David Hingtgen

Raw power and length. The Iowa class is nothing more than a stretched South Dakota class. And every inch of that stretch was for more and bigger boilers etc. The South Dakota is the all time most "efficient" battleship. The Iowas are simply faster versions of that. The larger size allowed slightly thicker armor and slightly larger guns, but they have the exact same overall design as the South Dakotas, especially their armor design The South Dakotas were mainly designed to have greatly improved armor, and moderately improved speed over the North Carolinas. NC have flat-out insufficient armor. They were supposed to be 14in gunned, but were changed late in the design to 16in. But still had the armor of a 14in gunned ship. Not good. (treaty issues of course influenced all US fast battleships) South Dakotas introduced the "alternating" engine/boiler/turbine room idea into US ships, which allowed more machinery in a given space. Iowa took that machinery arrangement, made it simpler, but had a lot more room to do so. Increasing a ship's length will increase its speed, its as simple as that. Japan did it more often than any other nation. Literally, take a ship, cut it in half, add a 200ft long section in the middle, and weld it back together. Instant +5kts. And that is, in effect, what the Iowas are. SD+200ft. But instead of an "empty" 200ft used for fuel, munitions, etc, it's an extra 200ft of nothing but machinery. So they got the speed boost from their extra length, plus the boost from having a lot more power. The only modern day ships with more power than an Iowa are the Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Enterprise, and Nimitz class ships. In summary: the Iowas are so fast because of raw power and length, but are so well-armored too because they have the South Dakota's armoring. The real question is how the South Dakota is so well armored, and a big part of that is minimizing the size of the area that needs to be armored, and that is done by ingenious arrangement of the machinery. Actually, that's one area that a lower-deck diagram would really help, showing the shaft/turbine/boiler arrangements, as that's EVERYTHING to the SD/IA design. Let's just say that some propeller shafts are several hundred feet longer than others.

Well for Langley, red fin-stripe is 71st, yellow is 27th, and blue is 94th (my fave) VF-103 "white-tip" is my favorite scheme for 103. I do not like the yellow on low-vis grey, the white looks much better on low-vis. Yellow only looks good on the high-vis earlier schemes. I wish they'd have used white for longer, it was only like 95-97 they did that. VF-101 "usually described as the '97 Oceana scheme":

F-15ACTIVE and F-15/SMTD are different planes. And the ACTIVE's much better. And AC/AFDS consistently get the two mixed up. As do most people, books, and pics. Shin--did you get the VF-101 red-tail plane in those pics? The '97 Oceana scheme of that plane is one of the all-time most famous F-14's ever, and my absolute favorite scheme for an F-14. And what squadrons are the F-15 and 18?

I've always wished AC would just ditch the wingmen, for they are beyond useless. They only seem to steal my kills. AFDS has *far* *far* better wingmen. And I hate any mission which is "bomb this, preferably with an A-10 or F-117---oh, and take out this squadron of Elite Super Flankers too". AC never has pure bombing missions. In AFDS, the wing men are good enough that you actually can just go bomb, and they'll clear the skies for you. AC really needs to work on BOMBING MISSIONS THAT DON'T INVOLVE A 20-PLANE DOGFIGHT.

1/72 VF-111 F-14A. (My "test" F-14 kit before I build a good one--learning a few things about the kit, F-14's in general, and have convinced myself to never, ever try to make glossy intake interiors ever again. Nor bother with trying to get them even quasi-seamless) They're gonna be flat, with seams... Have also almost convinced myself to just paint flat grey, then glosscote it later. Easier than trying to get gloss grey right.. Think I'll get a real airbrush too. Though that Badger sprayer looks appealing... Nothing like external mix, clean-up is everything to me. I just need 1-4inch bands of flat paint applied evenly. Though 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide spray would be nice for gear wells. 1/48 550th F-15E. Not my normal scale, but no accurate 1/72 F-15E exists. Also a quite nice kit overall. 1/72 Blue Angels F-18A. Awaiting SAL shipment from HLJ with replacement canopy. 1/72 F-8E: will start it the day the package arrives. Scheme undecided. VF-211 perhaps.

