David Hingtgen

Pan Am was selling moon flight reservations decades ago... No actual tickets, but you could pay like $10 and "get in line" for when they became available. You got a letter, pamphlet, etc. Pan Am "Moon Flight" reservation certificates are quite the collectors item nowadays. At least Virgin actually waited until the technology was a bit further on.

Most interesting CFT pic I ever found was the 1FW Commander's plane with CFT's, and no less than 18 500lb bombs loaded up. CFT's also had the 1FW markings on them, not simply "generic" grey CFT's like you usually see on a C/D. Generally only E's get their CFT's painted for the squadron.

I pay no heed to size of kits. I've got TWO Academy Hornets. (Thank you, half-off sales) And I plan to get the Academy 1/32 F-16 once it comes out, as well as whichever company does an early Block 30 first... (unless it takes forever, then I'll just get the older Hase release) I don't think I've ever seen a Macross kit for sale by me, there's only 1 shop that even sells a decent selection of Hasegawa jets period. I live in the land of Monogram and Airfix...

F-15 stuff: 1. Finally found a good pic of an F-15C w/CFT's but no missiles, showing the pylons. Yes, all F-15 CFT's have pylons, not just the ones for Strike Eagles. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/730390/L 2. Dragon's latest diecast F-15C's have the tailfins and engines corrected, and are now very accurate. I plan to get the Langley one. They are numbers 50104 and 50106. The new F-15E has the same corrections as the C's, but it still has the pylon-less CFT's. http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50104 http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50106 (Dragon's own pics showed early uncorrected samples, but the actual released versions have the improvements--FlyingMule is about the ONLY store that takes their own pics)

Tomcat: 5,440,000 vs Hornet: 2,300,000

ATF updates: FB-22, stealth external carriage: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp F/A-22 cut instead of F-35: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/JSF01045.xml Yeah, never mind what the USAF asks for, cut what you feel like... YF-23 opened up undergoing restoration: http://airpower.callihan.cc/HTML/Spotlight/YF-23-2.htm

AFAIK, China still has the Su-30MKK on order. The "basic" model is the Su-30MK, with the last letter indicating the country that ordered it. It's MKK instead of MKC due to the Cyrillic spelling or whatever. MKK is quite inferior to the MKI, no vectoring, no canards. But still a two-seat long-range striker. Later variants to come are the MK2 and MK3, anti-shipping and precision bombing versions of the MKK, respectively.

F135's? Forget that. Get the F136. F120 development is pretty much dead, but the 136 derived from it is still going strong. 56,000lbs according to Rolls-Royce recently. Just google "56,000" and "F136" and you'll get quite a few hits. GE has had the more powerful engine for decades. 110 beats 100, 120 beats 119, 136 beats 135. And GE has traditionally had a much larger overspeed/heat margin allowing higher thrust increases. 56K test probably means like 50K "in service". Hmmn, 2 of those in an F/A-22.... (or just one of them in a Super Hornet...) (I'm a big GE fan, in case you hadn't noticed)

Seeing as how a heavier, bombed-up non-vectoring FB-22 would be the last thing you'd want to dogfight with, what could be done with the Sidewinder bays?

F-14D didn't enter service until July of 1992 according to Joe Baugher's pages. (Whom I trust highly). VF-31 isn't listed for Desert Shield/Storm. Plenty of pics of crashed VF-31 F-14D's though... IRST/Phoenix---probably only used to give a direction/distance number to launch the Phoenix in one of its many "seek and destroy" modes. Phoenix doesn't need a lock at all, you can just fire it off in the general direction and it'll use its own radar to look for targets. That's sort of how it's launched even when you do have a lock. Same thing if it's being jammed--it can either just keep going until it's so close to the target it can't be jammed, or it can switch to "home-on-jamming-source" like the AMRAAM can do. The Phoenix can be launched in many different modes, that's why there's 2 crew members in an F-14.

