David Hingtgen

Yup, F120's certainly would have cost more to maintain, with all the extra moving parts--basically like an internal thrust reverser in design/complexity, and thrust reversers aren't all that reliable, as systems go.

1962 was the big "official" change. Where possible, things made sense. (F8U became F-8, F9F became F-9, F4H became F-4, but sometimes it just didn't work and the A3J became the A-5, etc) All you'd ever want to know about designations: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

Well, they wanted contradictory things (of course): They wanted a long-range, supercruising stealthy plane, that was good at picking off bad guys from a distance with AMRAAM's---that would also beat the F-16 in its element. Those things don't go together. Northrop sacrificed some agility to get a lot more speed and stealth, Lockheed sacrificed a lot of stealth and speed to get some more agility. The Air Force "officially" ranked speed and stealth as more important than agility---based on all of the above, the YF-23 should clearly have won. But then things changed (read: lobbyists/politics, and lots of little things creeping in like hangar size and access panel height), to the point that they decided the YF-22 would be built. Plus the whole "YF-23's only a demonstrator, would take a LOT of work to make a workable plane, whereas the -22 can already fire AMRAAM's" argument from the pro-22 people. And then of course after it won, the -22 got new v.stabs, h.stabs, wings, intakes, cockpit, and forward fuselage... The -23 would have "only" needed a new forward fuse/weapons bay, cockpit, and rear fuse... Heh heh---22 vs 23 is about the most common Macrossworld aviation topic, after "how valk engines work in space" and the like. mike---from what I've read, the YF119 was picked because it was low-risk--it was just a much-improved F100. The YF120 was a flat-out new type of jet. It was a variable-stage hybrid jet---not a turbojet, not a turbofan, and of course not a turboprop. People have been trying to make one for decades, GE finally succeeded, and it friggin rocked. But being so new and unique, it was considered too risky. Obviously, the fighter people and the commercial people never talked, because that type of engine is exactly what they've been asking for, for a Concorde replacement---it's pretty much assumed to be required if you want an economical SST. You need like super-duper-cruise--exactly what this is designed for. The F119 is sheer power, the F120 can optimize itself to be ultra-efficient when supersonic, and ultra-powerful when sub-sonic. Basic history of aviation: nothing spectacular ever comes of slow, steady progress. Be risky, take leaps and bounds. B-47, 747, F-4, F-14, SR-71, B-2----the really good stuff is always very different from what comes before, not just an improved version.

The lists are separate---thus we have 2 people saying different things for V. V in itself is VTOL, but V as a prefix is VIP. H can be search and rescue, or Helicopter. Yes, there's a lot of overlap (The A, B, C, F are the same in each), but some are different/exclusive, depending on if it's being used as a primary or secondary mission designator.

The YF-23, with the least powerful engines, was faster than the YF-22 with the most powerful engines. The YF-23 is inherently faster due to being way sleeker. It's so sleek, it surprised the engineers and pilots with how fast it accelerated on its first flight, how easily it supercruised, and they immediately stopped broadcasting its speed the first time it went to full 'burner after supercruising with the YF120's to hide just how fast it was going. It's really fast. So, no matter what engine it has, the YF-23 is faster. But if it's got the 120 engine, then it's WAY faster.

The weird F-117 camo wasn't just suggested, some WERE painted pinky-beige and blue. Go look at the prototypes, etc. In-service ones are black, because the USAF did refuse that scheme and the various other varations. Pink IS the overall best camo for all things. Ships, planes, tanks.

Because that might actually prove something. No F-14 vs F-15, no YF-16 vs YF-17, no YA-9 vs YA-10, no X-32 vs X-35, etc. It allows Congress to fund whichever one looks better on whichever papers they want to read. If they actually FLEW against each other, then there might be a clear winner, and the lobbyists wouldn't get their way. PS---mock fight, it's so the YF-23. Faster supercruise (thus can launch missiles from farther away with a greater chance of hitting) and much stealthier (it could lock on the YF-22 before the 22 even knew the 23 was there, and harder to lock on for retaliation). And if they get in close, the YF-23 has a way smaller heat/IR signature, hard to lock on to with Sidewinders (entrenched nozzles with heat-absorbing tiles, and a sleeker airframe for less kinetic heating). As opposed to the YF-22's vectored thrust nozzles, which is a giant moving beacon to a heat-seeker... Of course, I'm biased.

