David Hingtgen

1. Hey, whoa, hold on. FSW IS NOT INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. PERIOD. Yes, every plane that's FSW so far is inherently unstable. Because they wanted it to be, not because of FSW. F-16 is unstable, and it's got normal wings. You could very, very easily make a stable, FSW plane. You can also make unstable, normal planes. I mean--every F-15E ever has been dark grey. Just because that's the way they're painted. F-15's are not inherently grey, dark grey planes are not necessarily F-15E's. Same with FSW and instability--there's only been 2 built, both unstable *for other reasons*. Not because of FSW. PS: instability=center of gravity aft of center of lift. Nothing more than that. Put a big, huge, heavy engine in the back of the plane (like the F-16 does) and you will be unstable. Want a big heavy engine in the tail (like an L-1011) but don't want to be unstable? Move the wings (the center of lift) back. Look at most any passenger plane with rear engines--the wing will be VERY far back, to keep the center of lift so far back that the center of gravity can't be behind it. Having the wings so far back like the YF-19 actually keeps it fairly stable, since unless those engines are SUPER heavy, there's no way the center of gravity is behind the center of lift. (X-29 is such a funky plane it'd be unstable no matter what, regardless of its wings) Again--stability is determined by how far aft the center of gravity is compared to the center of lift. If it's forward, you're stable. (more forward is more stable). If it's the same, you're neutral. If it's aft, you're unstable. The YF-19's center of gravity would have to be like behind itself to be aft of the wing's center of lift. PPS--stability and all always and only refers to pitch. Roll stability is a simple function of wing dihedral/anhedral. NOBODY will ever, ever want yaw instability, it's bad and means you'll break up. Even the super-unstable F-16 has multiple ventral fins so that it's nice and stable with regards to yaw. 2. While it's usually not simply the plane's fault (as was implied with the YF-19 for simply being hard to fly) you will usually lose quite a few planes early on due to systems failures, etc. F-15 was notable for its LACK of losses. F-14 lost the first plane on the second flight. Had to wait until they built a 2nd F-14 to continue flight testing. Of course, the best early crash is the YF-22, they caught that one on tape. (Another reason the YF-23 should have won--it didn't crash! )

Ehh. Hasbro said "It is our goal" to have the stacks the same as the JP version. That's their way of saying "if they don't pass the safety test, at least we tried". It's like how stuff is advertised *may* *help* prevent gingivitis/leprosy/bankruptcy. Hasbro didn't say "it WILL have long stacks" they said they'll try. Now, why give such a roundabout answer, when a simple yes or no would suffice? If they were definitely going to be long, they'd just say "they'll be the same length". Regarding diecast content, they flat out said Prime would have it, and Alternators would not. But on the stack issue, they skirted around the question. Not a good sign. "It is our intention that the Masterpiece VF-1's will have a large amount of diecast and excellent paint jobs"

We've had this discussion before, with me writing a lot of it: FSW doesn't do sh*t, asides from making you one heck of a radar target. There. (longer answer: it delays tip-stalling at high-alpha due to inverse span-wise flow thus granting greater stability/control for low-speed moves -----that's what it does. Doesn't affect roll, pitch, yaw, or anything else) So you can do an extra-slow "slow speed pass" at an airshow. ::note to self--go find multi-page FSW thread I wrote on the old board:: Supplement: why then are so many FSW planes manueverable? Because if you look at the Su-47, X-29, etc, you'll notice they have canards. THAT is why they can move. And the Su-47 has vectoring, too. You'll notice the Su-37, with vectoring and canards, but no FSW, is about as good as it gets. Same with the F-15ACTIVE. If FSW was so great, don't you think the F-22/23/32/35/Rafale/EF-2000/Grippen might have had it? Nope, but most of them have canards and/or vectoring for their superior agility vs older planes. YF-19's my fave valk BTW, but I sure won't give it any points for manueverability based on FSW. (Yeah, it looks cool, but doesn't mean anything). It's CANARDS however.... (note that the YF-19 has canards, the Yf-21 doesn't---that's the difference, IMHO). However, YF-21's have way better vectoring. (My vote for agilty under most all conditions is the YF-21, the YF-19 would be easier to fly at high-AOA/low speeds---like a Hornet)

Try a lot of paints. See what you like. Every color from every brand is different. Even similar colors from the same brand can behave differently. PS--almost all gunmetal is evil. Inherently nasty color. Also, jet exhaust just plain sucks, do not use it under any circumstances.

