VF-19 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 I think I did. I was a bit worried at how complete it was, until I got to the huge missing sections detailing weapons and performance. Still, a fun skim! Quote
buddhafabio Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 kinda aviation question.... in the mid to late 80s there was a arcade game where you were a japanese zero and you shot down american ww2 planes. it was played from the perspective of afterburner, i.e. from the rear. i played it on Okinawa alot, but i only found it in the arcades on the military bases. i cant for the life of me remember the name.any one know what i am talking about? Quote
electric indigo Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 For the modelers that don't want to wait 10 years for the Hasegawa PAK FA, there's now a decent offer from Hobby Boss. Quote
VF-19 Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 For the modelers that don't want to wait 10 years for the Hasegawa PAK FA, there's now a decent offer from Hobby Boss. It might be a re-boxing of the zvezda kit, but it looks good. Quote
electric indigo Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 It's not the horrible Zvezda kit, but a new tooling from Hobby Boss, which looks quite good. Hobbysearch has more pics: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10197455 Quote
VF-19 Posted October 23, 2012 Posted October 23, 2012 I have the Zvezda kit, and it's not bad (assembly wise). I'm not sure as to how accurate it is in the shape department, though. Quote
electric indigo Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 The major issues with the Zvezda kit are the spine and the size & shape of the canopy/forward hull. From what we can see so far, the Hobby Boss kit has the right proportions. It lacks the gazillion of stencils for the upper surface, but there's already an aftermarket offer for that. So far I only built a 1/72 Rafale from Hobby Boss, but the detail quality was easily on par if not better than Hasegawa. The decals sucked, though. Quote
dizman Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 For the modeler in all of us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQUll2fJmoc Quote
VF-15 Banshee Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Oh, it breaks the heart to see... Quote
VF-19 Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Youch. Looks like the vertical stabilizer took a hit. I wonder if the other planes are ok... Quote
Knight26 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 And another reason it should never have gone to freaking new york Quote
Beltane70 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 And another reason it should never have gone to freaking new york So, what are you going to say if the Endeavor should be unlucky enough to get destroyed in an LA earthquake? Quote
David Hingtgen Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 One of the rules for getting a shuttle, was that you had to have an actual hangar to display in, so it wouldn't be exposed to the elements. Well, NYC got one anyways. Plus---an earthquake strong enough to destroy the shuttle's hangar would be a "CA breaks off and floats away into the Pacific" one which is darn unlikely. While all it takes is a strong tropical storm (IIRC, that was the rating when it went ashore there) to damage one sitting on a carrier----it lasted what, 3 months? There's a reason the USAF museum with many one-of-a-kind planes is in the middle of a field in Ohio. (and they too wanted a shuttle---and considering that like half the early shuttle flights were classified ones for the USAF, and the USAF's own shuttle launch facility in California still partially exists AFAIK, they sure had the rights/involvement to it, far more than NYC) Quote
renegadeleader1 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 The shuttles move to New York has already been a disaster having suffered water damage when they decided to be cute and float it up the Hudson unprotected, and now this. I don't give a damn about the museum being an aircraft carrier, most of the frames on that deck are very rare and should NEVER be exposed to the elements. The shuttle would be better off moved inside the New England Air Museum at Windsor Locks CT. Either that more preferably the USAF museum. Quote
Knight26 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 No New England already has a shuttle with Discovery at NASM, the only New England facility to deserve one. New York had Zero to do with the shuttle program, so they do not deserve, nor did they earn the damn thing. Meanwhile, Houston, the home of mission control gets jack in terms of shuttles, only getting a museum display mockup and not a real shuttle, that is BS. Houston deserved a shuttle, earned a damn shuttle. Sheol, the navy even offered to deliver the Enterprise to Galveston Bay on the freaking USS Freaking Enterprise, how Gorram epic would that have been. Instead a bunch of freaking New Yorkers get it, that is BS. Even Edwards offered to take Enterprise, since well gee, it's the only place it ever flew. Any other museum out there that offered deserved it more. Quote
Phyrox Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Calling Washington DC "New England" is a bit of a stretch. Besides that, there certainly shouldn't be a shuttle on the Enterprise. Quote
Vifam7 Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) One of the rules for getting a shuttle, was that you had to have an actual hangar to display in, so it wouldn't be exposed to the elements. Well, NYC got one anyways. There were/are plans to erect a permanent facility for the Enterprise shuttle. The Enterprise was under a temporary inflatable climate controlled pavilion when the storm hit. Generally, weather in NY is pretty mild. Storms like Sandy is extremely rare. Chalk this up to bad luck. As for why NYC got one and Houston didn't... blame NASA and the officials in charge of making the decisions. Edited November 1, 2012 by Vifam7 Quote
505thAirborne Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...9--finance.html Article on China's Stealth fighter prototype. Quote
