David Hingtgen

Yup. You'll note that a lot of the premier air-to-air Tomcat squadrons (Black Aces, Tophatters) are being replaced with F-18F's, not E's. No subsitute for a 2nd crewman.

Yup, pretty good summary of the F-14D/Cheney.

EA-6 will be around for a little while longer. My main point is--they're much older than Tomcats, and have been out of production for a long time. But the lines/jigs are still ok, to make new parts. And literally, new wings, since they wear out after 35 years... But Cheney ordered the F-14 jigs destroyed, to specifically prevent new parts. That's just unheard of. You never destroy the jigs, not until the design is so old nobody would need parts/the manufacturer can't support it. F-4 jigs are gone, but most everything else newer is still around. I think you can still get C-2/E-2 parts for example. But 1990+ build F-14's could fly for 20 more years, if they had parts. So instead of the Navy being able to fly planes for decades and get their money's worth, they'll be forced to scrap relatively new, modern planes (newer than the F-16C and F-15E for example) as soon as they run out of parts. I mean, think of it this way: Buy a new 2004 car. Then, in 2005, the manufacturer stops supporting it (not because they want to, they've got orders for many more--but Cheney says no)---so no parts, no repairs, nothing. Just what's left at the dealership's warehouse. You're pretty screwed if something happens to it, and out of a lot of money. And your only option is to buy a new car that costs twice as much. It may be better in some ways like fuel economy and trunk space, but it's smaller and not nearly as fast, with less power. That's the F-14D vs F-18E story. F-14D's are pretty new and in good shape generally. But there's no parts available, and major repairs can't be done (since you generally need to send back to the factory for anything really serious). Many squadrons which had switched to F-14B/D's had to switch back to A's because there weren't enough parts available to keep them flying. (A's were made for 20 years, plenty of spare parts for a while back then--but the B and D were killed off as soon as they started making them). So D's were restricted to like 1 squadron per 2 wings, to ensure enough parts to keep a fully operation squadron at all times, rather than multiple squadrons with half their planes out of service wanting parts.

Older planes need more maintenance, unavoidable. 5 year-old 747-400's need less maintenance than 10-year-old 747-400's, even if built to identical specs as part of the same large order. Also, the F-14 is simply a much older design "ease of maintenance-wise". The F-14 was the last "old-style" with the F-15 being the first "new-style". F-15's will be around for a LONG time because of that. F-14's were basically designed so that "maintenance is possible", while the F-15 is "maintenenace is quick and easy". Want to open just about any hatch to get to a component on an F-14? Undo 3 latches, get out a screw driver, undo 30 screws, and disconnect every single wire by hand. On an F-15 or F-16? Open a latch, 2 or 3 screws, and quick-disconnect the one big wire/cable bundle. 20 secs instead of 20 mins. F-15's can have an entire engine+afterburner removed and reinstalled in under 20 mins. Of course, it's a lot cheaper to keep your maintenance-intensive F-14's than buy a bunch of new planes... (Since Navy planes need constant maintenance anyways, due to the environment---paint and primer, 24/7). Also, F-14D's are a lot better than A's, new reliable engines, new reliable electronics, etc.

Well, the OVA actually kind of has an F-14A/D. It's MOSTLY a D, but has some A parts, most obviously the cockpit of an A. (Which makes it very hard to model).

Guld just had an undiagnosed eye condition... As for humans/G's---well, 9 is generally the limit for any length of time. Many test pilots though can take 12/13, but most planes don't allow it. (This is often cited for an F-16 crash---pilot tried to pull up, but plane only allowed 9G---most pilots couldn't take more than that, but being the long-time test-pilot he was, he certainly could--if the plane wasn't limited to 9G, he could have done more like 10 or 11G, and probably pulled out of it) But astronauts often have to go up to 20G's for *brief* periods I think. 30 is about the most I know of anyone going through for any air/space reasons. The main reason you don't see more than 9 is most *weapons* won't take it. Many aircraft (even F-16's etc) have 7G limits when carrying most weapons. No point in pulling 8G's if all your weapons and pylons break off in the process. F-15's had a lot of work done to ensure their FAST packs could take 9G's without coming apart. Now that planes are getting internal weapons, it'll help raise G limits.

