David Hingtgen

Grayson--that's exactly it. Microset does too---it just takes longer! Microsol will destroy many a decal. But you can soak a decal in microset for an hour, and it'll be fine. It will go down snug against the paint just as tightly as the paint adheres to the plastic. As I said, microset+time will let the decal pick out every panel, rivet, surface imperfection, etc. Sheesh, I can make sanding marks appear, if I've got a decal over a thin layer of paint. Microsol is too strong and unneccessary 99% of the time. Here's my USS Lakota, for which I only painted white and steel. All blue and grey and red is decal:

Radar range is said to be 90 miles---2/3 that of the F-22. It's the same radar basically as the 22, just a lower-power version. Missile stand-off range should be about the same as the F-22, whatever that is. (AMRAAM's range is still classified. 30 miles is a good guess, but 10-20 is optimum. However, when launched in supercruise, range goes up. How much, still classified). F-35 is like a slower, less stealthy F-22. Overall the same idea, just cheaper and not quite as good. And WAY less payload. That's the F-35's main suckiness (I'm not an F-35 fan, BTW---it's the F-16 replacement, even though it's worse than the F-16 in many ways). It carries *two* weapons. Either 2 JDAM's, 2 AMRAAM's, or one of each. That's it. And, since the AMRAAM is a medium-range missile, the F-35 is so totally screwed in a dogfight. And it's not manueverable enough to to use its gun well. (Though the gun should be superior to most any other gun). Now, the F-35 should be decently manueverable, it just won't have any weapons. The F-22 is designed to be quite fast, quite stealthy (but still less than a F-23), and carry 6-8 missiles, both short and medium range, and take out a lot of bad guys quickly. As it gets close, it still has great manueverability, short-range missiles, and a gun, so it can still dogfight if things come to that. But the F-35--I don't know WHAT it's supposed to do. (Neither do a lot of people). F-16 replacement is often cited, but it's so not. F-16 is originally an AWESOME close-range dogfighter. Unbeatable at "knife-range", can turn on a dime. Designed to use short-range missiles. So how can a plane without short-range missiles be a replacement? Also, F-16C's and such have a very good bombing ability. Because they can carry lots of weapons. No point in a bomber with only 1 or 2 bombs. (Except the F-117, because it's ULTRA stealthy, and is used to deliver a few big bombs to very well-defended, high-value targets)---F-35 can't do that, it's not stealthy enough, and doesn't carry as big bombs. F-35 is designed to be "as good as the F-16/18" in the strike role, and have a secondary air defense capability. Well, if you add the extra pylons on to it the F-35 can carry as much stuff as an F-16/18, but then it's lost its stealth. So you have a new, expensive F-35 that's only as good as the 16/18. And it's certainly 2nd-rate as a fighter. What's the point? It does have good range though. Lots of fuel. More than an F-15. (Not a lot more, but more---but since it only feeds one engine, instead of two like the F-15, it can go quite far) However, F-15's usually load up on 3 huge drop tanks--another 50%. And then add FAST packs to an F-15 for even more. Can't do that on a F-35 without totally losing its stealthiness. (There is NO POINT in a stealth plane that can lose its stealthiness, IMHO )

