David Hingtgen

Actually, I think it's ricey looks racey, not the other way around. Performance is always good, but for me, looks beat performance. (I'd rather have an 85-87 Countach above any other car in the world, even if by today's performance standards it's not spectacular, only good, and met by factory-fresh cars costing 1/7 as much) And I feel '97 Camaros are superior to all other years, looks-wise.

I did say a FEW body mods And performance is irrelevant to its looks. Rally racers based on Japanese cars often look very similar to heavily riced-out Japanese cars. (Whereas you'll never see a modern street Pontiac that looks like a NASCAR Pontiac) I mean, those "fake" Lamborghini's look awfully similar to the real ones, even if they do have a Fiero's chassis and suspension, and maybe a V-6... And since Smokecreen is only a "shell" of a car (with seats and a dash), his external appearance is what matters. And he looks ricey, because ricers try to copy the real racers.

Hard to tell the difference sometimes. I mean, it is a Japanese sports sedan with a few body mods, big new spoiler, hood scoop, bright flashy gaudy paint, sponsor markings, etc.

I wouldn't cite the Hasegawa model as reference. Detail and quality doesn't esure accuracy. (I have a lot of models, for which the most detailed ones are the most inaccurate ones) I'll go watch the M&M dogfight and have a look.

OMG it is a Kingfisher. ::hangs head in shame:: I'm *building* a model of one of those for my USS Iowa... D*mn. I must be blind to have missed the floats. Gotta stop going by markings for Navy plane identification... I'm never going to live this one down. That's on the level of me confusing an F-15 and an F-16. hey, got any more pics? I need them for painting references--especially the undersides and pop/gear/struts.

Credible sighting at Target in Eugene, OR. (not me). Seems the new case is 2 Smokescreens, 2 Sideswipes. Didn't the JP one come out only like a week or two ago? http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/50584.shtml

Hmmn, what ARE we talking about? Well, I'm mainly going by it's just "not a good idea at all" to have the heaviest stuff outboard. It's like it's being retconned to explain why it'd work. Yes, VF-1's are utterly invincible and seem to be strong enough to carry B-52's under their wings. But it still just isn't "right" to have the MER on the outboard pylon. Drag/yaw/balance is still surely a consideration. Especially balance. Unless it's going to be firing verniers constantly while in flight to counteract the weight once it lets a few go. And you still have to deal with a lot of mass at the tips--even the aileron-less VF-1 still uses verniers at the very tips to roll, it wouldn't like excess mass far from its roll axis. F-111's don't have a problem, since their "outboard" pylons are still very close to the centerline. (And they're a very large plane--2,000lbs would affect them far less than most fighters) But VF-1 pylons are pretty far out there. For the standard VF-1 Strike config---less mass inboard, much mass outboard? That's just stupid, IMHO, unless there's a darn good reason to do it. As it is, we only have why it might be possible for a VF-1 to do so. Still no good reason to fly in the face of convention and aerodynamics by mounting them that way. As for swinging---irrelevant. VF-1's never swing their wings when they have weapons, of any type. If it's carrying something, they're fully out. (At least, that's what I recall) Especially DYRL.

Nit-pick: "Concorde". The E is for England. Concord is a grape, Concorde is a plane. (And a car, but only because BAe forgot to trademark the name and Chrysler copied it) No 367-80 pics? You people have no sense of what's important. I think that's a Dauntless in the Enola Gay pic, though I was never good with WWII carrier planes. Did you get to the observation deck? That's actually going to be my highlight when I get there--Dulles pics! (I've seen a B-29 flying, saw the 367-80B at Boeing field, sat on an SR-71's gear at Offutt) Above all else, my love is for airliners.

I've still got the book right here. 353 rounds. Fires 2,400rpm. 3,200fps at the muzzle.

::looks up stuff in F-4 book:: Lightning06: SUU-23's were the replacement for the very similar SUU-16. F-4's initially carried the SUU-16, later the SUU-23. Maximum legal load is 2, one on each wing. They often show up at airshows carrying 5, but that's just for display. When equipped with SUU-16's, airspeed is restricted to 350kts. No such restriction on the SUU-23. F-4's use 370gal tanks on wings, 600gal centerline. So you generally see 2 wing tanks and a central gunpod, or 2 gunpods and a central tank. (only 140 gal difference between the two configurations) Interesting note: a few F-4's got the 30mm GPU-5 anti-tank pod. It's basically the A-10's gun (but the 4-barelled version) in a pod. THAT is a gun pod.

