David Hingtgen

I was thinking it's NORTHROP and an *F-5* variant. They went from 2x J85's to 1x F404. That's a heck of a lot more work than F404 to F414. They built the X-29's from two F-5A's and spare F-20 parts. And the F-20 has plenty of extra room in the back end---the rear fuselage is widened simply to keep the underside the same width and shape as the original F-5 despite the narrower engine installation. If they need more room to redesign the mounts, it's there without affecting aerodynamics at all. Unlike the Legacy Hornet, where's there's not a spare inch in the aft fuselage.

Random thought I just had: Since the F414 is exactly the same size as the F404, it would be easy to put in the F-20. That would give the F-20 a combat (not empty) power/weight ratio of nearly 1.5 to 1. What could have been...

The -22 has different belly details, due to a gunpod/missile launcer difference. The two large "belly plates", forward/outer section. I don't have any GOOD pics readily available. I'm not sure of if it's actually a shape difference or simply engravings/details.

Going a bit OT, but from what I've read: For enamels/lacquers, it's the solvent that's nasty if you breathe it in. For acrylics, the paint itself is nasty if you breathe in particles when spraying. (It sticks to your lungs like asbestos) Basically---it's all bad for you, just in different ways. I think brush-painting with acrylics is about the only "safe" thing, anything else you should have lots of ventilation or a mask. PS--I do like most colors of "jet exhaust" paint, but almost every one I've tried seems to behave strangely, it just won't mix well (you can see streaks of different colors in the bottle no matter how much you stir) and is always goopy. I've been using Gunze Burnt Iron and Tamiya Metallic Grey lately for jet exhausts, fans.

I too wanted a Tornado F3 bad, but it was the last fighter I ever unlocked---at which point it was one of the worst fighters in the game. (Love the plane, but when you can use the YF-23 or Su-37 there's little point) Plus the GR4 is so similar to the GR1, and the ECR (like all ECM planes in the game) is really useless. That's about the only plane I thought there were too MANY of. All you need is the IDS and ADV. Anything else is kinda pointless, and having them all evolve simultaneously just made the ADV F3 take forever to get, making it too little too late. Current-day F3's have AMRAAMx4 and ASRAAMx4 for standard armament---that'd make it really useful in the game, as it's the WEAPONS the plane has that's really important in games like these---see following point: Personally, I'd rather have the WEAPONS evolve/selectable instead of the plane. Really, for most of them in AC5 that's all that really changes--same plane, same stats, just new weapons and paint. I mean, the F-14D is the F-14B with Phoenixes. Su-35 is Su-27 with AA-12's (and +1 agility). The F-18C would be a MUCH more useful plane if you could choose and upgrade weapons--start with Sparrows and Harpoons, and end with AMRAMM's and SLAM-ER's. In AC5, it's good for ships and nothing else simply due to only having Harpoons. Having multiple weapons would allow you to use many early planes even late in the game---and by doing so, would help them acquire upgrades, as you wouldn't be limited to using them only in the early missions.

My point isn't really the plane itself, it's that such a GOOD plane comes out so early. You could easily substitute Su-47 or F-15S/MTD for F-22 there. They are SO agile it changes the whole game dynamic. (IMHO). Or, once you get a current-gen fighter, the AI ramps up really fast or they start bringing in Su-30MKI's. I also like it when a new plane "matches" the upcoming mission. There's little point in unlocking the A-10, then giving us 2 dogfights in a row. Conversely, getting the F-15C before a "fortress assault" mission---you've got a new plane but can't really use it for a while. Then you end up getting a backlog of planes to try out. Other possibility---choosing what planes to unlock. Instead of multiple paths, simply offer two new planes every time, and the player can pick which one they want. That'd give everyone what they want pretty quickly. Then you can get all the ones you didn't pick on the second run. Oh, final comment/rant. I really want Namco to "split up" the plane families to upgrade them. The F-16 takes FOREVER to upgrade because it wants all the points for the entire family, since it wants to unlock them all at once. F-15 suffers from the same problem. Conversely, the F-5 and F-14 upgrade quickly since you only do one at a time. Make them all one at a time, or allow us to CHOOSE which one to develop. I didn't want the F-16 Blk 60 at all and never fly it, but really wanted the XL. By making the XL and Blk 60 "evolve" together, it made it take twice as long with twice as many points needed. Goes along with my previous comments, in that you spend so much time trying to upgrade a plane (due to it needing excessive points due to being lumped in with other variants) that it gets left behind. I can go from F-5 to F-20 and F-14A to F-14B, in the time it takes to get like 1/4 of the bar filled on the base F-15/16.

