David Hingtgen

I have yet to snag a 1/48, but Milia is enough to make me buy anything. Of course, whatever scale the oft-rumored (4 days maybe?) new YF-19 is, will affect how many 1/48 VF-1's I buy. I really like having things in scale. If the YF-19 is 1/60, then I won't replace all my 1/60 VF-1's. If it's 1/48, then I'll at least snag a 1/48 Roy as well, maybe Max.

Yup, that book is worth its weight in gold. More real, factual info about modern jet combat than anything else, period.

Dobber brought up a point I was about to make--2 F-15E's were lost, with 2-man crews. You don't count non-air-combat-losses in a plane's win/loss ratio. The F-15E's were taken down exactly the same way as the F-14B. Getting shot down by a SAM means NOTHING for how good a plane is at fighting. "Golden BB" theory. I mean, we lost FIVE F-16's. Next--They didn't run from the F-14? Time for me to quote: "We were anxious to show what the long-range Phoenix could do. But it didn't happen. On my first day mission, there were a lot of Iraqi airplanes airborne over targets. As soon as we pointed our AWG-9's-our powerful radar-at themm they ran. They skedaddled in ever direction. We we frustrated, but the attack guys loved what the AWG-9 did. They asked us, 'Is there a pod we can carry that will transmit the AWG-9's frequency?' They were serious." --LtCdr Parsons, VF-32. Sounds like pretty good evidence to me. There's more F-15 than F-14 pilot interviews, and not one F-15 pilot ever says anything about MiG's runing away. Blowing them up, sure, but not having them run. More quotes, same report: "I don't know if they knew the F-15's radar frequency, but they wouldn't react when an F-15 got close. But when a Tomcat put his nose out there, they were gone". Finally--yes, a MiG-29 ran into the ground while engaging an F-15, but not because he was SCARED of it. The exact same thing happened with an EF-111! I seriously doubt that pilot was afraid of an unarmed plane... There were two Iraqi fighters downed just because they were lured into smashing into the ground.

Yeah, I need the old forums back up---I never got a copy of my own FSW thread. And I don't want to have to re-do the whole thing!

Re: cost. It's pretty pointless to accept simply "F-14" or "F-15" from a site. They've got to be way more specific. And cite a year. I mean, a 1974 F-14A is going to be a LOT cheaper than a 1990 F-14D. Just think about cars. 1974 vs 1990. What, quadruple the price simply due to inflation? Maybe only triple. And finally--what DOES cost have to do with how good a fighter is, anyways? F-111 was expensive as hell, and it sucked so bad it couldn't fulfill the role it was designed for. And then there's the whole issue of how military stuff is accounted. "B-2's cost half a billion each." Not really. There's just so few (20) that the cost of the development program as a whole is only spread over 20 planes. If there were 200 B-2's, they'd only be considered to be 50 million each, instead of 500 million. (not *exactly* but I don't feel like trying to calculate out per-unit variable cost vs fixed cost of a military program---and the B-2's is probably classified anyways) If we built 500 more F-15's, the cost per plane would plummet. Does that make it a worse fighter? If we'd only built 20 F-14's, the program cost would be like $400 million each or something--does that make it better?

My point was it's the same effect---flat out noticeably lower quality.

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C. Block 30A or so. PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t. If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25.

Yeah. The nose cone is utterly blunt.

Diecast models tend to do the most famous/colorful schemes there are. Simple. (You won't find many low-vis models out there, even if they are 90% of the fleet)

The F-14 has the most powerful radar. It has the longest-range missiles. F-15's are faster. If it's a regular Tomcat, it has less power than an F-15. If it's a Super Tomcat, they're equal. Their manueverability is about equal I'd say, in most conditions. (F-14 is probably a bit better when slow, F-15 is probably a bit better when fast)

Recon F-8's survived into the mid-80's. But they were gone as combatants well before then.

::gets big expensive Iowa book:: Ok, it's not armor-piercing. But it's still big, metal, and pointy, and would get through any modern ship's hull. It's based on the standard Mk13 High Capacity 1,900lb round. Your basic Mk13 shell will penetrate nearly 30 feet of steel-reinforced concrete. (the original "bunker buster") Not technically "armor piercing" but not much will stand up to it. (Though it says it is designed to be used as an air-burst nuke, so penetration probably isn't what it's designed for).

Yup it is. And note the "French's Mustard" camo. PS--if you saw Armour at a Franklin Mint store, then it wasn't Armour. It was the "Franklin Mint-ized" Armour. They even changed factories--the molds are the only thing the same--it's like a real Bandai 1/55 vs the worst 1/55 Joon's--same mold, but VERY different quality.