Pure speculation on my part, but it makes sense to me and is IMHO a good theory: I think part of it is the general miniaturization of technology. The Genie had as small of a yield as they could make, to fit inside a missile. They just couldn't make it any smaller, and still work. So they're not 1.5kt because that's what they needed, it's as small as they could make it. They simply couldn't make it any less powerful than it was. The whole "critical mass" thing---you generally need a baseball-sized amount of material to make a self-sustaining reaction. Now we have better tech, more refined material, but there's still a minimum size/yield for a weapon to work. (FYI, the first sub-launched ICBM's wouldn't have worked--but now we can make much smaller ones, and pack multiple warheads into one missile)

D*mn it, the F-111 was also on my list of "freaks and exceptions" that I was going to type. Because it is. It's pylons are unique---some pivot with the wing, some do not. Its pylons have been modified again and again. Its pylons are ejectable, in case something goes wrong with either them or the wing-sweep mechanism. And their outboard pylons have pretty much been eliminated. So they've been replaced with the inboards, effectively. Also, the F-111 has to use custom-designed AIM-9's. AIM-9P-2 I think, maybe P-3. Because no other variant will fit on its funky modified pylons. Also, you'll note that "the outboard-most plyon it actually uses" is still well inboard, not even at the mid-point of the wing. The "outboard" pylon is located where most planes have their inboard-most one. (Thus, their inboard pylon is SO inboard, they have to use custom Sidewinders to fit, as it's too close to the fuselage to safely release normal Sidewinders) They put their Sidewinders inboard because they have to, they only fit on certain pylons in certain ways. F-111 pylons are generally the same, and all rated for high loadings. F-111's were among the first (and still the best) to carry super-heavy bunker-busting bombs. Their pylons can carry weapons that pretty much nothing else can, so there's few problems with weight. (Clearance, yes---F-111's carried bunker-busters "outboard" I think due to their extreme size). It doesn't have "outboard" pylons, more like "inboard, and REALLY inboard". Finally---F-111's a bomber, not a little fighter. Show me a fighter with heavy weapons outboard, on a third pylon.

I figured that'd be the only way it works (covering the attachment points), but I still wonder how well it'd work. And I still have to go look up in my F-4 book

Make me go and get my big expensive F-4 book... ::back in a little while::

F/A(gack)-22 has external pylons as well. Though I can't believe they made stealth hardpoints. IMHO, the F/A-22's stealthiness from below (especially the wings) has been compromised compared to the YF-22. Once you remove the pylons, there's still connectors on the underside of the wings. Those aren't stealthy. And then there's the big new aileron hinges on the underside. YF-22 had a smooth, flat, featureless wing underside--nice and stealthy. Now it's got hinges, fairings, and hardpoints. All things which are bad for stealth.

Zentrandude--yup, *possible* (for some) but not practica at all. Nobody'd ever do it other than to see if it was physically possible. You'd have a really messed-up plane that'd fly horribly. Thus you never see it. For the REALLY heavy stuff, it's REALLY inboard only. I.E, fuel tanks. They weigh more than all but the largest of the large bombs. (Jetfuel weighs 6.7lbs per gallon---tanks range from 200 to 600 gallons each for most planes) Balance is very important--the F-15E has to have the best ground crew for loading (IMHO), due to all the combinations possible. They'll end up with VERY weird combinations, like 4 500lb bombs with 2 AMRAAMS and a JDAM and 2 spaces diagonally oppositely empty, with an old Sparrow hulk filled with cement, just so it'll balance left/right and front/rear. (When you've got 12 stub-pylons on the belly, it gets complicated). I looks weird to see bombs and empty space on one side, and missiles and weights on the other!

Re: why not 2 outboard. Nied---for mass/G/symmetry reasons. 3 weapons spread out works, but you can't just "clump" the same amount outboard. Wings get massively weaker at the tips, especially something with a high aspect ratio like the VF-1. It'd take a lot of strengthening to make it work. Aerodynamics: You couldn't just strengthen an F-16's outboard pylon, and put 2 large bombs under the outboard pylon--the plane would be so horrendously off-balance if you dropped them (but not the ones opposite), plus the asymmetric yaw, plus a hard time trying to roll with that much weight at the tips---moment arm of the ailerons---adding a couple of thousand pounds at the tips reduces the effectiveness of the controls. Big weapons go inboard for the same reason wing-mounted engines go well inboard on an airliner---weight/balance/wing-strength/prevention of asymmetry. Or finally---if you're going to try, why not just strengthen the inboard ones instead? A lot more practical. Ah, it's been a while since we've had a good airplane discussion. Now if only more VF's carried weapons externally we'd have a lot more to compare. Internally-leg-mounted's all the rage...

