David Hingtgen

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)

Nope. Dragon has a VX-9 F-14D coming up, going to see how that is. There is always the hope they may add a pitot to the nose some day, they did modify the F-15's to fix some errors. Been looking at their WWII planes, it's amazing how well they got subtle Bf109 differences correct, yet totally messed up the Fw190's basic design features, much less the specific variants.

Whoops, I forgot it was the generals etc who were anti-canard, I know that came up before, probably in this very thread 500 posts ago...

I think Knight26 agrees with me that canards have almost no detriments and should be on almost every plane from now on. They're not on US planes simply because US designers don't like them for reasons unknown. "Because birds don't" isn't any excuse---birds also don't have thrust-vectoring nor ailerons, flaps, elevators, or anything else required to make a plane move. Anyways---the Typhoon is quite stealthy from head-on, possibly equaling the F-22. While the F-22 is stealthy from all angles, and stealthier overall, the EF-2000 was designed to be very stealthy from head-on, and achieves it despite the canards. Gripen is also "decently" stealthy up front I think. Will have to look up Rafale and check Gripen again. It's fairly simple---you can either have 2 h.stabs at the back or 2 canards up front---you're going to get a similar radar return. (Placing the stabs in line with the wings to hide them from head on is aerodynamically very bad) And lift up front is better than adding weight/drag/downforce at the back, aerodynamically. One of the biggest improvements for canards on the F-15 was supersonic agility---it's directly related to the reason the F-14 has glove vanes----as you go faster, stabilizer effectiveness decreases due to lift moving rearwards---the glove vanes added lift up front to help pitch at supersonic speeds---exactly like a canard would. Grumman just didn't call them "retractable canards" because US designers don't use canards...

Navy/Marine agressors have the motto "Fight to teach, not fight to kill". In other words: If you have a stripped-down ultra-high-performance F-16, and your only job is to fight F-15's and you spend all your time training for that, you will probably beat them easily. If you show up, beat every pilot in the squadron in 5 mins, what will the F-15 pilots have learned? Not much. The goal is usually more along the lines of "Fly like a MiG-29 using Soviet tactics and formations, so the F-15 pilots can see what it'd be like to encounter that formation in real life, and how Soviet-style tactics develop into typical scenarios". Aggressor squadrons are not "send up the best possible pilot in the best possible plane and see how many "normal" squadron pilots he can beat". They try to simulate other planes, tactics, and formations. Some countries use 3-hi 1-low formations, some use finger-four, some use line abreast, some like groups of 2 or 5. Getting experience in dealing with that is more important than raw "F-15 vs MiG-29 turn rate at Mach .7" Detection, identification, response, etc---those are what really differentiate different countries' tactics. PS---the USAF however did tend to have more "aggressive" aggressor squadrons, that simply roamed about beating up on other squadrons. That's why they're gone now----burned a lot of fuel without really teaching anything.

The F-21 was acquired purely to have something that could simulate Mirages as an aggressor. No US plane could be flown at all like a French delta, and (amazingly) France didn't want to sell us Mirages. Since France sold Mirages of all types to every other country, we had a great need to see exactly how they fly and how to fight them since they would be about the most likely plane to be encountered after the MiG-21. So we acquired Kfirs from Israel (which are basically Knock-off Mirage III's re-engined with J79's). The canards are fixed, so they mainly just "unload" the wing rather than control pitch.

USN F-21:

On that note, a MiG-28

IMHO the only thing worth the extra cost is Tamiya masking tape. It is that much better than other brands. Mr Surfacer is an exception, being that it's pretty unique and there isn't really a cheaper alternative "semi-liquid priming putty". Primers---I try everything. You can experiment with 10 different hardware/automotive brands for the price of one can of "modeling" primer. And of course, sometimes you do find that cheap can of primer that is also the perfect final color. Still don't have a favorite, and actually still like Testor's basic enamel spray cans more than most. Cheaper than ModelMaster/Tamiya spray cans, but still a lot more than hardware/automotive. Still have to try Duplicolor.

That was Strike Commander. 335039[/snapback] Thanks! Would have taken a while for me to go through all "90's PC flight games" to find it.

White Rhino, Vandy Five:

I think it'd be really easy to make a Harrier: simply change L1 from "airbrake" to "nozzle control". Unpressed---nozzles back (forward flight). Pressed lightly---nozzles down/hover. Pressed hard--nozzle forwards/fly backwards/slow down. R1 would act like normal for the throttle. It would overall be similar to the other planes control-wise, just with an added dimension of L1 allowing a hover or backwards flight. And unlike the other planes, L1+R1 together would actually work, and give a vertical ascent (nozzles hover, power up). Or L1 hard+R1, for a very rapid deceleration. Man, I really need to go find my book that shows some air combat tactics for the Sea Harrier, messing with the nozzles while inverted or in an immelman gives some unique moves. Imagine you're at the top of the loop, then you press L1 and R1----you'd descend straight down, inverted.