Aircraft VS super thread!

[Nied]

Space based weapons are in fact illegal, they've been banned by a UN treaty which the US is a signatory. ICBMs don't apply since they are not based in space, they simply travel through it on thier way to their target. Frankly space based weaponry is a bad idea since while it would allow us to attack anyone we wanted the same could be said of any of our enemies that happened to have such a system (I find the idea that no one but the US is capable of developing such weapons downright laughable).

[Nied]

I forgott to add that, while ICBMs with conventional warheads are certainly possible, they wouldn't be useful as anything more than terror weapons ala the V2 or the Scuds Iraq used in the first Gulf War. ICBMs are accurate enough to (barely) hit a target the size of a city but not specific targets within that city.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Guys I just e-mailed Torsten Aft in an effort to get ASF-14 pics. Hopefully he responds with some!!

And to add fuel to the fire, WOW, tons of people argue about the super bug vs the tomcat. Awesome to read.

Anyone here a viggen fan?

AJ-37 vs Sepecat Jaguar

which is better striker/self defense?

[Coota0]

The USAF doesn't have any Wild Weasel F-16Ds.

Compared with the F-4G i think the F-16 is perhaps better able to defend itself due to its gun and agility which may not be a good idea since it will distract them to go hunting other aircraft. However the F-16 is inferior to the F-4G as far as the wild weasel role is concern. The F-16's HTS pod is no way as capable as the build in systems carried by the F-4G, it simply got more room. When the F-16 first join the F-4G as part of a Hunter-Killer team, the Falcon was nothing more than a extra set of pylons.

I vote for the EA-18 as the true successor to the F-4G (if the USAF buys them) and to the EA-6B

[Coota0]

1 question. Does the air force like tandem seating? Reason being is that since the F-111, there have never been any side by side fighters in the air force. Aside from the raven. I prefer tandem but side by side works on planes like the aardvark and A-6.

The B-52 was originally supposed to have the Co-pilot behind the pilot, but the USAF said the crews worked better together when side by side.

[Coota0]

If I recall correctly, the use of the F-111 to hit targets of opportunity (based on intelligence) during Operation Iraqi Freedom is cited as the model in at least one article I read.

I'm pretty sure all the F-111s were out of servic before Iraqi Freedom. (In fact I'm pretty sure it was don by the mid to late 1990's)

[David Hingtgen]

Yup, F-111's are gone, and even the EF-111 Raven is gone now I think. (EF-111 lasted longer than F-111) It wasn't until the very day they were put out of service that the F-111 even officially had a name.

F-15E's have never ever been used for A2A afaik. The "late" engine power is 29,100lbs compared to the standard F-15C engine of 23,400lbs.

Edited December 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[cyde01]

I forgott to add that, while ICBMs with conventional warheads are certainly possible, they wouldn't be useful as anything more than terror weapons ala the V2 or the Scuds Iraq used in the first Gulf War. ICBMs are accurate enough to (barely) hit a target the size of a city but not specific targets within that city.

yeah, well the only reason why I mentioned those two ideas was because the article claimed they were actual feasible proposals to the interim bomber program. Regardless, I think they're both bad ideas.

[hellohikaru]

wow the late model F-15Es have that much thrust is absolutely great. Certainly makes it a better fighter when clean.

The USAF must reengine all the Eagle-Charlies with these engines or even better with the F110 from the F-15K plus canard but i know this isn't going to happened. The USAF has serious problems maintaining their current fleet of Eagles due to shortage of engine spare parts. Some of the older Cs have even less reliable engines.

Sepecat Jaguar vs AJ-37

I will assume the the Jag variant here is the GR.1 of the 1980s because AJ-37 is the old standard prior to being upgraded to AJS-37.

The standard Jaguar of the 1980s is originally intended to be a trainer but ended up being a very capable attack aircraft. The French A version has a radar but all other versions don't. It can carry more than 10,000lbs of stores.