The friggin F-14*A* rocked at bombing. No upgrades needed. The Black Aces beat out every A-7 and F-18 squadron in the Navy to win the best ATTACK squadron award. Take that Hornet-lovers! The F-14D should be able to out-bomb just about anything, just there's so few they don't even compete. Big heavy plane=stable bombing platform. F-14's already fly air-to-ground, and they're very good at it. Didn't anybody watch CNN/Fox News this March? Every VF-2 and VF-31 plane I saw was loaded with bombs, and more than once I saw them on CAS over US tanks and troops. (The best was a live-on-air tank battle, and they called in for CAS, and two Tomcats showed up in like 1 min, unswept their wings and went to work--very cool) Finally--nowadays, the plane means little, it's all the technology strapped on. Add LANTIRN and JDAMS and you've got a pin-point bomber. You could make an F-5 more accurate than an F-111 with a few electronic pods and gizmos. Strip a Super Hornet of its targeting lenses and pods and it's no better bobming than an F-4. F-14's can simply carry a lot more stuff and fuel, because they're way bigger with more powerful engines. It's why F-15E's are much preferred to F-16C Block 50's most of the time---more and bigger bombs. They share a lot of equipment, LANTIRN pods etc, but the F-15 is simply that much bigger and tougher. Finally--even though the threat is much lower now, F-14's still beat the pants off of most anything else for high-speed interception. The F/A-18E is NOT a replacement for Super Tomcats in the air-to-air role. And of course, there should be Tomcats carrying hordes of AMRAAMS--they were supposed to be the very first plane to get them in the USA. (VF-111 should have been the first to get F-14D's, with AMRAAMS--would have been the premier air-to-air squadron in the Navy at that point) Finally (again)---yes, F-14's need as much maintenance as a steam loco. But that's no reason to kill it off, would it have been THAT hard to keep the line open for the last ones requested, and for spares to keep the others flying? I mean the A-6 line is still ok, for spare WINGS to be made! They'll fly them until they're 90....

Because the kit is like a 1975 early early F-14A, while the "real" Macross 0 F-14 is like a 1995 F-14D. The kit is totally wrong. It's like selling an F-15A as a "bombless/CFT-less F-15E".

Newer G-suits are designed for "rapid-onset" G's more than sheer number of G's, since F-16 pilots were having a problem with it. (Going from 1G to 7G quickly is much worse than gradually going from 1 to 9, for example--the F-16 is the fastest-accelerating plane there is, both in sheer velocity and turning). Also, UN Spacy pilots train for really high G's. In Mac7+, you can see Gamlin training at like 12 or 13G's, just for basic simulator stuff.

All you FFTA-dislikers: Did you like the first one? Yes, FFTA is inferior to FFT, but it's not very different from it. It's more of the same, not quite as good. But that still makes it better than most strat. games.

Save money. If you just want it for certain games, not because of portability, get a GBA player for your GC. 50 bucks, and as bright and big a screen as you could want. FFTA on TV looks just about as good as the original on PSX. (Though the music is only 1/10 as good). Also, GC controllers are a lot better for some GBA games (Megaman Zero, etc), especially the shoulder buttons. I'm *this* close to selling my GBA (white, HK/Asia version) now that I have the player for my GC. PS--Assassins are the best thing in FFTA by far. Unless you've got a buff juggler, which are just evil.

Just FYI, the B-1A is the Excalibur. As for whiskeyM6---whoa! Everybody knows the F-14 is dead due to Cheney. No ifs ands or buts. It was like a personal vendetta of his to get rid of it, to the point of ordering the jigs to be destroyed, to ensure no more could be built, and that no spare parts could be made to keep them flying in the future. Grumman was pretty much offering new F-14D's 50% off, and the Navy was asking for them, but still Cheney ordered something to the effect of "any more requests for more F-14's from the Navy will result in reprimands for whomever asks for them". So much for carriers and their air wings having a voice... Type in "Cheney" and "F-14" and you'll get a lot of hits.