I can get you a shot of EXACTLY how the pins go into Super Hornet gear if you want. (Crawled on the ground for those pics) As for missiles: you'll generally find them all over on the pylons/rail right above them, but not ON them very often. However, you'll find one hanging off of a protective cover on the nosecone pretty often. Here's one I saw on an F-16C:

Well, the big thing is locking on to something to the rear. Are UMM-1's heat-seeking or radar-guided? VF-1's sure don't have rear radar. (Flankers do) Anyways, if there's still any debate left, I vote for ECM stuff for any extra space. Every single F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 upgrade ever involves more ECM stuff and antennas. (One of the primary reasons it's so hard to tell F-15A's from F-15C's nowadays is that F-15A's have been upgraded with nearly every antenna and ECM bump that the C's have)

Above all else, hang them from the pitots and probes on a plane (especially around the nose). They're there to prevent dust/dirt getting in the openings. (The vinyl type that actually covers things)/goes over them Also, be sure to put some on the gear struts. The type which is more like an actual tag, hanging from a pin. Pins are generally used to lock something open or closed.

Gerwalker: markings aren't low-vis. They're grey, but since they're light grey on dark grey (or dark grey on light grey) they still contrast highly. Low-vis markings are very hard to see against the background. Hagan--I liked the space example, I'll use it for the next example: For space, low vis probably would be black, and low-vis markings would be VERY dark blue or VERY dark grey. If you used any other shade, they'd have high contrast and show up easily. Here's some low-vis markings on an EA-6B:

re: delta wings and swept wings w/stabs Inherent difference. Wing, vs tail+wing. No matter how swept, an F-14 or Tornado's tail isn't part of the wing, and thus acts very different than a delta winged plane. Elevons alter the wing's characteristics itself. A tailplane is an external, independent source of pitch (possibly roll) control. Deltas suck, IMHO. And canards are superior to tailplanes. (The BEST is to have canards AND tailplanes--see F-15ACTIVE, F-16 CCV) Anyways--more controls are better. Cars with 4-wheel steering are rare, but they can turn better than any normal car ever will. Same with planes. A plane with canards and tailplanes will out-turn a *similar* delta. Yes, a modern Mirage will beat an F-4, but so will ANY plane that's 30 years newer. It's because it's new, not because it's a delta. A delta with canards (EF-2000, Grippen) should beat any non-canard delta there is. And to have canards and tailplanes--well that would be the F-15ACTIVE or Super Flanker, ungodly manueverable aircraft capable of moves which don't even have names yet. (Yes, vectoring's part of it, but it's mainly the canards+tailplanes--vectoring isn't amazingly wonderful, at least certainly not US-vectoring) Basically--why have just one method of control (elevons) when you could have 2 or 3? And with 2 or 3, you can use them independently. Left canard down, left stab up, right aileron up, right stab neutral, right flaperon neutral, right canard up, left aileron down, and left flaperon up. I have no idea what that would do besides a left yaw, and you'd need FBW for sure, but combos like that is why a Super Flanker can do just about anything. Delta-winged planes have a LOT fewer combos available. As for VF-1 pitch control: yes I guess that'd work in space if you used verniers, but in the air it'd be far less effective than vectoring or conventional controls.

