David Hingtgen

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.

I can't help but think the whole design would look more "balanced" if it had black and yellow ventral fins... Maybe they can paint up some black and yellow-finned AMRAAMs and put them on the fuselage corners... Custom missiles are rare, but do exist. Most often see decorated AIM-9's on ANG F-16's.

1. NAVY, not Air Force. 2. That's the "factory" skull. Jolly Rogers skull has changed over the years. Boeing apparently doesn't have the stencil the Jolly Rogers currently use. It'll probably change once they get back (JFK should be in port mid-December, 103 give up their Tomcats in Jan) 3. Skull Squadron has never matched any of the Jolly Rogers skulls. Similar yes, but never identical. Obvious when placed side-by-side. Finally--Commander McBride---actually, they're rarely dropped. I don't think any Navy plane's dropped its tanks since Desert Storm, and even then, that was only 2 of them. Same for the Air Force, though quite a few F-15's did drop them---but when you KNOW you're going into combat, they have special "disposable" tanks they use in those cases. Not the "nice" tanks they carry 99% of the time. (I do not think F-14's have disposable tanks available)

F-16 CFT's are fugly as hell IMHO. I think they are supposed to be "minimal" drag for the amount of fuel carried(compared to say, adding more drop tanks under the wings), unlike the F-15's which affect the area-rule of the plane to the point that drag is reduced under many conditions. F-111 vs F-15E. Well, F-15E was brand-new and at minimal capability in Desert Storm--a lot of "priority" targets went to F-111's since they could self-designate and had much experience with low-level/night ops. F-15E wasn't even really in service yet, but they sent them because they knew it'd do well, even if not FULLY operational. One big thing for that war was bunker-busters and any BIG Paveway. So big/long/heavy even the F-111's had problems carrying them, much less F-15E's. I think it was ONE per plane, regardless. Asymmetry problems, too. F-111 can outrun an F-15 (and most anything on the planet) at low-level, and can match the F-15 at high altitude. F-111's are very, very fast planes.

E/F is a recent name change for the Block 60, which was formerly the F-16C/D Block 60. USAF has none with none on order, you're not likely to see many "official" references to it. Block 60 is currently only for the UAE. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article10.html The first Block 60's had the dorsal spine, and many people (and publications) assume and write that it is standard for the Block 60, but it is not.

F-16E and F-16F are the single-seat and dual-seat models of the Block 60, respectively. They're for the UAE. Only dual-seat ones have the avionics spine though. (Most people think they all do, since the F actually came out before the E)

Block 1 through 20 are A/B, 25 through 52+ are C/D, 60 and up are E/F. Block 25's are kind of oddballs, they look like C's but are far inferior to block 30 and later. A lot of 25's have been upgraded to mostly "late Block 30" standard, but lack the 30's engine, which is the main thing. 20's are also weird, basically being Block 52's in the "body" of an A. "Standard" A's are 1-15, and "standard" C's are 30 through 52. All the 20/25's are interims more or less. Best place for quick Block info: http://www.habu2.net/vipers/viperblocks/index.html Detailed Block info once you know what Block is what: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

The Block 60's weigh more than Block 50's. They have an engine power increase over the 50's, but weight/drag is way up. Same as the F-16I's---they've got a lot of internal (and external) gadgets and avionics added on, and the F-16 is a very small fighter by current standards---they're getting "weighed down". Late Block 30 is still the best A2A Falcon, with Early Block 30 being 2nd best. Then Block 50. (JUST IMHO, mainly going by power/weight/drag---they all have the same weapons, radars are similar though not identical)

F-16F is almost pure air-to-ground IMHO. Big and bulky two-seater. (I Hate Block 60's BTW, I like the F-16 as a FIGHTER) I'll put a production Su-35 against most anything, for it has quite a few electronics/weapons upgrades compared to a 27---it's more than just canards.

It's a LERX, often shortened to LEX. Actually, it's shorter (but wider) on the Super Hornet than the Baby Hornet. They "re"designed it to be like the original YF-17 design. Otherwise it'd be even longer! Anyways--it'll probably look better with customized fuel tanks. Jolly Rogers have been big on that lately, and fuel tanks don't seem to be as "regulated" with regards to their paint. Either black tanks with the stripe in outline, or grey tanks with a full-color stripe. (low-vis planes get grey tanks with outline stripes) Fuel-tank decoration is a whole genre unto itself. Few squadrons do it to any great degree, usually just those with nose-stripes like Jolly Rogers or Diamondbacks. Most just put a tiny little low-vis logo, if anything. Sundowners always put sharkmouths on theirs.