::checks:: OK, so it is an A in AC4. Still remember my disappointment at it having ailerons though AFDS is the one with the "D that's 100% an A" plus an even worse model than AC4's. From the trailers, AC5 has a much improved F-14, but I bet it still flies totally wrong. (As in, has ailerons, or doesn't use tailerons, etc)

While all are in mothballs, some are more "ready to go" than others. The museum people have strict orders on what they can and cannot do to the ship, most importantly, nothing can be done that can't be un-done. This is especially hard on trying to make some areas wheelchair-accessible. Basically the remove entire bulkheads, but "nicely" so that they can be re-installed. Anyways, the Wisconsin and New Jersey are the most "ready", and are kept closer to battle-ready status than the others. The Missouri would be reactivated only if there was an INCREDIBLE need, as it's had the most work done to make it a museum at Pearl Harbor. The NJ and WI are pretty much "as it was decommissioned" while the MO has all the "easier for tourists to get around" things done. Iowa was flat-out on the disposal list, and took a lot of money and persuasion to preserve it somewhere. It is kept only as a source of parts if the others were to be reactivated. Central gun on #2 turret was never repaired, and likely cannot be. Replacement barrels exist, but there are no spares for the breech mechanism AFAIK. What do they look like under the waterline? Nothing special, a diagram of the Titanic in that area wouldn't be far off---there's only so many ways to design 900ft steam-powered ships. Only thing notable is the torpedo defense system, which is basically alternating spaces of fuel-filled and empty bulkheads, going from outboard to inboard. Doesn't really work though, only used on fast battleships.

::looks at pics:: I'm impressed, the F-14 B's and D's ARE different. Need better pics of the D's to make the really nitpicky checks, but they got the basic differences right. (Though I am thinking the B has a D's seats, can't tell without more pics--can't wait to check out the in-game cockpit views for the two) Really impressed, considering that the "D" in the last game was 100% an A...

They could have used the Macross version. Skull Squadron has an entirely different skull and bones than the Jolly Rogers. It's a skull and an "X" of bones, but it's not the "real" one at all.

Ok, VF-0 has at least ailerons, if not flaperons. Any pics of it flaps down? BTW--if it's moving its ailerons like THAT, why the heck isn't it using its spoilers????

It's all about the deployment angle. The orginal F-15's had much smaller airbrakes, that deployed to a more extreme angle. But it caused lots of buffeting and affected the trim a bit. So they redesigned it (Block 15 I think) and almost all other F-15's have the much larger airbrake that deploys to a more shallow angle, to get the same braking without the bad aerodynamic effects. Almost all other jets have smaller brakes that deploy to a more extreme angle--F-14/16/18. The Tornado has a similar situation to the F-15: very large brakes that deploy at a shallow angle. The king of airbrakes however, is the F-8. It could slow the thing down in a vertical dive. Drag of the airbrake when fully deployed has always looked to me like it is equal to the entire rest of the plane! So in summary: the VF-1's airbrake is actually pretty normal, maybe a BIT undersized, no matter what angle it deploys at. VF-0 looks to have an improved version, in that assuming it deploys practically straight up to be effective, it has holes in it to alleviate buffeting. F-15 couldn't afford the drag holes would cause, for it had to be FAST.

Triple AMRAAM launchers? Interesting. Wonder if they look like triple Maverick launchers. (only triple-missile launcher I can think of in the real world)

A slotted flap is generally easy to distinguish from an aileron (at least when deployed). And double and triple slotted flaps are obvious even when retracted. A simple flap (like on 99% of fighters) is impossible to tell from an aileron. It's simply how it is used. A flaperon is one that acts as both, or either, depending when and where it's used. And yes, you can simply reprogram the computer, and "convert" an aileron into a flaperon. It is simply how its used. Now, F-16's have flaperons because their entire trailing edge only has one gigantic control surface. So it must be a flaperon otherwise it'd have to give up something. Used more like an aileron though. (FBW can make anything happen) F-18's have inboard flaps (only used as flaps), and outboard flaperons (normally move as ailerons, but when you select flaps down they'll go down too--but they'll still move as ailerons, with "down" as their new neutral position---of course they can't go all the way down as a flap, since then there'd be no more "down" to move to for roll) F-15's have inboard flaps, and outboard ailerons. No flaperons. (It looks like it should have flaperons, but it doesn't---no slats or leading edge flaps--the wing's just that big it doesn't need anything to land other than small, simple flaps inboard) AFAIK there's conflicting info on the VF-1, but I think it's all flaps. VF-0, I'm not sure. But as a rule, the way those plane's control surfaces are, they look to be like the F-14/VF-1. No ailerons, no flaperons. Just flaps, and spoilers. Same as the Tornado. Now, the F-14 and VF-1 and VF-0 have clearly different types of flaps (since the F-14 is unique, and most people who try to copy it fail since they don't know how they REALLY move), the arrangement is the same I think.

I think a big part of it is just that even the most casual airplane fan can tell it's the wrong type of F-14. I think 99% of sales were for the decal sheet, to use on another F-14 kit.