Yeah, high contrast sure looks cooler (not many modelers do low-vis, it's so boring) but then it's not low-vis, it's high-vis. Vis=contrast. You've almost got a disruption/deception scheme there, which is the opposite of low-vis. Low-vis doesn't mean "grey" it means "little or no contrast". There's low-vis green, low-vis blue, even low-vis pinks. And of course, lots and lots of high-vis grey. (Nearly all WWII pattern ship camo is high-vis grey--- it's what I'm painting my USS Iowa in) Please note I think it's an awesome paint job, it's just not "low-vis".

VG wing plane with its wings swept isn't a delta, nor does it fly like one (though basic supersonic airflow over the plane is similar, which is the point in doing it--deltas are very good at flying fast). It simply has its wings very close to its tail when they're swept. Also, if such a wing has ailerons, when the wing is swept back that far, they can't do anything, as they're sideways into the airflow. This is why nearly every VG-wing plane uses spoilers instead of ailerons for roll at low speed, and tailerons instead of ailerons at high speed (with wings swept back). So even if you wanted to use ailerons or something for pitch, you couldn't, as they'd be flying sideways into the wind. A VG wing, swept back, can produce lift, nothing more. On an F-14, all functions are disabled when fully swept--no flaps, no slats, no spoilers. ALL control is from the tail. Same with a Tornado--tail only control when wings are swept. (I personally would like to see a VG plane with 45-degree canted stabs, so that you've got a back-up if something goes wrong--an F-14 at least has SLIGHT cant and twin-rudders if something goes wrong with the stabs, but a Tornado has a single fin with a small rudder--if its stabs have trouble when the wings are swept, it has almost no control until the wings are back out--which takes several seconds, and at 800+mph, that's a few seconds too long) Finally: I'm always confusing the F-16AFTI and F-16 CCV---same idea, though. (intake-mounted movable ventral canards) Here's the CCV, which is what I was actually thinking of: http://www.afwing.com/images/f16h/ccv.jpg Here's the AFTI: http://www.voodoo.cz/falcon/old/f16148.jpg

Missed some stuff on my last post, replies to various things: Elevators can't be on the wings, that's like a rudder on the wing--just simply isn't. Delta-winged planes can have ELEVONS. Variable geometry isn't a factor, no plane has wing-mounted elevators. F-15ACTIVE: just the one, modified from the F-15S/MTD, which was modified from the first F-15B, which was the original TF-15A. Quite the plane. Has worn the red/white/blue Bicentennial scheme all throughout. F-117 is overall a delta-winged plane, thus has elevons. V-tailed Bonanzas do have standard ruddervators on their tails. It's not all-moving like a YF-23, but works the same.

Closest thing I know for an air cushion is for Vietnam. Launch a century-series (I can't remember which) off of a truck-mounted rail-launcher. 0-300 in 5 inches. Recover was via a really big air cushion. Takeoffs worked well, unless the rocket refused to release after takeoff. Landings--well, worked, at least once. Not nearly good enough to justify further development. Ventral fins--yeah, they folded in Ep 27, but they wouldn't do anything, and real ventral fins can't move a plane. Exception is the F-16AFTI (or ATFI? whatever) which had like, independently-controlled ventral-canard-rudders mounted at 45-degrees under the intake lip. Could do some amazing things. Basic rule: any slightly modified F-15 or F-16 can out-manuever any "stock" anything. Those planes have incredible potential, adding canards/vectoring just makes them insanely maneuverable.

My car was built with a HUD, nyah. (Why do threads here always turn into car threads?)

Oh yeah--the F-15S/MTD was insanely manueverable, as was (is?) the F-15ACTIVE. Beats an F-22, I think. F-15ACTIVE is still the fastest vectoring aircraft ever, and can vector at twice the speed of most planes. (Just because you can vector, doesn't mean you can vector at high speed--the ACTIVE can though) IMHO, that's even more important--when you're slow, you're already manueverable, vectoring can't help much--but supersonic, you've got zilch agility--and vectoring is a BIG influence there---if you could remain supersonic, yet be reasonably manueverable, that's a heck of an advantage.

