David Hingtgen

Sadly, the Super Tomcats were supposed to be the first thing to get AMRAAM capability. Could have done 6/2 AMRAAM/Sidewinder--equal to the F-15C or F-22. Specifically, VF-111. Oh well, at least Shin's F-14A+Kai got them...

Bigger planes carry more stuff. F-14D's have long range, and a large bombload, and are very accurate. So let's replace all the proven, rather young planes with an equally-performing unproven plane that costs way way more! (And then spend a year correcting wing flutter, and then killing its range improvement by having to re-align the pylons) Tomcats can bomb with the best, and intercept with the best. No Hornet is good as an interceptor. Better close-range dogfighter, but the US as a rule likes to avoid that, and practically "snipe" enemy planes at a distance. As it is now, the Super Hornet lost a good chunk of its "new improved" range over the regular Hornet due to the pylon modifications needed. Don't know the current range/payload specs. Anyways, I forgot to answer Dobber's question about wing gloves. Actually, all Tomcat's lost them. In effect. In the mid-80's, F-14A's had them locked into the retracted position, then the mechanism was removed and they were sealed over. ::edited for the 3rd time:: Ok, I'm going to go against most books and stuff. I say if an A was converted to a B or D, it'll keep them locked and sealed. But if built as a B or D, they never had them. Why? They didn't do anything really. It wasn't worth the additional weight and maintenance. They were more effort to keep working, than they were worth. Much like an F-15 or B-1B's nozzle plates. ("Turkey feathers"). The loss of performance is considered worth the cost/risk savings. (if something jams, it's usually BAD) Their actual design use was to move the center of lift forward, to counteract the rearward movement of the center of lift caused by going supersonic. They are canards, jusy very weak, and immobile. Why move the center of lift forwards? It'll relieve stress on the tail--when the center of lift goes back, the tail will have to provide constant downforce (more than normal) to keep the plane level. Since F-14's (and most swing-wing planes) rely 100% on the stabilators for roll/pitch control at high speed, there's that much less response/control from them for roll and pitch, since they're already being used for trim. But it seems they're not worth it. (Many possible reasons, I don't know why--either the glove vanes are ineffective, or the lift change isn't as great as thought, or the tail can easily cope with it, etc)

Display one standing on top of the pile of $20 bills saved by not buying the other.

A few things: 1. F-14's true role is fleet defense. Against bombers, and missiles. The F-14 IS designed to go after cruise missiles, or large anti-ship missiles. 2. A BIG, HUGE factor in that is speed. The F-14 is supposed to get off the carrier as fast as it possibly can, and race at Mach2+ to engage the "carrier-threatening" weapons as far from the carrier as possible. It carries the Phoenix missile so as to engage it as soon as possible, as far from the carrier as possible. 3. That said, a Super Hornet cannot do that any better at all than an F-18C, and worse than a Tomcat. You do NOT want to let the missiles get to within just a few miles, 30 secs from you carrier, and pray that your CIWS or RAM can take it down. Those are LAST-DITCH defenses. The Tomcat is your main long-range carrier defense, combined with Ticonderoga-class cruisers for mid-range defense. (And any other ship with its CIWS surrounding the carrier) 4. The best a Hornet (regular or super) is going to be able to do is race out at a slower speed, carrying shorter-ranged weapons. It's not going to get as far, as fast. Super Hornets cannot go faster, nor carry better weapons, that a regular Hornet. 5. So how exactly, is a Super Hornet better? Than either a regular Hornet, or Tomcat? *In the fleet defense role, the reason for the Tomcat's existence?* See, the Tomcat isn't a close-range agile dogfighter. That's what we bought a whole bunch of F/A-18C's for. The Tomcat, is an interceptor. Like the F-15. F-15 isn't as agile as an F-16 in most situations--the F-16 is a dogfighter, not an interceptor. F-15's are interceptors. You don't "replace" F-15's with F-16's simply because they're more agile--they fill different roles. We generally pair our planes--F-15/16, and F-14/18. A fast, long-range interceptor, and a slower, but more agile (and cheaper) dogfighter. So, now there's the Super Hornet. Well, we've already got our dogfighter, the regular Hornet. And we have our high-speed, long-range interceptor, which also performs fleet defense. And it's cheap. But the Super Hornet--is a regular Hornet with 2 more AMRAAM's. And it costs a LOT. So why would we replace the high-speed interceptor and the long-range Phoenix with the low-speed fighter and medium-range AMRAAM? Since we COULD have built a whole lot of brand-new F-14D's for a lot less than new F-18E's, and converted many F-14A's to F-14D config, you can't argue they're physically old. About the only real issue is ease of maintenance. However, a plane has to be REALLY unhandy before it's worth spending tens of millions to replace a single plane with one whose panels are easier to open. Finally--even if you go AMRAAM vs AMRAAM, or F-14 vs F-18C, the Tomcat still has the most-powerful, longest-ranged radar of all--it can track enemy missiles farther than just about anything, and engage quicker due to superior speed. Also, an AMRAAM on an F-14 is better than an AMRAAM on an F-18, since the AMRAAM gains speed from what it is launched from---Tomcats will launch AMRAAMs at a higher speed, thus the missile can go farther, faster---thus engaging enemies farther away. (That is a big part of how the F-22 is supposed to work--since it can supercruise a lot of the time, it'll always have that nice big boost of speed and kinetic energy to add to the AMRAAM). F-14's (and F-18's) will rarely be going that fast, but when fleet defense is the mission, they WILL be going that fast, and the F-14 is even faster than the F-22, and way faster than a Hornet. (F-18 is the slowest fighter in some 30 years, it can't do anything for the AMRAAM). (And Super Hornets aren't any faster).