I've always found "smooth surface" (and the 20 steps associated) to be over-rated. I rock at decals, and apply directly to whatever the paint is. Flat white and flat dark ghost grey lately. The secret is TIME. Give the microset TIME to work. It's not going to work in 30 secs. Give it like 5-10 minutes, 30 for a BIG decal. I never ever use microsol, there's no need--it's just for impatient people (unless you're trying to do a 120-degree bend in the decal). Microset and time will allow ANY decal to conform perfectly even to a flat, rough finish. How *I* decal (with amazing results). 1. Trim the clear! ALL of it. The factory job is never good enough, unless they're the best of the best of aftermarket decals. 2. Brush microset over where you'll put it. 3. Put decal in water for a few secs. Just dunk it then pull it out---just enough to saturate the paper. 4. Brush microset over decal (while still on paper). (I don't always do this, but definitely for big decals). 5. Apply decal to model. Soak the thing in microset. Microset is your friend. (This is opposite of what Gerwalker said, and opposite of how most people do it--but I get perfect results, so I say do it my way) (I've had decals silver ONCE of all the models I've built, and that's when I forgot to use microset) Don't remove the excess early--for the first 5 minutes of that decal's existence on the model, it should be soaked in microset, with a puddle on top of it. 6. Use brush, fingers, q-tip, whatever to push the decal on so it's nice and snug. 7. Most important step: NOW (not earlier, not until you've got it in place and nice and snug) carefully soak up the excess water/microset using a napkin/paper towel. Get ALL of it. PRESS the decal, you want to basically squeegee it. Water under the decal it what causes silvering- (air bubbles are created by the water, thus water is the true cause). It's also what causes them to lift off. So you want to really get the decal RIGHT against the surface, and remove all the water. The microset helps with this. 8. Clear coat. (Well, more like "let decals DRY then clear coat")

Well the only real choice is -19 vs -22. (Sorry, but 30 years kinds of eliminates the VF-0/1/SV-51 from competition---that's like asking YF-22/YF-23 vs F-101/F-100) Anyways---we don't really have any stats or info on most of these planes. I mean, for F-14/15/16/18 there's plenty of info, and I've seen them all fly and can make informed opinions. For valks, we only have what we see on TV. AFAIK, the -22 is faster than the -19, but we don't know its acceleration (which is far more important--an F-16 has tremendous acceleration, better than anything--but its top speed is only Mach 2.05) -21 has an amazing roll rate, but how much of that is due to the magic-morphing wing that the -22 doesn't have? -19 is probably the more agile of the two overall (certainly in pitch), due to canards (NOT due to FSW). -19 certainly is better at low-speed/high alpha manuevers, due to FSW. -21/22 are stealthier, though neither are really *that* stealthy in appearance. See, the thing is, the most modern fighters (F-22/Super Flanker/EF-2000/Rafale) are evaluated by the following things: Supercruise ability. Radar range. Missile standoff range. Fuel capacity. That's what people are going for nowadays. That's stuff we have no info on for valks. The LAST thing an F-22 wants to do is dogfight, and it's not designed for that. (It can, and is supposed to be the F-16's equal in that department). But what it's designed for is for long-range high-speed missile launches prior to detection. It is an assassin. Sneak in, attack quickly and deadly, then run like heck out of there. That's exactly what it is. The YF-23 was that to an even more extreme degree (faster, stealthier--it REALLY didn't want to dogfight--but boy would it have been able to wipe out entire squadrons from afar without anyone knowing) And hey, what about damage? F-15's can come home missing wings, F-18's have *very* strong wings and their "way out back" engines have saved them from SAM's many times. F-14's are as tough as jets come (practically armored, while F-16's are probably just average. YF-21 sure took an incredible amount of punishment and kept flying--that certainly beats any real plane I know of. (it lost probably 35% of its structure including both tail fins and kept going) I say the -19 looks cooler, but I can't say which is superior. Not until we get WAY more info. (Like acceleration, roll rate, pitch rate, sustained G's, rate of turn, radius of turn, time-to-height, max AOA, max AOA at various bank angles, supercruise ability, radar effectiveness, etc)

I've only played GC, but I think the controller's fine. If anything, I don't like the thumbstick. (It's in the "too sensitive along one axis" category---down requires STRAIGHT down 180, but downleft and downright go from like 95-175, and 185-265) At least for me, but I've always had problems with straight down in SC games. I'm considering getting a US version again, for I really like collecting weapons and reading the descriptions--but I can't do that with the JP version. (Also an english movelist would help a lot) Might as well post my fave/best characters: Seung Mina, Nightmare, Xinghua, Sophitia, Mitsurugi, Ivy. In about that order. (First 3 used WAY more often than the others). Hwang's my overall fave, but he's not here...

