Aircraft VS super thread!

[Lightning]

too bad they cant stick it behind the cockpit where it belongs...To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing what VF-103 would look like with the new E model.

[Skull Leader]

Neid, just for clarification, only the Jolly Rogers carry "Vegabond" stripes (as symbolized by the small Vs within the stripe). Other squadrons have different names for theirs (I know VF-2s stripes are called "Langley" stripes...). Just thought I'd pass that along.

BTW, David... I talked to Darren Roberts (who is good friends with most of the PAOs out at Oceana) and the corrosion control guys at VFA-103 said "screw the regs, when we go to sea, the tailcode is going inside the tailfins, and the Skull/Crossbones will be larger!"... so, a good day for Jolly Roger fans I guess!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Thats pretty cool for the jolly rogers! Bout time someone changed the tail code placements!

The F-22 pilots you speak of on ARC.....is it Waco? I know him and Murph fly eagles but Waco talked about test flying the raptor too.

[Skull Leader]

Yeah, Waco (or "Whacko" as I prefer to call him) flies Raptors and I don't know what Murph flies anymore (Eagles or Raptors).

[David Hingtgen]

Murph is either flying Raptors, or transitioning to the Raptor. That, or he knows way more that he should about Raptors for an Eagle pilot.

[Nied]

Neid, just for clarification, only the Jolly Rogers carry "Vegabond" stripes (as symbolized by the small Vs within the stripe). Other squadrons have different names for theirs (I know VF-2s stripes are called "Langley" stripes...). Just thought I'd pass that along.

BTW, David... I talked to Darren Roberts (who is good friends with most of the PAOs out at Oceana) and the corrosion control guys at VFA-103 said "screw the regs, when we go to sea, the tailcode is going inside the tailfins, and the Skull/Crossbones will be larger!"... so, a good day for Jolly Roger fans I guess!

As soon as I posted that I realized that wasn't the term for it. Thanks for catching that. It is odd that given how good the stripe looks further up on the nose of a Rhino, more and more squadrons are puting it so far back. Maybe it's Boeing doing it (though you'd think they'd know too since they put a nice diagonal stripe on the nose of the Growler Hornet demo bird)

[hellohikaru]

I was surfing for the A-9A and found out a model existed for it albeit a resin one.

http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/mod/us/ya9preview.htm

http://www.anigrand.com/AA2021ya-9.html

I can't find the gun muzzle for the A-9 though. The prototype reportedly flew with the 20mm m61 rather than the GAU-8. Any idea people ?

Nose undercarriage is offset to the left so an operational A-9A would probably have had the Avenger mounted on the center much like the A-10.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Maybe it had more emphasis on heavier bomb loads. Seems more bomb laden in pics I have seen than the A-10

[David Hingtgen]

New camo for demo Flankers. Similar to a previous one, but all black/white/grey camo looks cool.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/860660/L (my new desktop wallpaper)

Ok, so what's a Su-27SKM? (Paris airshow is going on this week)

Edited June 17, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Knight26]

A friend of mine sent me the following link, very interesting:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

[Skull Leader]

Man, you should see people going after each other about that article over on ARC.. people claiming that if the Mud-hens had been doing anything other than "playing" the EF wouldn't have stood a chance while others are saying the EF beat them fair and square (and someone is even claiming that the two 15 pilots were just too arrogant and underestimated the EF pilot)... what a mess....

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

From what I gather, Murph and waco know what they are talking about, and so do a few of the others, but many are calling out murph and waco making it seem like they are just defending the F-15 boys since they themselves are eagle pilots. I belive what waco and murph say. Not to mention it isn't mentioned if the mud hens were armed with bombs or not, that could take into account a lot of drag penalty along the fact that it already had much drag due to the CFT's. If the typhoon was clean ...hell either way it was not a fair fight for the mud hens. Not to mention that the fight was already called off by the time the typhoon got the kills. The mud hens were probably just sitting ducks at that moment.

But for the sake of a discussion lets make one here..

F-15E vs typhoon. With CFT's or without.

I assume that the mud hen would have to dive and zoom to defeat the typhoon, since it cannot outturn it. But the typhoon is pretty fast too...

[David Hingtgen]

Going OT:

I got a Dragon diecast F-15C today. Will take photos later, let me know what you want to see. Comments:

This is the latest version, 1FW/Langley, with ground crew figures, AIM-7's, and drop tanks.

It has stuff for every pylon---4 AIM-7's, 2 AIM-120's, 2 AIM-9's, 2 drop tanks. AIM-7's are permanently mounted. You could remove them, but it'd mess up the paint. All missiles are "live" (yellow stripe) as opposed to most DW planes which have dummy missiles (blue stripe). Pylons on wings are AIM-9 pylons, but I think they look kind of like "AMRAAM-ized Sidewinder rails".

