David Hingtgen

How so? Flap position is based on airspeed, nothing else.

Well, in the US the deciding factor is that *enamel* Tamiya is nigh-impossible to get.

For the F-14's configuration, I meant physical configuration. Though I don't know of any museum that's ever back-dated an F-14 to be correct for how they'll paint it.

Umm, everything and anything? And it really depends on the brand. Acrylic and enamel are actually not enough to describe a paint. There's lacquer enamels, acrylic enamels, enamel acrylics, acrylic lacquers, and most any other combination you can think of.

NOT Squadron putty. I recommend Tamiya basic putty. Or Mr Surfacer, or super-glue. Depends what needs to be done and what you like.

Last time this came up, it practically became a styrene-bashing thread. So I'll be the first to say I like styrene a lot better. One of the big issues is that there's so many types/qualities of resin, versus few types of styrene. For styrene, there's pretty much opaque versus clear. Anything else is manufacturer-specific, and doesn't vary much really. But resin--any color, soft to hard, flexible to brittle, from full of airbubbles and uneven to better than Hasegawa.

knight26--so you think crashing on its first flight is a bad sign? PS--I see a lot more F-16 than F-18 in it. Though I do get annoyed that SO many "new" planes look like F-16's anyways.

I've got a WAPJ with the IDF as the feature article. Nifty little plane, but nothing really notable IMHO. (I do favor big, heavy fighters overall)

Well at least it's in the right ocean, which couldn't be said last year.

41 was with the Reagan in July. There's been some shifting around now that the Reagan's about to deploy for the first time. AFAIK, 14 and 41 should currently wear Reagan markings, not Nimitz. They've got the NH tailcode, which is CVW-11, which has been on the Nimitz lately. Maybe they just haven't gotten Reagan markings yet. I think the Nimitz is in refit at the moment.

Yeah---C model already is the "smaller for internal bays" variant. And it is already in service, and has been for some time. And F-22's carry 6. If you put in B models, can only carry 4. The C is as small as it's going to get. If you want smaller, you're going to need a total redesign and go to ASRAAM-style vectoring.

Though everyone knows I'm not the biggest Hornet fan, I'm the first to admit they tend to have awesome high-vis schemes. ESPECIALLY black-tails. I like black-tail Hornets even more than black-tail Tomcats. VFA-14 is likely to have the best-looking E-models for quite some time. Unless of course they're forced to repaint... However, you might notice they've already had to take the letters off the rudders. When delivered, they had BIG "NH" lettering on the rudders. Now they're much smaller and moved ahead of the rudders, even on the CAG.

Sea Harrier pilots are exceptionally good. There are usually only about 24 people in the UK qualified to fly it in combat, known as the "Dirty Two Dozen". The Harrier is hard to fly (one of the JSF's main requirements is that it can be flown by an average pilot, as opposed to the amazing skill needed just to hover a Harrier), and to get the most out of it, you have to be GOOD. And they are.

::edit:: Hmmn, did some searching. Found at least 2 sites that specified that was in fact diving speed. One site lists the FA.2 speed as .94 low, .97 high, which makes more sense. If F-15C's can barely do 1.1 dry and clean on the best of days, it is unlikely a Shar will do better. FRS.1 is probably slightly faster than the FA.2, but not much. You know, I feel really stupid that I didn't head to the Harrier sites I have book marked. I'll go check them now.

VFA-41 is also said to have gotten an exception, but they are also an early user---you can assume all future squadrons will have to follow the new rules, and VFA-41 and the other earlier ones (VFA-102 almost certainly) will have to repaint. VFA-102 already did partial repaints earlier to move the lettering off the rudders, now they'll have to get rid of their diamondback stripes on the nose to comply with the "no stripes" rule. That new rule also explains why no vagabond stripe on the new Jolly Rogers.

The new rules might apply to all squadrons. VFA-14 is believed to have applied for (and received) special dispensation, being the first ex-F-14 E-model user, or something. They might have to repaint the CO plane as well. From what I can see, now only 1 plane per squadron is allowed any color, painted rudders, or stripes. The current theory is that somebody is on a MAJOR power trip, hates Shornets more than anyone else, and enjoys changing the rules every week and making people repaint Hornets 24/7.

Actually, AFAIK Maverick's plane was from VF-51, while Iceman's was from VF-111. And I believe most carrier scenes are actually of the Ranger. Just off the top of my head. PS--while we're here, the whole "no rudder paint" is quite true for Super Bugs. And there's new rules limiting LOGO SIZE!!!! That's why VFA-103's markings are as they are--they're the first to come from the factory following the new rules. Also, they've been cut to one colored plane per squadron, no exceptions. Also, no fuselage stripes/bands. VFA-2, despite winning every color scheme and markings award at Farnborough just a few weeks ago (with their normal colors no less, not painted up special for the show like all the other planes), has already been forced to repaint some of their low-vis planes to follow the new rules, so they're even lowER-vis. And their gorgeous CAG and CO ones might not last much longer.

AV-8B: Mach .89 low alt, Mach .91 high. Sea Harrier: Mach .99 low alt, Mach 1.25 high. GR3, GR5, etc would be slightly faster than an AV-8B. AV-8A's and C's would be identical to that.

Hmmn. Kinda depends on the final F-35 weight! The Harrier (by necessity) has a combat power/weight ratio exceeding 1. The F-35 is around that, depending on the model and how overweight it is. The Harrier (any version) is not a good turning aircraft in any respect. However, there are some very unique moves it can do in a vertical fight. (The Harrier can Immelman like nothing else---vector the nozzles to directly down (which is then up) or reverse at the top of the loop while inverted). It can also move forwards or backwards (with respect to the ground, not itself---the plane is technically moving up or down) while in a vertical climb or dive, to force an over or undershoot. If you spend a little while sketching out its attitude and nozzle positions, there's a lot of neat stuff you can come up with. (Besides the energy-killing "put the nozzles in reverse while flying forward"). And don't forget its vernier arrays (reaction jets in BAe nomenclature), which many people don't even realize are there--how else can it turn when at 18 knots airspeed? Its alpha limit is technically 180 degrees. Sea Harriers are far more manueverable and faster than a GR or AV-8B BTW.

Well, a few F-15C's have AIM-9X's now, we can assume F-15K's will be built with that capability, though I don't know if Korea will get them. We need some USAF F-15K's and add in helmet-mounted-cued AIM-9X's...

I see 4x ASRAAM usually, for standard UK JSF loadout. Either way, the UK certainly seems to intend it for shorter-ranged air-to-air more than any other user. Of course, with the Sea Harrier gone in a year, and the JSF not coming for quite I while, I wonder what they intend to use their carriers for in the mean time.

And GL can fly through space much faster than light-speed. (Otherwise Kyle STILL wouldn't be home) PS--I'd much rather see Jade fighting Starfire.

Well, the F-5 just blows away most anything in roll rate, it's seriously like 720 degrees per second. Wonder what its improved brothers the F-20 and X-29 can do... But for major fighters, I think the Flanker is quite high for its size and should definitely be investigated. F-14's can do a hyper-quick 90 degree roll, but 180 and 360 rolls wouldn't be simply 2x and 4x the 90-degree time. Generally, roll rate and sustained turned rate are opposite ends of the same scale. High roll rate=low turn rate, and vice-versa. Instantaneous turn is more determined by pitch rate and alpha capabilities than anything else. (since it's basically "roll 90 and pull back sharply")

Wing loading (calculated by moi): F-35A at combat weight: 71 lbs/sq.ft F-16E at combat weight: 97 lbs/sq.ft (weights based on what appeared a few posts ago) Some comparisons: F-16C Block 30: 88 lbs/sq.ft (the best air-to-air Fighting Falcon) F-15C: 66 lbs/sq.ft F-14: 90 lbs/sq.ft (this can be lowered by sweeping the wings--when the wings are back the gloves become more effective and make more lift, and can increase the effective area, and can approximately match the F-15's low loading--but only at higher speeds) I think the "effective" wing area when swept is about 800sq ft on the F-14, because the wings and gloves act like a giant delta wing. Best-case wing loading: 64 lbs/sq.ft. (but with huge energy bleed in turns) F-4J: 78 lbs/sq.ft F-8E: 68 lbs/sq.ft F-18C: 91 lbs/sq.ft F-18F: (really rough guess): 81 lbs/sq.ft F/A-22: 65 lbs/sq.ft YF-23: 60 lbs/sq.ft

Only in battroid mode. My fave VF-1 is an armorless 1J in fighter mode.