David Hingtgen

I camped out at BB for my PS2, but plan to skip both 360 and PS3 launches. My launch day PS2 served me well, never had a read error (though it chattered loudly with any blue disc), but I could tell it was getting old last year, so I sold it and got a slim PS2 the week they came out. Of course, my new slim PS2 died after 12 hours of use, so I'm now on my replacement slim PS2.

Seems all the BestBuy's around me are getting around 40, usually a 30/10 premium/core split. Of the few numbers I've seen, I'm seeing much higher numbers for BB than Wal-Mart. Was like that for the PS2 launch as well (at least here). And the powerpack is HUGE. And the system apparently runs hot. Sigh--my XB is the hottest (literally) "thing" I own after my car, it heats up my room more than central heating and about a 3-foot zone around where it sits. If the 360 is even hotter... BestBuy X360 allocations, store by store, and some pics: http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/showpos...&postcount=1397

Currently waiting for first price drop for both 360 and PS3. Unless some truly stellar game comes out soon. (And I don't play FPS as a rule) I got a PS2 launch day, but that was because I already had dozens of games for my PSX that I wanted to try. (Most importantly, my fave game Xenogears is one of the most-improved games of all when played on the PS2, graphically). XBox, I waited a while (DOA3 and JSRF was among the few games I wanted) and of course, they included a Controller S and JSRF for the exact price I had paid for the system alone just a little while after I bought the system, Constroller S, JSRF and DOA3. Then the titles picked up a lot and I have bought more XB than PS2 titles in the past 2 years. PS2 is my main system again lately though. Common standard quote---it's the games, not the system. There's lots of neat games coming up for existing systems, but I see little I want for new ones. PSX is the best example--many of its best games came at the end, and the end was overall the best. (That is not redundant) I'm betting we'll see lots more "must have" XB and PS2 games in the next 18 months than must-have 360 and PS3 game.

Just an FYI. There's some nice new pics of the F-22 at the USAF's site. Non-squished this time. http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=40 Plenty to make wallpaper from.

I believe the AIM-9M is still made in "USAF" and "USN" versions. I know the Navy still has external nitrogen bottles, as it's a key way to tell the various Super Hornet blocks apart. Newer ones have different wingtip launch rails, and the difference is where the nitrogen bottle is.

CAP is CAP, Alert is Alert. CAP is your basic "flying around in circles just in case there's trouble". CAP's are usually set up around AWACS, and at borders etc. Specific time and place. "patrol here to here, N to S then W to E, then circle around the other way, repeat x2" Alert is "sitting on the ground ready to launch at short notice". No planned mission/goal/routing. "If something comes, shoot it down". A plane is ready to scramble in however many minutes it's set up to. As in, Alert 5 is ready in 5 minutes, Alert 15 is 15 minutes, etc. "Zulu alert" is basically Alert 0, which is literally sitting in the cockpit with the engines running, near the end of the runway. Rarely done nowadays. Drawing away a CAP isn't really a tactic, since CAP's are intended to fly around expected trouble spots looking for people to go after. You will draw them regardless. The No-Fly Zones in Iraq were the largest and longest CAPs ever I think. Flew pre-planned routes at certain times and places, just in case something occured. For "cold" scrambles, basically the bigger the plane the longer it takes. A key selling point of the F-20 was a MUCH shorter scramble time than anything else. Even with the F-15's massive speed and climb advantage, in any condition other than Zulu Alert the F-20 could intercept most anything well before an F-15. Two main factors for starting a plane up: 1. Engine start. It's not a car, it takes more than 2 secs. And if you have 2 engines it takes twice as long. 2. Avionics, particularly the nav systems. Can easily take 10+ mins to align them. A possible factor, if you're limited to short-range missiles (a lot of planes/nations are) could be missile cooling, as heat-seekers need their seekers cooled prior to launch. I have no idea how long it takes to cool them. As for anti-sub---totally independent. The missions are exclusive--fighters can't attack subs, and sub-hunters can't engage in air combat. One mission even a Super Hornet can't perform at all is sub hunting. And you don't want to take an S-3 against a MiG-29.

To add to that---a softened decal can easily conform so tightly to the surface that you can see orange peel/bumps in the paint. Or dust particles. Or a stray piece of lint. That's the difference between a decal and a sticker---decals can conform EXACTLY to a surface, if applied well (and if the decal itself is of decent quality---there is AFAIK no way to help bad decals) Hasegawa may be a bit thick, but they are of good quality. My #1 decal tip is take your time, let water/solvents do their work.

A big part of it is optical illusion. The human eye measures speed by measuring how long an object takes to travel a distance equal to its own length. Big things look like they're going slower, even if they're not. Same reason 747's look so slow, when they are the same as any other plane. Same reason biz jets seem to really zoom around. Almost all jets have similar takeoff and landing speeds, but their relative size affects their perceived speed. And yes, I have seen a Super Hornet have almost no apparent motion. But it's mainly just the angle, and the fact that you're "used to" planes moving so much faster. VFA-122 says 100 knots for the high alpha pass, and that decreases with a headwind.