My kind of thread. I'll just go in order: 1. 12 AMRAAM's on 4 launchers? Not with anything that exists nowadays. Practicality? None, DRAG, DRAG, DRAG, and weight. Also, 12 is more missiles than even the most heavily-armed dedicated fighter carries nowadays. You're just weighing the plane down needlessly. Do you actually plan to take down 12 enemy planes yourself in one mission? (And you shouldn't be, for this isn't a 2D shooter where it's you vs the world--the military does not send 1 good pilot to take down the entire enemy fleet) 2. Yes you can mount stuff on a swing-wing. The F-14 is about the only swing-wing plane that doesn't. Whether the pylons swivel with the wings to keep everything aligned varies. Most do. 3. Depends on the launcher. AIM-120's fit literally anywhere, but AIM-9's can only be rail fired. They are generally interchangeable on most modern aircraft. (Any AIM-120 launcher can also accomodate the AIM-9, but an AIM-9 launcher cannot take AIM-120's) AFAIK, the Hase weapons set 5 includes LAU-128 launchers, which are the F-15's inboard pylon launchers. And they can carry AIM-9's. They are horizontal, not vertical. (Missiles go on the sides, not the bottom) See here: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/lau128a/lau128a.htm I have that set coming soon, I'll let you know exactly what's inside. (From the pics, it looks like there's more than just LAU-128's, I'm hoping for -127's since they're much harder to find) 4. Flaps. Boy is that a question. Let's see. From what I can tell, VF-0's have only flaps, no ailerons, like an F-14. So everything on the trailing edge is a flap. The "little rectangles ahead of the flaps" are spoilers, more on them in a bit. And they do hinge upwards. Flap's main purpose is to increase the amount of lift a wing is producing. Secondary purpose is to increase drag. On airliners, they are used only for takeoff and landing. On modern fighters, they are often SLIGHTLY deployed to gain manueverability for combat. (F-15's about the only one that doesn't do this). How exactly they move is a plane-specific thing. The F-14's are unique among all aircraft in the world AFAIK. I'd need better pics to comment on the VF-0's. (So many terms are just "tossed in" for Valk info--especially convergent/divergent nozzles, fowler flaps, etc--all these aviation terms, which are just added in to sound technical, regardless of if the valk actually has those features or not) Spoilers--generally the most multi-purpose and IMHO useful thing a plane can have. Spoilers can either make a plane roll, descend, slow down, or in some cases ascend. Airliners tend to deploy exactly how many they need, as much as they need, but fighters tend to use all of the ones on a wing together. Spoilers generally work all together, or left/right wing on a fighter. If you want to roll right, put the ones on the righ wing up, do nothing on the left. And vice-versa. If you want to descend and/or slowdown, put them ALL up. What happens depends on the plane and how much you put them up. Now, some planes (most notably the F-14) have a nifty little feature called DLC--direct lift control. This is used for approach/landing. This is so you can alter your rate of descent/angle, without altering the plane's own angle. This is important, and neat, especially for carrier landings. Simply: you can go up and down, without pointing the nose up or down. To do this, DLC puts all the spoilers slightly up. This is the new "neutral" position for the spoilers. Then, DLC automatically slightly increases or decreases the spoilers' extension based on pilot commands. The lift of the wing changes, without changing the aircraft's position at all. Pure up and down movement. L-1011's also do this. Finally--spoilers are the fastest-acting thing on a plane, nothing moves faster. Nearly every airliner has ground-only spoilers (for they are too powerful to ever use in the air, even for an emergency descent due to cabin pressure failure or something) and they are FAST. I always watch for them, but on a 767 they're so fast you can't see them. They are simply UP the moment it's on the ground. Amazingly fast.

Nah, with the announcement that all S-3's are to be replaced by (guess what) Super Hornets, all we need is 1 simple design that can carry 100 Super Hornets and nothing else.

Good, because I remember 2 versions of each plane as well. I just happened to have had all the ones Hasbro decided to put up instructions for.

Heh, I had 1 of each type of those. They actually instilled "what's my fave squadron" for a lot of them. I know I had the VFA-131 F-18, and 94TFW F-15, I've been looking for pics on the 'net to try to jog my memory as to what squadron the F-16 was. Japan still uses F-4EJ's in some roles I think. :;edit:: Wow, Hasbro still has the manuals up at their site! http://www.hasbro.com/pl/page.game_and_toy.../dn/default.cfm http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...tSunDowners.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...atintheRing.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...BlackWidows.pdf http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Flyi...netWildcats.pdf I can't believe it. Hmmn, F-14 was Sundowners (VF-111), F-16 was Black Widows. That makes sense--my fave F-14 (and all-time everything) squadron, and my fave F-16 wing.

From what I can see, they replaced Mitsubishi T-2's. Most all the other F-15J's replaced F-4EJ's, and F-4EJ Kai's, though not as aggressors. (Yes, Kai really does exist as a term for custom/upgrade in the real world, not just mecha animes)

There are only 2 YF-23 schemes. They were painted exactly like F-15's. One overall 36118 gunship grey, YF-23 AF87-800, PAV-1, the PW one. And one in your standard 1980's F-15C compass ghost scheme (36375 overall with 36320 patches), AF87-801, PAV-2, the GE-powered (faster) one. The Dragon diecast fighters can be summed up as this: diecast versions of the Hasegawa 1/72 kits. There's no formal announcement, but it's really, really obvious that there's some connection between the companies on this. However, accuracy does of course suffer, since there's only the one mold/version.

Yes, F-18 parts (canopy, airbrake) don't like to fit in the "closed" position. Inherent to the mold. The F-16--well, if you want an A, I think they're nigh-perfect, accuracy-wise. The C's would do for EARLY C's, but they're trying to depict block 40/50's. In the "only Dragon does this"---they've molded separate intakes---yet don't use the bigger intake on the ones that should have them. F-15A/B/C/D should be amazing, I'm planning to buy a bunch. I've seen *early* F-14 shots, but so small I couldn't even tell what type it was, much less how accurate. However, DW does seem to have an agreement with Hasegawa (it's obvious if you own both DW and Hase 1/72 planes) and so that give me hope for the F-14. But since they messed up the late-model F-16C's... BTW---Dragon's known for taking a LONG time between "announcement" and "arrival". I'm still waiting for my Northwest MD-80's, which were announced over a year ago. The VMFA-232 F-18 was announced 2 years ago, and we still don't have it---even though another manufacturer has already come into existence, made an F-18, and done that squadron in that time! Ok, where to buy. Well, http://www.theflyingmule.com is a great place. If it exists right now, they've got it. (Though Super Flankers are ALWAYS sold out---there's no US distributor, very hard to get period--the manufacturer is REALLY missing out on a market) Take their own pics, nice ones too. http://www.petescollectibles.com is often recommended, though I've personally never ordered from them yet. http://www.onmarkint.com/ is probably the most comprehensive place, lists just about every thing ever made, with pics. PS--almost any modern YF wouldn't be made. YF-16 and YF-17 only have 1 paint scheme to sell, and couldn't use many (if any) parts from the F-16 or F-18 molds. (Though 99% of the world wouldn't notice the YF-16 difference). I'd love a YF-23, but again--only 1 scheme per mold, unless they just ignore the engine differences. As opposed to an F-14A mold, where they can sell 20 high-vis and 20 low-vis schemes.

Ironically, my first DW fighter was an F-18. Couldn't resist my fave squadron in their all-time best-looking markings. VFA-25 CAG, 1990.

Plenty of Gaincorp reviews/pics at Diecastaircraft.com, "Other scales" forum. Anyways--the DW F-15E has NONE of the features of the E. It's like having a 2-laser-head VF-1 and saying it's an S. When the only thing that makes a VF-1S an S is the 4-laser head, a 1 or 2 laser head is most certainly not an S. Also, the DW F-15E's CFT's are not a C/D's CFT's either. AFAIK, only 1 set exactly like that was ever made, the prototype CFT's. So they're really only right for one of the test F-15B's, basically. 71-290 and/or 71-291. Which would ironically become the ACTIVE and F-15E proof-of-concept planes. Not to mention the DW F-15E is missing every single other F-15E-specific thing I can think of. But c'mon--an F-15E that is physically incapable of carrying bombs? That's just wrong. What's next, a bomb-less B-52 model? How about an F-14 that has no missile trenches in the belly? BTW, the best DW jet is the F-18, hands down. (Though they designed it for AMRAAM's on the wingtips) AMRAAM's on the F-14: possibly. I'm wondering how the Sparrows will fit, if at all. I'm thinking it may be Phoenix/Sidewinder only, based on how the Sparrows are designed and how the real F-14 carries them. But the DW AMRAAM/Sidewinder mounting system is identical, and so far any position can carry either. So you can probably put an AMRAAM on a Sidewinder mount if the DW F-14 ever comes out. If you really wanted, you could just glue them in the Sparrow trenches.

Dragon's 1/72 diecast has slowed down tremendously lately, and their plastic 1/72 wasn't very accurate. They're big on 1/400 military diecast lately. Lots of 707 variants, P-3, KC-10, B-2. We all hope for B-1B and XB-70 and B-52...

It's got an Su-34's gear, quite distinctive. Makes a lot of sense to use that style, the modeler certainly knows his planes.