is one of the few nicknames I know to be accurate---what the Japanese called the Corsair. (And Corsairs DO shriek, it's the coolest sound ever---if you've never heard, go to an airshow, Corsairs are common)

I'll add in a bit to agree with the above. IMHO there's too many divisions/categories. All you really need is New Posts, and No New Posts. Everything else just leads to a dozen colors that needs a key. All you need is bold for new posts, and transparent/pastel for no new posts. All anyone ever really cares about is to tell with the briefest of glances, if there's new posts in a thread. I mean, how many of us go to a forum where 90% of the topics are "hot"? It's kinda pointless----and nobody will ever agree on what the cutoff point is for hot vs not. Same thing for "thread you've posted in". It just doubles the number of icons/colors. You should know what you've posted in yourself, and anything already on page 8 of replies is obviously hot. All those divisions just leads to a left column with 25 different icon types. I still liked it best when we just had 2 kites---bold and translucent, for new posts, and not. Polls? They're already differentiated, no need for a custom skull for them IMHO. At most, 3 versions of the Kite. Bold, for new topics. Translucent/pastel for no new topics. And flashing/glowing bold for hot topic with new posts. That's generally what I see at most boards that I like. Instead of a whole new icon for hot, just either add little animated flames like some, or make the red glow redder, etc.

Look at the production F-35. The thing was DESIGNED to be VTOL and they're having serious weight and structural strength problems. (It got fat, and they realized it's too weak---strengthening will only make it fatter, and I don't know if it'll ever be strong enough without removing the forward fuel tank) PS---They have tried making "super fighters" with everything before. It turned out to be the F-111. Super bomber? That was the original concepts for the XB-70, which were so godawfully huge, complex, and expensive that the USAF seriously thought they were a joke, and asked where the REAL concept drawings were. You can't have everything. You're not ever going to have a Mach 3 long-range highly agile VTOL stealth strategic air dominance fighter-bomber recon plane. Now matter WHAT they add to a Super Hornet.

Someday we'll see the F-22 REALLY show off its moves, rather than "gotta be more impressive than a base model Flanker without revealing everything" demos. This probably should have gone in the Aircraft Vs thread, especially with Roy cleaning house lately...

I'm away from home and using a PC I don't trust much (I trust none but my own), so I don't plan to log in much this week----but I'll quick post that I like those new kites a lot better. Though I now think the spot in the upper left looks like a clearly defined white dot, and nothing more. On the "posted in" versions it almost looks like you've made a selection in the upper-left opening. Basically----gradiants etc are fine, nobody wants a single-shade "255/0/0" red icon, but the highlights are still too intensely white. 3/4 of the icon looks great, but then it looks like a snowflake fell on top. Make them shiny if you can, but not at the expense of obvious "whiteness" in spots. Maybe instead of a highlight, add a shadow behind? PS--I am well aware my comments sound nitpicky, but I always try to be constructive----and I know how much work goes into making icons-----I still can't make a basic simple kite with a smooth edge, much less a shiny one...

A.F.M representing! Aberfoyle Spring Water!

Most recent pic out there of YF-23 #2 shows the wings have been removed---that's not a minor operation, they would have had to have a good reason. Also---as was mentioned, a lot of the ways to reduce IR signature is the same way to reduce noise, which airliners have been doing for years. Heat=noise (since wattage/power=decibels). Literally, jet noise is the noise of hot air being rapidly introduced into a cooler environment----same as lightning.

Want really good, really close pics of Air Force One? Check airliners.net for pics taken in foreign nations. You can get REAL close when it's not in the US, ironically. There's even pics of it from planes flying OVER it. Europe and Australia seem to be the best places by far to get close. Same situation as the F-117. Even recently I've had guards tell me off for taking pics from 100 ft away, but you can go buy a panel-by-panel walk around book... (And the next week, that same plane will show up at a different air show, only they'll have a stand set up so you can climb up and get really good, close shots of it) There's a zillion close-up photos out there of every plane out there, but they just don't want YOU to take any. F-22: They're not going to let you take pics any time soon at an airshow, even though there's ultra-super close pics at every jet photo site on the net showing better detail than you could ever hope to get with a non-pro camera.

I'm enjoying KOTOR a lot too, only SW book I'm currently reading. (Asides from Tag and Bink of course) Who else thinks yellow will be the saber color of choice now for KOTOR 3?

