David Hingtgen

Blue/sand? Not that I recall. Some blue/grey. I'll have another look. F-8J accounted for like 2/3 of all MiG kills. The F-8H is often considered even better (lighter, more power), there were just so few of them. Kind of like the F-14D---certainly the best, but so rare we never really got to see what it could do in combat.

That was a big part--cost. They had to get it from other 3rd-party dealers who got it from Israel, since they weren't allowed to buy directly from Israel. But everyone knew there was only 1 eventual buyer for anything from Israel that'd be useful for the F-14... I actually stopped reading about the IRIAF F-14's this weekend, re-read some F-8 stuff. Going to order an F-8J kit soon. Will start up Iran-reading again.

Only half-way through book. So far, the IRIAF F-14's are 33-0. I bought it at a local hobby shop. I also know Amazon.com carries this series, that's where I got the second USN F-4 book. The very first F-14 kill ever was a gun kill. It was an IRIAF F-14 against a Mi-25. (Tomcats universally seem to like shooting helicopters). Found 1 definite "1 Phoenix for 2 planes" kill, 1 likely (2nd MiG was either hit by the first or second Phoenix, they were close together but they didn't see the 2nd Phoenix ever explode), and the infamous "3 confirmed with a 4th damaged" "super-kill". And from what I see, "damaged" planes tend to crash more often than make it back. "Closest" Phoenix kill is 5 miles so far, longest 67 miles. (MiG-25 that was, F-14 was going Mach 2.2 to nail it) Who needs AMRAAM's with numbers like that? And you don't get max-range AIM-54 kills from an F-14 going near its max speed from "poorly maintained" or "downgraded" equipment. (Remember, the AIM-54 "100+" mile range is only if the target is heading towards you--chasing after a fleeing MiG-25 cuts the range big time) Some "support" stuff so far: Israel main source of technical/electrical "knowledge" and some parts. F-14-specific parts acquired through black market (how else would you get them?) Back-engineering some parts, trying to develop their own for replacements. 60 operational F-14's at a time is the goal, 40-45 usually achieved. Number 1 problem is lack of PILOTS, not parts/support. Many pre-revolution pilots jailed or killed (for being loyal to the Shah), so when the Iran-Iraq war happened, any Iranian who knew how to fly F-14's wasn't available. Some released from jail, but it was a slow process, and they had to re-learn a lot.

That's all part of the story, including how (pretty directly) the Shah saved Grumman and the F-14 program. (Man, if you think the F-22 is constantly targeted for reductions/"cancel it because it costs too much", the F-14 was in just as much trouble). Iran wanted F-14's before the F-14 was even being tested, and literally helped fund Grumman and development. Or as one pilot put it "You don't spend 2 billion dollars for sub-standard equipment". There was no point in getting down-graded F-14's when they could have gotten full-spec F-15's. They wanted a long-range heavy interceptor, and nothing less than a fully-capable F-14 would do. However, the Navy couldn't go tell congress the equipment was JUST as good. Here's the difference: The Iranian AWG-9 jumps frequencies slightly slower than the US version and takes 1/100 of a second longer to process/display threats. It is thus like .001% more susceptible to ECM jamming. Grumman could quite truthfully tell Congress the Iranians had "less capable" radars. They just never specified what "less" was. And it's not much at all. In all other aspects, it's identical. It is 99.999999% as good, not "50%" like most places surmise, etc. It can track just as many targets at just as long a range and guide just as many missiles just as well as a US one.

I've only just started reading it tonight, but some stuff is so interesting I'm posting now. (hellohikaru, I'm only up to about 1980, USSR not involved yet) 1. AWG-9 radar NOT downgraded from USN spec 2. AIM-54A NOT downgraded from USN spec 3. Only 16 AIM-54's sabotaged by Grumman, the other couple hundred were fine. (And the 16 were later repaired) 4. Pilots soon learned they could do 75-degree alpha instantaneous turns and get Sidewinder/gun kills, only F-18/22 can meet/beat that. 5. They used AIM-54's down to 4 miles range! They never wanted/needed Sparrows, preferring to use AIM-54's at long and medium range. 6. Most of the info in most any other book/report/TV show about Iranian F-14'as is based off pure rumor/guess from the 1970's (which is why they all agree with each other word for word---I learned long ago that if 5 books all agree perfectly, they're all just copying from the same source which could easily be wrong--if one's a bit different or even totally disagrees--it means THAT author actually did some research and interviews) , and even the USN and many F-14 pilots wouldn't believe any reports from exiled IIAF pilots etc, preferring to think Iran had little more than a few rusty unflyable Tomcats with defective missiles.

Delta wings bleed tremendous energy/speed. F-16XL would have poor sustained turn performance. Look at an F-14 in a turning fight: wings forward cause more drag, but it's much less of an effect than the massive energy bleed that wings back would cause (where's it's quasi-delta). PS--I just got the "Iranian F-14's in Combat" book today, I'll see what interesting things I find inside.

For all their fame, Mavericks aren't used much on F-16's. The vast majority of Mavericks are fired by A-10's. I've only ever seen test F-16's use triple-launchers for them.