More thoughts: 1. I want the Area 88 planes. F-8, *Sea* Harrier, Mirage F.1 (the only Mirage that's not a delta), A-4, F-5, etc. 2. The best planes should come at the END of the game. AC4/5 give you the F-22 way too early, you can use it for like half the game. It should only be there for the last mission or two IMHO. I always feel like I get better and better planes very quickly, and the planes get better faster than the enemy AI does. Thus, I actually get "lazier" in my flying as the game goes on, as my planes just get so much more agile I don't really have to do anything other than fly circles until I'm in position. Not until the last mission does the AI "catch up" to your greatly improved planes and you'll actually have to dogfight again. Having an F-4 is much more fun and challenging, you have to actually fight. Give the F-15 at the mid-point, and the F-22 at the end. Not F-15 at mission 5, then F-22 at mission 10.

Something I just remembered: I want more variation in paint schemes, as well as more schemes that resemble real ones. Seriously, 90% of all AC5 planes are "generic 2-tone camo" or "generic 3-tone camo". Available in desert, jungle, and blue-grey. The Jolly Rogers F-14 schemes in AC5 were nice examples of realistic schemes. I've always loved the F-15C schemes in AC4, they were good examples of what I'm talking about for variation--don't really match anything I know of, but are unique and plausible. As opposed to some of AC4/5's gaudy "ace" schemes. AC0's F-15 schemes are somewhat like AC4's. (Though maybe leaning a bit towards the F-15 prototype schemes) Basically--I want something besides generic wavy camo all over, but not flowers and flourescent paint. There's plenty of middle ground, but we don't often see it from Nacmo.

YF-23 was flying in 1990, plenty old enough to be in the game. (As is the 22)

If you download the trailer, you'll see it's already 100% english so at least we won't have to wait for it to be dubbed like so many games. As for dual language---I think there's good odds. I doubt it'd be much larger disc-wise than AC5 and so there should be room for both audio tracks.

Lots of people want some older planes, and the appearance of the Draken helps, but I'll still be amazed if we get anything other than that. My current theory is the Draken is a "replacement" for the F-4E in the game. Every other AC game has the F-4E as the oldest basic plane, I think the Draken will have that role in this game, and then it'll start the normal F-5, F-16 progression of the other games. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Next point---what do you want in the game? I want multiple/selectable weapons for each plane----the F-15C should not be instantly outclassed by the F-18E simply due to the game giving the 18E AMRAAMs and leaving the 15C with Sparrows. Weapons should be able to be upgraded much the same way as planes. I think it'd work well----in AC5, flying a plane a lot got you better versions of that plane. Weapons should be the same----using lots of Sparrows should unlock the AMRAAM, etc. And as for selectable weapons---same thing---an F-16CJ should be able to have HARMs or Paveways or AMRAAM's. It's a multirole fighter, it should be able to fly any mission. I personally love using the F-16 as a midgame light fighter, but in AC5 they give it dumb bombs and Sidewinders---not the best combo for that role. That's one feature of Air Force Delta Strike I really liked---you could buy different weapons for your planes, and choose what to take on each mission. All in all, I actually expect it to be 99% identical to AC5, simply a new story.

BTW, for anyone who doesn't recognize the name Snodgrass right away, here's probably the most famous shot of him flying an F-14: Imagine what he'd do with a GE-powered one stripped down for an airshow...

AC Zero should be set in 1995 or 1996 (can't remember exactly). So it could easily have Raptors, Flankers etc. I too would love Vietnam era stuff, but I don't think it's too likely. Overall, I'm immensely surprised and pleased by this announcement. I figured it'd be like 2 years for another PS2 AC, or 3 for a PS3 one. I personally would love to have the same cast as AC5, as by the end it seems nearly half of them were involved somehow. I want Pops as my wingman!