It also has almost twice the range of the AJ-37 Viggen due to its higher fuel fraction and less thisty engines. The main undercarriage gives it some ability to operate from rough air strips.

It has 2 Aden/DEFA guns and carry either the Matra Magic II or AIM-9L Sidewinder missile.

The AJ-37 Viggen is the gunless ground attack variant with the less powerful older RM8A engine.

Originally it was planned only to use missiles for ground attack but since it has a HUD that affords good accuracy iron bombs were also later added.

All AJ-37 Viggens have a radar and is capable of performing the anti-ship role with RB04 missiles.

All Viggens have excellent short take and landing capability due to the double delta wing. The strong tandem main landing gear allows it to perform punishing 3 point landings. This gives the best short take-off/landing characteristics for a conventional non-thrust vectoring fighter.

The RM8A engine is the most powerful engine to be installed in a fighter at that time and has alot more thrust than the 2 Adour engines combine. The RM8A is a JT8D engine with afterburner and thrust reverse. It gives the Viggen lots of power during take-off.

But its pays a hefty price in range and almost always flies with a centerline drop tank.

The AJ-37 is gunless and must rely on AIM-9s and its radar to defend itself against air threats. However for its secondary air-to-air role it may carry 30mm ADEN gun pods.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Viggens rule.

For an obscure match,

A-4 vs MIG-17. It was simulated as a fresco in topgun for a while while the tiger was a simuilated 21. but hw woul a MIG-17 fair against an A-4? i remember reading about a shootdown where tyeh A-4 shot down the fresco with some rockets.

YF-17 vs F-20

2 of northrop's beautiful canned airplanes. Also one of the YF-17 Cobra protos was at an airshow early this year and it was f****n beautiful.

Anyone else here think northrop grumman should take those 2 suckers and mod them for an export fighter contract? I imagine it would be up there with the likes of the rafale and gripen. Possibly still cheaper than block 60 F-16's.

[ewilen]

I forgott to add that, while ICBMs with conventional warheads are certainly possible, they wouldn't be useful as anything more than terror weapons ala the V2 or the Scuds Iraq used in the first Gulf War. ICBMs are accurate enough to (barely) hit a target the size of a city but not specific targets within that city.

The MX (Peacemaker) reportedly has a CEP of 100 m, meaning it can be relied on to come within 100 m of its target 50% of the time. That may not be particularly useful with conventional warheads, but the military is working on a project called FALCON that includes intercontinental hypersonic cruise missiles with multiple bombs, and, apparently, some sort of ICBM with a highly maneuverable and highly accurate "delivery package".

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/ne...40329_1_n.shtml

http://www.capitol.northgrum.com/press_rel...ress112503.html

(Etc. I searched on "common aero vehicle", which is the name for the maneuverable bomb that would be delivered both by the hypersonic cruise missile and by suborbital boosters.)

About the F-111 reference: My mistake. It was a B-1. http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov2003/1103bombers.html

[ewilen]

BTW, I got replies and pictures from the person who had the ASF-14 cockpit up on his website. Unfortunately, there was nothing new there other than some alternate angles of the ST-21 model which you can see on various sites, and a diagram showing Grumman's Advanced Tomcat plans. I.e., no external pictures of the ST-21.

He mentioned that one of the model pictures is from "Grumman F-14 Tomcat" from Airtime Publishing ( http://www.airtimepublishing.com/ ) so if you don't have that book, it might be worth checking out. The rest of his pictures came from Airpower magazine, March 1992, Volume 22 No. 2, which had an article with "a lot of detail about the Tomcat 21 project." Back issues are apparently available. See http://www.airpoweronline.com/back_issues/1992/1992.html

He added,

As for the ASF-14, it would be similar to the Super Tomcat 21 (which is what the pictures I sent you are of), but it would have a slightly different wing to accomodate a conformal radar in the leading edge.  Maybe it would have had a more stealthy shape, I don't know.  I think it probably would have a noticably different profile, think Hornet/Super Hornet differences.  Otherwise, most changes would be internal such as the all glass cockpit in the picture I sent you, the F-22's engines and avionics, and 3D thrust vectoring.  The ASF-14, however, would need to be built from scratch, unlike the ST21 and Attack ST21 that could be upgrades to existing F-14's. You won't find many pictures (if at all) of the ASF-14 since it was only a proposal.