What, no pics? 1. 20th Ann Prime. (pre-ordered) 2. UP FEF-3 4-8-4: 3. CR SD80MAC: 4. Lots of 1/400 DC-9's. http://www.sma-models.com/400/images/photos/DC9s.jpg 5. Maybe the new 1/72 F-15E's will be out by then. 6. Maybe Escaflowne, I need to see lots of pics of the final version before I decide.

Nied--I'll have to go read up on F-22/AMRAAM some more to reply. (I do love a good discussion) ewilen--yup. Vectoring nozzles for pitch (and roll should certainly be possible). Verniers could help a bit. As for roll--there's LOTS of ways to roll. The spoilers would be a lot better than wingtip thrusters/verniers. (Unlike an airliner, a fighter's spoilers are pretty much used only for roll and are often the primary/only means of roll) (yes the F-14 is an exception) Canted rudders: not canted enough/big enough to do much. Yes, pulling them both in will *help* pitch you up, F/A-18's do it all the time, I'm sure F-22's will too. But pushing them both out/down won't do anything to move you--it's a powerful airbrake (it is in fact how F-22's slow down--they have no spoilers, no dedicated airbrakes---they just push both rudders out). The only plane with tail surfaces canted enough to have a downwards pitch is the YF-23 (of course) and that's because they're actually more horizontal than vertical. It's not really fins canted out, it's a tailplane canted up. (it's not canted at 45 degrees out, it's 50 degrees out from vertical--thus 40 degrees up from horiztonal)

More like, if you've already masked it, and want to seal the edges of the tape, what should you spray over it? Might try the krylon crystal clear. Other question: what's the absolute "best adhering" stuff there is? I need something that'll stick to my "repels everything" gloss clear... Krylon primer? Some sort of clear? Tamiya something?

Ferris camo is disruption camo---designed to confuse, not hide. Makes it hard to tell what angle you're seeing, which way it's going, etc. Actually easier to see overall, but very hard to tell WHAT you're seeing, and which way it's going. More common on ships than planes. Nearly every Ferris scheme ever is here, complete diagrams with colors: http://users.skynet.be/exotic.planes/htm/o...her/schemes.htm Example 1: Standard F-14 scheme: Note false canopy on bottom.

That's just your standard F-15 Heater-Ferris camo. Plenty of pics/decals out there for it. Also try the F-14's Heater-Ferris for variation. F-4's, too. Very famous type. (Often simply called Ferris, as Heater-Ferris is pretty much F-14/15-specific)

1. Yup, Su-37 is the most awe-inspiring fighter there is. 2. Hey, some Flankers have rear radar, and Russia has developed a rearwards-firing missile. 3. F-22's radar doesn't have totally passive missile launch mode. It MAY sometimes allow a completely passive AMRAAM launch, but don't count on it. (You need multiple F-22's sharing data for that, or a really long, multi-pass sweep on a non-manuevering target) If it makes just one active sweep, Flankers will pick it up in a second. (AMRAAM's are not the 100% totally independent missile they are made out to be, they do rely on the mother plane's radar, just to a lesser degree and for less time than the "paint till it's dead" Sparrow)

Well, I've found out that while gloss is a good sealer, it's horrendous for paint adhesion. The flat black is literally flaking off. Will have to repaint the waterline entirely. (Will re-do after the red is done).

For modern jets, feel free to flatten the tires, but don't bulge them more than about the thickness of the paint. You'll see massively bulged tires on WWII planes due to their low-pressure tires for grass strips. F-15E's (and YF-21's I bet) have their tires at over 300psi, and they don't flatten too much, and they only BARELY SLIGHTLY bulge.

Best color shot I took: (and #4 is piloted by a fellow Iowan, BTW)

I still want to see you do an F-14/15/16 in 1/72 for some scale comparisons. Also--quit fretting about making the deep blue paint look convincing/real, it exists in real life: