David Hingtgen

With even a slight overcast, grey planes become impossible to see at even 1 mile distant. Go to an airshow to see the effect yourself. Each plane's camoflage scheme is carefully designed to try to minimize any "distinct" aspect---usually the intake and tail shapes--it's a lot harder to see a "blob" in the sky than an obviously airplane-shaped shape. Thus you'll tend to see more obvious demarcations around an F-15's intake edges and v.stabs, while an F-16 has a stripe on the v.stabs dorsal extension. 2 goals: 1. "Blob" the outline, making it harder to see, period. 2. Make it harder to tell what type of plane it is, even if you do spot it. Now, for overall dark grey schemes like the B-2, F-15E, and YF-21 #1: At high altitudes, this is the best color. Trust me, I've seen in on TV etc---a dark grey B-2 will blend in perfectly due to light refraction, etc. And of couse, this is one of the best colors for night. Final quick summary: planes are grey to hide in grey skies. Most of the time warplanes don't fly in crisp clear blue skies.

Must be a popular mattress, it's mine too! Anyways, here's one of my faves---one of the few with open missile bay doors.

VF-101 will basically attempt to get one of VF-32's F-14B's to do a demo at Oceana. VF-101 will be effectively disestablished and airplane-less by then, but the pilots should still be qualified and VF-32 will be about the only squadron scheduled to still be in existence, not at sea.

Bump, because there's been multiple airshow questions lately. Also, it's become known that the East Coast Super Hornet team has been using the Jolly Roger's commander's plane for demos, so if you want to see black/yellow/skulls, they're the ones to watch. http://www.schultzairshows.com/f18she2005.htm

There's always my airshow thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=14541

Thanks, many of us at the airliner forums have gone over most every airport there is with that.

YF-23 modeling? The one at the top of the page is the best. There is no "good" good, just a few decent ones. There's also a 1/48 resin one, but I need to get a lot better before I plunk down $200+ for it. YF-23 sites? Best one's long gone, I downloaded most of it. Try this for a walkaround: http://aircraftstories.free.fr/mono/yf23/w...und/page_01.htm And this one: http://www.hornets80.net/gallery/gallery7.htm A DVD recently came out, new interviews and never-before-seen footage. I got it, worth every penny to me. "Web of Secrecy, YF-23 Black Widow II Declassified" History Channel recently had something about the 22 vs 23, really nice shot of the 23's unique "one contrail only" feature. (Every other plane will have a contrail from each wingtip in a tight turn--YF-23's tend to only have it on one wing) Finally, my "surprised it isn't classified pic" of the day:

Man, 2-seaters are harder to tell apart, since they all have the larger fin, not just later ones. I don't think I can tell F-104B's from F-104D's.

Not to hijack the thread, but I often post my little composite pic when people ask about the -23 (my fave plane, and the coolest-looking plane ever).

That particular Mustang is a P-51C. One of only 2 C's that can still fly. (And there's very very few C's, period). It is the most recently restored Mustang I know of---2003 was its "maiden" flight I think. I saw it in Summer of that year. A P-51C is a P-51B built in Dallas. No phyiscal differences from the B AFAIK, not a single rivet. Plenty of similar pics exist, USAF does it all the time at airshows. Called "Heritage Flights". Check Airliners.net for pics. Navy does a similar thing, "Legacy Flights". These are some of my faves, often are my wallpaper: F-15/P-38, directly below: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/543600/L F-15/P-51/P-38: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/409045/L F-14/F-18/F4U: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/522318/L

The Iowa class was designed to be the counter to the Yamato. Yamato was believed to mount 16inch guns, and be 45-50,000tons. Thus the Iowas are about that. One guy said the Yamato was MUCH larger, and had 18inch guns. US Navy said "no way, we'd notice if there was a factory making 18 inch guns, and the Japanese can't build ships that large". The lone dissenter was proven right many years later of course. Kind of like how in the 1930's, it was believed Japan's most advanced planes were biplanes, despite reports from the Flying Tigers in China that the Zero etc existed, and was more than a match for a P-40. Finally--6 Iowas were laid down, only 4 finished. BB65 Illinois, BB66 Kentucky. Kentucky was at least 2/3 finished before scrapping (maybe even 3/4, I can't remember), its engines were removed to power 2 AOE-1 class ships. (And each having only half the power of an Iowa-class, they are by far the fastest refuellers in the fleet)

Hmmn. My current vote is that is a 1/1 model of part of the Yamato. Reasoning: 1. It appears to have been built "out of order". Some sections are far ahead of the others, regarding how real ships are built. It'd be like if a 747 had the front half done and painted, but the back half still raw frames and stringers. 2. It doesn't appear to be in the water nor a dry dock, there's concrete within 1 inch of the outer hull. 3. Where's the back half of the ship? 4. Where's the massive tarps and scaffolding? All the ship-building equipment for that matter. 100-ton cranes, etc. My guess is there's a movie to be filmed, or something, and they need that part of the Yamato in 1/1.