[hellohikaru]

A-4 vs MIG-17. It was simulated as a fresco in topgun for a while while the tiger was a simuilated 21. but hw woul a MIG-17 fair against an A-4? i remember reading about a shootdown where tyeh A-4 shot down the fresco with some rockets.

Yes..that shootdown was done by Lcdr Teddy Swartz in a VA-76 A-4C during an attack on kep Airfield, 1967. Apparently he was alerted by his wingman to the inbound Migs at his 6 and pull a high-g barrel roll to get behind them. He fired a salvo of zuni rockets into one of them. Although he didn't see the kill himself his wingman saw the migs crashing into the ground. That was probably a one-off incident.

Later a Navy Skyraider also claim their own Fresco with 20mm gun fire.

IMO the Fresco is actually the better close-in air to air fighter. It has a better TW ratio and has an afterburner. The guns armament of 2 NR-23 and 1 N-37D is formidable although i bet they had trouble getting the sight to work due to the ballistic differences of the bigger gun.

Some IAF Skyhawk probably claim a Mig but i don't much about this.

[hellohikaru]

I actually have a copy of the first part of that Tomcat story covered by Wings(with the belly shot of the F-14D). There are no diagrams in it either.

Shin you should check out the older issues of Wings/Airpower since it might have covered some of your dream planes like the Super Gator and Skylancer.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Sweet!! So thats the kill I keep hearing about. I was already aware of the skyraider kill, and man I love that plane. Not just because of the flight of the intruder movie. I saw a special on discovery on it and it rocked. Awesome. Maybe it is my fascination with SAR.

Ewilen can you post the pics in this thread? So we can al see it in one place?

And taking it back old scool, anyone know of the japanese shinden? it looks awesome and very promising. As well as being in tons of japanese media and video games.

[hellohikaru]

I heard of the Kyushu Shinden(not to be confuse with the Kawanishi N1K Shiden George). It has a strange canard pusher design. I see this plane alot in 1945 and Raiden fighter shooter games. The actual plane was to have had a jet engine but that wasn't ready.

I wonder how it would have done for real ?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I heard of the Kyushu Shinden(not to be confuse with the Kawanishi N1K Shiden George). It has a strange canard pusher design.  I see this plane alot in 1945 and Raiden fighter shooter games. The actual plane was to have had a jet engine but that wasn't ready.

I wonder how it would have done for real ?

I think it might have made a good B-29 interceptor. The firepower was certaintly nice and concentrated on the nose.

But even if it made it to production, the japanese wartime powerplants (esp. the later ones with outputs over 2000hp) weren't all that reliable.

Another thing is that even though many of the later Axis planes were certaintly superlative by WW2 standards (e.g. Ta152, Shinden etc etc), it should be noted that if the war was extended and they made it to _full_ production, they would be facing Allied planes which would also be superb by WW2 standards. Stuff like the Centaurus powered Tempest and the Bearcat. They won't be meeting Spitfire MkIX and Hellcats.

Edited December 16, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[hellohikaru]

I agree the allies would also have deployed better aircraft. Imagine a 1946 scenario where the TA-183s and He-162s met P-80s and Vampire over Europe skies

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

GUys. Anyone know of sites with dragon warbirds 1/72 reviews? i am looking into buying some of the teen fighters. Can the AMRAAMs from the weapon sets be placed on the engine ports of the F-15C/D? I know no stores on the dragon mud hen can take armnaments, which is a major and very valid complaint. I am looking into getting an F-15C, a well armed falcon, and a high viz legacy hornet. Any sites with very detailed reviews and pics? Help would be appreciated. And if any of you feel like posting a review, post it here and hopefully with pics too!!!

