David Hingtgen

Huh. That is an *old-school* fan spinner. Looks like it's from the 60's. (Hey, I've stuck my head up many an intake). Wonder if that actually follows Kawamori's intentions/design, or is Hasegawa just guessing/swiping F-4 parts? Military jet blades haven't changed appearance much over the years, it's really only evident in airliners. Ever seen a GE90-115B's blades? "Wicked" is the only way to describe them.

Ah, AMT/Ertl. Nothing like gluing 3 strips of styrene together, to get a thick enough strip to fill a gaping trench... ::edit:: Tornado's, B-1B's, most any swing-wing plane etc, use inflatable air bladders to fill the gap when the wing's fully forward. Yes, neat arrangements of panels and doors would look better, and they always try it, and they always get messed up. So they just use big inflatable bags. Basically, one above, and one below. As the wing "exits" the area by sweeping forward, they progressively inflate to seal the gap. B-1B's and Tornado's are by far the easiest to see, I'll find some pics later. F-14's are very hard to see, due to the shape, the cover over it, the sealing plates above, and the fact that the wings are always swept back at every airshow, otherwise I'd have my own pics of the F-14's system... F-111 seal: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/f111indetailjr_3.htm Note the pic with the extended wing, pointing out the hinge line with an arrow. The whole panel aft of that pivots up and down about that hinge to open and close the gap, inflating and deflating the grey airbag as it does so. This is how most every plane does it. When the wings are back, the bags are deflated and the panel is lowered flush to the surface. When forward, panel lifts up and bags inflate. (Yes, it seems kind of backwards, why not just always keep the moving panel down flush---there's some aerodynamic pressure shift caused by the change of wing position, and the moving panel takes care of that) PS-- I'd call the triangular parts on the intakes a strake, though a large one. Almost an LEX, but not quite. Kind of like a streamlined version of how the F-15 uses its intakes like an LEX.

I'm always available if you need clarification/explanation of aeronautical terms. Ailerons and tailerons are totally different things, and I actually know what a "convergent-divergent" nozzle is...

I'm wondering if this is a US vs JP thing. I have a Takara Prime, and his stacks have NO flash, and the only sprue scab is on the undersides of the stack's mufflers---and it's plated over. Never noticed any on his bumper. For a "realistic" grill that'd take layers and layers of parts. Even worse if there's a screen over it. "Chrome plated" plastic parts are vac-metallized, generally. "Real" chrome, is literally chrome-plated---as in, electroplated. Can't electroplate plastic, never will. I've always felt the main difference in appearance comes from the clear-coats in the vac-metallized process. That's also what's responsible for many "not so shiny" chrome parts in models. They're usually chromed, but with an additional "almost, but not quite" gloss clear-coat over them that tones it down just enough so that it looks more "real". Radd--few people are more disappointed with his truck mode than me. He's the exact opposite of an Alternator--instead of a "perfect" car, he's a perfect robot--and the truck mode suffers a *lot* for that. My #1 request would be bigger fuel tanks, or at least reverse how they're hinged--they're always angled, and only on "straight" when you press them in while transforming the legs--couldn't they have done it the other way, so they look right most of the time?

If I knew I was up against Zentradi, I'd probably ask for a miniaturized HEAT round. Regardless of whether he's in a battlepod, or just wearing a stylish officer's coat, you need serious damage to take them down.

Gotta pipe in here: So how wold YOU represent chrome-plated parts on a truck model, besides "cheap" chrome-plated parts? I mean, nothing looks like a real Freightliner's chrome stacks and bumper, than actual chrome. Chrome looks bad on Camaro engine block models, because they're not chrome in real life. But truckers LIVE for chrome. Now, "shiny" fuel tanks usually are stainless steel, not chrome, but that's an exception due to operational necessity. (And air cleaners sometime, but Prime's are internal so you can't see them).

The A-16 was a dedicated CAS F-16, to replace the A-10. Didn't go for it. (I think they used F-16 #2 for testing--if you ever see an F-16 painted like an A-10, that's it). Testing went well, so they started putting gunpods on ANG F-16's. Then "the real world" showed that they didn't work well at all. Thus ending CAS-equipped F-16's, and most certainly a dedicated purpose-built CAS A-16. BTW---speed sucks for CAS. Slow=accurate. Best Vietnam CAS by far was from the AD-1. Prop plane. Best CAS now? A-10, the slowest jet we have.