Unless of course, you've grown up around trucks all your life, and you know exactly how stacks are supposed to look for various types of trucks, and that's the first thing you've looked for in a model or toy truck since you were 5 years old. To me, chopping Prime's stacks is exactly like cutting off an inch from a VF-1's wingtip. Utterly unacceptable. Here, everybody would never let a company live down a "clipped" wingtip on a VF-1. But since most people don't know why trucks have stacks like they do, they don't care. And so long as ANY truck has stacks that short (and some do) it's ok for them. But not for me, for Prime shouldn't have short stacks, for he hauls a high-cube dry-van---which require the tallest stacks among all trucks. And finally---they cut the mufflers down too, which you simply can't do.

Heh--I cut that part out to separate my posts, but Graham already quoted it. Reply down below. Shin--yup, basically the -22 is *believed* to be superior in a knife-fight. (Of course, Lockheed says its definitely superior. But anyone who's looked at the -23's control scheme, and the fuselage cross-section, realizes it should be able to do INSANE things----the -22 is nothing more but an unstable -15 with more power--but the -23 is all new, with massive wings and massive tails and totally unstable---it's like an F-16 on speed) Graham---the F-22 is allowed to use vectoring, just not to enhance its manueverability. See, a Super Flanker or the like, uses thrust vectoring to do all those post-stall, ultra-high-alpha insane moves that they otherwise would have no chance of doing, being aerodynamically impossible and all. (But not "raw engine power" impossible). However, the F-22 isn't allowed to do that. (By command of the Air Force). It is only allowed to use it to TRANSITION from one manuever to the other, faster. As in, if it's going to an Immelmann from a Cuban-8, then it will use its vectoring to pitch up faster to initiate the Immelmann, the moment its done rolling out of the Cuban-8. A normal plane would need to pause for a second to build up energy, but vectoring will take care of that. However, for say a Herbst turn, an F-22 won't be doing that, as it absolutely would require thrust-vectoring to accomplish, and the F-22 couldn't do it without it. Basically---the Air Force doesn't want a plane to initiate a move, then have the vectoring fail, thus causing the plane to crash because it couldn't finish the move without its vectoring. If you never do a move that REQUIRES vectoring, you'll never have that happen. So while an F-22 may be able to do moves FASTER than the F-16 by using vectoring to "help them along", it won't be able to do anything "new". As opposed to most other new planes, which use vectoring to open up all sorts of "impossible" moves.

My main AC physics gripes are: Acceleration is too fast, speed has no effect on turning, bank angle has no effect on stall speed, and you don't lose energy in a turn. Fix those, and you'd still have a nice arcadey game, but a lot more realistic--mainly, it'd really separate the planes. You'd quickly see the difference between the F-14/15/16/18 if you applied those, as opposed to it pretty much being only a visual difference in AC4. Shin---the YF-23 is basically superior to the YF-22 in every possible way, except low-speed high-alpha flight. It was most obviously superior in speed, acceleration, range, and stealthiness. YF-22 wasn't even close in those categories. For the ATF competition, the Air Force said the two most important things were speed and stealth, and the least important thing was low-speed high-alpha flight. So of course, the -22 was picked. Note: Air Force wanted low-speed high-alpha to equal the F-16's. The YF-23 did. The YF-22's is even better, probably matching the F-18. But both are overall more manueverable than the 16/18. The YF-22 is often claimed to be notably more manueverable than the -23, but neither's specs have been declassified, and the YF-23 DOES have a lifting-body centre-section, much like an F-14, thus giving it better high-alpha agility than it would otherwise appear. So the -23 may actually be pretty darn close to the -22 in overall manueverability. (plus the fact that it has larger control surfaces, and more of them---many things about the -23 are still classified, while -22's are not---basically, it performed better than expected, and they don't want people to know just how darn good it is, especially its speed)

I believe it is----I hate when companies use different names instead of just using numbers. Because then they start swapping and changing and mixing names all the time. Hard enough to keep track of the Legacy of Kain series... It's also called Blue *Wing* Knights, and Deadly Skies III.

Looking around, it seems like AFD's music is cr*p. Also--I really liked AC4's story. Of course he was somber---his family, friends, and home were destroyed. Then everyone he befriended died, too. (Except the barkeep's daughter, she lived)

Yup, never have I thought "why'd they even upload that?" after seeing the AC5 trailer. Even 0.4 secs of actual in-game footage would have been nice... I just really hope they'll finally upgrade the Tomcat to a Super Tomcat. I mean, they've had a decade to do so---but I bet we get a Super Hornet instead. (It's very simple to figure out most JP toy and model plane releases--it's whatever the US has stationed in Japan---we've never had Super Tomcats there, but the Black Knights were there a LONG time--thus you'll often find the Black Knights for models, etc---and lots of Hornet-C's, especially VFA-25--thus that's what we get). And now, we'll probably get Super Hornets, I'm betting on VFA-2-esque markings.