Modern heatseekers don't need much at all. Heat caused by friction of the wing leading edges is what they're looking, if launched head-on. Also, while not a jet, the exhaust from a big piston engine is still definitely noticeable against the background, to a heat-seeker. As for radar-guided missiles: Nothing creates a bigger radar return than a spinning blade. Big props like on a Zero create truly massive radar returns. Coota--- one of the big "inventions" of the 30's and 40's was advanced high-lift devices for planes. F-14's have them, Zero's don't. F-14's have more than most any other fighter. They can go slower than a LOT of jets. (So that they can land on a carrier). There's no problem with speed. Plus, they've got swing-wings. They're always at "the right speed". WWII vs modern air combat speeds aren't all that different. You cannot dogfight supersonic.

As it is, the Su-47 is the closest thing to a YF-19. The X-29 is FSW, but shares no other useful similarities. Remember, FSW doesn't actually do that much at all. Better roll stability at extremely high AOA, and that's about it. (Man I wish the old MW forums were back online, with my 4-page mini-dissertation about what FSW really means for the YF-19) I can't remember half of what I wrote... The thing is, the Su-47 basically has leading-edge ailerons. I haven't tried to figure out how they work yet. FSW planes don't fly differently than regular sweep. Just be sure they've got really strong wings, and powerful engines, if you plane on going supersonic. Su-47 wouldn't be a bad thing to copy, just I seriously doubt there's much info on it. Overall, the YF-19 has been demonstated to have insane pitch abilities above all else (and darn good roll) (whereas the YF-21 seems to be better at rolling than pitch). Combined with high AOA stability, you might actually want to look at the F-18 as the closest "normal" plane for the YF-19 to fly like. (only much, much faster). YF-21 would be more like an F-16.

Ooh, actually I like the KAL pic the best. I can definitely get reg numbers from that observation deck.

I actually have no idea. It's been on my hard drive for years. Just a lone cutaway. No others that I know of. I'm pretty sure it was an attachment from this forum from long ago.

You'd probably be more interested if I remembered to attach it:

YF-19's my fave valk, here's what I think (based on the animaton): Nothing on the leading edge. Certainly not slats. If you've gotta have something, give it the "current standard" like an F-16/22--a hinged leading edge. One big huge flap that is the entire front of the wing. Trailing edge: outboard flaperon, inboard flaps. (That means the inboard section only moves when you put the flaps down--it's a flap, nothing more. But the outboard section normally acts like an aileron, but when you ask for flaps down, it'll go down as well---but if you want to roll with the flaps down, it'll still move, just not as much as normal--it'll try to still act as a flap (staying down) but will move a little) Basically, if you ask for "flaps 35", a flaperon will only go down to like 20, while the "real" flaps go to 35. This way, it's still acting like a flap, but if you need to roll, it'll go like 15 degrees either way--down to 35, or up to 5---it'll still move, but it'll have a "new" neutral. The thing is--Hasegawa's kit doesn't agree with the animation. The kit gives 3, possibly 4 different control surfaces on the trailing edge. Maybe 2 up front. Are they "really" there, or just there because Hasegawa LOVES to add in panel lines and no-step markings? (And didn't want a nigh-featureless wing like an F-15) 4 trailing-edge controls on a fighter is unheard of. Only the most complex of airliner wings have something like that. (727, 747, 767, DC-10) If you want 3 or 4 control surfaces on the trailing edge, you'll have to come up with them yourself. Kind of depends what you consider canon. If you want, I will try to figure out a 4-control surface. ::edit:: Looking closer, I think it may be 3 on the trailing edge, with the inboard-most one just being a little mini-flap, like F-14's have. Only functional when wing is fully un-swept, and will move to match the main flap just outboard of it. Otherwise, it stays in "neutral" whenever the wing is at all swept. Wing loading: YF-19's (in fact, all valks) don't weight as much as they should. It's like saying you've got a new SUV that weighs 2,500lbs. Unlikely. Maybe if it was made of lithium... But, since you're going for a flight sim, and you want it to "behave" right, Try from 80 to 130 lbs per square foot. 80 would make it like an F-16 (if you want the thing agile as heck), 130 would be like an F-14 (more appropriate, since the YF-19's pretty bulky compared to it's wings). But with the YF-19 being very light for its size, plus its small wings, it'd probably come out to be pretty normal by today's stnadards anyway. ::edit again:: So you can get an estimate of the wing area? Well then plane weight divided by wing area is your wing loading. (Of course, whether it wants full or empty weight is the question--most fighters usually list "combat" wing loadings--a decent fuel load, and a decent missile load--not full, not empty) Could you specify the engine stats it wants? Is it asking for like N1, EPR, EGT, or what exactly? Anything not mentioned, I could make up a believable stat. Here, you might be interested in this pic:

I had forgotten how many "wrong plane" shots there were. If it wasn't an F-14, assume the plane they were showing WASN'T the plane they were talking about. (Ironically, they even did a "Top Gun" and showed some F-5's as MiG's)

I was always *this* close to getting the Rinoa statue, but settled on the figure instead. Should have bought it---most of mine are in pairs, but Quistis is all alone...

Those vinyl statues rock. I have Quistis, Lulu, and FFX Yuna. Don't plan on FFX-2 Yuna, but am definitely getting Paine. (Yes, all 3 are being done, just not technically announced by Previews yet for US import--but they've never missed a one since FF8) You can expect Rikku and Paine to be announced soon.

It's been confirmed for a while now the stacks are chopped. Remeber, Hasbro said months ago that it was their GOAL to have the same stacks. Well, they failed that goal. (Nobody really expected them, it was the most "placating" news post in a while from Hasbro). They also said the gun will be black. It's not, it's grey like the JP one, at least for the first wave. Now people are saying it'll be a running change. We'll see. And US Prime has battle damage painted on.

Max Sidewinder load is 4, one on each stub-pylon on the wing pylon, and one on each pylon itself. (The F-14's wing-glove pylon can't actually carry anything itself. But it can take MANY adapters--most commonly the Sparrow adapter. But the stub pylon's rail can only hold Sidewinder adapters, and things like it--targeting pods, etc) Max Sparrow is 6---4 on the belly, and 1 on each wing pylon. You can do 6/2 Sparrow/Sidewinder. You can also do 4/4, just like your standard F-15 load. Sidewinders, 2 per side: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim09-01l.jpg (notice that they're live weapons, this is likely on an actual mission photographed by the wingman) Also, I did find a pic of a Sidewinder on a stub pylon while a Phoenix was on the main, so you CAN do 6/2 Phx/Side. But you're not going to see 2 Sparrows anywhere when you've got 6 Phx, there's nowhere to put them. F-14's are much more versatile than F-15A/C's, weapons-wise.

Heh, don't even get me started on battleships. I can tell the individual Iowa's apart... (especially since I'm converting the Missouri into the Iowa, piece by piece...) ::edit:: 6 Phoenixes on an F-14. Perfectly acceptable. One condition: it's so heavy, you cannot land on a carrier like that. So only if you're going to be landing on a "real" runway. Good for training, airshows, Top Gun, etc. If the F-14 ever does its true design role, fleet defense, they would be launched that way, since they would be expected to fire them off and take out enemy planes. (You can take back 4, which is why you usually see them with that many--but if you leave with 6, you better get rid of two before getting back to the carrier, one way or another) Are you sure it was 6/2/2 Phx/Sprw/Side? Because I don't think you can carry Phoenixes AND Sparrows on a wing-glove pylon. Not too sure about Sidewinders either. Of course, for test flights you can try just about anything.

There are no "absolute rules". It always depends on the situation. But at very high altitudes, the F-14 owns all. It's the wing gloves... (and the fuselage) (Also, it's very smooth and stable when bombing, very accurate) (Plus the sheer power that the F-14D has---if they'd have had that engine 20 years ago, the F-14 would be an even greater legend than it is)

Yes, quite a few mistakes. But it's still better than most. Sad, isn't it? 20 mistakes are better than 40... But they do go over the Iranian F-14's, and it's at least a modern overview of the F-14---too many documentaries are too old to even have the F-14D, and sometimes even F-14B, in it.