An IDS painted up as an ADV. With bombs no less. Not at all surprised, Armour is king of "we'll use one mold and paint it up as EVERY version no matter how different". Love their TF30-powered F-14B's...

That's unlikely, since even at 1/10 scale you usually can't have accurate, working gear. Yeesh, the F-18's is so complex most people can't figure out how it works in 1/1 scale. Asking for working gear is pretty much the same as asking for working triple-slotted fowler flaps on a 747. Making several dozen small moving parts in a 1-inch long part is not going to happen. Now, you could have working gear on say a P-51, but not any plane which actually twists/folds its gear--which is about half of all WW2 planes, and about 99% of all post-WW2 planes. And even if you do have working gear, getting working gear DOORS is even harder, since they tend to be interlinked to both each other, as well as the gear struts...

F-22 crashed at Nellis yesterday afternoon just after takeoff, first F-22 crash ever. (YF-22 is not an F-22, so its crash doesn't count) edit: date added

Ack, mis-thought/typed in the above post. YF-17 has poor *roll* rate. Not poor turn rate. Its continuous turn should be notably better than the F-18, but the 17 should have worse instantaneous. YF-17 vs F-18: 17 has much better acceleration/speed and I presume climb. Also much lighter. Roll rate is poor though (as modern fighters go). Instantaneous turn IS alpha, more or less. Better alpha=better inst. turns. Continuous turn is thrust/weight ratio however. Very high correlations. Bleeding speed/energy of course is also bad for continuous turn. I don't think anything will beat the F-16 in a continuous turn, low drag and great power. Though the advantage isn't much, as the F-18 gets its better roll rate mainly from a stiffer wing and bigger ailerons (brute force), not really "aerodynamics". You could probably get a YF-17 to have the 18's roll rate with simple mods, and not lose anything in the cont. turn. (F-18's wing is very similar, it's just all the drag hurts it, while the 17 and 16 are so sleek) Of course, I always hoped you could put the F-20/Gripen engine in the YF-17 (the YF-17 only had YJ101's, 14,000lbs, and it could still supercruise--imagine if it had 18K). Anyways: Dragon AIM-7's have a small post on their fins. But they don't fit F-15/16/18's.... All other DW missiles have holes, and the posts are in the pylons. But the AIM-7's have posts... I always presumed the F-15 would have very small holes in the corners, to carry the AIM-7's on the fuselage, as that's the only thing that'd make sense. Dragon F-18's cannot carry anything on the fuselage corners.

She looks 1,000x better than the "redesigned" KOS-MOS in Ep2 IMHO. (I hate the new "realistic" designs, especially since it seems half the cast (Jr, chaos, etc) still retain the anime look---completely clashes)

Which kit, which parts? Because if you actually intend to "use" the clear parts (paint from behind, etc) I doubt there's anything that can strip off paint without etching/melting the clear parts. If you plan to use them like an opaque piece and paint them on the outside, then you should be okay. Clear parts do behave differently, many thinners/cleaners/strippers will literally liquify them, even if they leave normal plastic perfectly fine.

YF-17 has superior alpha/instantaneous turn compared to the YF-16 I think. Turn rate suffers though, always did. One of the few areas the F-18 beats the YF-17: sustained turns and roll. I'll give the Shornet the victory over the F-16E. F-16E's heavy and draggy, engine power boost isn't enough IMHO.

We could always bring up the internal gun argument again... (sorry, sorry) Anyways---question for the next few posts: What's the JSF's current/projected non-JDAM PGM capability? JDAM's are decent, but still inferior to laser-guided etc. Would it rely on other planes to designate for it? The main thing about the F-16 Block 60 is having every sensor/designator type that exists built-in. F-35 seems to lack a lot of stuff. Is is effectively JDAM-only? That's not accurate enough for "CNN war", where if you're off by 2 inches it'll be on the news... PS---despite the fact that I argue about planes a lot, I do value discussion like this a lot. I learn more from arguments like this than books and magazines it seems. And sometimes I will make a point just to refresh my memory as to why it's (and I) am wrong...

*Internal* payload. A JSF using its many external hardpoints is non-stealthy, and thus has little reason to exist. Internal payload is like 2,700lbs. (Assuming 2x1,000lb JDAM +2 AMRAAM) Why even have JSF's on a carrier if you're going to use them for non-stealth attacks?

I've always interpreted that shot as them looking at the Milky Way.

Hase decals often don't like many decal solutions. Try HOT water for them. They seem to react to water temp more than any solution. (Of course, every decal sheet always varies, even if it's the "same" sheet) Also, mixing Sol and Set (IMHO) is a bad idea. Don't apply one after the other unless the other was put on long enough ago that the area is bone dry. Of course, I always advocate the method of going SLOW and using ONLY Set. Sol is like the "nuclear bomb" for decals. Yeah, it'll get the job done, but the odds of ruining something are much higher as well. Set can take 15 mins to really work, most people only give it like 1 min to affect the decal before deciding to put Sol on.

