David Hingtgen

For any given speed and sweep angle, (for those speeds where you have to worry about a shockwave) forward-swept creates less profile drag. And lots of little things that add up to significantly less total drag in most any situation. The longer and pointier the nose, the easier it is to keep the wings within the nose-generated bow wave. That works for any plane. Tip flex: the flex is the problem, not the solution. Flex leads to increased local alpha, which leads to more flex and higher loads, until the wing breaks off. Swept-back wings have the alpha/loads decrease with flex, so there's no problem. New materials can make a wing induce twist as it flexes, (kind of like instant local washout) to counteract the effects of the flex. But those are expensive, hard to work with materials. And it adds weight. This was for a long time the main anti-FSW argument: to make it strong enough to work with a metal wing, it had to be so heavy it countered out all the advantages. Then graphite/carbon/kevlar/composites etc came along, and we could make a LIGHT, strong, flex-countering wing, and we got the X-29 and later the S-37. Maneuverability: eh, better slow-speed/high alpha control. Nothing more. Glorified F-18. Finally--if you're going really fast (as in, Mach 3.5+) it's far better to use a supersonic airfoil, than to use sweep. Look at the X-15. Or, the F-104. Mach 2+ with a wing almost as straight as a Cessna. Of course, supersonic airfoils suck at low speed, and sweep is generally preferred, but at really high speeds no amount of sweep will be as good an airfoil optimized for high speed. There aren't really many disadvantags to FSW, only that the materials needed to make a stiff and strong one are costly and hard to work with, as well as needing to be heavier to be stronger (related to the first). And it's the most un-stealthy thing you can do to a plane, which is why nobody's going to design a fighter with FSW right now, when stealth is all the rage.

Pretty much. Of course, you can't fold up a LOT of the flaps, or there'd be so much vertical area created you'd start having dorsal fins. Still, most swing-wing planes have the wings positioned high enough that when swept, they are actually just ABOVE the engines, which is how they get away with it. Actually I'm not sure why the Tu-160 doesn't do that, for it ALMOST can, if the wing was just slightly higher. Basic rule of aircraft design: someone, somewhere, has already tried it.

If they'd just animated it a bit differently, it'd work. (well, probably not STRAIGHT back, but at least more than say the Yamato one can, and more than you'd achieve by just going as far back as you can without cutting a slot in the fuselage sides) The Tu-160 can sweep its wings much further than you'd think. It does this by folding the flaps up vertically. Much like how carrier planes fold the tips up, but inboard and cut at an angle. It basically folds the flaps up against the sides of the fuselage and gets them out of the way so the wing can sweep WAY back. The YF-19's legs' sides are vertical enough that you could do the same things This pic shows it down (horizontal) but you can easily see what part will move up out of the way if the wing were to start retracting rearwards. http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/tu-160_files/tu_160_23.jpg (the bottom part is just a fairing and doesn't move, the wing slides along on top of it--basically like the metal part of the wingroot on a Yamato -19)

pfft your suposed to say something unrealistic not geek it up Hey, what did you expect from *me*? A more realistic post would have gotten a funnier answer, along the lines of: "Yeah, but you can get -229E's for a lot less, and they're like 99% as good, check ANG bases"

Exactly. I don't want a Growler for Wild Weasel, give me an F-16CJ. Once it's fired off the HARM's, it's armed (and built) to be the best of the F-16's for air-to-air combat.

I believe there's more Hase F-14 kits with that serial than any other, especially considering how many Pacific Fleet squadron and Black Knights releases they do. Probably just the most common serial that Hase's decal makers do.

$180,000 for a pair of *-229* F100's? Seems waaaaaaaay too cheap. -100's or -200's would be a lot cheaper than -229's. -220's still in demand.

I think most people use 90-99%.

MM and Tamiya acrylic are totally different. Yeesh, just smell them. Smell is a pretty good indicator of what's compatible. If it smells similar, then it's made of similar stuff. If there's any paint that works well with iso. alcohol, it's Tamiya. I've read many times that windex is a great airbrushing thinner, and everyone swears the blue doesn't affect the paint color. Never tried it though. Honestly, the most "heaps of praise" I've ever seen is to use lacquer thinner for airbrushing any paint. Those who use it swear it's far superior to anything else. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't just "kill" acrylics in the color cup. Also, you can buy a GALLON of the stuff for just a few bucks at a hardware store. I myself always go with the "official" thinner.

Ok, official USAF pic. Here's 4 of them. Just imagine 5 of these in a row, and there you go. http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/040...F-3050V-187.jpg 2000x1500.