BTW I am actually thinking about buying the FOV F-14. Ugly panel lines, but t's the only 1/72 with retractable gear out there for an F-14, so it will do. PLus dragon is taking way too long.

[hellohikaru]

Shin

Why don't you try nucleartiger's suggested forum...it seems they talk alot about diecast stuff over there.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I did actually. Not that many pics and reviews. Its either airliners or corgi mostly props.

The upcoming super bug VFA-2 CAG bird is awesome. Definite must buy if and WHEN it comes out.

[David Hingtgen]

As you might imagine, I nit-pick the hell out of model planes.

And I own a few Dragon Warbirds, ask away.

As for the F-15's: AFAIK, *all* of them can ONLY have weapons on the wing pylons, and none can carry any drop tanks. Basically, how they come is the only way you can have them, unlike the F-16 and 18 which have many options. IMHO, DW's F-15's all really suck with massive errors on all. C'mon, turkey feathers on an F-15E exhaust? Having the enlarged fin-tip-pod on the WRONG fin? There's LOTS of F-15C photos out there, and every single one will show the LEFT fin has the larger pod...

The F-18 is probably the best, but I have issues with it. The F-16 is almost as nice, but like the BBI, is a mix of parts. I STILL can't tell what intake it has, I think it's like a small-mouth size and ECS intake but the big-mouth shape...

IMHO, one of the best 1/72 diecast planes out there is the Corgi Tornado. The F-4C and UK Phantoms are nice too. (Don't get a Navy Phantom, they're quite inaccurate)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Are the gear on the Corgi's removable? the only turn off for me is price. I'd lke to get some 1/72 diecasts and the hornets and falcons from dragon seem nice. David what are your gripes with the legacy bugs? One of mine is that NO 2 seaters are out at all from dragon cept for the mud hen. And without bomb storage engine nacelle provisions, it shouldnt even be a mud hen., Hell its not worthy to be called an eagle if you can't mount ANYTHING on the nacelles. Plain stupid to me, but nontheless if I see the "AAFES" exlcusive ones I might pick one up for the novelty at the BX my lil bro always likes going to.

Anyone have the feeling the superbug will be "undeerstored" as well?

David any pics of your collection?

Unfortunately the only phantoms I would want would be the navy ones. Maybe a USAF one in SE asia camo.

BTW if you guys got 5$ to spare you should get the jetforce crewtech F-15. It was 5$, partially metal, very kidlike ...well more like teenlike in a sense that it has exposed screws and HINGES, and is defintiely toylike, but for a 20 yr old like me it was definitely worth it. I mean a diecast F-15E 1/72 for FIVE DOLLARS? Not to mention it has REMOVABLE ENGINE STORES!! 12 mk82's, a big ass bomb under each wing, and 2 sidewinders as well as a centreline droptank and all of this can be removed. the engine caps open and it has a fake radear thing and opening canopy with crew. Very nice for the price but dont expect anything up to corgi level.

With that and mind im a sucker for retractable gear hence my wants for the FOV aircraft.

Are the removable gears on the dragon and corgi'sfragile?

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, Corgi's can remove the gear. It's much easier to install the "closed" gear doors and put them up on a stand, than to get the open gear doors and landing gear struts all aligned and in place. (Though a gear-down Phantom isn't TOO bad, but it took forever to get the Tornado gear down). I also like their Harriers, especially the Sea Harrier.

The Harriers have little to no armament though, beware. (And Corgi also tends not to paint stripes on missiles, just pure white)

Legacy Hornet gripes:

Airbrake and canopy do not fit well closed, must be extended/open to look right.

Pilots don't fit in ANY of DW's planes.

Main gear is funny--too "up and down", not splayed nearly enough. Wheels off-axis (best to remove and reglue).

Biggest gripe: It's designed for AMRAAM's on the wingtips. Hornets cannot do that. Sidewinders fit, but will end up too far aft. Pylons seem angled, like a Super Hornet's, but not as much.

