David Hingtgen

As you might imagine, I nit-pick the hell out of model planes. And I own a few Dragon Warbirds, ask away. As for the F-15's: AFAIK, *all* of them can ONLY have weapons on the wing pylons, and none can carry any drop tanks. Basically, how they come is the only way you can have them, unlike the F-16 and 18 which have many options. IMHO, DW's F-15's all really suck with massive errors on all. C'mon, turkey feathers on an F-15E exhaust? Having the enlarged fin-tip-pod on the WRONG fin? There's LOTS of F-15C photos out there, and every single one will show the LEFT fin has the larger pod... The F-18 is probably the best, but I have issues with it. The F-16 is almost as nice, but like the BBI, is a mix of parts. I STILL can't tell what intake it has, I think it's like a small-mouth size and ECS intake but the big-mouth shape... IMHO, one of the best 1/72 diecast planes out there is the Corgi Tornado. The F-4C and UK Phantoms are nice too. (Don't get a Navy Phantom, they're quite inaccurate)

Yup, F-111's are gone, and even the EF-111 Raven is gone now I think. (EF-111 lasted longer than F-111) It wasn't until the very day they were put out of service that the F-111 even officially had a name. F-15E's have never ever been used for A2A afaik. The "late" engine power is 29,100lbs compared to the standard F-15C engine of 23,400lbs.

hellohikaru---late F-15E's (which is pretty much all the non-SJ ones) have a significantly superior thrust/weight ratio than the F-15C. They've got more power than F-14D's, on a lighter frame. An A2A F-15E would easily beat the C. And the CFT's aren't an issue--they can come off in 15 minutes. Annoyingly, I can't find what a CFT actually weighs...

DVD is about an hour, has AFAIK about all the non-classified YF-23 footage that exists--construction, roll-out, taxi tests, test flights. Also some of both flying together, including a dual pass over the factory. Many interviews with designers, etc. Frankly, it's about the only YF-23 footage there is, asides from the "Wings" episode which is only shown about twice a decade...

When that report on the YF-23 came out, I started a whole new thread on it. (Of course, it was the best news I'd heard in a long time) Not a word since, that's a 6-month old report. PS--related note, I did get my YF-23 DVD, and it's the first time I've ever seen the red hourglass on the belly, and it IS true that it only leaves contrails from one wingtip at a time. (My brother said it did, but I've never heard anyone else say so--but it shows up quite well)

With there being only 1 squadron for the Block 60 at the moment, not very likely. Also (externally), it's little more than a Block 40I with some IRST pods on the nose---just take some from a Flanker kit and add to one of the many Israeli Falcon kits and you've got it. Shin--the loadout on Knight26's plane looks very typical, especially for Desert Storm. Though HARM's would be even more common, 4 (or 6) Mk82's is quite common.

Tranch is Eurofighter for "Block". After changing about 5 times in 5 months, I think the scenario is to sell "Tranch 1" EF-2000's to other nations as soon as Tranch 2 are delivered. Tranch 2 MIGHT have working guns, that changes so often I don't know. Tranch 3 will have working guns I think. Finally--the current Luftwaffe F-4F is very upgraded and quite capable. Similar to the Sea Harrier FRS2, it has Hornet-C-like radar and AMRAAM's. So it's got the same BVR capability as a Baby Hornet, and is much faster. So long as you don't dogfight, it can do air defense very well. Maintenance/age is the primary issue AFAIK, no matter how upgraded, F-4F's are old.

Yeesh, Dassault and/or Lockheed should sue for patent infringement on those...

I've seen about 7, from a combination of YF-22 and YF-23 articles. Only about 4 others were "normal", all the rest weren't even accepted for detailed proposals---usually massively complex aircraft, like 100,000lb Mach 3 swing-wing monsters. The original Lockheed and General Dynamic designs were ugly IMHO, though there was also neat rather F-16XL-like stealth---delta with a serrated trailing edge. The final 4 designs (Lockheed, MDC, Northrop, and Boeing) were accepted, and it would be so expensive to make prototypes that the 4 companies formed into 2 teams--Boeing/Lockheed, and Northrop/McDonnellDouglas. PS---as you might guess, Boeing submitted a big-mouth X-32-like proposal---one huge intake feeding both engines. SOMEBODY at Boeing really likes ugly intakes... Thankfully Lockheed "won" that part and the YF-22 had normal intakes. PPS--of all, the YF-23 ended up closest to the original proposal. The YF-22 originally looked more like an F-117N. Ugly, but not as ugly as Boeing's... Truly ironically, the Lockheed YF-22 looks most like the final MDC F-15 concept, before it was made into the F-15 we have today. YF-22's still a generation behind IMHO...

I heard about the ghosts a while back, but still haven't found them. I think I spent half of one mission just flying around looking... Never heard about the 50th Ann. one though, will have to go look.

True (about color of USAF planes). We should be thankful the Navy has loosened up on color rules---in the mid/late 80's, even the CAG plane would have NO color whatsoever. You need to go back to the 1960's to have colorful USAF planes---but many of the century-series planes were quite colorful.

Wow, a scheme that fits the model. Of course, IMHO it's pure dumb luck. They could probably pick another dozen states, all with Blokc 42's and 25's... PS--NY is the 174th Wing. I was talking about the 174th Squadron. (Since there can be multiple squadrons in a single wing, I usually refer to the squadron number, not the wing.). NY(Syracuse) is the 138FS, 174FW. 174FS is the 185FW, Sioux City, IA. With our big black vampire bat tail.