Holy sh*t. The serial number's 161621. I know that plane! It's possibly the most well-known serial number in all of F-14-dom. It's VF-111's 2nd-to-last CAG bird, aka Miss Molly. It's ALSO VF-154's final CAG bird, AND the VF-154 50th Anniversary plane. Ironically, that serial's perfect for that model. But it sure doesn't match the CG model used in the show. Here it is in the final (I think) scheme:

There's a billion "lots o' AMRAAM" Hornet pics. But people always over-count by 2, assuming the outboard ones are AMRAAM's. They're not, they're Sidewinders. Despite common belief, Hornets can't carry AMRAAM's outboard. It's the one and only situation I know of where an AMRAAM can't be placed instead of a Sidewinder. Regular Hornets can carry 10, Super 12. Real-life tends to max out at 4-6. Australia has the highest-end air-to-air loadouts of anybody, their standard loadout is ASRAAMx2 and AMRAAMx6. Formation lights: yup. Don't turn on when fighting. Strip lights color: "glow-in-the-dark green". That pale, yellow-green color. They're called "slime" lights for a reason. Also, the color of snot when you're sick is amazingly close, leading to the other nick-name for them... Pic of F-14 spoilers in "approach" position. I'll have a look.

1. That is a shot of what SHOULD have been. That's simply the Black Aces and the Tophatters "coming home" after a deployment. Biggest pic online I could find of a cool, Navy formation flyover. 2. No good shots of the flyover for Ronald Reagan, since they weren't really in formation... Random formation pics: Representative airwing, F-14, F-18, A-6, E-2, S-3, and I'm betting the lowest A-6 is actually an EA-6B. http://www.swordsmen.org/aviat-gall/form1.jpg Proof that Tomcats can fly with their wings at whatever setting that they want: http://ssnider.com/navy/JPJones/JPJ_flyover.jpg

My point was that there's an "almost" solution which works often enough you might think you've got it. Because I found it on the 2nd try, and it worked several times in a row after that. Until it didn't. Then I figured out the real solution, which of course always works. Kind of like how lots of people "find" a way to tell a 747-100 from a 747-200, that works for 30 planes in a row---until you find a -200 that should be a -100, based on your criteria. (There is none, AFAIK, and I've spent a lot of time looking--exceptions are if it happens to be a -200 using engines that only appear on a -200, that's not Rolls-Royce or Saudia, and not JAL, and I'm sure ANA has some freaks in the fleet)

The really neat shots I only have in books. But I'm looking up military pics tonight, will post if I find any good ones.

1. Jets have VERY high flight idles. 60% is not unheard of. Many a jet touches down with the engines run up to 70%. 40% is a typical "low" flight idle for a turbofan, with 50% being common for many military jets. If you're in an F-15 at 30%, you're either shutting down or starting up the engine, or are taxiing at ground idle. 2. Afterburners aren't "instant on". If you're in a plane with that slow of a spool-up, odds are the afterburner's pretty slow too. And once it's on, it'll take more time to get all the rings lit sequentially. 3. If you need power NOW, you slam the throttles full forward, and it'll do what it can as fast as it can. It'll engage the afterburner as soon as possible, but the power from spooling up will give more power, faster. Afterburning at idle won't give much more power 4. Throttles (like flaps and spoilers) have detents---it'll "stop" at various common points, and you generally either lift the throttle a bit to go over, or move it to the side to go around it, to get to the next point. Much like a car's gearshift, especially the "fancy" automatics. Or just push harder. Afterburner is just another stop. Basically, a fighter jet's throttle will detent at start, ground idle, flight idle, mil, and max (afterburner). "Max" is zone 5 (assuming you have that many), so min afterburner is "move the throttle just a bit past mil". Fighters are not airliners, they are not too concerned with tweaking the throttle 0.1% at a time for max fuel economy. They generally fly/cruise at mil (full non-burner), and fight at max (afterburner). The F-16 was about the first jet with so much power it might actually want something less than full non-afterburning power...

A lot of people (including me) were hoping it'd be the USS Ronald Reagan's airwing doing the flyover. (They are currently in the area I believe, not out in the Pacific or something) The Navy benefitted more than any other service due to Reagan I believe. ::edit:: It's of the coast of south South America, but the airwing probably could have made it. Currently all-Hornet though, like the Nimitz. Also, the Navy (unlike the Air Force) does do "massive" formations all the time. I've got a shot of 24 Tomcats (two full squadrons) in formation. As well as 2 24-ship formations together (the entire fighter/attack wing). If it had been the navy doing it, it would have been one single awesome 21-plane formation, not 5 groups of 4. ::edit:: Found it, 21-plane F-14 formation, the Navy does it right. Far more impressive. Black Aces leading the wing.

I thought about posting this earlier after all the 2 and 4 second claims: You have to be able to get it right like 5 or 6 or 20 times in a row to "get it". Once or twice is random luck. Heck, I got the 2, 3, and 4th rolls right and thought I had it--then was wrong on the 5th and 6th rolls. The rules are it has to be an even number, and it'll rarely be over 10 (it's supposed to be SIMPLE and QUICK, so a 4-year-old can do it mentally, so the numbers will never ever be big), so just entering 2, 4, or 6 a lot will give you the right answer a lot of the time.

About 10 rolls, however long that takes. When it came up "12" then "0" it kind of threw me, but that actually helped.