Could of course, be protoculture storage cylinders. ::ducks::

And totally atypical for flare launchers. M0 is specifically trying to be "compatible" with current military stuff. Chaff/flare launchers are very, very standardized. And they're grids, usually 20 (older) or 40 (since Bosnia) round holes in square-shaped area. Pack them with whatever you want--1 flare and 39 chaff, 20/20, all flares, etc.

Yes you do. But you'll probably want to mask it off BEFORE you put the clear coat on... See wmcheng's YF-21 thread and you'll notice the canopy spent several weeks being masked, to protect it from various things.

Just FYI, the original customized VF-1 that the Yamato low-vis is based on is actually Light Ghost Grey and Air Superiority Blue--which are real-life low-vis colors. The modeler who made the custom obviously knew what to use to make it look realistic, but Yamato didn't quite match it. Intermediate Blue like Yamato used for their interpretation of it is sometimes used on low-vis, but rarely, and usually only as a variation for a particular squadron. (Basically, you're looking at F-14's from VF-1 and VF-154 as about the only uses of Intermediate Blue for low-vis). Neutral grey, though super-ultra-low-vis in all light conditions, is generally only for ships, not planes. (Only exception I know of is F-16 nose-cones). For real-life accuracy's sake, as well as doing a better job than Yamato in matching the original low-vis VF-1, you might want to go with the ghost greys. Ghost grey IS low vis. (As in, the low-vis method of camouflage, as well as the ghost grey paints, were designed together for the express purpose of completmenting each other). Air Superiority blue is also perfectly good to use, for it was designed for the same purpose, just not the same program. (Ghost grey is specifically part of project COMPASS, air superiority blue is just "paint it sky blue to blend it" and was the immediate predecessor to ghost grey)

I simply am not confident that a rudder flapping around to simulate the lack of a rudder and v.stab, is the same as it actually not being there. I mean, flopping an aileron about doesn't 100% simulate lack of wing since the wing's still there making lift, even if the trailing edge is changing it... A v.stab/rudder still has some influence on rolling etc, even if the the rudder is inducing yaw motions. Big factor in the DC-10 design. It wasn't so much the yaw effects from the rudder due to the engine in the tail, it was the rolling motion due to the strange position of the rudder. Also, "we're sure it'll do it, it just didn't actually do it" is the kiss of death for a lot of things. See YF-23 aerobatics...

Seems most of those use B-2/flying-wing style drag-inducing ailerons for yaw-control. You still can't just chop off the v.stab and have it fly using vectoring alone. (X-31 with "simulated" lack of v.stab doesn't count)

X-45 has always struck me as flying-wing-ish. (Mainly in profile). I'm unaware of those F-22 proposals. Let me know when there's a tail-less F-22 flying through turbulence. As I said---there will someday be utterly tail-less non-flying-wing (aka normal) planes, but not until there's a huge jump in TVC technology. (Mainly speed of actuation/deflection). Of course, tech does tend to jump pretty fast...

Ah ha. Yaw *control*, not yaw stability. You'd need something like the F-16's pitch control system to eliminate the v.stab to replace stability----- 100 deflections a second. Thrust vectoring is nowhere near that, and won't be for a long time, since you simply cannot deflect the exhaust of a 30,000lb engine at that rate.