Hey, of course the F-35 could fill the F-16's CAS role, since the F-16's CAS role is pretty much non-existant. The A-16 was cancelled, the gunpods on a regular F-16 suck hard, and the Air Force pretty much gave up on having the F-16 do any sort of dedicated CAS. If they're in the area, you can call them in, but it's about 5th on their list of roles they can fill.

Yup, I use pure CA for ALL gap/seam filling. Never tried the baking powder version myself though. And yes, you should mask to prevent loss of detail when sanding. (Though you often have to re-scribe detail regardless of how you fill seams) Also, always use a curved sanding implement, unless you've got an utterly flat surface. It'll help you sand just the CA, not the plastic. CA dries funny when used in large quantities, I swear shape affects it more than area/thickness. Timing's important, check it every 30 mins or so. (I let it dry naturally, no accelerator---this way I can get to it when it's 80 or 90 percent hard)

Everybody needs to read this: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/feature.htm And part 2: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6b.htm RAAF (Australia), F-22/F-35/Eurostuff/F-111/F-18 comparisons. GOOD stuff.

Yup, military stuff is pretty much called what people call it, despite official names. F-111 wasn't officially the Aardvark until the day it retired. For all of its active life, it had no name. And then there's nicknames which are used so often they act like the "real" name. See the Fairchild Thunderbolt II. Which is much more commonly known as the A-10 Warthog. Finally--how often do you hear the term "Lancer" for a bomber? (B-1B)

Actually, he's not. His wheels are undersized for his scale, and the "real" Prime should have a 45-foot trailer. However, most all modern trailers (and toys/models thereof) are 48 or 53 footers. Combined with needing smaller wheels to match Prime, 1/32 is "undersized" but ends up looking right. My guess is Prime's 1/28.

Re: RCS. Has little relevance to size of the plane. F-18C's have a smaller RCS than F-18A's. And E's are bigger than C's, but have smaller RCS. F-16C's have a smaller RCS than F-16A's. B-1B's have a smaller RCS than any other plane except "true" stealths. A-12/SR-71 are also in that category. (Yes, the SR-71 was designed back in the late 50's to have a low RCS, and it does---just not low by modern standards---it was ahead of its time in EVERY way) And one of the stealthiest (if not THE stealthiest) planes is the very large B-2.

I'm saying they'd probably still have an RCS smaller than most fighters, but still 10 or 100 times or more their "normal" size.

F-117's have a radar RCS equal to a small ball bearing. Remember how a loose screw will just kill its stealthiness. (They did redesign the screw-heads though) F-35 or F-22 with pylons--- maybe as stealthy as a B-1B, if they're lucky. Of course, the "new" stealths are probably not as stealthy as the F-117/B-2, and have "looser" tolerances I believe. Stamen0083---yes, an F-35 w/pylons would have an RCS like an F-16. Think of it like a nice pure white tablecloth. Then you spill spaghetti sauce on it, and stain it. It's ruined. Yes, 99% of it's fine, but that one little spot just screwed everything up. Same with adding an external store to a stealth plane.

Anyone got the exact date of that article? NOW they're going to give the 9X lock-after-launch. Probably due to the USAF otherwise placing massive ASRAAM orders.

F-4 never did have enough downforce at the tail, even with the slotted stabs. Upforce up front couldn't have hurt. It never suffered in roll, using ailerons and spoilers simultaneously. However--F-4 doesn't have much thrust, drag is a very big concern with it. Adding stuff adds drag. Newer planes don't care much, they have so much thrust add-ons don't mean much. But it does with the F-4. As for the Kurnass Phantom--adding a strake isn't going to do much. More likely add in 1 degree or so of alpha before loss of control. F-4: utterly totally at the mercy of angle of attack. F-4 pilots watch that gauge more than all the others. (Ironically, also helps it with carrier landings, as its quite sensitive--get the AOA right, and you're set)

The F-4 was so much better than any other fighter, F-4C's for the USAF still had folding wings and tailhooks. Refuelling receptacle was about the only change, USAF wanted F-4's *now*. Then they realized they needed the gun, and we started making a lot of new F-4 variants. (Ever seen the Swing-wing or Super Phantom proposals? Neat.) F-35A w/gun: yes, but you've got a "gap" in your air-to-air weapons. After firing max-range AMRAAMs, you're supposed to close in to gun range? And not get toasted by Sidewinders etc while doing so? I believe the small-diameter bomb goes to the F-15E first. Basic idea is to have a "bunker buster" without the massive explosion and size. Sure, multi-thousand pound bombs can take out a concrete structure, but also the entire city block. They want the penetration, but with a very small explosive and carrying more than 2 or 4 per plane. After that, they'll go for all the internal-carriage planes.