Smaller gripes: Not any particular Hornet type. A's forward fuselage, early C tails, late A nose, early C vents, late nozzles. I always think manufacturers just take a bunch of F-16 and F-18 photos and assume they're all the same, because most models are a mix of parts, never one particular type. Since the main difference between the A and C is all the extra antennas on the C, having only about half of the C's antennas (including the prominent ones on the tails) makes it look weird...

PS--there was a very hard to get DW Top Gun F-18B, all black. Not as famous as the black Tomcats, but similar paint.

Edited December 17, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Knight26]

Except for the huge fugly screws and hinges those look pretty cool, with some neat little features, like the removable engines. It even looks like they have an A-10, anyone seen that one, did they do a good rendition of my baby hog? I may have to pic one up just to see. Oh what the heck I'll get a couple for my 10 yr old nephew too.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm never klnew that AMMRAAMS could not be mounted on bugs. is there a specific reason why? I thought AMRAAMS were always compatible with sidewinder paletters? I know the falcon carries it on wingtip but I wonder if the eagle can carry them on the swinder palette too.

What I like about dragon is that they have weapon sets and pilots. But I hear you have to cut the pilot to fit. CORgi seems to be the most expensive but they do some vietnam era craft which is alwyas good. I always wonder why dragon doesn't make some kickass stuff like crusaders and skyhawks.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Except for the huge fugly screws and hinges those look pretty cool, with some neat little features, like the removable engines. It even looks like they have an A-10, anyone seen that one, did they do a good rendition of my baby hog? I may have to pic one up just to see. Oh what the heck I'll get a couple for my 10 yr old nephew too.

Knight,

Over at the NEX, (seems they were exclusives last year) all they had was the mud hen. No F-15D, A-10 or the 1/100 BUFF. This pissed me off since I wanted a nice lil USAF collection. To my knowledge, the others may have never been made. They were on the website but the one that was most prominent was the mud hen. perhaps it was a matter of not finding a buyer or geting enough orders. to me this line had potential and could fill in the gap that ERTl's force one series left behind. And for 5$, man I was so ready to have a hunter killer escort fight team for 15$. Ugh. The hog is awesome, noone does it any justice or they try and can it. I mean skunkwork's A-10 sim got canned9(VERY VERY STUPID REASONS BEHIND THIS), the XD 1/18 got cancelled, and the last rattler in gijoe was modded without the gunner canopy. Ugh.

However I do have the 1998 joe reissue rattler in joe colors labeled as an A-10/ Pretty nifty and had a realistic Ace figure. always cool and its even got a BUBBLE canopy! Alwyas nice as well.I have always thought that toy was one of the greatest ever made in gijoe if not ingeniuitive. Anyone know of any good jet toy sites ? I am trying to track down info on this line of tiger striped F-14s in various colors and sizes. There was a small size that made light and noise and a bigger scale that did the same only with joysticks. I th8ink they were called skydogs

[David Hingtgen]

No Hornet can carry AMRAAM's on the tips. Don't know why, but they can't and don't. Now, Super Hornets actually have AMRAAM-capable launchers on their tips, but even they can only carry Sidewinders on them and have dedicated Sidewinder-cooling equipment in them (which is actually one of the ways to tell early production Shornets from later production Shornets)

Corgi's gotten better at covering screws lately. The best model by far if you don't want anything like that is the DW F-18. No seams or screws anywhere. It's like one giant single piece, from nose to nozzles. (The F-16 has lots of belly seams)

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

The ill-fitting, no make that 'totally doesn't fit' canopy on the DW Hornet pisses me off the most. I tried every which way but its always skewed to one side when closed. Totally spoils it!

I don't know enough about intakes and antennae and burner cans but I sure as hell can see a big gap in the canopy.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey guys, some more debate fodder.

Obscure is the key word.

MIrage 2000/IVP vs F-106 knife fight. Both deltas, old influence/history, similar profiles.

F-104 vs SU-15. Intercept and knife fight.

