David Hingtgen

A-7's had specially designed wings for bomb-carrying---very strong, very stiff. The A-7 is basically a highly modified F-8. Lost the F-8's variable incidence capabilities, and lost its abilities as a fighter. A-7's are WEIRD. (Ugly for a reason) Their outboard pylons are actually rated higher than the inboards. Because it's the outboard sections of the wings that were the most strengthened compared to the F-8. So the outboards actually surpassed the inboards, in load-capacity. And yes, you'll see drop tanks outboard on an A-7---but only the smaller ones, with the larger ones outboard. A-7's have a much higher load capacity than any plane its size, but they still put the heavier stuff inboard. (For drag/balance reasons, not weight--since the inboards are actually weaker than the outboards---so drag/balance must over-rule pylon capacity in some situations) Still--show me a *fighter* with heavy stuff outboard. B-52's can carry heavy tanks outboard, because its a friggin huge heavy strategic bomber. (And because they kind of only ever have to fly straight). (And they still carry heavy bombs and cruise missiles inboard, for they carry such large amounts that they outweigh the tanks) Yes there's lots of planes that can carry relatively heavy stuff outboard. But they still generally keep the heaviest stuff inboard. A big drop tank has more mass/drag/yaw than a medium one, thus A-7's carry the big ones inboard. (Though with drop tanks, you rarely have to worry about asymmetry--you drop them in pairs, not singly--but when full, there's still a lot of mass there) F-111's are just freaks, with their "some of them swing" variable pylons, and the removal of their true outboard ones, with the limited clearance on the inboards with their custom Sidewinders, that they have some pretty weird loading characteristics. Heh heh, found this while I was checking things: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ST-91-09662.jpg 124th TFS, my home squadron. I grew up watching those.

Taurus, Intrepid, Grand Prix etc---they are physically/externally VERY different from the NASCAR versions. There's not a single piece of a NASCAR Grand Prix that will fit on a street Grand Prix. The NASCAR cars have only the overall external shape SIMILAR to the street versions. Rear-wheel drive manual V-8's and FWD automatic V-6's have completely different chassis, for starters... Putting stickers on a Monte Carlo means you've got the same colors, nothing more. The body is completely different. As is the chassis, and interior. And drivetrain. If you ever see a rally Vette, you at least know that underneath it all, it's still a Vette. Not the same with any NASCAR car. A '97 Camaro RS is much more mechanically similar to a '99 Grand Prix than a NASCAR Grand Prix is. (Wanna guess what I drive?) As opposed to a Subaru Impreza, where you can actually make a rally version from a street version, etc. They're different in the details, not wholly different cars that somewhat look alike.

Got mine today too, (barely). Windows are frosted-slightly-blue. I expected *clear* blue based on pics, but that's apparently not the case. I noted the LED itself is actually a white LED, which is why it's so bright. (Gotta wonder if the US one will be toned down to be child's-eye safe) Ah, tall stacks. As they should be. (I know semi's--not nearly as well as I know planes, but enough to know what factors dictate stack-height on semi's--and Prime's should be the tallest of any type of truck on the road) I'm probably one of the few people who want the most accurate truck possible--I think the truck mode was compromised too much for the robot. --It's always the fuel tanks. They make or break the truck mode. Large ones don't ruin robot mode, but little ones mounted too far aft ruin truck mode. And the waist is too visible. Interestingly, if you look at the last few pages of his instruction book, it looks like Hasbro actually designed a perfect truck mode, with a robot mode more reminiscient of the G1, then handed it over to Takara for the detail engineering (as usual) and Takara kind of redid everything so as to make a perfectly accurate robot mode. Though they kept all of the gimmicks Hasbro asked for. (The original design sketches are obviously US in origin--the notes and details are in English, with US-references--like TM Optimus Primal, Armada Prime, etc) Interesting how pretty much the entire transformation was already thought out, yet almost none of it made it to the final design. Makes me wonder--what if we had gotten that perfect truck, but a "better but still not TV-accurate" robot mode? Who'd prefer what? (If there was just like a flap to cover his waist, and we had larger, more forward-mounted fuel tanks it'd help truck mode a LOT, without compromising robot mode very much at all)

Mr Sci-Fi---what'd you start with? And was it 1/28 scale? I just got my MP Prime today, and a quick estimated-calculation of my own came up with 1/28, which is fairly common for model/toy semi's. I saw some 1/28 trailers at Wal-Mart recently, and thought they'd be good, if they were the right size. Now I have to go back and see if they still have them. (Not having the specs for the real truck Prime is based on, I went by drive-wheel size, which is fairly constant among all semis for the past 30 years)

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Editor: Jon Lake. (It's by World Air Power Journal/Aerospace(Airtime) Publishing--all basically the same company, many names)

We really could use a sequel to Sega Rally 2, especially with "Smokescreen" in it. Build awareness, etc.

Trying to clarify my point: Yes, all rally cars have "that look". But only the ones made from Japanese cars often have "copies" (usually riceified) running around on the streets here. I mean, you don't usually see a steet Volkswagen looking like that, despite there being rally racing versions of them. Many many cars have racing versions. But only the JP Rally cars are copied, by ricers.

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.