Compared to earlier DW planes like the F-16 and F-18, the gear wells and gear doors are made of white plastic, rather than "grey plastic with a THICK coat of white paint" like Corgi uses and DW used to use. Makes for much better fit. The plastic used is a lot like the stuff used on certain parts of 1/60 Yamatos, that POM stuff or whatever. All the gear doors fit nicely and easily, as did 2 of the 3 gear struts. Right main strut didn't fit for reasons unknown--the gear well and struts between left and right were perfect mirror images, but the right one just didn't want to fit. Trimmed some of the plastic out of the gear well (more than I thought I'd need do) and it settled in. Oh, gear struts are gloss-white painted metal. Wheels are correct for an F-15C.

This release has the USAF-style ECM antenna on the correct fin, as well as no turkey feathers on the nozzles. Weight balance/etc on the other fin still projects behind the trailing edge, but I actually plan to just file off that 2mm. (Everything on the plane except the pylons and canopy is metal from what I can tell, even the h.stabs).

The fairing that covers the tailhook is present, but no door over it. Correct for F-15C's up until about 1990-1992. Based on markings etc, I believe this release depicts the plane immediately after Desert Storm, or even during it.

Canopy/cockpit: like a Corgi F-4, there is a one-piece "closed" canopy, and a multi-piece "open" canopy. Neither really fit better than any other DW canopy, maybe a little better. But it does eliminate any gap between the windscreen and main canopy when closed. They include the prop-rod for the canopy when it's open, and is actually what you should use to support the canopy, as the actuator rod needs work on both ends to fit, and doesn't look right anyways. I have it there, but it doesn't really do anything--the canopy is supported by the prop-rod right behind the seat. Also, the whole bay and all rods/actuators are black. Should be gloss white. If you close the canopy, it makes things easier, and also hides the bay. (The canopy decking is black and that is correct) HUD not as nice as other models.

It includes a stand, the same used by all the others, so you wouldn't dare actually use it for fear of collapse. I would like to put it up in flight, the gear doors fit much better than any other Dragon plane.

Paint: same as any other DW, though they greys seem more "cool" than other DW's, despite the fact that it should match. Will do a side-by-side comparison later. Camoflage pattern on upper part of the sides of the intakes is missing, but it's done right everywhere else.

Airbrake: like most any F-15 kit you've ever seen. Strut is black though, I'll repaint it grey pretty soon. Fits closed a bit better than the F-18, but I'd still recommend posing it open.

Overall, I do think the newest DW F-15C's are the most accurate of their 1/72 diecast planes. Asides from the one gear strut and the canopy actuator, the various parts fit a lot better and easier than any of the others.

Sorta plug: A place I buy diecast planes from is having a going-out of business sale, and I got this from there. Everything's cheap, including Dragon warbirds: http://www.diecastrunway.com/index.php?military_id=32

PS---more so than any other Dragon warbird, this one is obviously a copy of the Hasegawa kit.

PPS---almost full intake trunking. Outboard wall and top and bottom are fairly complete (certainly NOT seamless though) but the inboard wall ends abruptly, and you can see into the center fuselage if you look at the right angle. But it's actually much better than the Hasegawa kit, especially at the end where the fan is.

Edited June 21, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

David, mine has been on its stand for very long periods of time(mostly on display anyways since playing with it like my other toys risks scratches). And the stand has never gave in, it is just a little wobbly but the stand works fine. It is not so heavy as to break it. (I guess this is due to the balance being equal on all sides). The model itself is pretty heavy...especially compared to the previously released falcons but not super heavy. So I wouldn't worry about leaving it on display on the stand.

An F-14D bounty hunters tomcat has been announced as well. Its got the GE engines thank god, but whether the rest of it is accurate or not as a D is beyond me.(though the seats are NACES).

Also it appears the cyber hobby jolly roger HAS the GE engines as well!

http://www.modelhangar.com/forum/showthrea...17946#post17946

Not sure if the regular release F-14B does though..

Edited June 21, 2005 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[David Hingtgen]

I didn't literally mean it'd probably break it, but the F-18 sure is wobbly on it. Far too wobbly for my tastes. An F-15 would be worse. That stand was originally for 1/400 airliners. 1/72 warbirds are like 5x heavier. The stand was slightly changed for the warbirds, but it's still far too small/weak than it should be.

DW F-14's: (VF-103, VF-2) Back ends still messed up, F-14B looks like a D. 2-tone camo instead of 3-tone. Maybe someday they'll make one half-assed accurate, but not now.

[Dendrobius]

On the topic of F-15E vs. the Eurofighter...

IMHO, if the Eurofighter CAN'T beat the Mudhen BVR or WVR, there's something seriously wrong.

The Eurofighter has more advanced avionics (although I'm a bit suspicious of the capabilites of the ECR.90, but give it the benefit of the doubt), and the planned Tranche 3 ones get some nifty stuff like the full DASS (one truly promising defence system), helmet mounted display, and the PIRATE sensor (integrated FLIR/IRST).