Yup, Corgi Tornadoes are great. All Corgi is good. Some better than others, but all good. (And their F-4's and Tornadoes are REALLY good). Can't go wrong with a Corgi anything, in any scale. (Want BIG? Buy their 1/144 B-52 or 707) I *highly* recommend their F-4 (I need to snag the Sundowners one before they're all gone). Just a note: Corgis tend to include LOTS of extra parts. Be prepared to spend a while putting in the gear, gear doors, missiles, pylons, tanks, canopy, etc. (But this also means you can switch between gear up or down, canopy open/closed, fully loaded or empty pylons). Just be sure to test-fit everything. (I end up often scraping paint from gear-door posts). But they've got A+ paint and detail. They feather the camoflage and everything, and the finish is dead flat, as it should be. I personally am waiting for Dragon's 1/72 Tomcat. But it could be a LONG wait. (But they do promise A's and B's, hopefully D's, too). There is one more choice: Revell now makes 1/72 diecast Tomcats. F-14A's and D's. (Theirs is as accurate as most D kits--close, but not exactly). However, there are quite a few seams, and many visible screws on the bottom. But they are far more accurate than just about anything else, and your only choice for a decent Super Tomcat. I've never seen them for sale in the US, but I know they exist. I recall F-14A Jolly Rogers (of course), and a Tomcatters low-vis F-14D.

Just in case nobody else on this forum does: I get it! LOL

Yes, I had forgotten some of the errors. Like the "Indepedance" Actually, the ATM-54 isn't a mistake. It is a different missile than the AIM-54. No warhead, but a live motor. (So it isn't a dummy AIM-54, as dummies have no motor). It's the Air Training Missile, as opposed to the Air Interception Missile. And the awfully-similar-to-certain-kits parts. (Honestly, your standard Monogram 1/48 generic fighter pilot with one-arm-up has been copied so many times, there's more fake ones than real ones) And while the F-18 looks ok, the wingtip missiles ARE a huge problem with it. (Assembled Hornets are VFA-27 I think, while unassembled are VFA-195) I thought they were more like Sidewinders made the length of Sparrows. (And with no launch rail). Never took a close look at the Harrier though, that's out there too.

F-8's were already too old to be in service by then. And F-8's are about as pure a fighter as you can get (and a gunfighter, at that). Don't expect to see an F-8 with bombs. PS--laser-guided bombs aren't all that new. First deployed in Vietnam. A-6's used them all the time in Gulf War, but I'd have to look for a while to see if they were common in the late 70's. (F-4 and F-111 were the "favorites" for new bombs and stuff, A-6's were always last on the list) ::edit:: Yup, A-6E's wer already up to their 2nd-generation laser tracking pods by then. So the Nimitz could have certainly sent out squadrons of A-6's to launch laser-guided bombs against the Japanese fleet. (And A-6's can self-lase, one of the earliest planes to do so)

Take out the task force? No problem. Remember, with modern planes and weapons, even dumb bombs are highly accurate, many many many times more accurate than WW2 bombs. Even a dumb bomb is now launched with computers, optical signals, etc. It may not be able to guide itself, but the pilot knows EXACTLY when and where to drop it. And ships are big targets. Also, the bombs themselves are larger, and more powerful. Plus they carry more. One A-7 could carry as much ordnance as like 15 standard WWII divebombers. Sending out both A-7 squadrons from the air wing would be like sending out several hundred WWII planes. And the A-7's wouldn't miss nearly as much. Carriers are designed to do ANYTHING. If you need it taken out, they have an aircraft that can do it. (Though they may not be all that good at it--which is why carriers go with a battlegroup, to fill in what it lacks) Of course, a big part of the movie is that just the Nimitz goes back in time, not its battlegroup. Taking out other ships is at the low-end of a carrier's abilities--it's planes can do it, but they're not the best at it, and it won't happen quickly. That's what destroyers and cruisers are for--they're the ones with most of the anti-ship missiles.

Armor-piercing nuclear warhead? Iowa-class battleships had it. The good 'ol Mk 23.

Well, either the VF-2 ones have different wings, or you just can't see the hollow wings from those pics. If anyone's interested, I'll take a pic of the Sundowners one. As for Forces of Valor: far better to snag an Armour. Forces of Valor are pretty laughed at by all collectors. They're nice toys, certainly not models, IMHO. Paint just sucks, they're super-ultra-overlined. As in, you know those Gundams (and valks) which have EVERY panel line colored with thick black lines? (As opposed to subtle, fine lines). They look like that. They are my preferred scale, but would never buy one. PS--especially do not snag their Tornado. It's half of one, half of a another. There are two distinct types of Tornados, these pretty much have the body of one but the options/weapons of the other. PPS---yes, I nit-pick. I spend way more time at diecastaircraft.com than here. My profiles at the various diecast model plane forums say "Nit-picking" under "hobbies". As you can imagine, I have high standards for planes, especially F-14's. But I will tell you, nobody at those forums buy Armour/FM any more, and few ever bought Forces of Valor. You can get MUCH better stuff way cheaper. Just not F-14's. There are still no GOOD F-14's, in any scale. (Except the occasional Armour produced years ago, when they were cheaper, and higher quality, and was an early F-14A painted up as an early F-14A)