VF-15 Banshee Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Yes, in all fairness, New York City isn't known for its Hurricanes. It's still a sad sight to see and yes, I'm still baffled that Houston didn't get a Shuttle. A lot of the people my dad knew over there were very, very, VERY angry about that. the USAF's own shuttle launch facility in California still partially exists AFAIK, they sure had the rights/involvement to it, far more than NYC) It's now used as a Delta IV launch pad. Edited November 2, 2012 by VF-15 Banshee Quote
Shadow Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 A Raptor went down in Florida and crashed onto a highway not far from Tyndall AFB. The pilot ejected and is alright and no one on the ground was hurt or killed thankfully. http://www.businessinsider.com/highway-98-ablaze-as-f-22-fighter-jet-crashes-near-tyndall-air-force-base-2012-11 Quote
the white drew carey Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 So that's, what, four Raptors lost with no operational kills? Seems like it is worth the cost. Quote
Shadow Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 So that's, what, four Raptors lost with no operational kills? Seems like it is worth the cost. Staying as unpolitical as possible. We don't know what caused it to go down, however, I think if more money were allocated to actually resolving the problem, we probably wouldn't be seeing this. I recall the F-111 was plagued with issues early in its career. Same with the F-14. Quote
Omegablue Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 How much real combat has this F-22 seen? Quote
rdenham Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) How much real combat has this F-22 seen? If you want to go to war don't fly the Raptor, the F-22 has no real combat time to speak of. The F-22 spends its time intercepting Russian bombers, saber-rattling in Asia & the Middle East & showing off at airshows around the world. YF-22 Edwards AFB crash - 4-25-1992 - pilot survived/class A mishap F-22A Nellis AFB crash - 12-20-2004 - pilot survived/lost airframe - 53rd Wing 422 Test & Evaluation Sq - quoted cost $130,000,000 F-22A Edwards AFB crash - 3-25-2009 - pilot killed /lost airframe - 411th Flight Test Sq 412th Test Wing - quoted cost $140,000,000 F-22A Elmendorf AFB - 11-16-2010 - pilot killed/lost airframe - 525th FS 3rd Wing - quoted cost $147,672,000 F-22A Tyndall AFB crash - 5-31-2012 - pilot survived/class A mishap - quoted cost $35,000,000 in damage F-22A Tyndall AFB crash - 11-15-2012 - pilot survived/lost airframe - 43rd FS 325th FG - quoted cost $190,000,000 I wounder what the quoted unit cost will be for the next crash? Edited November 17, 2012 by rdenham Quote
Omegablue Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 That's a lot of money and resources for a plane used in airshows and Bay movies... Quote
David Hingtgen Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 Eh, the SR-71 never fired a shot in its entire career. Look up "nuclear deterrence" for a big part of the F-22's role. Similar idea as boomers. Very complex, very expensive, and likely may never actually be used for combat. Quote
rdenham Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) David, I am sure you know much of what I am going to say but just for the hell of it here goes. If a SR ever fired a shot it would have been one hell of a trick considering it was a unarmed aircraft. A Ballistic missile submarines reason for existing is to lurk around not allowing the enemy or possible enemy to know were they are and if hostile action are taken then and only then they turn the offender into ash. The primary stated role of an F-22 is air superiority/air dominance and although the air to air guys have not had a lot to do for the past 10 to 15 years F-15C's are still being deployed because they work and if something breaks its usually because of fatigue. The most consistent things about the F-22 is that they kick ass on the practice range, break all the time, and have a ever increasing per unit cost every time they are in the news. Edited November 17, 2012 by rdenham Quote
Shadow Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure about boomer subs but the Seawolf attack sub is a good comparison. I think the F-22s cost might not be so high if we had actually opened it up for export to key allies. I think the IAF or ROKAF would do alot to get just a few of these in their inventories. The F-22 was designed for a role that has shrunk a great deal in last 20 years. I don't think that means the aircraft doesn't have a future nor does it mean that potential adversaries will always be small, dispersed and low-tech. The Raptor may have to adapt to a role it wasn't originally intended for and we've already seen in tests. There is a certain added punch when you can drop a bomb at over Mach 1. That said, given countries like China developing their own 5th gen aircraft, I think the Raptor will still have an important role to play as an air superiority fighter in the future that contemporary aircraft like the F-15C just will not be able to fulfill. Edited November 18, 2012 by Shadow Quote
F-ZeroOne Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Actually, there was an armed experimental version of the SR-71 - the YF-12 (possibly its more accurate to say that the SR-71 was an unarmed version of the A-12/YF-12... ). Lockheed also considered fitting bombs to it... Quote
505thAirborne Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...-083334869.html China is having fun with its New Carrier and J-15 Fighters. Quote
mubbin Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Leaving this here....it is bigger than I thought...I bet they're itching to launch it off. http://www.dvidshub....-harry-s-truman Edited November 27, 2012 by mubbin Quote
Thom Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Why couldn't they land it like the Talon's in the movie Stealth? Much more showy-er that way. Quote
David Hingtgen Posted November 27, 2012 Author Posted November 27, 2012 Eh, they often put Tomcats and Hornets aboard that way, too. Quote
Knight26 Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Why couldn't they land it like the Talon's in the movie Stealth? Much more showy-er that way. says someone who doesn't understand flight test. The first tests for this will be taxi and tow tests on the flight and hanger decks, it will still be a while before they fly the bird off the deck, or land it for that matter. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.