Semi-OT rant: Too many "Virginia's" lately. Let's see--nuclear powered USS Virginia, leader of the Virginia class. Soon after it's decommissioned--we get the USS Virginia, nuclear-powered leader of the Virginia class. It's REALLY stupid IMHO to name a class of ships immediately after another class of ships. Whenever anyone talks about the USS Virginia, or the Virginia class, you have to ask "which one?" because both are recent and well-known. They could have just made the new Virginia the SECOND ship of the class. (Name re-arranging happens all the time before comissioning) What's next, naming the next class of carriers the Enterprise class? (Because the Enterprise will probably be the next to be retired).

Tell us more. Much more.

We suspect a massive typo. Nobody's ever made working F-14 flaps, not even at 1/10 scale R/C planes. We think they mean swing-wings. That, or they made incredibly wrong working flaps...

We did have an FDR carrier. CV42, sistership to the Midway and Coral Sea. However, unlike those 2, it was never upgraded and thus was retired decades earlier. Heh heh--Shin posted the "Polish F-14 parts" before I could. However, there were no D's in Desert Storm. The B was brand new and uncommon then, and B's never have IRST, always TCS. TCS is standard for all B's and all late A's. Only a few squadrons in the late 80's/early 90's would have IRST. PS---Silkworm: if you recall around March ~19-22 2003, there was quite a bit of footage shown of a mall in Kuwait that had been hit. IIRC, that was a Silkworm that struck. IIRC (again) the Silkworm is more like a "cruise rocket" than cruise missile---the accuracy is measured in miles, not feet. Just lob it in the general direction you want, little better than V-1/V-2.

FOV is super-mega-over-panel-lined. That alone makes me refuse them.

That was easier to pick than most years. Of course, with Academy and Trumpeter's "who can make the biggest kit EVER" war of late, there's been quite a few "superkits" lately that blow away all the others. I just saw the 1/350 Nimitz this week. Surprising box shape, totally different than other 1/350 large ships. I of course voted for it in every category it could win.

We need/are building F-22's for some of the same reasons we're building new attack subs: 1. If you don't, you lose the capability to do so in the future. Factories close, techniques are lost, knowledge is no longer pooled. You can't just "stop" building an entire class of weapons for a decade or two and then expect to be able to quickly re-start factories and find people to design them, if at all. 2. In the future, when a threat appears, you can't design a new fighter/sub and have it in service in less than a decade. Or two, with recent trends... PS--cutting the JFK, while we're building the GHW Bush, isn't exactly a reduction in carriers... And CVN-78 and 79 are still scheduled, AFAIK.

Since we've known for a long time there weren't going to be enough F-22's to replace the F-15, they'be been planning some major upgrades for a while--"Golden Eagle" or somesuch. Don't really know what they plan to do. AESA radar is the main thing I think. JHMCS too. One good thing about the F-15: it's so big there's lots of room for expansion. Anything (even radar) that'll fit inside a Super Hornet or Raptor will fit inside an Eagle. Engines---well, as more and more F-16 B.42's get re-engined, more and more F-15C's get the old engines from the B.42's. Still, new F100-229's would be really nice, and there's a lot more F-15C's that need engines than there are B.42's to give them up... :;edit:: Found this about F-15C testing/upgrades with a brief search: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/10184top.xml

I love Tornados, it just rarely comes up. ESPECIALLY ADV's. And of course, one that has my initials on the tail.... I've got the first release 1/72 Corgi IDS, it's quite nice. Anyways--here's the just announced DW F-14 if you haven't seen: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRW50045 I'll certainly buy at least this one, since it is my all-time fave scheme and squadron. Can't QUITE tell which one it is. Has an "ECM only" chinpod, but I'm not aware of that being used with a "yellow-edged" tail-logo. Also, looks like there might be the Superman logo present, but that plane had multi-colored stripes AFAIK. (Though I think there were 2 variations of that scheme)