1. Yes, you can quickly repaint with temporary paint. They just skip 90% of all the little warning labels and "no step" marks if they're in a hurry. EVERY British Tornado was done like this. Heck, most any desert-camo plane in Desert Storm was done like that. Also, all you'd really need to repaint are the tails, not the whole plane. 2. But the Navy doesn't/didn't. Desert Storm was full of high-vis CAG planes going to war. Notably the Freelancers and Fist of the Fleet, with full rainbow stripes. Actually, their whole wing had a "unified" CAG scheme of black-tailed with rainbow stripes. 3. Overall, they don't really care about high-vis too much for actual "combat effectiveness". Most any pilot says they prefer low-vis, but really, you can't tell much at a distance. I mean, you're not even supposed to get IN that range, unless you're a P-51. There's recent pics out there of the Black Aces CAG doing missions in full color, as well as the Red Devils's CO. (Marine planes don't do CAG, their numbers start at 1 not 0, their colorful plane is the commander's) Strangely, that was one of the few fully air-to-air configured Hornets you see on an actual mission, so they were fully prepared to take a red-tailed plane into air combat. (And the Fist of the Fleet also were on CAP for Desert Shield)

I don't think it's a *rule*, just that squadrons do think it's neat to have the modex match the squadron number. And since the rule is only 2 high-vis planes per squadron, they have to "sacrifice" a plane that normally is high-vis. And it's best not to anger the CAG by giving him low-vis, as he outranks the CO. It's rare enough that it's pretty much up to the squadron how they want to do it, if the numbers match up. The only squadrons that currently can do it are 101, 102, 103, and 211 AFAIK. (And 211's currently transitioning to Shornets). (105 is 4xx, as I explained earlier, 106--not sure, they're brand-new and currently "borrowing" 103's Shornets until they get enough of their own) As for that VFA-111 Shornet: If the modex is to be 161 (unlikely for many reasons) then the accent stripes on the tail shouldn't be yellow. That's not a VF-111 thing, that's a "because their modex was 2xx" thing. (VF-111 always followed old-school rules for colors when most every other squadron had abandoned them) Same for the grey tail leading edge--F-14 thing, not a VF-111 thing. Their F-8's and F-4's didn't have it. Sharkmouth is angled wrong. And what's with the VFA-1 having "132" yet being designated as the CAG-bird?

Try to explain as best I know: A showbird is basically any plane that is high-vis. However, 99% of the time, they are the CAG and CO, and are called the CAG-bird and CO-bird usually, even though they are "showbirds". But, when the squadron and modex can match, they usually paint that one up in high-vis instead of the CO's plane. Then, that plane is referred to as the "showbird", since it has no other name, not being the CAG's, etc. VFA-105 is currently assigned 4xx, but will transition to Super Hornets in a year or two and will probably get a 1xx or 2xx, so they might get a showbird---105 is especially colorful as sqaudrons go, you can bet they'll put as much color on every plane as possible. My fave squadron, VF-111, had "2xx" modex for DECADES, and never had a plane #111. All in all: every squadron can have 2 high-vis planes. Normally CAG and CO, CO normally not as colorful as CAG. But when the modex and squadron numbers match, that plane usually is assigned instead of the CO plane for high-vis. Or that plane might be used for the CO, with "01" being an "ordinary" plane in the squadron.

Also, the Hornet has always been primarily (almost purely) for attack. Air-to-air for a Hornet is a rare event. It's an attacker that can fight, not a fighter than can also bomb. Sure, the YF-17 was designed for the same role as the F-16, but by the time the F/A-18 came around, it was supposed to carry bombs 90% of the time. Kind of ironic, as the F-16 has been going more towards attack all the time as well, Hornet just "got there first". And the F-15E, and F-14D... Everything plane's going more towards attack, if you think about it.

Navalised YF-23 kinda sounds like that... (If you configured the front and rear missile bays like a B-1B---have a movable bulkhead---then you could easily fit some Phoenixes inside by removing the bulkhead---the YF-23 has a deep, long bay as opposed to the -22's wide, shallow bay)

Actually, that's the "Show Bird". Generally, that only happens when the modex and the squadron number match. That doesn't happen very often. See, this is plane #103 of squadron 103. It is neither the CAG, CO, nor XO plane. VFA-102 does this for plane #102 (which is normally the XO plane but has no special markings). Most squadrons cannot do this, especially any squadron that's only 1 or 2 digits. VF-103 couldn't do it until the late 90's, since they were assigned "2xx" modex numbers up til then. I think you usually see the CO plane's "high vis" sacrificed when this occurs, since I think you can only have 2 high-vis planes per squadron. Thus the CAG plane and the "number matches the squadron" Showbird, rather than the CAG and CO planes. So VFA-103 will probably have #100 and #103 in high-vis, rather than 100 and 101. :edit: Just learned that the CO might get the "number-matching" plane instead of the "01" plane, so that he gets a high-vis plane. Thus the CAG and CO planes are 00 and 03 instead of 00 and 01 like normal.