Sukhoi's re-numbering system is nothing compared to Mikoyan's. Sukhoi may give every variant a new name, but at least they don't reuse the same name for several planes. There's probably 4 "MiG-33/35's" by now. For a while the 1.44 was the MiG-35, but not anymore it seems, with the 1.44 having almost no chance of going into production. I don't think a MiG-29 w/canards really exists. I've yet to see a photo that I can recall---and frankly, there SHOULD be photos, LOTS of them, if it's out there. It's not some black project. From some angles (and if you don't see the whole plane) a 1.44 can REALLY look like a -29 w/canards. Googling to check gives no results---lots and lots of mentionings and a few drawings (I've got a GREAT MiG-29 w/canards etc drawing in a WAPJ) but no actual MiG-29 w/canards. Plenty of models and schematics shown at airshows though...

Mikoyan has recently "pulled a Sukhoi" and renamed the MiG-29M the MiG-33, and the MiG-29M/OVT the MiG-35. The "MiG-29 with canards" is actually the 1.42/144.

Quick correction: realized when I woke up that opposing nozzles (up/down) on an Su-30MKI would create proverse yaw in addition to roll. (Hey, it's hard to think in 3D when you're tired)

The MKI has "quasi" 3D vectoring. It can achieve roll, pitch, and yaw with the nozzles, but they still only move up/down. However, they are mounted at an angle, so they move in/out AS they move up/down. Down is in, up is out. In otherwords, their movement axis is not horizontal to the ground. Imagine if you were flying a plane at a 30 degree bank. Then simply move the stick back and forth. You'd go up and down, but at an angle. That's how the 30MKI vectoring works---up/down, but at an angle. Moving them together will cancel out their outwards movement, resulting in a pitch change. Moving them oppositely also cancels the "side" movement, but the opposing up/down creates roll. Moving just one nozzle will create a side-force (as well as pitch) but with the canards and flaperons and stabilitors you could easily counteract one engine's pitch effect, thus overall adding to yaw. All that just from "twisting" the engine mounts a few degrees. 3D effects from a 2D nozzle. Read this, from 1/2 to 3/4 down the page for photos/description: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flanke...s/tailbooms.htm Also, I have a small video showing a MKI's nozzles moving. Hard to tell due to the angle but if you really look (especially on the right one) you can see them move in/out as they go up/down. Right one goes in as it goes down, left one goes out as it goes up. http://members.aol.com/ncc42768/mki.mpg Next, here is THE Su-37 video. If you already have an 11.8meg Su-37 video, this is it. But for those of you that don't, here it is. http://bemil.chosun.com/movie%20link/SU-35.wmv Finally, a cool but short Su-30MKI video. 700K. "Double kulbit into an inverted roll" or something. http://members.aol.com/ncc42768/su30.avi I personally am more impressed with that than anything the OVT did.

That's what the "STO" in STOL/MTD stands for.

Quick update: Did some more reading, and the F-15S/MTD *can* use its thrust reversers in flight. I'd presume there's a lot of restrictions on what speeds and for how long it can. Also, the vectoring allows it to rotate on takeoff as slow as 42mph.

Actually, that's not the Bicentennial plane, though many people think it is. Pure coincidence that it's a test F-15B in red/white/blue. If you want to see 3D vectoring, check out the MiG-29M/OVT. That is truly scary, its nozzles can move 10x faster than anything I've seen. Seriously, it can move the nozzle petals as fast and complexly as you can move the fingers on your hand--it's like every petal is independent from the others, and actuated as fast as the ailerons. It not only can move in any direction, it can actually vary the shape. http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67151