F-105 vs super etendard. Knife and strike.

A-4F vs F-16A ADF., Knife fight. Keep hearing about the mongooses awesome manueveraibility.

F/A-18E vs F-16E block 60. Knife fight. Both the supposed "super" versions of the hornet and falcon. HOw do they stack up?

YF-17 vs super bug. knife fight. Oldie vs newbie. Cobra is faster.

And did the YF-17 hold any advantages at all over the YF-16 besides 2 engines? I keep wondering if it was politically motivated but by all accounts I hear this was a "Straight" win.

F-100 vs F-86. Super vs oldie.

F-106 vs MIG-21. knife, same with above.

And was the A-1 skyraider originally concieved to be a fighter or was it always for attack? i know it is korean war era.

[Coota0]

And was the A-1 skyraider originally concieved to be a fighter or was it always for attack? i know it is korean war era.

A-1 was originally inteneded for WWII as a fighter/light attack aircraft but was to late for the war, by Korea and Vietnam the fighters were jets so the A-1 was put to use as an attack aircraft.

[David Hingtgen]

YF-17 has superior alpha/instantaneous turn compared to the YF-16 I think. Turn rate suffers though, always did. One of the few areas the F-18 beats the YF-17: sustained turns and roll.

I'll give the Shornet the victory over the F-16E. F-16E's heavy and draggy, engine power boost isn't enough IMHO.

[hellohikaru]

EDIT: Flagon vs 104

I will go for those not answer by the other guys.

Mirage IVP vs F-106 ?

Are you kidding The IVP is a bomber and recon platform...lumbering. F-106 will prevail.

vs the Mirage 2000 is a completely different thing as the 2000 was designed as a pure fighter. M2k has advantage of superior dogfight missiles, HOTAS, HUD and better cockpit visibility. At least the 106 has a m61 but lack of HUD and poor visibility does limit its chances in a knife fight.

F-104 vs Su-15 Flagon

The Su-15 inherits many features from the Su-9/11 Fishpot series, including wing/control config, engine and even radar/missile armament. Early versions had delta wings like the Su-11, later versions with cranked deltas. I guess the Flagon would have been an awesome interceptor but with a wide turn radius. Wing loading is definitely very high for this plane.

As an interceptor only the S variant of the Starfighter betters it with Sparrow/Aspide. The Flagon is huge and carries more fuel than the Starfighter thus having longer range.

In a dogfight the F-104 would probably win as the Flagon isn't much of a dogfighter though it could use AA-8 Aphids.

F-105 vs Super Etendard

SEtendard has a more modern avionic suite compared with the Thud but the former has much better raw performance. If i were the Thud i would BnZ vs the Setendard since the Thud doesn't retain energy as well as the french plane. As for strike the Thud is superior in many ways too. Its payload is probably 8 times more. The Etendard carries only 2 weapons plus tanks or 1 Missile plus 1 tank and 2 defence pods except for the shortest range missions. All in all i am hardly impressed by its capability as a striker.

F-16A ADF vs A-4F

My vote is for the Falcon. Better visibility, HOTAS, HUD and raw power.

F-100 vs F-86

The F-100 is an improvement over the F-86 is every respect except handling. The F-86 is also agile as hell and F-100 is more of a fighter bomber. I suppose in a dogfight the F-86 can win the Hun is stupid enough to get into a slow turning although it will be harder to down the Hun with those small guns as you need many many more hits. 1 or 2 hits from the M39s will saw the F-86 in 1/2.

F-106 vs MiG-21

As i said the 106 has not much in terms of dogfight weaponry except the gun. If you compare with early model 21s then it will be a draw..vs MF and beyond i buy the Fishbed.

Edited December 20, 2004 by hellohikaru

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

aweso0me answers. Never knew the cobra had inferior sustained turns in comparison to the hornet. Could the cobra still best the hornet though? does it hold more advantages or is sustained turn more important?I imagine acceleration is better.