Please don't use length to compare aircraft. Planes are three-dimensional. Length is actually pretty poor, wingspan is generally better. (The BEST is empty weight of the aircraft--for that actually says how much "structure" the plane has). Going by length, the Concorde will beat out 90% of all airliners due to its pointy nose and tail, even though its takeoff weight is less than half that of a 747-400. (Of course, if you go by wingspan, Concorde is on the extreme low side, even though it's medium-large overall). Now, if 2 planes have a very similar configuration (VF-0, F-14, VF-1, Tornado) then maybe one dimension will work, but as a general rule don't rely on one meausurement.(Too bad nobody ever lists volume/displacement for plane stats) Imagine two people----a 5'10 girl and a 5'9 guy. Girl's skinny, guy's a weight lifter. She may be taller, but he's a heck of a lot bigger overall. Same with planes. Longer planes may be much smaller. (And often are, since length often accompanies high-speed pointy delta planes--like the Concorde, while BIG planes are often a bit shorter and bulkier--like a DC-10) Anyways---yeah, look at the plane as a whole. Front, side, above. That's why planes always have 3-view drawings--need to see it as a whole, not just one dimension. Now as for size "small is beautiful" is often said for fighters. Why? Harder to see. Having a 50-mile range missile is worthless since 99% of the time the rules of engagement require *visual* confirmation of the enemy. (F-14's have high-magnification TV cameras to do this at long range---you'd think other planes would too, but it's still an F-14-exclusive-advantage) The main advantage of having smaller planes (real-world sense) is that they're cheaper. If the US had infinite money, we'd have 3,000 F-15's and the F-16 and F-17 wouldn't have even been considered. (And hence no F-18). F-16's the best example for a (good) small plane. Bigger planes CAN do more. But they also cost a lot more, and cost more to operate on a daily basis. And hey, 2 engines are going to cost exactly twice as much to buy, and twice as much to maintain and buy spare parts for. It's no problem making an F-15 or F-14 carry a lot of stuff far. The real skill is taking a small lightweight day fighter (F-16A) and making it into a serious multi-purpose night-striker (F-16C Block 50). And it's still cheaper than F-15E's.

Reflecting upon this, I realized that that's actually (sort of) how the YF-23's unique and very cool control system worked. To yaw, it would put the flap down, and the adjacent aileron up. The ailerons and flaps were sized and positioned so that their aerodynamic effects equaled each other. Thus, the overall lift of the wing was unchanged (so no roll) but it did create a significant increase in drag, thus yawing the aircraft to one side. (Not having conventional rudders, nor thrust vectoring, this is what it did). And it looked cool too, for it would create a *contrail from one wing only* B-2's also operate very similarly, having no tail whatsoever. They can split their elevons into upper and lower halves, thus creating drag on one side only. Just FYI, an F-16's brakes are linked to each other up/down, and cannot deploy independently. (One jackscrew controls both---operation is very similar to a thrust reverser) PS--I (as well as Knight26 I think) am a big fan of having as many methods of control as possible. Spoilers, ruddervators, asymmetric throttles (need engines placed off of a common axis if you want pitch control--generally only trijets can do this), canards, vectoring, airbrakes---sure it adds weight, but when your one all-purpose lightweight stab gets shot off or damaged, what are you going to do?

Ah, the infamous 99% wrong Hasegawa kit. If anything, I'd think Dragon would do a 1/72 diecast one. (Very unlikely though). Hasegawa and Dragon appear to have some sort of agreement with their military releases. However, Dragon's F-14 isn't out yet, and they don't have a D model. (Though their B model would be WAAAAY more accurate than Hasegawa's kit)

Any chance we could turn this thread back to "wow, it's got 4 friggin huge airbrakes"? ('cuz you know, if it deployed them asymmetrically, it could be VERY effective for manuevering--unheard of in the real world AFAIK, but no reason it couldn't work, not with the incredibly complex computer-controls valks must have))

Original=JP of course. Like my original GC, and original GBA. Man, I should have bought a Skeleton Saturn (as a spare) when VGD had them. Just piles of them sitting there.

