David Hingtgen

Gotta nit-pick, since this is the topic of discussion: Rotating about the central axis is ROLL. BANK is actually turning/changing heading. (the "pulling up while rolled to the side" part) And which is usually coupled with yaw. You can roll without banking or yawing. Your standard 360 roll for example, or a 4-point roll. Flying with the wings swept: F-14 can get 90% of its lift from the fuselage and gloves under some circumstances, and I think gets 60% from the gloves in normal "swept-back" high-speed flight. VF-1 isn't quite a smooth in that area, but certainly has gloves, probably has some effect. Though it SURE doesn't even have .001% as lifting of a fuselage as the F-14 does, and that hurts it. F-14 is still one of the most aerodynamically efficient aircraft designs ever, period. And because of the glove/fuselage design, it can fly with large chunks of the wings gone. Roll etc: same way the F-14 does, tail+spoilers when unswept, and differential tail when swept. Of course, VF-1 would use differential thrust vectoring, having no h.stabs. But the vectoring'd be very effective with the engine spacing. Having no ailerons is not a problem. B-52's don't. B-1B's don't. Tornados don't. F-111's don't.

Ok, more info coming out: 1. VF-103 requested a high-vis plane for #101, Boeing said no, that wouldnt be to mil specs. The real answer is that it would have cost another 2 bucks of paint to add some black and yellow stripes... Repaints come out of the squadron's own money, not Boeing's contracted money, so we'll have to wait until the squadron gets ahold of them. 2. They'll probably have dark grey (36081) tails for most of the squadron. 3. The showbird (likely #103) will have *black* tails, regardless of what some higher-ups want. 4. To quote the CO of the Jolly Rogers regarding the new Boeing-applied logos-- "That crap's coming off as soon as we get back! "

Navy does have B and D models, but you can't use them operationally on carriers, the Hornet is SO pressed for weight, the 2nd guy is enough to preclude their use. They are only with the training squadrons. So there's like, 5. Blue Angels have probably the only operational B model in the fleet. In addition to range, the main goal of a Super Hornet was to increase the allowable bring-back weight of a Hornet. So that you can actually USE 2-seaters. Almost all F-14 squadrons (that survive) are getting Hornet-F's. A few are getting E's, but most E's are going to former C-model users and just a few re-established VA squadrons, ex-A-7 users and such.

I think they should go ultra-flourescent-high-vis to counter the admiral's rules. All yellow-tail, black skull, white accents. Most likely thing they'll do IMHO: Late 80's grey-tail variation. Also gets around the tailcode rule by having them on the inside. Of course, maybe just maybe there'll be enough of an uproar that the rule will change, and the Black Knights, Black Aces, and Jolly Rogers can have black tails again. Blah, the friggin Tophatters get to have black tails because they've got E-models....

Rear view: You'll notice it'd look a lot more "right" if the tailcodes were on the rudder, and there'd be room for a larger skull.

Disclaimer: I didn't paint them, Boeing did. PS---the Jolly Rogers are currently on deployment with their F-14's and aren't on-hand to "customize" the markings. But the squadron commander apparently isn't happy, and basically plans to repaint as soon as possible. PPS--apparently there is some admiral who doesn't like certain paint on Super Hornets, notably no tailcodes on the rudders, (many squadrons have had to have them moved) and worst of all--NO BLACK TAILS ON F-MODELS! So nobody knows what they're going to do. This is why the Black Knights don't have black tails anymore. PPPS--full credit goes to Brian Marbrey at ARC, aka "VF-103 guy".

If they are double-slotted fowler, then they're drawn/deployed wrong. The slot's pretty non-existant in everything we've seen. Double-slotted? Probably. Fowler? Not IMHO. Few things more complicated than fowler flaps. Here's a relatively SIMPLE double-slotted fowler flap, the ones used on DC-8's. 1950's design.

I don't think I've ever seen double-slotted flaps that only move the secondary (rear) flap rearwards while the main one stays in place and merely pivots. That basically makes it much more complex without much benefit. But, that is how it appears in the design works. As for the outer panels---wow, the animation shows a YF-23 level of movement. (practically straight up) However, almost all drawings show the hinge area as being identical to the flaps, and almost exactly like the F-14's flaps. Which would prevent them moving upwards. It's a flap hinge, not an aileron hinge. I don't know of any good/official drawing that shows them moving upwards. Sure you can animate them like that, but doesn't mean they'd work like that. It'd be like bending your knee the wrong way---you can draw it that way, but the design doesn't allow that in real life.

Searched hard drive, found good pic of the wingtip launchers: (This is VFA-83's just-repainted CAG plane with new big-horned skull-like ram's head on the tail, due to being called the "My Little Pony squadron" by the Jolly Rogers on their last cruise---the previous ram's head wasn't nearly aggressive enough to be paired with the skull and crossbones) Original logo still on center drop-tank.

Weird. Sidewinder's in the right place, the rail isn't. I think (after checking pics) the rail is too short on each end, but the middle is mounted in the right spot, so the missile mounted in the middle ends up in about the right spot (maybe a LITTLE too far forward), but the rail itself doesn't go fore and aft enough. PS---Trumpeter's next big kit is a 1/32 Su-27. Should be out this fall.

F-18's have flaperons, they drop their ailerons with their flaps. For the VF-1, I would make it all flaps. No ailerons/flaperons, otherwise you'd need to re-do the entire hinge and overall appearance of the "outboard movable surface". Just have the entire trailing edge be flaps, but have the inboards a more complex, double-slotted version. (Happens all the time on airliners, their inboard and outboard flaps are often different) As for the F-4: Each wing has a single aileron, and a large spoiler right in front of it. To roll right, you put the right spoiler up and the left aileron down. Just a little oddity of the Phantom. And their airbrakes are in the same spot as the spoiler (similar size and shape too), just on the underside of the wing. Heh heh, watching "Mail Call" at the moment, showing A-10's blowing stuff up.

They're not THAT big! A 12in figure is 1/6 scale, so you'd need about a 9-foot long plane for them... 1:18 scale means a 4 inch figure, or more commonly, 3.75--GI JOE figures. They are basically GI Joe/Star Wars scale. Now you can have SCALE equipment for all your Joes.

F-16's a Block 30A or 30B, btw. F-18 doesn't have any of the flaws fixed that the prototypes had. (Too many nose gear doors, white spots instead of bumps for the C's distinctive spine antenna)

First they'd have to sweep the wings forward, and they'd also need to start the engines. Not going to happen. If you want to do the VF-1 wings F-14-style, go for it. I can offer no other pics or links that'd be useful. Though having ailerons I still don't like/doubt, as you simply cannot have it move upwards and still function as a flap that way. Could be a downwards-only aileron and still work though. (F-4's have that style, and no video game gets it right)

It's not even a transition error. Hasbro just has a lot more new-style boxes and has been shipping them out that way for months. Unincron has a big custom box, so they're not going to re-print a bunch just to have the Armada logo on it. Most Unicrons you see nowadays are standard Unicrons in repaint box. Repaint Unicron is quite rare actually, I've only seen 2.

One of the big debates is "does the VF-1 have F-14 flaps?" Because F-14 flaps are unique among all the world's aircraft, AFAIK. They are WEIRD. And I've NEVER seen them done dropped truly correctly, except for one guy who scratch-built every single piece of the wing (hundreds) out of brass and copper, as he's a machinist. (he actually made working flaps, I think). If you've ever really looked at a Hase F-14, you'll notice that things won't QUITE line up, for even Hase never figured out how they worked. They do not "drop" nor "extend" like normal fowler flaps. They move a LITTLE, but most of the aerodynamic effects come from retracting and hinging panels that open up slots and gaps around the flaps. Most planes create slots by moving the flaps away from the wing--the F-14 literally moves parts of the wing away from the flaps. However, the VF-1 has no external hinges/jacks for the flaps, and that eliminates a lot of possible types it could have. But F-14-style is still a possibility. MATS of course has the best stuff, go here: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wingcontrol.htm I do have a great photo showing the cove doors retracted, from below: (If I ever find an F-14 myself with the flaps down, I'll take 1,000 photos) Here, the flaps haven't moved back at all, the cove doors have flipped up. The red you see is the underside of the spoilers, which the cove doors mesh with when the flaps are fully down.

Here's all the instructions: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/models...te_instruct.htm

No need to scan, the "other" part of Macrossworld already has them: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/models/club_m/i03.jpg Nice and big.

Hmmn. Says it blocks low-frequency stuff, and partially affects IR. IR is high-frequency. (Well, not HIGH, but much higher than radio/radar) But that also means IR attentuates more and is inherently easier to mess with. (Which is why there are no long-range heat-seeking missiles). Best defense against IR seekers: rain and fog.

I'm apparently the last person to realize this thread was here. Had fun picking out what landing gear parts came from what. (F-14 main strut and drag link, F-18 side strut, SR-71 wheel)

While I wish I could simply glue and paint that well, he did the epitome of "over-emphasized" panel-lining. As more than one real maintenance guy has said "if a plane ever really looked like that, we'd be fired". Maybe if a plane flew through a vat of tar, the panel lines might get that obvious and black... If I ever decide to do panel lines (probably will be an F-14 to start with), I'll differentiate between skin panels, and access panels. They're different. I think 100% of models have them looking the same. And I won't blacken a spot that remains immaculately clean even after 5 years.....

I don't think I've heard of using Tamiya thinner on Gunze. I've got some Gunze coming, and plan to experiment with various Isopropyl alcohols (seems to be the most common thing used). (Which is what Tamiya thinner mostly is, but it's that last 1% of "secret" ingredients which makes it different) AFAIK, there is no dedicated thinner sold for Gunze Aqueous. Of course, there's always people who say using enamel or lacquer thinner to airbrush acrylics works wonderfully.

Acrylic, enamel, etc have two general definitions: Hobbyists call anything solvent-based enamel, and anything "not solvent"-based acrylic. But technically, acrylic/enamel only refers to the binder, not the carrier. The carrier can be anything, with either binder. Binder---what's left in paint when you remove the carrier and the pigment. Carrier---the liquid part of paint, generally what's used to thin it. Acrylic binder is actually liquid plastic (latex most often), I don't know off the top of my head what enamel is. Latex=specific type of acrylic. But most latex paints are solvent-based,. Pollyscale is darn close to water-based latex, IMHO. So, there are acrylic enamels, enamel acrylics, laquer acrylics, acrylic acrylics, etc. What most people consider "acrylic" are "non-solvent" acrylics, aka aqueous acrylics. However, Tamiya is an acrylic enamel. Krylon is actually a lacquer acrylic. PS--yes, we all know water is a solvent, but most people mean solvent=lacquer thinner or mineral/white spirits. Of course, Testors Acrylics are Sunny Delight/Antifreeze-based...

Will this suffice? And yes, afterburner ducts really are ceramic white inside, with some exhaust stains. PS, note to modelers: I have never, ever encountered even the sightest hint of shine/metal on the actual engine exhaust stage(s). Turbines are black and dull when brand-new taken out of the crate, and only get grey and duller with age. Compressor blades are the same, though very new models of engines tend to have the extreme leading edge of each blade "bare metal" with the remaining 99% of the blade pure black. Afterburner exhaust ducts vary, with most being basic white, though F-14's tend to be mostly bare metal on PW's, with alternating white/bare on GE's. (Same for GE F-16's).