David Hingtgen

Well it is a Lakenheath F-15E, which means it has -229 engines. This is the "F-15E with the high-power engines stripped down to air-to-air" scenario, with a far superior power/weight ratio than an F-15C. You'll note the CFT's aren't attached and there's no WSO. It's effectively an F-15D with 25% more thrust. This combo has a ratio not far off from your standard Flanker. And the F-15K should weigh less, and have even more power... 30 years, and the F-15 STILL rocks. Big engines+big wings=awesome fighter, period.

Based on what apparently happened at Farnborough this year, I'm thinking the F-15 has far better high-alpha performance than is generally believed, check this out: F-15E in a high-alpha tail-slide.

Actually, that's lightsheet. I think NOW you can get small flourescents cheaply enough to do an Excelsior, but even just 2 years ago it wasn't practical.

Eh, the Art Asylum NX-01 sample/prototype/pics in all the ads/ looked GORGEOUS. The real thing had approximately 99.9% fewer paint apps. A big thing for me is lighting up--and I want them BRIGHT! The Art Aylum ones aren't any better in that regard than the Playmates ones. Only good way to light is via Lightsheet or flourescent IMHO. Not too often I put up a pic of one of my models (because I feel that 99.9% of mine suck and aren't worth taking pics of):

Umm, RAM is the missile Knight26 works on, the CIWS Phalanx replacement. Yes, it's a missile so fast and accurate and awesome it'll replace bullets... *R*olling *A*irframe *M*issile. It spins for stability (thus, rolling airframe). Thus needs fewer fins etc. I'm sure Knight26 has WAY better photos than I, so I won't post any. NATO launcher=Sea Sparrow launcher. AKA newer version of BPDMS, Basic Point Defense Missile System. BPDMS=Sparrows in a Mk25 launcher. Looks like an ASROC launcher. NATO=Sparrows in a Mk29 launcher. Rather unique, 2 sets of 4 boxes, separated by a space.

I built the Bandai Ent-E myself. Honestly I'd have rather built the un-lit ERTL kit and painted (and putty/putty/putty and more putty) it myself. Bulb-life---no idea.

Which one's that? Nimitz class, but can't tell past that. (Other than it's not the Reagan). The one I just posted is the Stennis, you can just see the numbers on the flightdeck.

Hey, I said ask Knight26 like 6 posts ago... PS--small update from Navy: http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14451 PPS--you can never have too many pics of aircraft carriers:

I've not seen the "Abraham Lincoln" version of that legend. And "2nd largest ship in the Atlantic" is certainly a new line, never heard that added in. (Asides from the fact that there's nothing bigger than a Nimitz class, and that the Lincoln is a PACIFIC ship)

AFAIK, the are anti-air only. They can take down planes in addition to missiles. I would imagine the replacement RAM has the same limitation (air only), though Knight26 is certainly THE person to ask about that.

Well, the unwritten rule is that no matter what you are or what condition your engine's in, you stay the heck out of the way of a Kitty Hawk class carrier... (especially when the Jolly Rogers are aboard) PS--while carriers can turn MUCH harder than most people would ever believe, (it's really cool to see test footage on TV) they tend not to unless they're being flat-out attacked due to how steep the deck angle becomes--they'd dump overboard every plane that's not tied down and probably a few hundreds sailors in the process. PPS---Actually, I bet it could stop pretty quickly, in a crash stop. Which is probably even worse for the ship than making a tight turn. And probably result in MANY injured sailors. Anyone know if most US carriers can "close the rudders" to help stop? (Turning them in opposite directions towards each other to "close off" the area between the skegs---massive rudder damage, but will greatly improve stopping distance)

After the Cole incident, every US warship had a bunch of M60's added around the perimeter, and good old-fashioned "guys with binoculars" looking around, anytime they're near land. How they missed a ship (regardless of size or weather conditions) doesn't look good for whoever was on look-out duty. However, the JFK is rather known for hitting things. Current JFK "stuff it's hit" tally: 1x cruiser (USS Belknap) 1x destroyer (USS Bordelon) 1x dhow And one close call (USS Leroy Grumman--yes, THAT Grumman)

Dragon's Warbirds are the best diecast military jets you can buy IMHO. But for a nit-picker like me, nothing but building it yourself is good enough, accuracy-wise. I think their F-18 is better than their F-16. Their F-15E has *serious* accuracy issues, the C/D has few to none. (gotta see "real" ones, not prototype/samples---heat exchanger vents and ECM antenna config are iffy) Haven't seen Super Hornet WELL, just a few pics from trade shows. Looked good.