Fri, Jan 9, 10PM Eastern, 9 central. The History Channel. One of the better and more interesting F-14 shows out there. Of course, try to ignore when they accidently show F-15's instead... The show repeats 4 hours later. Mods---this thread only needs to be up for 20 hours or so, can I have that much?

Pretty darn variable in my experience. But I'll tell you what I can: Overall best day for toys: Friday. TRU, Wal-Mart, and ESPECIALLY Target. If you only check once a week, do it around 2PM on a Friday... Decent/good times to check Wal-Mart: Sun. afternoon, Tues. or Wed. night.

*Alternators* are 1/24. But Prime is not an Alternator. And he is most definitely NOT 1/24. ::rechecks some things:: You know, now I'm thinking Prime might be 1/32, not 1/28. 1mm makes a difference when going by wheel size to calculate scale... But wheels should definitely match. Just about every semi, tanker, and trailer, will have 22.5 inch wheels, at all locations. About the only alternative you'll see is 24.5 inch wheels. ::goes to measure again:: Hmmn, too small for 1/28, can get at most 19 inch wheels from that. But 1/32 gives 20-21 (I don't have micro-calipers or anything to measure THAT precisely). If I fudge a bit and go with 11/16 of an inch actually, in 1/32 that give 22 scale inches--only a TINY bit too small for 22.5in wheels. So now I'm thinking 1/32 is the better fit. (It could be they made Prime a random custom scale, like 1/30.67---but it makes more sense they made him a common model truck scale, just so he'd "look right") (Wheel size is one of the few constants out there for trucks--wheelbase, overall height, and other things vary due to options even on the exact same model for the same year--and wheelbase can vary by several *feet*, overall height by a half-foot at least due to suspension type/condition alone---too much to leave to chance when trying to determine exact scale)

That was kind of one of my points, though it isn't flat-out stated. (Guess I should have)-- valks certainly do have unconventional missions by our standards! You know, fighting interplanetary alien battleships and all, and wooing hot alien women (oh wait, that's just Max's mission...)

I'm going to debate a while before I pick 1/28 or 1/32 for a trailer. If you notice, G1 Prime has a proportionately wider trailer than the one Mr Sci-Fi used (It is very good though, best fan-trailer I've seen yet, best size, too). As semi's go, G1 Prime isn't that big. If he was say, a Peterbilt 379, he'd look good with a 1/32. But I think a 1/28 might give the extra "boost" needed to make the trailer the correct proportions in size. Wish I could bring my MP Prime into Wal-Mart to do comparisons... (I don't dare) Since you can snag 1/28 trailers at Wal-Mart (just the trailers alone, no semi) they're cheap enough to buy to experiment. I plan on snagging one tomorrow, I'll take pics and let people see how it looks, compared to the 1/32. (Went tonight, but the closer Wal-Mart didn't have any--will go to the other Wal-Mart tomorrow)

I've never seen range as a consideration for missile loading location. If you think about it that way, your standard F-14 and current F-15ANG loadouts are the opposite of that. Long-range inboard, medium in the middle, and short-range outboard. Because long-range missiles are bigger, and thus should be inboard where possible. Generally, most aircraft don't really perform a true mixed mission. It's either air-to-air or air-to-ground. You don't send off a bunch of F-18's to take out a target, then expect them to go air-to-air. Most attack planes carry SOME air-to-air armament at all times for self-defense. But none are sent out expecting to actually fully perform two roles. Even the F-15E isn't expected to do that, despite that fact that once its bombs are dropped, it's effectively an F-15D with FAST packs and AMRAAMs and even better radar and ECM than the D, and would beat anything else in the sky. And you often see Strike Valks configured pure RMS-1's, not mixed with others. It happens, but like F-15E's, they're mainly expected to fulfill an attack role, not dogfight. Come back and get reloaded if you want to engage enemy fighters, don't go head-to-head with whatever you've got remaining after your primary mission's done.

Yup, fuel tank location is even more important than size. (for looking "right") Sometimes, you'll see the tanks mounted right behind the front wheels, for weight distribution. But never "aft of normal". Tank size can vary a lot, but MP Prime's are too small for even the smallest, IMHO. Prime's tanks should have a volume like 4 times what they are, if you want the most common of the big tank--150 gallons. 120's are the next size down. Prime's are like, 50's... Finally--the elbow-pistons---why THREE of them? Really obvious in truck mode. C'mon, if there was just one, the middle one, it'd look much better in truck mode. Off to Wal-Mart tonight to look for trailers...