I was curious too, so I looked some stuff up. Seems they're not that effective. No air=no fire. Also, no air=way weaker shock-wave (since there's nothing to compress/move/carry the wave). There's a lot of X-ray radiation, and that'll even disintegrate some things (due to heat induced by being irradiated), but there won't be much of a boom/shockwave, nor will there be a big fireball to burn everything for miles around. Basically, it'll work for things directly contacted, but there'll be no blast-effects beyond the immediate point of detonation. (Recall that a nuke is most effective when detonated well above the ground--Earth's atmosphere is key to getting the most out of a nuke--lots of the stuff we associate with them are actually secondary effects from the atmosphere, not the actual nuclear explosion)

Armour was OK back when it was Armour. However, it was an as-built 1975 F-14A, and they'd paint it up as anything, including late-90's SUPER Tomcats--didn't even bother the change the engine nozzles, much less the more subtle things. Now (as Franklin Mint), the price is WAAAAAY up, and quality is WAAAAAAY down. Things that were painted are now *poorly* decaled. And many small details are omitted. of course, the greatest Franklin Mint error is their baby-blue $600 USS Missouri. Sorry, but 5N Blue (Mo's deck color) is really dark blue. Opposite end of the spectrum from baby blue... (There's plenty of color photos of her deck and camoflage paint, with the surrender ceremony and all--most photographed thing in history at that point) Wal-Mart 1/48 F-14's: There's 2 that I know of. Sundowners and Bounty Hunters. Bounty Hunters suffers same problem as Armour's--it's a 1970's A painted up as a Super Tomcat. A 2003 F-14D to be precise. But the markings/colors are decently close, even if too dark and single-toned, IMHO. The Sundowners has big problems. The tail logo's not right. Close, but not right. Also "NT" isn't a valid code. Sundowners were NL most of the time. NT doesn't exist. Also, Sundowners never wore dark grey, ever. But at least it's an F-14A painted (sorta) like an F-14A. The biggest problem is that the wings are hollow on the Wal-Mart ones. As in, if you turn it over, it's totally concave. The wing has an upper surface, but there's no lower surface. It's exactly as if you had a 1/48 kit, and only had the upper half of the wing. It's not just "not detailed" it flat out isn't there.

::has to go look up Zero armament (I'm better with German WWII fighters):: A6M2 Zero has 2x20mm cannons and 2x 7.92mm machine guns. Typical but weak as WWII fighters go. 7.92mm isn't going to do much, not against the thick hide of the F-14, IMHO. Cannons--only 50 rounds total. F-14's fire 100 rounds PER SECOND. Sure, it could probably do SOME damage with its machine guns, and if it had like a 100% hit rate with its cannons, maybe take down the Tomcat. This assumes it can unload every bullet it has into it, requiring the Tomcat to just sit there for a few seconds, being fired upon again and again. F-14's have a 20mm cannon. But it fires about 6,000rpm (6 times as fast as even the machine guns of the Zero, and like 30 times as fast as the Zero's cannons), and at a much higher muzzle velocity than the zero. And it has about 15x as much ammo for its cannon as the Zero. Also, the range of its gun is at least 3 times that of the Zero's. Basically, it has one really kick-ass gun. As opposed to several mediocre guns. Finally, Zero's were known to have little tolerance for damage--little armor, thin armor, easy to disable with like 3 shots. And generally lightly built. (Materials shortage). They would literally be shredded by the M61A1/2, the standard gun of the F-4/14/15/16/18/22. Would need about a 1/25th of a second burst from a Tomcat to go down.

Desert Storm: USAF took control of air-to-air. F-14's were ordered not to go after fighters unless they got VERY close. F-15's could go after anything, even outside their own radar range, directed by AWACS. Iraqi pilots ran from F-14's, not from F-15's. --If an F-14 even turned on its radar, they'd run like crazy, and the F-14's wouldn't even have a chance to get close enough to shoot. But the F-15 had no such effect, they didn't fear it, so they stayed--and got shot down. F-14's had pretty much one mission only, escorting A-6/A-7's. And even when Iraqi planes got fairly "close", F-15's were sent in. (They learned to fear the F-15 after about day 2, but by then most everything was already shot down, or escaped to Iran) Basically, F-15's were on CAP 24/7, while F-14's were assigned to escort duty only. (And recon). Several reports of F-14's waiting for MiG's to get in range (F-14's were allowed to engage only if they got within X number of miles), when they'd see F-15's go streaking by, being allowed to chase after whatever they wanted.

For a Navy plane, most likely the H, possibly the L. The L was "new" for the Navy at that time, but it was in service. If anybody had it, it'd be VF-84. D too old at that point, not on a front-line VF-84 aircraft. The G is a possibility, but a bit old, and definitely uncommon (by sheer numbers). There were many more H's built than G's. G was kind of an "interim" H. Anyone got a good pic of the Sidewinders in The Final Countdown?