CNN saw them first, MSNBC actually tracked the missing man performer, FoxNews was by far the best. Could see the tailcodes and fin-stripe colors even, and I swear one had a Luke AFB code, not Seymour-Johnson.

Yeah, I know, this could be considered political, but I'm posting it here for the sheer "aviation coolness" of the event. Should be this afternoon/early evening. So keep your TV's on! PRESS RELEASE -- Secretary of the Air Force, Directorate of Public Affairs Release No. 0608048 Jun 8, 2004 Air Force flyover scheduled for funeral WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Air Force will perform a 21-ship flyover Wednesday over the District in honor of former President Ronald Reagan as part of the funeral procession. The expected route is from south to north up 4th Street S.W., crossing the National Mall and Constitution Avenue at 1000 feet. A single fighter aircraft will lead five four-ship formations spaced at 10 second intervals. The final formation will perform the missing man maneuver as the planes cross Constitution Avenue. In a missing man maneuver, a wingman will break formation, rocketing skyward, leaving a hole in the formation, in honor of and signifying the loss of a fellow comrade in arms. The flyover will consist of F-15E Strike Eagles assigned to the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C. The F-15E Strike Eagle is a dual-role fighter designed to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, able to fight at low altitude day or night in inclement weather.

The most accurate would be a Fujimi F-14D (but don't follow the instructions). I'm planning on a guide here to show exactly what needs to be done. But it'll be a little while. The short "accurate enough for most people, and probably easier" would be to build a Hasegawa F-14B, and removed the forward "armpit" ECM antennas. Shin's is actually based on the F-14B Prototype, which is unique among Tomcats. It is SIMILAR to the F-14B and D, but distinctly different. Fujimi actually made a perfectly accurate model of that, then used that kit as their base for their F-14D kits. However, that lead to quite inaccurate F-14D's. But it's perfect for Shin's. As for the MiG-29: I honestly don't know. Need better pics of it to see what it is. There is no *really good* MiG-29 in 1/72, btw.

Generally you must be at full throttle to engage afterburner. Like Nied said--partial throttle would only give partial thrust. Why do 50% throttle with afterburner and waste fuel, when you could just go up 80% throttle and get the same effect? I believe I read that either the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels had a mod done to allow afterburner to be selected at only 90% thrust. They're the exception though. Afterburners are independent, you select them on when you want them. Most modern planes do not simply have "on/off" but multiple stages. If you spend time looking up engine exhausts (like myself) you can usually see the individual burner rings. A high-end fighter like an F-14 will have 5 stages. Probably eaisest to see on a B-1B, having the physically largest afterburners---about the only plane you can visibly see the individual burner rings light up. (I think they go from inner to outer). 3 is the most common after that, then simply "on/off". And that is why there's not really a need for say 80% throttle and burner. Max thrust rating is based on max burner. If you've got 20,000 dry and 30,000 wet (which'd be 100% and zone 5 burner), then if you want 25,000 you just select like 100% throttle and zone 3 burner. Much more efficient than 80% throttle and zone 5 burner would be. "Zone 5" is fighter-pilot speak for absolute maximum thrust. "Minimum afterburner" (zone 1) is very often used, especially the SR-71. The SR-71's engines are SO optimized for Mach 3, it often has thrust problems trying to refuel, and it'll turn on min burner on one engine, for a small boost in power. (They have such huge, slab, rudders that they can easily counter the thrust asymmetry)

Yup, my fave VF-103 scheme. If you think about it, maybe they made them stop since pure black and white is actually such high contrast, they considered it high-vis? Still, I just LOVE the monochrome effect from the black/white markings on the grey camo. ::rant:: Decals for this scheme hard to find, and with Hasegawa's "beige" white, even if you find those kits it won't look good. 1/32 is the only aftermarket decal I know for this scheme. I really hate it when companies don't sell all decals in all scales. I mean, if it's something that covers the ENTIRE fin and must EXACTLY fit a SPECIFIC kit---we understand that it's more than just typing "resize at 50%" to get the artwork ready for another scale/kit. But all we need is the diagonal stripe on the nose, and the skulls. There's nothing model/scale-specific on the sheet. Shin---Hasegawa loves that scheme, and there really aren't many F-14B schemes out there.(besides 20 variations of pure low-vis) I wouldn't be surprised if VF-103 is the first F-14B they do. Dragon copies Hase schemes, it's amazing how high the correlation is between Hase's releases, and Dragon releases. Still, haven't seen Dragon F-14 photos in over a year, and the F-15E's 6 months late. (But it's finally out). F-14 Wolfpack is 99.999% certain, Dragon's even showed their logo a few times on the site. That, VF-84, or VF-111 are certainly the likely choices for first release.

Ah ha! I knew there had to be a good use for the things. Microbrushes never seemed to work for me for glue or paint, but Mr Surfacer seems perfect. Of course, I don't have any right now... (or I probably would have tried them)