I know I've talked about glow-in-the-dark decal formation lights for jets. If that's it, then you want CAM decals. Their website's messed at the moment though, but many online hobby shops have them. Notably brookhursthobbies.com and greatmodels.com http://www.brookhursthobbies.com/camdecals...amaction=decals

Been buying up .45 sabers again. ROTJ Luke should arrive tomorrow, trying to get an Ep 4 Obi-Wan for a decent price. Also plan to get an AOTC Hasbro Anakin, lightest and smallest of the ~$15 ones, twirls very nicely.

Surprisingly, sunlight can UN-yellow many things. According to LEGO, white Legos turn yellowish when exposed to INDIRECT light, and leaving them in the sun will whiten them. I need to try it, I have some old white ones that are very yellow in spots. Also, yellowed decals can be helped by exposure to sunlight for a while. I've tried it myself and it worked. So maybe people need to stop leaving their models indoors, behind glass, and leave them out in the sunshine. PS--the problem with models is always trying to determine what yellowed. Was it the white paint, or was it the clear coat? Sometimes it's both.

If it's this one: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yamatobackbig.jpg Then it's a colorized pic, not a color pic. Anything else, I don't know.

T/I sold out pretty early--I snagged one though. ARC-170 is plentiful. For TRU (T/I and ARC) every store is different--some have them on clips, some in boxes, some on racks. Just look all around both the SW area and LEGO area of the store. Also, you can buy the mini sets alone if you want at TRU.

The F-15's original design spec was to get to Europe without refuelling, and CFT's were designed to fullfill that requirement. However, much like going Mach 2.5, that never ever happens in real life. Any modern deployment in a known warzone often presumes they'll have to fight their way in, and go in fully armed. Not ultra-sleek and carrying large heavy empty CFT's when you arrive. IIRC, it took 7 mid-air refuellings to do Langley to Saudi Arabia, due to drag/weight from being loaded up for combat. CFT's on a F-15C are basically used when you're in a really desolate area. Alaska, Iceland. When you could easily be REALLY far from a suitable place to land. It's little more than a safety margin/reserve in real life. The E mainly gets more use from them because it flies at gas-guzzling low level and weighs more with more drag. It uses more fuel to fly the same distance as a C, due to how it flies and what it carries. So it needs more fuel just to have the same range as a C. Plus without the CFT pylons, it can only carry like 1/4 as much ordnance.

CFT's on an F-15 can hold missiles, but only because they cover up the normal mounts on the fuselage. The original plan was to use them to hold ADDITIONAL missiles, likely AIM-82's. (Which never came to be) The F-15E can also mount missiles on its CFT's similar to how the F-15C does, but it does require some rearranging of parts---since there are usually 3 bomb racks on the large inner CFT-mounted pylon, but only 2 missile launchers. Read all about it here: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/lau106/lau106.htm Neat mixed config for an F-15E: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/lo...hics/ods_08.gif CFT's are an option on the F-16 Block 50+/52+. Note the plus. They are standard on the Block 60.

I've ordered from the Saber Vault. Minis though, not an FX. But they seem to be among the few with an FX Anakin in stock at the moment... I recently ordered mini ROTJ Luke from TRU/Amazon because Saber Vault just sold out, but just checking today them seem to have gotten Luke back in.

Yup--FAST was the original name, but nobody uses it anymore. Most everyone says CFT---mainly because that's about all they're used for---the missile and sensor options really fell by the wayside early on. While the F-15C/D can use them and introduced them, it's extremely rare. AFAIK, only Langley, Kadena, Soesterberg and Elmendorf ever even had them, only Soesterberg used them often.

Best stuff about Sifo-Dyas: http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc.asp?search=35942 http://www.theforce.net/swenc/entrydesc.asp?search=35926

Just a comment for the Mace Windu FX: More so than any other FX saber, the size and shape is greatly (IMHO) distorted to accomodate the electronics. And the coming re-release will not be upgraded (and resized/shaped) to hold 3AA's, it will still be the bulky 6AA version. It's my 2nd-fave saber (and fave blade color) but I will not buy it due to being quite "off" in shape, and having the worst blade. (AFAIK, it is done with alternating rings of blue and white LED's with a pink filter screen between--it sorta looks purple when on, but rather "ringed" and splotchy). A Qui-Gon FX should be able to be done perfectly, since green LED's are old and common, and the saber itself is a simple and large shape. Though I wonder why the Mace FX doesn't use purple LED's---while a good, rich purple LED costs a lot of money, the "cheap" ones (basically pink-coated-blues) should last plenty long enough, especially with how it seems 90% of FX owners duel with them anyways and knock out half the LED's in the first week. LED burnout doesn't seem an issue with FX's... Not to mention the early cheap purple LED's are more of a pinky-lavender, which is what Mace's blade is anyway---purple sabers aren't deep royal/Decepticon purple, they usually appear as a rather magenta/pink as purples go. Or in summary: just me ranting about how a MUCH desired saber isn't done very well.

Dragon finds new ways to screw up all the time. I have actually seen them have a 100% accurate mold for something already, then come out with a new, modified mold just for one paint scheme---and that new mold is totally wrong! It'd be like if they came out with a new, accurate, F-15E mold--and painted it up in 1FW colors, when they have a nice F-15C already they should have used.

Those are recon 'saders though. Still cool, but you gotta love the fighter versions just a little bit more.