Nied--I said most! Not all. I figured a long line of exceptions would get boring. I do think the F-18E's outboard ones are AMRAAM/HARM only AFAIK. The main reason for the new pylon on the wing was to carry an AMRAAM, to free up the outboard pylon. And the A-10's billion low-loading hardpoints have always seemed pointless--you never see them loaded up, they're usually half-empty, and asymmetrically loaded. A-7: the main exception. Carries more than a Hornet. Harrier: which/when? Be specific, there's a lot of variants, with various wings. Outrigger-gear-mounted-sidewinders don't count! (And it's still small, show me a Harrier with a 1,000lb bomb on a 3rd pylon) Planes with a 3rd, outboard pylon, carrying anything more than medium-sized missiles, aren't very common.

I would guess that people who thought VF-1's had 3 hardpoints because of having 3 RMS-1's didn't know much about how missiles are carried, and just assumed 1 missile per pylon. Most planes only have 2 hardpoints (thus pylons) per wing. If it's got 3, the outboard one is almost certainly AIM-9-only. (Or nowadays, AMRAAM). It's the pylons themselves which carry multiple bombs or missiles. I mean, you always see F-15's carrying 4 Sidewinders, but it's 2 per pylon on just 2 pylons. Boy, could I (and would I love to) get into a discussion about pylons, stub-pylons, multi-ejector racks, launch rails, pallet adapters, and the like. :)

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions. I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard. That's just WRONG for any aircraft. I put them inboard without a second thought. I mean, just go have a look at your "standard" F-16 SEAD mission load-out (one of the most common weapon loadings in the USAF in the 90's)---you have the huge heavy fuel tanks occupying the inboard pylon, the big HARM missile in the middle, the medium AMRAAM missile outboard, and the light Sidewinder on the tip. Now, you will also see the AMRAAM and Sidewinder swap places, because it's been found the AMRAAM is picky about it's line of sight, and likes to be outboard. Since there's less than 100lb difference between the two, it makes little difference. But you'll never see a heavy weapon outboard---they just won't take it. Putting a light weapon inboard is pointless, since the inboard ones are the ONLY ones which can take a heavy weapon. Most planes have every pylon rated differently, even if the pylons are physically identical---it's the wing itself which is the issue. And you have to take into account G-loading for the pylons, as well. An F-15 will NOT be pulling 9G's if there's drop tanks on its wings. (One of the prime factors for F-15 FAST pack design was that it must be able to maintain 9G's with them attached--few fuel tanks can take that stress) Here's an F-16 with a SEAD loadout (not typical SEAD, but illustrates my point better): PS-- SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Basically extended patrol/air combat, with anti-SAM added in.

Avoiding self-fragging/friendly fire is definite concern with these. I mean, you don't want to launch a Sidewinder from .3 miles away--the exploding enemy plane probably WILL take you down too. Same with a nuke--bad idea to have a HUGE explosion, when you can just cripple it. I mean, look how BIG the Zentran ships are. In a fight, there could easily be an entire friendly air wing zipping around it---you do not want to zap everything in a 1-mile radius. You just want a nice big "boom" at the bridge, or the engines, etc. As to why it's so big: 'cuz it looks cool on screen, and we want to be able to identify the STRIKE valks easily on a 19inch TV. People expect nukes to be big. Even if they are much smaller than most bombs in real life. (The most common USAF one is the B61 "Silver Bullet"---looks like a fat sparrow if anything, with no forward fins---not some giant of a weapon) But, the B61 can range from 0.3 to 350 kiltons. RMS-1 is likely the same. The actual material takes up very little space in a weapon, you can use the same weapon to delivery many various payloads.

Well, you are getting into tactical vs strategic nukes here. RMS-1's are decidedly tactical, while AGM-86's (so cool on a B-1) could definitely be considered strategic, if a bit small for that role (but then again, they have to be, to be air-launched). The Genie was anti-aircraft. (Bombers, specifically) No need to be any more powerful than it is. Same as a nuclear torpedo (SUBROC/ASROC)---don't need a 10-mile destruction radius for single small targets. Same with the RMS-1. It's not supposed to nuke cities, it's anti-ship.

Yup, same. But more like, saw it once in the theaters, and once on DVD.

Yeah, but it's still inconsistent. You see Raytheon and Hughes used, not Raitheon or Haghes. So why not Bofors? And Northrop-Grumman is used correctly, for both real and fake planes.

I'm fairly certain it should be made by Bofors, not Beforse. Since Bofors is a major missile manufacturer, and they are listed as making weapons for Macross 0.