Actually, I love MDC, my fave plane builder. I'm just not fond of one particular product when it's replacing another much-beloved plane. (I actually like regular Hornets, it's the SUPER Hornet I'm not too fond of)

Regardless of what its role was, the F-14 was and is a better dogfighter than the F-4 which was the Navy's best fighter at the time. At gun range, the F-14 will easily take down even a slatted F-4 via sheer manuevers. If a new plane can out-dogfight the then current best dogfighter, it's a good dogfighter, even if it's a "Fleet Defense" plane officially. Which makes me wonder: F-8 vs F-14 in a close-range fight. Both are better than the F-4. F-8 is the F-8 and is smaller, but the F-14 has so much more power and a better power ratio. As for YF-17: The F-18L should still have existed, but MDC killed it. Wouldn't be as good as the F-17 for intercepting, but sure would beat the F/A-18A.

Going a bit OT but: If they made models with all the parts pre-removed from the sprue with no marks/scars, I'd buy them. Pre-painted ACCURATELY? I'd buy them. Pre-assembled pre-painted pre-decaled? I'd buy those too, if they were accurate. I honestly don't really ENJOY any aspect of modeling at all. But I demand accuracy, so I am forced to build and paint them myself. If something says it's an F/A-18C, it darn well better be a C, not an A or A+ with new paint, etc. Which is why I buy diecast airliners, but not diecast military planes (any more). All 767-200's are utterly identical asides from engines. However, F-16C Block 30's vs Block 40s are instantly identifiable to me. A generic "F-16C" mold will not do. Surprisingly, having built a Bandai Ent-E, I found the fit far below modern Bandai standards, even emplyoing the pliers technique. The thing fits together so STRONGLY it'll never come apart without damage, it just doesn't fit TOGETHER. The parts may have a death-grip on each other, but they still have a gap between them. And like all Bandai "electronics" I've seen, the connection is poor/fiddly, much better to just solder the thing rather than rely on springs and pressure to make the connections. I really wish Tamiya would have expanded upon their 1/32 "seamless one-piece fuselage" idea they used for their F-4. Life's a lot easier when the biggest most visible seam is non-existant.

We just had a thread about these: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=9442

I'll bring it up again: 500-unit runs of $20 model planes from companies run by 3 or 4 guys can have 8-color tampo-printing. I doubt Yamato couldn't afford it for larger runs of costlier planes with only like 2 colors needed... And there's always the $4 model train boxcars with multi-color tampo printing... All we ask is the logo and the numbers and "UN SPACY" really for about 99% of valks. Nora's would be an exception and I'd gladly pay a few bucks extra to avoid decals.

Room? That's the last concern when buying a model. I've got 2 1/350 battleships, 2 1/32 Hornets, and a 1/72 XB-70 in my stash...

At 1/350, should be a bit under 3 feet long. And a matching Excelsior would be a bit over 4 feet. At least bigger's easier to light up. Nothing like 2 days with a pin-vise and file opening up the planetary sensor array in Ertl's Excelsior.

Anubis--mine's almost identical to yours, except I have a 2.8Ghz P4 processor.

1/32 would be great (and HUUUUUUGE). Would go well with my Academy F-18's. (If I ever get around to building them, I don't knnow where I'd put them once they're together---wings will be folded due to space reasons! )

Well, the first thing they were going to do for the original was to stretch the forward fuselage for a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay. Would also make it sleeker/faster. Don't know if they'd still do that, nowadays AMRAAM is considered a self-defense weapon too, as it's better for a bomber to snipe from afar rather than dogfight! But a bigger fuselage would allow more bombs/fuel of course. Back end: it was always too big due to thrust-reverser removal, that'd be made smaller. Would probably keep original design/shape, as it was very stealthy, both RCS and IR. Maybe use all that space for massive chaff/flare capacity. Hmmn, internal gun. THAT's debatable. (of course, a large part of it is "will the FB-23 eventually be redesigned 'back' to the F-23A?") Might be put in for no other reason than CAS capability. Even as it was, it should have been as agile as the F-16 but with better climbing and sustained turns due to raw power and wing size. It'd take a lot to take it "down" substantially.

Well, the late-model F-111's like in Desert Storm are still damn fast at all altitudes (they WILL outrun F-14's and can match the F-15) and very agile for a bomber. No matter how much it may have sucked as a fighter, it is still the F-14's immediate predecessor, and as such is as agile as a plane that big can be. And it has swing-wings, so it performs better than sheer wing/body size would indicate. The F-111 is a very good plane, just absolutely not a good carrier plane nor can it be the F-14 or F-15. The main argument for F-15 and F-23 over the F-111 is self-defense, not really performance. AFAIK quite a few F-15E pilots are ex-F-111 pilots. The F-15E is a much rougher ride and doesn't have the payload/range of the F-111, but they sure do like the fact that they can defend themselves with the best of them with the newer plane. Though the F-111's best defense has always been raw speed, and it outran MiG-29's all the time in Desert Storm.

If you want BIG laser-guided bombs, F-111 rules all. The absolute highest-priority targets in Desert Storm went to F-111's. Also I don't think the F-15 can carry the largest Paveways. Even F-111's had to carry them outboard for sheer clearance reasons.