One of the big things for "as it's being built" guides is the question and answer format. There are many questions from people watching, asking how the builder did something, or for clarification of something. Also, builders often ask for input--what color should something be painted, does anyone have a reference shot for that, etc. It happens every day, and the result is better models, and more people learning more techniques, or alternate ways of previous techniques. None of that would happen if people had to just write articles and submit them. They'd be half the size and leave lots of questions unanswered. Tooting my own horn for an example, but wm cheng's VF-0 wouldn't have wing-sweep wear nor would the cockpit "hell hole" area be the same if not for our discussion on the forum AS he was building it. And then he also showed everyone how he did the wing-sweep wear. There's many more examples like that on almost every build here. Plus, since even Graham can't put stuff up on the site currently, closing the forum would mean NO builds for an indeterminite time. Last submission I see is from 2002. Frankly---having builds AS THEY'RE HAPPENING leads to much higher quality builds, as well as much more informative and useful builds. I belong to several model airplane forums, and all the really good builds are posted as its happening, over several weeks. Plenty of people submit articles after the fact of gorgeous models, but they're never as useful as the ones where the builder actually discusses the model with people as it's being built.

Those are fairly well-known pics. However, they are messed up a bit and I often think I'm the only one who notices. They're shrunk horizontally, as if someone resized them but didn't remember to check the "maintain proportions" box. It's not really obvious, but is best seen in the bottom photo--look at that F-15, it's almost a chibi F-15 or something. The thing is, there is no "correct" version out there AFAIK. The F-22 is longer and sleeker than these photos suggest.

The turbines/shafts/screws are all the same in all US supercarriers, "Method of making steam" is the only difference. No reason we couldn't make a conventionally-powered Nimitz AFAIK, the power requirement is the same as the Kitty Hawk class. Just need boilers. And aviation fuel capacity would be reduced to make room for the ship's fuel. Could always just wait until one of the older Nimitz' need refuelling, and instead of refuelling it, use that money to rip out the reactor and install boilers. They're half ripped apart anyways during major refit/refuelling, might as well convert one of them into a Kennedy replacement. (Though I wonder about routing new exhausts all through a pre-existing Nimitz class hull)

Ack, can't belive I forgot the F-15S already exists. I always just think of "Saudi F-15C's". Can never remember the F-15Eish one. F-15T is quasi-earmarked for Taiwan I believe. I have never heard of F-4's with SUU-11's before, but a quick google gives a few credible hits. Have any info/pics? I'd be very interested.

Not 100% official, but pretty close: Singapore has selected the F-15 over the Rafale, will also get 200 AMRAAM's. Hmmn, I wonder if it'll be called the F-15S. GE or PW? CFT's or no?

Gunfighter's my fave P-51. Also the first one I saw. F-15D demo was the 94FS, "Hat in the Ring Gang". Most famous for being Eddie Rickenbacker's squadron.

Hurricane Katrina note: USS Harry Truman has left its entire assigned airwing behind, will briefly stop at Jacksonville and fill the flight deck with all helicopters it can carry, then go to New Orleans.

Hmm, AMRAAM's on an E's CFT. Quite rare to see, it requires a bit of re-arranging. Also--I thought South Dakota had gotten newer F-16C's, but that's an early Block 30, like they had years ago. (Latest BRAC says IA loses it's Block 42's and is getting Block 30's)

Cockpit floors in real planes are usually very plain. If you want to add something, add rudder pedals.

Happen to get a pic of the F-16's nose gear door landing light housings? (Seriously--I need a photo of them from both the front, side, and rear---I forgot the last time I saw an F-16 that had them)

You know, you never see chaff pictures, just "massive flare release" pics. Anyone have any pics showing chaff being deployed? That'd make a nice companion to this one.

Usually can't get *too* close to the demo Super Hornet, but two years ago I lucked out and found one from VFA-2 on static that was 100% "rope free". Anyone need pics of the compressor fan "stealth baffle"? Nothing like sticking your head up the intake for detail shots. PS--it was so new the gear bays were spotless and gleaming.