The greatest pad ever was the original Saturn's. THAT was a pad. Especially for 2D fighters. Sheer bliss. Think I'll go play Darkstalkers 2 or something now... Druna Skass--every weapon is available for purchase in the Edge Master Missions (or whatever--I play the JP version, I don't know what it's called! ) I presume it's a lot easier in the US version, being able to read the weapon descriptions and all. (The Soul Calibur versions of all weapons are of course the most expensive, makes it easier--though there's 2 and sometimes 3 versions though)

Super Ostrich----there's a limitless supply of decals for real planes, 99% of which are the same as VF's use. Also--while I suck at painting, I *rock* at decaling. Ask away if you need anything. (I decal so well, you can see and feel the orange peel and brushstrokes in the paint it's laying on)

It's WAY too thick to be airbrush ready. It's far, far thicker than stuff I KNOW to be airbrush-ready. (It's as thick, if not thicker, than most MM Enamels---close to Gunship Grey I'd say, but not as thick as Insignia Blue) Testors.com says 3:1 paint/thinner for airbrushing for that specific paint, but I think more like 2:1. I plan to experiment some more with sprayers, airbrushes, etc. (Having taken a good long look at just how much surface area a 1/350 battleship has) If anybody is really curious, just head on down to your local hobby shop, and open up some jars from Testor's MM acryl *marine* line. Specifically 5L Light Grey (1943). (The 1941 version is a very different color)

Yeah, well let me know when it can get through 17.5 inch class A armor. (That's the Iowa's heaviest armor). 26 inches of armor is about the limit for modern artillery penetration. (Mark 7 gun cannot penetrate 26 inch Vickers B armor, IIRC--really close, but not quite)

Was it an artist's circle mask? (A lot of circles in every size cut out of a template?) You put the wheel so that the hub is in the circle, and the template masks everything else. Then spray. (For this technique, you do the black first, then the hub)

There's not much need. Airbrakes are VERY strong. Ever put your hand out the window of a moving car? Now imagine you've got a 30 sqft surface, at Mach 1.5. SERIOUS resistance. F-15 has the biggest airbrake I know of, F-14's are quite small. F-18's is quite large, and can stick WAY out. F-16 has 4, but it's more like 2 sets that each split in half--usually counted as just 2. Rather small, but can open quite wide. F-4's are under the wings, Tornados on either side of the rear upper fuselage. F-8 under the belly, F-5's I can't remember (Either under the wings or on the fuselage sides) Airliners have multi-purpose spoilers, which can do most anything--roll, brake, descend, etc. Always on top of the wings, right ahead of the flaps. Usually called "speed brakes" when used to slow down, "spoilers" for roll--even though it's the EXACT same part. I've never known an airbrake to cause structural problems, the biggest problem is severe buffetting when deployed. F-15 had a BIG problem with this, and led to 1 modification, and later a complete redesign of the airbrake. (Through it all, the F-15ACTIVE kept the original design).

I don't buff very often (I usually use the buffing version, but then don't buff it--still looks better than the non-buffing version). Anyways, either use kleenex or an old sock (probably kleenex). You want smooth, soft objects. I've found that you shouldn't wait long to buff---90% of the time, it'd be dry before I got a chance to buff it. (It'll still leave flecks on your fingers for days, but won't buff) If you've got a Dremel, etc, use a rag-wheel. I've seen amazing results come from using that on a buffing finish. (Power buff! )

What's the final paint scheme going to be? And it seems EVERYBODY's doing a Yukikaze model but me...

General rule for TF's: the guy taking the pics for the box, and the guy writing the instructions, have never talked to the guy who designed it. Thus, lots of errors, in instructions, pics, catalogs, boxes, and ads. Still, I really want a Smokescreen in a non-rally scheme, normal scheme. All-silver would be VERY nice.