Bay behind the cockpit--looks good! Just some "stuff" there, but not purely thrown in randomly. That area in the F-15 is actually that "Russian cockpit green/blue" color, but shiny metallic! Not quite chrome shiny, but still quite smooth, not "flakey" at all. Nobody makes that color, and I think it's purely an F-15 thing, not common to most jets. (maybe an MDC thing? Will have to check F-4/18 pics) The parts themselves are of course metallic grey/black.

Angel's Fury: the "sprayers" don't work at all. Trust me. However, I find this very easy: http://www.testors.com/catalog_item.asp?itemNbr=2207 Also available in a box with a can of propellant from Wal-Mart for $18. Not the 30-40 buck set, this is different (and simpler). Well worth trying out just to see how airbrushes work. Now, due to lack of precise controls it won't be doing free-hand feathered camo or narrow stripes, but if you simply want a nice smooth coat of paint over something, it'll certainly do that well. The main thing is, being "even more external than an external-mix" airbrush, it's super-easy to clean. Especially with acrylics. The brush itself usually gets nothing on it, it's all in the jars/caps. I use it basically like I would a good spray-can, but able to use ANY color paint.

Very useful for light-up parts. I think about half of all Tamiya clear blue sales go to us Star Trek modelers who light-up the warp nacelles and deflector dishes. And clear red for impulse engines and ramscoops.

I keep forgetting to mention this, though I thought of it the moment you mentioned it: The boxy area aft of the cockpit reminds me of the F-15 (single-seater) avionics bay. It's essentially hollow, everything's mounted on the sides of the "box". Lots of circuit breakers, wiring bundles, piping. But it looks quite orderly. Think of like an older car's engine bay. Lots of wires to the distributor etc, but nicely bundled and purposeful-looking, with hoses going here and there. Also, the canopy's main strut is mounted vertically at the aft end. I'll try to find on-line pics later.

It's often said that a key decision (especially on the part of "pilot imput) on YF-22 vs YF-23 was that stealth isn't really all that great. A lot of people did not like even a slight trade-off of agility for more stealth. They basically felt the YF-23 depended too much on stealth, despite still equalling the F-16 in agility. They wanted the F-22 because it had that extra little bit of agility. So what does that say for the F-35? Less stealthy than the -23 and the -22, *and* less agile than the 16/22/23? (F-35 is close to the 16's agility according to Lockheed, but certainly doesn't equal or surpass---otherwise they'd point out it being superior every five seconds--but it's not, so they say it's COMPARABLE) Also--stealth isn't just radar. It's IR as well. And a single big-a$$ exhaust like the 35 has can't have all that low of an IR signature, no matter how many serrated edges you put on it. If the -23 had a lower RCS, it had a LOT lower IR signature. And the -22's flattened vectoring nozzles sure look superior to the -35's. F-35's are slow as hell. Mach 1.5 max, or thereabouts. I don't think they can supercruise, need afterburner. (At least it did on the NOVA show). The original, very first 1986 concepts was for a supersonic Harrier replacement. Not a stealth, supercruising mini-F22.

While AIM-9X's SHOULD have lock-after-launch like ASRAAM's, especially for the F-35's use, they don't. Never expect "common sense and logic" to apply to the military!

This pic clearly shows how an F-22 angles out Sidewinders so their IR seekers can get a good view: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...-22-000320a.jpg They can do this due to the trapeze the AIM-9's are mounted on, and presumably the YF-23 would have had something similar, having trapeze-mounted AMRAAM's. F-35's however, have no trapeze's, only rails. Couldn't mount one on the inner door, and putting a trapeze in the air-to-ground spot would certainly reduce clearance enough to preclude 2,000lb JDAM's, a key advantage the 35 has over the 22. (Since the 35 needs bulged bay doors to hold 2,000 pounders, the clearance has to be tiny)