With JDAM's, every plane's equally good at them. A B-52, F-16, and a P-51, would all have the same accuracy. There is (IMHO) little point in having large numbers of F-35's to replace F-16's, when the F-22 will do the same, but better/faster/and more of them. We certainly need F-35's to replace the Harrier, but I've long said that's the only thing it can and should replace. Since the Harrier can't carry much, very far, at all fast. F-35's are needed in small numbers to replace/supplement Baby Hornets, ONLY for reasons of "there's no stealth Navy plane" but their payload is so small compared to a Super Hornet, and smaller than a Baby Hornet. And there are many important weapons (notably the HARM, SLAM, SLAM-ER, and Harpoon) that won't fit internally. Put them externally on a JSF, and it's lost it's only reason for being on a carrier--stealth. Basically--I'm all for SOME F-35's. But sure as heck not for thousands of them replacing every F-16 and Baby Hornet.. Finally, kind of reiterating: F-16 vs F-35 speed. My point is that instead of buying F-35's, buy F-22's. Fast enough, with bigger payload. Ok, post-finally: Most front-line USAF F-16's are pretty much either night-attack, or SEAD. F-22's can't hold HARM's inside, nor have any sort of LANTIRN system etc AFAIK. We still need F-16's for those roles---which is 90% of what F-16's do. F-22/35 can't "replace" those planes if they're not filling those roles. Of course, I think there'll be a "more sensors" more attack-dedicated F-22 someday (all internal changes, not an FB-22), but not for a while.

I've never seen anything other than 1.5 for the JSF. And even if we go with the "high" of 1.8, that's still damn slow, especially considering what a massively powerful engine it has. Most powerful fighter jet engine ever, and one of the slowest planes in decades. A clean F-35 has a fairly useless payload/existence IMHO. Since it's not really supposed to fight, (F-22's will do that), you're spending a lot of money to deliver 2 small/medium JDAM's at a time, stealthily. Heck, F-117's can already do that, as can the F-22... We really need more F-22's... (never thought I'd say that). Like the F-35, but superior in every way. (except cost, and "really really expensive" is pretty close to "really really really expensive)

Yes, but the JSF is far slower and merely "comparable" in agility to the F-16, with a much smaller payload. (Especially with it's new, modified, smaller internal bays they just did). 2 AMRAAM's and 2 small JDAM's is nothing compared to say 2 AMRAAM's and 2 HARM's and 2 big JDAM's. More weapons, bigger weapons. And if you add on the wing pylons, then you have a non-stealthy JSF that has little to no advantages over the F-16, which costs a whole lot more... The Hornet's the slowest supersonic fighter since the 50's, the JSF will soon take that title...

Am I the only one who'd like a Pre-Ep 4 SW series? Just before Ep 1 would be good IMHO. Qui-Gon's earlier adventures. Or any Jedi seen in Ep 1-3. KOTOR is too far back, but makes good games.

Hmmn wha? Some sort of Hornet/Tomcat debate? Anyways: Well, if there was no pressing need for long-range high-speed air superiority planes, but instead wanted multi-role attackers, MDC would have a huge F-15E order right now, and the F-22 wouldn't be spending all its test time trying to get the absolute max range from a supersonic-launch AMRAAM attack... Anyways, VF-31 is still scheduled to be the last Tomcat squadron. Remaining squadrons and type: VF-143(B), VF-11(B), VF-31(D), VF-32(B), VF-213(D).

No Hornet can carry AMRAAM's on the tips. Don't know why, but they can't and don't. Now, Super Hornets actually have AMRAAM-capable launchers on their tips, but even they can only carry Sidewinders on them and have dedicated Sidewinder-cooling equipment in them (which is actually one of the ways to tell early production Shornets from later production Shornets) Corgi's gotten better at covering screws lately. The best model by far if you don't want anything like that is the DW F-18. No seams or screws anywhere. It's like one giant single piece, from nose to nozzles. (The F-16 has lots of belly seams)

Yes, Corgi's can remove the gear. It's much easier to install the "closed" gear doors and put them up on a stand, than to get the open gear doors and landing gear struts all aligned and in place. (Though a gear-down Phantom isn't TOO bad, but it took forever to get the Tornado gear down). I also like their Harriers, especially the Sea Harrier. The Harriers have little to no armament though, beware. (And Corgi also tends not to paint stripes on missiles, just pure white) Legacy Hornet gripes: Airbrake and canopy do not fit well closed, must be extended/open to look right. Pilots don't fit in ANY of DW's planes. Main gear is funny--too "up and down", not splayed nearly enough. Wheels off-axis (best to remove and reglue). Biggest gripe: It's designed for AMRAAM's on the wingtips. Hornets cannot do that. Sidewinders fit, but will end up too far aft. Pylons seem angled, like a Super Hornet's, but not as much. Smaller gripes: Not any particular Hornet type. A's forward fuselage, early C tails, late A nose, early C vents, late nozzles. I always think manufacturers just take a bunch of F-16 and F-18 photos and assume they're all the same, because most models are a mix of parts, never one particular type. Since the main difference between the A and C is all the extra antennas on the C, having only about half of the C's antennas (including the prominent ones on the tails) makes it look weird... PS--there was a very hard to get DW Top Gun F-18B, all black. Not as famous as the black Tomcats, but similar paint.