Yeah, kind of ironic that the ANG decals they offer are all for "non Block 30" planes, even though the ANG is *the* place to find early Block 30's. (Unless they did recent NY decals, I don't remember all the squadrons they offered) Annoying rant: anybody who knows F-16 squadrons knows that the 174th, from IA, had truly kick-ass tail logos. And they were early Block 30's, exactly like BBI made. Yet that is NOT one of the decal designs. The one squadron that it IS accurate for--you can't get. (The 185th is where most of NY's Block 30's came from---now the 185th has KC-135's) 175th has probably THE coolest tail (South Dakota) and I think also had Block 30's (quasi sister squadron to the 174th)--and are also not one of the decal options.

Wolfpack High-Vis would require block 70/75, which is too much to ask. Unless you could live with all the errors. Honestly, I doubt even High-vis Jolly Rogers would be accurate---way too many places/companies/people base "old" planes on "current" pics and museum places. I mean, the Museum of Flight has an actual ex-VF-84 F-14 painted up like it was back then, but it's still really "wrong" in that it's in the as-decommisioned 1990's configuration, not as-built 1970's configuration. Even though it's the same, real, actual plane--it's still wrong, amazingly. If you are modelling an F-14 from 1979, do not use pics (or the real thing) of an F-14 from 1999... I can't nit-pick A-10's though, will leave that to Knight26. PS---the BBI F-16 is *early* Block 30. Small intake, GE engines. (A rare combo). However, no scheme they plan for it is like that. Mostly block 25's (PW engines), or 40's and 50's (big intake). The 2 main differences among F-16's are the engines (PW or GE) and intake (big or small). And they made the rarest type of all, the early Block 30 as built the only small/GE combo. MacDill, and IA ANG are among the few that have/had those planes. (NY ANG currently has them, but they've been upgraded and are more like late Block 30's)

A-4Su has no afterburner, thus basically the same engine as the F-117---I doubt it's THAT fast or has THAT good acceleration. It's actually less powerful than the "old" engine in the A-4M. (Far better fuel/reliability and weighs less, much like the F404 vs J79--but raw power is less) F-5E is sleek as hell, the YF-5A could supercruise.

I still say "no" to those due to incorrect (and just plain weird at times) antenna arrangements. External antennas are how you tell A's and C's apart (well, it's how *I* tell them apart, there's no other method AFAIK)--the BBI has some of the C's, but lacks most of them. And not fragile little blade antennas, the "bump" ones just like the ones they already have molded on. The ALQ-165 antennas aft of the cockpit are the "weird" ones---they always look like "flat hexagons" in pics I see, but the real ones are teardrop shaped. Finally---too many/wrong nosegear doors. That's a "just plain stupid" error IMHO.

Haven't heard a word. However: 1. It already had been refurbished for the Western Museum of Flight. There was no need to re-refurbish it. 2. It was supposed to get new avionics--upgrading original equipment isn't "restoration". (Though it did lose most of its original stuff--maybe they are just putting in the original stuff, or putting in the stuff the F-23A was to have, which is still more advanced than what the upcoming Super Hornet F's are getting) YF-23 had a cockpit made of standard F-15E/F-18 parts---like the rest of the systems.

I think the F-20/X-29 tooling was destroyed--no orders, and no need for spares since they were all in museums by then.

I expect most any plane to do better with the gear struts--only the Hornet has those sideways-splayed back-angled things. I'm kinda surprised they don't collapse in 1:1 scale with how they deploy. F-16 has nice normal gear. Like the F-8's in many aspects.

A lot of squadron markings ARE decals. (Us modelers would call them stickers, being self-adhesive, but "professional/industrial" stickers are usually referred to as decals) It is certainly possible the skull etc are painted on with a stencil, but it's just as likely that they peeled it off a sheet and stuck it on the tail. Many airliners are like 90% decaled, not painted--even 200ft-long stripes. IMHO, the coolest thing about the F-8 scheme was that ALL the tips were painted. H.stabs, wingtips, and v.stab tip. Looked neat from every angle. Plus the ventral fins. (I like ventral fins--look cool, and make for great painting opportunities). Also, they had a BIG yellow chevron on the side, in addition to the standard row of little ones inside the stripes.

It should be a Block 40 (being the 8th FW's commander's plane), but it's not. Also--is that a *Sparrow* missile they included? (that, or a really messed up HARM)

Uhh, no, the CO has already made his plans on how to repaint it once they get back. Boeing did OK, he plans to do better. First and most importantly, move the tailcode to the inside of the tails to make room for a bigger, better skull. Maybe he'll move the stripe too.

Oh yeah---VFA-27 touched up their CAG bird, and it seems to violate every "Super Hornet painting rule" there is! Multi-color stripes on the rudders, black all over the top of the plane (more than the Jolly Rogers) and they even painted the "do not paint no matter what" trailing edge bit of the rudders. (That grey bit always messed up VFA-103 and VFA-14's black tails).

I agree---every new plane has had a new scheme. This is the first "same scheme, different plane" and it doesn't quite fit. IMHO, their F-8C's had the all-time best scheme. Ironically, it lacked a skull and bones.

I was just thinking last night they should have put the stripe on the back---it just doesn't work on the nose (though VFA-102's stripe loooks fine there, as does VFA-2). VFA-131 puts their stripe angled on the back, and it looks much better there.