Let's see: 1. I'd love to hear more from Nied on his opinions on the book. 2. I don't know WHAT Honda was trying to do with that ad. Probably easier to start from scratch than modify an SR-71 pic. (I vote for "scratchbuilt" since even the gear doors, landing lights, and oleo brace aren't SR-71) 3. 160 F-22's is F-ing worthless. With the requirements for testing/training ones at Edwards and Nellis and Tyndall, that comes out to about ONE OPERATIONAL WING. Langley, and nobody else. What's the point? Nobody will 'fear' the USAF's one wing of F-22's. Certainly not India and their 140 Su-30MKI's on order. Can't have air superiority with one wing of F-22's, and some 30-year-old F-15's. Not when there's Super Flankers, Gripens, Eurofighters, and Rafale's all over.

Either of the ATF's would have rocked, though I don't recall much (if anything) about Naval YF-23's... But since it had F-18 landing gear and a huge wing to start with, that's a big "navalisation" problem already dealt with. Re: ergonomics. Find "from the pilot's seat" views of the F-4 cockpit. Would make anyone claustrophobic, and you almost need a periscope to see out front. (or just go first person in AC5) F-4 is NOT user friendly, I'd suspect F-4 to F-14 is about the same as F-14 to F-18F, "comfort/useability" wise.

Well, the F-15 is currently 105-0, and the F-16 is 70-0.

Here's some "stuff" I'll retype from the book. "It is primarily based on a series of exhaustive interviews with retired and active Iranian F-14 pilots and RIO's, and with several ex-Iraqi Air Force Officers. In addition, the authors have also drawn from official US, Iranian, Saudi, and Soviet documents released to them". As for "morale boosting". From what I've seen, particularly this book, yes they greatly inflated claims. AGAINST THE TOMCAT. F-14 shoots down a MiG-23? Credit is given to troops on the ground with rocket launchers. A MiG-25 is finally brought down at altitude? The amazing crews launching SAM's did it, of course. There's several pages given to exactly how the government tallied everything, and then discredited the F-14, giving credit to ground troops and SAM's, rather than F-14 CAS, strafing, and air-to-air. Finally, much like the other books in the series, dozens of kills are reported turn-for-turn, 1st-hand, by the pilots themselves. Yes, there could be legions of lying Iranian F-14 pilots, but I doubt it. PS--Chunx rocks, listen to him. He IS a pilot, not just "purportedly" (That, or he's got a lot of really good faked pics) This page shows him in a Super Hornet: http://www.simhq.com/_aboutus/chunx.html

Inflated? That's the exact OPPOSITE of what happened. Ayatollah etc hated the idea of "Shah-bought/American" planes doing well, and like 90% of F-14 victories, whether in the air, bombing, etc were "re-attributed" to Ayatollah-bought Soviet SAM's, etc. Anyways--the numbers are extremely consistent with the F-15/16. Did you expect the F-14 to do much worse? Better? Finally---the 159-3 is the "confirmed" kills. Many probables/unknown/unconfirmed. I could type out the full list of sources in the book if you really want, but in summary: I trust it. Maybe too much, but as much as I trust any other book I have. This series as a whole is VERY well researched, and I trust these books more than any other. If US Navy says 18 Crusader kills but that company's book says 19 Crusader kills--then I say 19. Do I "blindly" trust this series? Pretty much, the previous half-dozen books have impressed me a lot. It's not like I can go interview Iranian Tomcat pilots myself like the author did, this is as good as it gets. And it's 1000x better than even recent (2002) books which have a one-sentence sidenote saying "Iranian Tomcats engaged Iraqi forces with some success during the Iran-Iraq war".

Very. 8 years of fighting between 2 large airforces... This was not "occasional skirmishes when the rules of engagement allowed" like happened in Vietnam, nor "they didn't even have a chance and were gone after 48 hours" in Desert Storm. This was two large forces going at it 24/7 for years.