I doubt flares and chaff---nothing's visible. There's IR jammers for each engine and APU, they're clearly visible. But that's no different than many other VIP jets. (Though Air Force One is among the few that has one for the APU) Also, flares and chaff only really work if you can get out of the way. No point in dropping flares then sitting where you were---the missile's track won't change much. While 747's are more agile than you'd think, they can't move out of the way enough to make use of most countermeasures. An F-15 can drop flares then move quickly over and the missile will miss it by 50 feet. But on a plane with a 200ft span, that just means the missile hits wing rib #20 instead of #14. Finally---a 747 has the biggest radar signature on the planet, no amount of chaff is going to attract a missile off the greatest target a missile could ever have. Similar for flares---four 56,000lb thrust engines produce a lot of heat. A flare is intense, but small. IR jammers work in a totally different way so they actually work for a plane like that---which is why you they're used on VIP planes.

::completely re-written:: Ok, here's my newest kite. Rounder and a better transition to the transparency. Let me know if you think it's worth making some blue versions, etc. ::edit:: Darn, it looked so much better with my grey test background, I'll have to start working with pale blue backgrounds to make it match better. Off to tweak it more.

I mainly want a brush with really "even" bristles for dry brushing. Neither soft nor stiff (maybe slightly soft), and a "perfectly even tip". Flat brush, basically cut straight across. I want no bristle to be longer or shorter than any other. Otherwise you'll have some places getting more, and some getting less, than you want. (I drybrush cockpit instruments, and that's how I do it) Here's an SR-71 panel I did:

Mr Color thinner might work---I think I read something that mixing Mr Color Thinner and Tamiya putty is basically home-made not-so-fine-grained Mr Surfacer.

My only request to Graham is to keep bugging them about how much we want the VF-0D. Roy's VF-0S is still too "VF-1S-esque" for me to buy. It's too similar to what I already have. But a VF-0D--that changes everything, and is one of my fave valk designs.

That's pretty fanciful. It's equally likely to have lasers, railguns, and micro-missiles, as pop-out turrets. Basically--there's no seams or openings for them. Air Force One's seams/panels/rivets are identical to a normal 747-200B, except for some apparent armor/reinforcement for the forward cabin. (Where the president's room is) Though the real question is---what's in the belly. That's the biggest unknown part of the plane. With little cargo to hold, there's lots of room for mods. There's 2 sets of retractable stairs installed, and possibly an elevator at the rear, but that's all that's really known. (Though the odds are good there's a very large cooler/fridge/food storage area down there as well, possibly with its own elevator---the main galley is HUGE and would require as much food storage as a small restaurant)

My main point would be it's pointless. If you see a B-2, then it's obviously within visual and gun range. Which means it's also close enough to get a missile lock on from just outside the B-2's gun range. Blast away from afar. No plane is so stealthy or has so little engine heat that an F-15 or something couldn't lock on when it's that close. Radar reflection goes up with the cube of the distance--- 3 times closer is 27 times the strength. 5 miles vs 25 miles means 125 times stronger signal. It doesn't matter if a B-2 has 1/1000 the signal return of a normal plane--once you get close the reflection will increase exponentially. And at that range, a Sidewinder can lock onto anything that's decently warm. Plenty of trains in Vietnam were taken out by Sidewinders locked on to the locomotives. An F-117 or B-2 is "invisible to most radars in search mode at a distance". They are not "invisible to a high power air-to-air radar in tracking mode at close range". Stealths are supposed to not be found in the first place, as they have no defense when found. It's very easy to hide when no one knows you're there, and are far away. But no matter how stealthy you are, a dedicated search of a small area where something is known to be will find you.

I personally want the kites, and nothing else. Everything else should be the board default, mainly for size reasons. (And I view at 1024x768, which should be pretty common) Either all kites, or all skulls, just for the left-most column. Anything else makes the forum look like an icon/avatar test at Robotech.com---too much all over.

My comment about the B-2 WAS for daylight. Trust me, 36118 Gunship Grey is the perfect color for a B-2 at 50,000ft in daytime. There's a reason almost every USAF bomber is that color. Old RAM paint is black, I don't know about new stuff. There's the black "paint in a bucket", the new sprayable stuff, the sheets (which are mostly black), the "quilts" which I have no idea what color they are, and the stuff on the F-16 and Legacy Hornet. Kind of surprising that RAM's never been seen on an F-15. Then there's structural RAM, which is generally the same color as the non-stealthy version of it--kevlar, carbon fiber, etc. The F-22's paint is the subject of much debate. Officially, it's exactly the same colors and paint as on the 1980's F-15, F-18, etc. Never mind the fact that it's prismatic silver in most light... Here's a really neat recent photo that'd be a great background---I was going to post it yesterday anyways as neat photo of the week: http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/...F-2295B-035.jpg F-22 wins the "least colorful fighter EVER" award. That's the full markings for the 94FS, my fave F-15 squadron. Well, F-22 squadron now. PS--never mind that they look metallic silver, the Air Force says it's the same paint as the F-15's had...

Js---Don't go for "pastel" by altering the tint or value, go for "grey" by altering the tone. If you want "not so intense" colors, mix in grey, not white. That'll help match some of the blues I think on MW.