Kawamori has too much class to use "F/A" as a designation. Adding "/A" to the F designation is called "convincing Congress you need more". I still type F-18 when possible, as that's the original, true name. (And "F/A"-22 makes most any plane buff puke)

I had no idea it had that many planes. All the screen shots focused on the same few again and again, I had figured it just had the wierdest selection of planes ever. So what's all in there that's cool? EE Lightning? F-8? Vampire? Me163? YF-23? I've never really liked the AF Delta stuff, mainly due to AC being so cool. (I still play AC2, just to have a YF-23). AC3 sucked, fake planes everywhere, music sucked, etc. But AC4 is one of my all-time faves. Too bad there's still almost zilch for AC5 info, other than "it's coming this year". If there's a lot of cool plane in AF Delta-Strike, I'll probably pick it up, as it's been a while since I've gotten a new fighter game. (I passed on Top Gun of course).

All the current-gen stealths (22/23/35) have twisting intakes. It's for stealth, not speed. The YF-23 can blow past the YF-22 because it's sleeker, and has more powerful engines. YF-23 intakes go in, then up. That's pretty much how most of them do it, though it's more subtle in most others. The X-32 is just simply fugly, its bass-like intake doomed it to be rejected, and to be "not very" stealthy.

So I'm the only one who got Licorice Caribou? Guess it's better than Gummy Worm or Chocolate Mousse(pun).

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the female bridge officer's uniforms in Mac 7. And what about Meltrandi uniforms? They all look good on Milia.

Was that in the very final eps? I don't recall seeing this class in the water, though it's been a while.

Macross follows US aircraft designations pretty darn closely, only exception being of course the use of "V" to mean variable, instead of VTOL. (And since variable fighters tend to be VTOL, it's still correct, sort of) "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. "A" however, pretty much means "not air superiority, and not heavy/strategic bombing". Thus A-6, A-7, A-10, etc. They all bomb, but they aren't heavy bombers like the B-52, B-2, etc. Holds true for both valks and real planes.

Nanashi---is that an "official" waterline placement? Looks rather low. Wow, everything in Macross is huge---that's a LOT of ship and planes for an *Escort* Carrier.

Well, I always figured the F-5 could have paralleled the F-16's development, had we bought any. (Yes, I know we bought *some*, but not enough for anyone to care) Heck, they both started out as pure short-range Sidwinder-only light fighters. But add in some fancy radar, add Sparrow and/or AMRAAM, and you've got yourself a nice, agile fighter. They did for the F-16, but the F-5 never got that chance. Then there's the F-20---but why buy the F-20 when the F-16's already got all those improvements by then, and can bomb, too. And while Sea Harriers have a good air-to-air record, a big chunk of that is because of who and what they fought, not wonderfulness of the plane. Though I did list the upgraded FRSMk2 in my list, for with the new radar (among the best in the world now), and AMRAAM's, it's got quite the long-range punch.

Ah, that actually makes sense. The engine itself is in the lower leg, but there's an auxiliary air pump (which looks way too much like a whole 'nother engine, though it could function as a pre-compressor) that sucks in air, and sends it down the articulated intake to the engine. And actually, with a system like that, no valk would have need for variable intake ramps, since the pump/pre-compressor could take care of all airflow requirements... Of course, a disadvantage would likely be high inlet temps, which is often THE limitation on an engine's power. (But since we know valks are made of nigh-magical stuff, they can probably take 10,000 degrees....)

Yup, gotta wonder about OTHER scales. 1/60, 1/72, etc. Whatever the YF-19 is, is what I'll standardize on. No 1/48 M+? Then no 1/48 M&M (nor Roy) for me. I have some 200 model planes---I try to standardize on scales.

I didn't list the F-16 because it's well acknowledged as a$$-kicking, and practically unbeatable at "knife-range" as it's called. F-111---amazing attack plane. When they really needed something taken out in Desert Storm, they called for 111's, not 15E's. Size matters, for a bomber. (And F-111's are just as fast as an F-15 at altitude, and even faster at low altitude) A-6, A-7----they rock, or they wouldn't have been in service so long. And most people love to point out that in Desert Storm, they could carry more stuff, further, than the Hornet. Oh well, maybe the Super DUPER KF/A_B-18M Hornet II will finally beat them for range/payload.....