::edit:: If you call yourself a newbie, I'll explain vectoring. Thrust vectoring is moving the nozzle of a jet engine around to move the plane, in addition to more conventional methods of control like ailerons and rudder. The Harrier is a good example of early vectoring, as it rotates its exhaust nozzles straight down to force the exhaust down to allow it to hover. 2D and 3D vectoring basically relates to how much the nozzle can move. 2D is basically up/down, 3D can move in any direction. Best to start with a history of that particular aircraft. That is 71-0290, the first F-15B. After serving for your standard tests, and later doing some F-15E evaluations, it went to NASA. There it was modified to have canards, and became the F-15 Agile Eagle. (Technically NF-15B). This increased overall agility and high-alpha performance. The canards are actually modified F-18 stabs. Then, it got 2D vectored thrust nozzles, and became the F-15S/MTD. S/MTD=STOL/Manuevering Technology Demonstrator. First plane to vector supersonically and at Mach 2. (At Mach 2 it very likely is the most agile plane there is, as even hyper-manuverable planes like the EF-2000 and F-22 are optimized for subsonic agility, the S/MTD and ACTIVE are designed to improve high-speed agility) It also has improved field performance (the STOL part), and is one of the few jet fighters to incorporate thrust reversers. (Ground only AFAIK, it can't use its reversers in air---very few planes can) F-15S/MTD is the most-photographed configuration. It's what's posted in reply #1558 of this thread. It is 99% of the time referenced as the F-15ACTIVE, and labled as such, but it is not. Seriously, if you google F-15ACTIVE, nearly every single photo will actually be the S/MTD. Anyways, after the 2D vectoring nozzles, it got 3D vectoring nozzles, the ACTIVE nozzle. ACTIVE=Advanced Control Technology for Integrated VEhicles. It's all the same plane, different name for different configurations. Basically: 1. Canards, standard engines/nozzles=F-15B Agile Eagle 2. Canards, new rear fuselage with flat nozzles=F-15S/MTD 3. Canards, standard fuselage/engines with 3D vectoring nozzles=F-15ACTIVE. The 3D nozzles look similar to standard F-15 nozzles, you have to really know your nozzles to tell them apart.

Back to Edwards AFB show... Went looking for pics, and as always FenceCheck is THE place for airshow pics. Start here: http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php...c,1613.120.html Including a perfect belly shot of the F-15ACTIVE. And it still has the ACTIVE nozzles installed, I'm quite surprised at that. PS---please don't post any of their pics here--like most aviation photography websites, they really don't like their pics showing up at any other forum.

That's news to me too. Is it still in full ACTIVE config or does it have the standard F100's? Pics please! Especially the belly---it's rarely photographed but I know it's not like normal F-15's there.

New pics at MagicBox: http://www.the-magicbox.com/0510/game051021a.shtml MiG-29, Gripen, MiG-31. And Su-35's w/ECM tip-pods... I'm currently thinking they're going to go just as modern as AC5. Many shots of 4 identical planes in formation---either you'll often fight enemy squadrons, or your squadron will have to be 4 of the same plane.

Back on topic, I just picked up Shadow of the Colossus today, and will join in on the praise it's getting. It's very very rare that I find myself actually smiling while playing a game. The third colossus is the most fun I've had in a game in a long time. Off to find the fourth!

If you'd like to see a similar idea on a 1/72 Flanker, look here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php?...pic=33171&st=40 (This guy did the EXACT Flanker I'd like to using the kit I'd like to, so I followed his build closely) PS---that pattern of discoloration is unique to the Flanker, I would not recommend using it as a reference for anything else. Techniques yes, but not the pattern/colors. Every engine/plane is different. PPS--wm_cheng, how does that canopy glue stand up to water when dried? I find most white/canopy glues to re-liquify with water, and so are worthless when trying to decal (especially since so many planes have crew names on the canopy rails right near where the glue is). I did have an F-18 canopy come completely off while decaling near the area, simply from the water from the decals.

Very true--a polished, Futured (that's a verb now) canopy will usually be better than new---they simply aren't THAT shiny when they come out of the mold.

Whoa, hey, that's not it. I skip steps mainly out of "it's good enough for me" reasons. I also skip steps because I'm a total Future novice---I can sand and buff, and that is "good enough for me". I haven't actually FINISHED a model jet for probably 24+ months, just have a pile of 3/4 done ones. You could take 10 years off and your next kit would still be far better than mine if I spent those 10 years practicing. (I personally have a very low opinion of my own modeling work--I can decal well, but basic painting is far more important and it's what I'm worst at---a simple smooth coat of grey still eludes me yet it is needed for most any modern jet).

I almost never go through the whole polishing/Futuring steps for canopies. I also don't use like 10 different grits. Simply sanding and buffing with a few grits will result in a quite shiny canopy in a few minutes. Yes, doing every step will result in a better canopy, but IMHO few canopies are worth the effort, especially in 1/72 scale. I'd only polish for like 1/32 scale. Anyways, the Squadron 3-grit polishing sanding stick is what I use, from start to finish. Removing canopy seams, cleaning up sprue attachment points, etc. Start with black, then go to white, then buff with the tan side. http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=SQ30505 If nothing else, it'll do a "quite good job" quickly, and then you can move on to very fine polishing compounds and Future. Alternatives to Future? Check here: http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html

I'll say this: Most any technique you see that looks daunting/intimidating, usually isn't that bad, and you will rapidly improve as you use it. Just try everything. Normally I'd also recommend building at least one of each major "type" of model, but since you've done mecha, a VF-1, and a ship, you seem to have that covered. (I see so many people who do ONLY planes or ships or mecha, when so many techniques overlap and would let them build equally nice models of a totally different sort while learning new techniques)