Also. Guys just came back shopping with my family over at the AAFES BX. Lo and behold as my brother foound a dragon figure I myself, found a dragon F-16 in a 5 star collectables box. The back had the dragon labels. Its basically the slipcase around that says 5 star collectables and the box is really a dragon box.

I got F-16C from the 57th FW figthter weapons school 50th anniversary.

VERY nice. No wonder they give you a tool to remove the weapons!! they are styrene!! Or light ABS. Anyways. canopy does not stay closed well. I mean it "does" but its not a locked position not always aligned. The open position is kind of funky I am not sure If I have done it right. I think the forward part of the canopy is supposed to be above the rear canopy piece, not merely in front of it. When open.

AWESOMe detail and finish. Some parts like the nose gear door in closed position are prone to fall off. Other than that EXCELLENT toy and best 14$ diecast toy my parents have ever bought me (20% off sale). List price over at the BX is 17.95.

THey have eagles in as well but they were not at the BX. Supposedly they are in another series and mine is labled series 1 and consists of 3 previously released dragon falcons.

I think the reason the eagles do not have AMRAAM and sparrow pylons on the fueselage of the eagles is because the clip on portion would have to be on the missle itself and since the missles are attached in a "straight" not angled position, thjis would mean specially made missles would be used and the mounting clip would get in the way of the fins.

Not sure how dragon could solve this problem. I envision diagonal pegs from the fueselage plugging into holes at a 45 degree angle of the missle.

Either way des[pite the inaccuracies and irritating non BVR fueselage missle armnament capaility, I shall buy a dragon F-15 if I can find one.

BTW the smaller scale "cando" pl;anes with no removable gear are at the BX too for 2.99

BUT. The F-15D they have in the "cando" series HAS fueselage engine nacelle missles!!

HMMMM

in the warbird series defense of the eagle though. a manufacturing solution to that for the 1/72 is a lot harder to do.

But my idea of diagonal pegs into holes placed 45 degrees in between the fins of the missle would work in mounting a BVR onto the engine nacelles of the eagle model.

Dragon you listening?

BTW are the issues listed common with you guys like loose canopies? I think I cracked an AMRAAM mounting clip but not sure nad it still stays so who cares.

And david any news on the warbirds F-14"? And does the hornet have nacelle attachement points for BVR or nitehawk pods? Dragon models RULE but man I just wish they had every imaginable weapon configuration not a limited one.

[David Hingtgen]

Ack, mis-thought/typed in the above post. YF-17 has poor *roll* rate. Not poor turn rate. Its continuous turn should be notably better than the F-18, but the 17 should have worse instantaneous.

YF-17 vs F-18: 17 has much better acceleration/speed and I presume climb. Also much lighter. Roll rate is poor though (as modern fighters go). Instantaneous turn IS alpha, more or less. Better alpha=better inst. turns. Continuous turn is thrust/weight ratio however. Very high correlations. Bleeding speed/energy of course is also bad for continuous turn. I don't think anything will beat the F-16 in a continuous turn, low drag and great power.

Though the advantage isn't much, as the F-18 gets its better roll rate mainly from a stiffer wing and bigger ailerons (brute force), not really "aerodynamics". You could probably get a YF-17 to have the 18's roll rate with simple mods, and not lose anything in the cont. turn. (F-18's wing is very similar, it's just all the drag hurts it, while the 17 and 16 are so sleek) Of course, I always hoped you could put the F-20/Gripen engine in the YF-17 (the YF-17 only had YJ101's, 14,000lbs, and it could still supercruise--imagine if it had 18K).

Anyways:

Dragon AIM-7's have a small post on their fins. But they don't fit F-15/16/18's.... All other DW missiles have holes, and the posts are in the pylons. But the AIM-7's have posts... I always presumed the F-15 would have very small holes in the corners, to carry the AIM-7's on the fuselage, as that's the only thing that'd make sense.

Dragon F-18's cannot carry anything on the fuselage corners.

Edited December 21, 2004 by David Hingtgen