Ooooooh. I forget how you're going to paint it. Bare metal? Also--got any pics for a sense of size? A 1/48 Firefox must be HUGE. Finally--don't forget to capitalize the G in MiG. Man, everybody's doing model planes lately but me. (1/350 USS Iowa---and there's 157 gun barrels in 84 mounts on the Iowa, for I have sanded each and every one of them)

I can help with real-world missiles! (For the US/Nato at least) Ok, basic color is 36375 Light Ghost Grey. Nose cones are either white or 36375. Fins are either 36375 or bare steel. (You will see HARM missiles still in pure white though) As for stripes: Blue stripes indicate a dummy missile. ALL the stripes will be blue (nose and body). Stripes are in two locations generally--one up front for the warhead, one or two behind for the motor. There are no black stripes, they are brown. A live missile (what you probably want) will have a yellow stripe upfront indicating a live warhead, and a brown stripe at the rear to indicate a live rocket motor. PS--the alternating flat/gloss is EXACTLY the technique used for the original ST Movie Enterprise. It wasn't painted multiple shades of white--it was PURE white, the only difference was different flat/glossy patterns. For ST 2/3/4 etc it was painted differently, but the best-looking one was the first movie, and the effect was purely different levels of shine. Here's perfect example of an AMRAAM---35375 grey overall, bare steel fins, white nose, front stripe yellow, rear stripes brown. AMRAAM's on an F-16: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile...aam-990493c.jpg AMRAAM's plus a HARM on an F-16: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile...20-untitled.jpg

Heh heh. If any of you read Penny Arcade, you should be familiar with Video Game Depot. They're only 20 mins away from me. I get EVERYTHING from there. www.videogamedepot.com (And they sell Pocky, too)

Toys and models often use tampo pads as well, another way they're different. Anyways, the best tape (for general masking) is Scotch Magic tape (green package). It doesn't stick nearly as much as most tapes. For VERY low-stick tape, look for Scotch Removable tape (blue package). But it's so low stick it won't go around corners or edges at all without lifting--but I guarantee it won't peel up paint! For detail masking, I usually use Pactra tape, but many like Tamiya's.

Paint chips/flakes off of diecast parts with very little effort. It's why the 2nd version of the YF-19 and VF-19 have more plastic parts than the original. The original had horrific paint chipping problems, and anywhere where metal-to-plastic joints occurs usually leads to problems. (plastic-to-plastic parts--they'll each "give" a little---with metal, the plastic will just break if there's a slightly imperfect clearance). The only paint flaws/chips on my valks occur on the diecast parts, 'nuff said. Sure, diecast may be heavier/stronger, but that just leads to paint chipping, and problems where plastic parts attach. (If you want to see some SERIOUS flame-wars about plastic vs diecast, go check out some model airplane forums)

Yeah, but Tamiya absolutely doesn't make anything remotely close to 1943 5L grey, nor 5N blue, nor Revised 20B blue. (Well, they do make modern 5N blue in a spray, but not a bottle--and it's not quite the 1940's version) I'd have to do white+black+ultramarine blue+purple and custom mix them all. When you start mixing color after color, you start to get browns, unless you've got pure pigments. (Yellow+blue doesn't make green, when dealing with paint--no pigment is PURE) Tamiya doesn't make a pure ultramarine blue do they? I do have the formulas for the actual colors, it's just that Norfolk Navy Yard tends not to have WWII-era stocks of paint, nor sell to civilians in small quantities... As for MM marine--while they say on the bottle they can be airbrushed, they do need to be thinned (3:1 p/t) according to the site, and that does seem correct. And they brush better (as flats go) than just about anything I've used. (Tamiya is superior though). (Humbrol's the best for gloss) But the whole reason for using Testor MM acryl is the colors. It's not like I'm doing 36375 Light Ghost Grey, which every paint manufacturer in the world makes, I'm doing WWII US Navy camo colors. (If there was any color even rremotely close to 1943 5L grey from any manufacturer, I'd use it in an instant, just to make life easier--but there's not) My current theory is along the lines Omega20 said--multiple very thin coats over light grey. But 5L grey is VERY light, and very blue, and even camouflage grey is darker and browner than it, and isn't that much better than plain old grey primer. Might have to buy a bunch of Tamiya this week and see how well it works, if I can mix up the right colors.