David Hingtgen

I'm thinking there's a Kawamori aviation allusion there. VT-102. Capt Dagger. The F-102 is the Delta Dagger.

Yeah, but when they have the exact match for a wrong color, you won't know. Unless you really know that plane's colors.

My Blue Angels 1/72 F-18A arrived. Comments: 1. Well it's definitely going to be a Blue Angels bird! Molded in dark blue. Not even going to try to paint light grey over that! 2. I'm amazed in that they included a new nose-cone with faired-over gun ports, a new ILS? antenna, and a pipe for the smoke-generator, on a separate sprue. (Original parts still there, too, so I have a spare F-18 nose now) 3. Dry-fit of the main fuselage parts (4+nosecone) reveals a much better fit than I had been led to believe, based on comments on newsgroups, etc. Don't like how the rear fuselage rests ON the h.stabs, rather than between. Would have looked (and fit) even better, IMHO. Will try to sand a subtle curve on the rear fuselage, to better conform to the airfoil of the h.stabs. 4. I have read that the v.stabs are very poorly fitting, but haven't tried yet. And the C/D models have different stabs, and might fit differently. 5. The LEX fences (a 1990-esque modification, but fleet-wide) are included with the A model, FYI. 6. As yet unkown pair of holes in the "keel" of the main gear bay. Square, fairly large. 7. Sidewinders SUCK, Sparrows below average. Being Blue Angels that doesn't matter at all, but I wouldn't want them on a "real" Hornet. Perhaps later kits include AMRAAM's, the later F-16 kits do. 8. Cockpit is plain and featureless, even as 1/72 Hase's go. But I've never been good at 1/72 instrument panel painting, so decals are fine for me. But all the AMS people will certainly complain. And there's NO sidewall detail. 9. The rear canopy decking (where the 2nd seat would be in a B/D) fits VERY well, thankfully. As does the airbrake, if you just sand the underside a bit thinner. You could quite literally snap the airbrake in place (but then it's impossible to pry it out). I've read a suggestion that the kit fits better if you glue the wings to the upper fuselage, the fuselage sides to the lower fuselage, then all of that together. Wings---definitely. Fuselage sides---I'm not sure, I might try gluing them very last. Will need to do a more "finalized" dry-fit with nearly all the parts before I decide.

Oh, well for ballistic missiles we're much better equipped to shoot them down. ABL-1. (747-400F with a laser in the nose)

Well, if they go to surface-to-surface missiles, we need something that can go very fast at very low altitude, and be agile enough to intercept them. Sounds like the F-111. (Or a Tornado). F-8 would be good too, though no chance of that nowadays. I have no clue on the F-22's low-alt speed, but I'm guessing it's not very high.

Eh, Hasegawa often puts the wrong color for aircraft parts. Yes, they usually get camo colors right, but the "basics" are wrong. Like they say Barley or Aircraft grey for every aircraft interior, regardless. Well, that's right for many British plane, but every F-4/14/15/16/18 kit I've bought from them has been wrong in that regard. Should be Dark Gull grey. Does Gunze make Dark Gull? I'd be surprised if they didn't. Just commenting that Hase certainly isn't batting 1,000 for paint colors. I do believe that while Tamiya will often list a "mix" for any color they don't have, Hase simply lists "next closest thing" for any color Gunze doesn't have--even if other companies make the exact color. PS---every US jet since about 1950, has a Dark Gull grey (36231) cockpit. Navy, Air Force, F-4 to F-22. PPS--Akula--I've never heard of that brand. What's it used for/where can you buy it? But an "off white" sure sounds good to me, based on TV. (I am the kind of person who likes to paint based off of what you see on TV, regardless of what the artbooks show)

For Roy's yellow, "Blue Angels yellow" might be better--it's less "orange" than Insignia yellow is. (You can tell when they're side-by-side) Slightly lighter, as well. And pretty easy to find. It is very close to Insignia yellow, less than 20 numbers away in the FS system, but I think it's just that much closer to a pure bright yellow than Insignia yellow is. YF-19: never actually tried it myself, but there is a spray-only color from Testors that is a light tan, lighter than even radome tan or most desert sand camo. "Modern Desert Sand", FS33637. (I think it's a US color, as most every other desert camo color specifies a country---but yet it's definitely not Desert Storm etc color--so I don't know what they mean by "modern") Definitely worth a look if you're building a YF-19. "Panzer Interior Buff" is also a very pale beige color. (I myself hate mixing colors, and always worry about one batch matching another) If/when I get around to making a Hase YF-19, those 2 will certainly be the first colors I try.

The Navy and Marine F/A-18D's are very different planes. The Marine version is NOT a trainer. It is just like an F-14---the rear seat is for the WSO, nothing more. No 2nd set of controls. The Navy bought F-18D's for trainers, the Marines have a lot more stuff on their Hornets (dedicated all-weather night-attack versions) and thus need a second guy to operate it all. There are many Marine Hornet squadrons made up of nothing but the D-model. Mainly the VMFA(AW) squadrons. PS---don't forget the F-4D. (Another "not a trainer", though like all F-4's it has 2 seats). Of course, way early USAF F-4's had 2 pilots and no RIO! They soon realized the Navy way was better. Interestingly, there will be no F-22 trainers. 2-seat F-22B's were cancelled.

According to the book, the helmet is the same orange as the suit. You might want to send a PM off to Keith, MW's resident M7 expert. He could probably tell you off the top of his head. BTW, the pic above looks a lot more "right" to me than the book. I'm wondering if the white parts in the book were simply "uncolored" parts of the sketch. (it is not a "final" sketch, and the image above is directly from the tv series' commericial break interstitials)

I don't have a scanner, sorry. And as I said, it differs from what the final "actually on TV" colors are. I would go with a really "medium" orange. Honestly, I think it's supposed to be "goes well with her pink hair" orange. But here's the best pic I could find online: (And you'll note the color details are quite different from what I described from the "official" drawing)

My quick, simplisitic "5-year-old's view" of it: It's our front-line fighter. Not some obscure, small component of the military, for some little role. It is the FRONTLINE MAIN AIR_TO_AIR FIGHTER of the entire Air Force. That is not something you skimp on, or "skip". It's the Air Force's equivalent of the Navy's destroyers. You need a lot of them, and good ones, because it's the backbone of the force. Yes, it costs a lot--and it darn well should, because it's the main thing you're going to be using to project power for the next few decades. I mean, it'd be like skimping on the infantry's guns, or the Navy's propellers. An extremely important component of the overall plan. As for F-35's--the F-22's a lot bigger, in the future it will hold a LOT more stuff. Yes, right now the bay's like 2 inches too small for most JDAM's. That's because JDAM's are Vietnam-era bombs with a GPS glued on. Surely in a few years (or 30, when F-22's will still be around) we'll have new, smaller bombs designed for internal carriage. And then F-22's will be able to be stuffed full of them, and carry a lot more "boom-power" than the F-35, or any other smaller, lesser plane. (I am a big fan of big planes--they can simply do more. Radar, engines, avionics, etc, can only be made so small--a plane 25% bigger has room for like 50% more systems and maybe 75% more fuel--plus the inherently larger payload) As for props again---props can't go supersonic(generally). The short explanation is that you'll need to have the RPM's so high you'll have supersonic blades long before you have a supersonic plane, and that's BAD. Same reason helicopters don't go all that fast. Somewhat vaguely related to why jet engines need the air slowed down to subsonic speeds in the intake, at supersonic flight speeds. Rotating blades don't like supersonic air, period. Wing sweep isn't really that much of a factor--it wasn't done simply because we didn't understand it well. A P-51 with swept wings could go (drag-wise) a LOT faster, but the prop is the limiting factor at that point. And of course, you can always just go to a straight-wing with a supersonic foil, if you want to go fast. (Look at the F-104 and X-15---fast planes with straight wings--the other way to go fast) ::edit:: This has got to be the fastest-moving plane thread ever. Mike replied while I was typing. Anyways, I bring up his point a lot--an F-22 is basically a modified F-15. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It's overall shape and proportions are close to an F-15, and it looks *damn* close to the final 2 or 3 rejected F-15 designs. It is simply an "angled to be stealthy" F-15. And as I said earlier, the F-15 is about the most unstealthy plane we've got. Even with all the RAM you could slap on it, it'd still probably still have a bigger RCS than an F-16A or F-18C. (Which are similar--and the slightly stealthier F-16C and F-18E's are also equal to each other) ::edit 2:: Sorry, I don't really have a POINT to the above paragraph, I just like to mention it.

For all those, I used ultra-generic colors. Literally "light blue" and "dark blue" from Testors, for example. But I left the chest closed, so didn't paint the speakers. ::goes gets M7 animation book:: Flight suit is orangey-red, (though on TV it looks quite orange to me not far off from intl/safety orange, while the book is decidedly on the red side) with white collar/shoulders/gloves/boots. Small details on white parts are medium blue, except for the orange trapezoid one on the chest. Non-clear parts of helmet match the overall suit color. (You're actually going to try to paint this in 1/144? Have fun) Overall remember, this is a custom-painted girly-plane, it's not going to have FS matches for any of it.

Let's see. 1. Legios already brought up my main next point--"the war on terror" is not the only war that will happen in the F-22's lifetime. F-15's going to be 30 soon. You can darn well bet within 30 years from now, there will be some air-to-air battles going on, and the F-15 won't cut it. Not against the Su-49MKI_asd2-LL SuperDuper Flanker III. 2. And regardless of how many are built, we will have at least one or two squadrons of F-22's. Hopefully a lot more. But production F-22's are being built and delivered right now. Very slowly, but they are. Unless they REALLY want to chop the budget by cancelling mx/support, they won't scrap what's already built. 3. Yup, Washington treaty greatly affected warship construction and world politics for years. Battleships were the 1920's equivalent of carrier battle groups, in terms of politcal power.

A330-200? Interesting. PS--while the 767 tankers will/could be converted to tankers at Wichita, they will certainly be built at Everett. AFAIK, some will be new-builds, others will be conversions from pax ones. (AA and UA are dumping their 767-200's, could be a quick interim fix until purpose-built 767 tankers come about) F-22 not in service until 2006-2009? Doubt it. 27FS gets them in 2005, ready or not. Then the 71 and 94 squadrons. Heck, the F-15E wasn't really "fully operational" during Desert Storm! There's a big difference between being delivered, intial operating capability, and FULLY developed. There will be F-22's at Langley next year, and if something happens, they will fly, regardless of if they're only 80-90% functional, systems-wise. (Because 80% of an F-22's avionics is still a heck of a lot more than a perfect F-15C MSIP) Unless there's a problem to the point of "it can't fly nor shoot", F-22's will go to Langley soon. Just because it can't do the fancy wireless-AMRAAM-interlink-data with other F-22's is no reason to hold up the service entry. (just an example, it's the only nifty feature that could cause problems I can think of off the top of my head) Heck, the F-16C still doesn't have its major design feature functional yet (vs the F-16A), and it's been nearly 20 years! (Yup, the extended fin base is hollow, just waiting for a system that'll neve come). A-12: the one program Cheney cancelled that eveyone agrees was a good decision. (It should have been canceled at the first design sketch though, that's not a plane for carriers, and it's barely a plane at all) ::edit:: Anyone have current stats for actual in-service USAF F-15C numbers? Production numbers are worthless. A lot of out F-15A's are either with a few ANG squads, in the desert, or given to Israel. As well as a significant number of F-15C's. How many F-15C's do we actually have right now, in USAF front-line squadrons? I'm wondering if 339 (or now 276) might actually be able to do a fairly decent job at replacing them, assuming we are talking about using 100% of the F-22's to replace F-15C's and nothing else. (If for some reason we desperately needed more air-to-air planes quickly, late-model F-15E's with the CFT's removed would be equal if not superior to the F-15C for air-to-air)

If I could only have a gun-armed prop, give me an F4U. Mustangs beware. Anyways---new gizmos are so integrated into the airframe (because they have to be), it'd be VERY difficult to simply add them into the F-15. I mean, a lot of the F-22's antennas etc actually form part of the wing's leading edge. Also, the F-15ACTIVE could never pitch or roll as fast as the F-22. The F-22 is unstable. Not F-16 unstable, but unstable nonetheless. And has more widely-spaced engines. Finally--the F-15 would still rate a "0" on the stealthiness scale. Probably the least stealthy fighter we have. (At least the F-14's stabs cant outwards a bit, as do the intakes---both features probably help a little) The F-15 is a flying collection of right-angles.

I'm presuming the Airbus tanker would have been based off the A300-600R or A310-300ET. That said, the engines, avionics, and gear would have come from the US. By far the highest-value parts of the plane, could be 50% of the total value. Heck, 15-foot-diameter aluminum tubes are cheap. Jet engines are not. Newer Airbuses have more European equipment, but the A300/310 have a very large percentage of US products. Not to mention that most of the 767 is made in Japan, Italy, and Canada. (And if you choose Rolls-Royce engines...)

Can you say "YF-22 vs YF-23"? (Man, the F-35 has got to be about the ONLY plane to ever "rightfully" win a competition--and then probably only due the the -32's utter fugliness, not it's vast inferiority)

My point is that we don't need KC-135 replacements, as you said, they'll last quite a while yet. But we DO need more BIG tankers, and the KC-767 sure isn't that. Bigger than a -135 yes, but certainly not a -10. And a KC-11 would have added another 100,000lbs of payload over the -10. Heck, we should just make 747-400F tankers. LOTS of fuel/cargo, and a built-in cargo-loading hinged nose. And the upper deck could be used for electronics, mini-surgical suite (like a C-9), VIP's, etc. Could probably refuel 4 or 5 planes at a time, with a 213 ft wingspan.

Nit-pick: no military MD-11's exist, and the EF-111's already retired. Comment: not buying MD-11's as KC-11's was frankly stupid. KC-10's are considered nothing less than a strategic asset due to their far superior cargo/fuel capacities compared to a KC-135. A KC-767 is inferior, despite being my fave airliner. (And the MD-11 is my 2nd-fave airliner). If the KC-10's greatest asset is simply size, and the MD-11 is bigger, why wouldn't you snag some? Especially with MDC being quite desperate to sell, could have gotten them cheap. Won't happen now of course. 767--much smaller than a DC-10, how will that help? 707-320's and 767-200's have nigh-identical MTOW's. Size-wise, they're really really close. (Though KC-135's are a bit smaller than a 707). 767's have wider bodies, but aren't overall much larger. Though I do wonder if the USAF isn't going to order HEAVILY strengthened airframes to vastly increase the KC-767's max weight, to or beyond 767-300/400 levels, as they ordered tremendously powerful engines for them, more powerful than even the highest-weight 767-300ER's use, and far more powerful than ANY 767-200 variant uses. (Boy did that get off-topic)

Here's how I painted mine, because there's few things I hate more than mixes (like companies who only give info for ONE brand of paint--2 parts this, 3 parts this, 1 part that---when another brand of paint has the EXACT color you need). Absolutely nothing on Earth could give a more perfect match to the pink than Testor's "Hot Magenta" right out of the bottle. Anyone who's painted a Mylene valk will agree with me. There's not many yellows out there, I used Insignia yellow, since that is what planes almost always use. Russian interior green for the cockpit overall. Gunship grey for the darker grey accents. And I don't really recall any other colors, though Dark Gull grey is always good for cockpit details.

The yellow nose is because that's how many planes (especially navy planes) are. Go look at some F-14 and F-18 pics.

Unless Cheney orders the jigs destroyed, thus ensuring a permanent halt. PS--a new F-15 fighter would cost about $80 million. At least, that's what F-15K's cost. F-22 isn't that much of a jump, especially considering its capabilities. Inflation is a tremendous factor. Even using late-90's numbers can cause a HUGE difference in comparing price. :edit: Heh, stuff was posted while I was typing. Just FYI, East German air bases already had new currency and road signs printed up to replace all the Belgian/Dutch/West German ones, for when the "last gasp of capitalism" occurred and they rolled across central Europe. PPS---know why nobody buys Russian planes? Customer service/support is zilch. Need a new engine? Wait 6 years. And that's why some people don't buy US planes---we're finicky, and may or may not send parts, depending on the current politcal mood. Service/support is MANDATORY for planes.

J A Dare: yes. The Super Flanker can out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, out-gun, out-radar, out-missile, and just about anything else, over the F-15. The F-15 has no advantages, other than if it jettisons every single thing it has, it can out-run the Flanker. Which is probably the best tactic at this point. As for F-15 vs other new planes---it's all the electronic gizmos mainly (missiles+radar especially), plus much greater agility. Basically--they pick it off at long-range, and if it happens to become a close-in fight, they're much more agile. The F-22 however, has incredibly advanced gizmos, and is extremely agile. Probably not #1 in every category vs every other plane, but overall most likely the best. IIRC, all the "simulations" usually show the F-15 losing 10-1 against most of the planes I mentioned, with the F-22 winning 2-1 against the planes I mentioned. (Of course, 2-1 is considered pretty poor by US standards, but it's a heck of a lot better than 1-10)

I'm fond of the "sand and dry fit as much as possible BEFORE gluing together" method. I'd much rather sand plastic than any sort of filler. Of course, there's only so much you can do without filler. (For the first time in oh, a decade, I glued together some F-14 parts yesterday) PS--do you plan to paint the lift-fan blades? I know Hase says grey like their surrounding bay and the cockpit, but that just seems so wrong to me, though I haven't seen them in the animation.

Sorry, I saw them earlier but was waiting for someone else to respond, since I haven't built a Bandai for like 1.5 years, and forgot some. I'll do my best though: Let's just start at the upper right pic, and go across. 1. Glue, I think. Probably refers to fast-drying cement, the thin stuff. 2. Sticker. Kanji in the circle is the specific sticker to use. 3. Dry transfer decal. Letter in circle is the one. 4. Use sprue nippers to remove--delicate part. 5. You shouldn't be building models if you don't understand that. 6. Black piece should be inserted after/go inside white piece. This is often for putting ball-sockets in joints, etc. Most often seen in MG/PG hands. 7. Repeat on other side. Often accompanied by the parts numbers to use on the other side. 8. Pound (or squeeze really hard) these pieces into place. Yup. I recommend using pliers and a thick leather-bound book as an anvil. This is usually used for small metal pins. Or just anything that has a TIGHT fit. 9. This piece is SUBTLY shaped to have a distinct left/right or top/bottom. Look REALLY close to make sure you don't put in in upside-down. 10. See #6, but opposite. 11. Duh 12. Optional assembly--pick one. (usually open/closed canopy, etc) 13. Use screwdriver. (Although I've always thought it looks like a DON'T use screwdriver icon) 14. I really don't know. Now, as for parts listing: Looks more like the "other" parts list to me--wires, contacts, bulbs, etc. ::tries some quick katakana translation:: Wow, I'm not getting anything out of that. Though of course, I've never had even a day of formal instruction in katakana. Sorry, can't help.