EF2000 thrust vectoring will look like this: http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Euro...er/engines.html (very nifty design, better than an ACTIVE nozzle) Also, if you want a tail-less plane, it better be a flying wing. You need a WHOLLY different control system. Vectoring isn't used for yaw. Pitch-yes, roll-yes, yaw-no. It CAN be used for supplemental yaw, usually combined with pitch and or roll. But no plane uses vectoring for yaw alone, not yet. Yaw is just plain different than other forces on a plane. Don't know why, just always has been. There's a difference between yaw control and yaw stability. Vectoring can replace control (but it hasn't yet) but it'll never replace stability. (Not until we have like Star Trek level of tech) If you plan to remove the v.stab, you better attach some massive ventral fins. (Unless you've got a flying wing and are using split-style elevons--flying wings are SO stable and so un-influenced by yaw they can be tail-less---but a normal plane cannot have the stab removed) Normal planes simply need X amount of vertical surface. Check out early F-14, F-15, and F-16 designs. You'll see plenty of swapping between "ventral fins+1 stab" versus "no ventral and 2 stabs". (And even the "2 small stabs with 2 small ventrals to make up for the shortened stabs"---looked kind of cool on the F-15). YF-23's get away with it by having MASSIVE tails, to counteract their low angle. (Plus they do have B-2 style split ailerons for yaw control--a YF-23 does fly like a flying wing, even if it doesn't look like one--it uses opposing ailerons for drag-based yaw control) (A YF-23's tail still has no technical name AFAIK--it is not a ruddervator, nor a taileron---it is simply "an all-moving canted tail surface"---Pelikan tail has come up as a rejected F-32 tail, but it's not quite the same, but still obviously based on the -23's tail)

Until it blew itself apart by firing its main gun in Endless Waltz.... Hero-mecha syndrome: cannot be hurt until plot-line calls for it. It can take nukes and be fine, but a 9mm bullet from a handgun will blow apart its core if the script says so.

Yeah, but these toys aren't being cited for any actual danger to kids, they're simply "bad influences". There's a separate "dangerous" toy list, which is usually anything that shoots anything, or makes sparks, is pointy, etc. These are "anything that's not My Little Pony". And of course, not CLOSELY investigated, simply whatever has a "mean" name or they randomly read a character's bio on the back of the card. (Because they actually DIDN'T list the "Tortured Souls" from McFarlane when they came out----if they missed those, they obviously don't do even a half-assed job looking. If they're going to make lists like these, they could at least not miss the 6 worse ones by far) The second Tortured Souls line is tamer, IMHO. (Though I'm not too familiar with it)

Eh, maybe internal bays are too expensive/maintenance intensive to do for most planes. Maybe VF-5000's had them, but it was found it wasn't worth it, so they were abandoned for the VERY common VF-11. VF-11 is the F-16 of Macross--everywhere doing everything. Needs to be cheap enough to build a million of them. The VF-19 and -22 are like the B-2 and F-117---fewer, special purpose planes that are built in smaller numbers and can thus be full of expensive toys. (Though the VF-19 is more like an F-15E or some such--a large expensive plane trying to do everything, and does it quite well, but it's just expensive enough that we cannot have a million of them, just a fairly decent number to equip a few wings). I mean, look at modern planes. We've pretty much abandoned the variable intake. F-15 is likely the last plane to have one for quite a while. Simply not worth the weight/expense/maintenance for the F-16/18/22/23/32/35. Or maybe it's just now that they've improved internal bays, they're good/cheap enough to put them on the VF-19/22. If someone invents some new light-weight simple variable intake, I'm sure the F-37 or whatever will have it, and be Mach 2.5+

My main annoyance is that they obviously don't look TOO closely at each brand. Example: Transformers. They cite Razorclaw. How is HE the worst TF? (He's the new Tigerhawk repaint). They also cite the BW game. Huh? Far "worse" toys and games, even in the TF line. And of course, any time they don't list some McFarlane stuff means they totally ignored one of Toys R Us' aisles.... Based on previous year's lists, it's obvious they go by the NAME a lot of the time to go pick toys, rather than actually checking out each thing. I.E. "Gun Sniper" was listed as the worst Zoid last year, as opposed to those which wiped out entire cities on the show and have working spring-loaded missiles (the bane of parent groups)... And "Razorclaw" is one of the "harsher" TF names.