I'm not sure about this next point, the F-15Es can carry AMRAAMs, but do the Eurofighter get their Meteors, which outrange the AMRAAM and has better electronics to boot? If that's the case, the Eurofighter then has the slightly better lance and the somewhat better shield. It won't be all one way traffic, but it won't be totally fair either.

I'd say it's quite like pitting a F-16 Block 30 against a F-4J Phantom, one with the AMRAAM and the other with the AIM-7M.

Summary: the Eurofighter should take it.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Dendrobius

[Skull Leader]

I didn't literally mean it'd probably break it, but the F-18 sure is wobbly on it. Far too wobbly for my tastes. An F-15 would be worse. That stand was originally for 1/400 airliners. 1/72 warbirds are like 5x heavier. The stand was slightly changed for the warbirds, but it's still far too small/weak than it should be.

DW F-14's: (VF-103, VF-2) Back ends still messed up, F-14B looks like a D. 2-tone camo instead of 3-tone. Maybe someday they'll make one half-assed accurate, but not now.

and their GE engines look like total ass...

still, one of our local hobby shops carries the vast majority of the DW run, and they've promised to get some of the VF-103 birds, so I'll likely pick one up (because that's just the kind of person I am, lol)

LOL, I almost wish David HADN'T tought me the differences between an F-14A and an F-14B... I could live happily in ignorance!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

The hungates near my house has no dragons at all! But they did have the jolly rogers F-14 FOV for a while.....I kind of regret not buying it....I liked the retractable gear.

Not sure if you guys would be into these but BUddyL Tonka rereleased their light and sound F-14...the sculpt is off and it has 4 guns....but back when I got it at the age of 10 I loved it! And its out again in low vis grey, along with a YF-22A in sky blue camo.

[hellohikaru]

I was wondering what the ASCC names for the newer Russian fighters were. Came out with this.

http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html

Su-47 Berkut is the Firkin lol!

[David Hingtgen]

Strangely, there's not much to report on what happened while the board was down. Things possibly of interest:

Jolly Rogers paired with Pukin' Dogs for a "temporary" Air Wing 7 while VF-11 converts to VFA-111, tailcode changed to AG, modex from 1xx to 2xx, will deploy on Eisenhower. High-vis planes changed from 100 and 103 to 200 and 201.

[Skull Leader]

hey Dave, I had talked to Brian Marbrey on the phone for a while about the whole airwing situation and I was having trouble sorting it all out... when VFA-11 is declared "boat safe", they'll be joining up with 103 right? So what will happen with the Dogs? will they stay with AG (thus making it the only airwing with THREE superhornet squadrons) or do you think they'll go elsewhere? Brian and I both agreed that things would probably be in a serious state of flux until all the superhornet transitions were complete. Thoughts?

(VFA-111? is this a typo?)

Also, it's worthy of note that apparently neither VFA-11 or 103 care to have anything to do with 143... evidently some serious squadron rivalry there. Brian was telling me that within the week that 143 had moved into the hangars next to 103 they had already stolen ENS Ernie once and had zapped a couple of their planes. 103 was unamused.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Skull Leader

[David Hingtgen]

Arrgh! I typed it twice to get it right, and still screwed up. Yes I meant 11, not 111. 111 is my fave squadron, how awesome would their rising sun logo look on a Shornet tail... (with a shark mouth)

Anyways---while 143 has a cool logo and name, I get the impression they're not well-liked, and if you have a look, they lose a lot more planes than most squadrons.

I get the impression CVW-7 is supposed to be 11 and 143, but 103 is replacing 11 temporarily. 11+103 would be double F's. Don't know where 103 will go after that. I know 105 is supposed to go from 18C's to 18E's relatively soon, maybe 103 and 105 will pair up.

[Skull Leader]

105 transitions this fall I think. Then I think the Sunliners (81) is transitioning to echoes next year I believe)

[David Hingtgen]

Forgot to post:

While the board was down, the Quad City Airshow was going on, and I of course went. Main attractions were the Thunderbirds (5 planes, not 6 due to illness---some formations simply have a "gap", some asymmetric, some modified) and a Super Hornet demo.

Despite having the T-Birds, USAF sent almost nothing for static displays. 2 A-10's. We had more than that last year, when there were no USAF demos at all.

Missed getting the Shornets shockwave cone, 1/2 second too late. Other notables included P-38 on static and flying (Porky II) and I ate lunch sitting under an A-10's h.stab.

Photos are the best my digi-camera can do at that distance. It's old, and like 2 megapixel.

[Skull Leader]

yeah, it's been a rough year for airshows in the midwest... virtually everyone has cancelled them, and those that went ahead with them (so far), have been seriously reduced in scale and quality. McConnell AFB here has cancelled their show for later in the year (wasn't TOO bad last year, they had the Snowbirds there)

[buddhafabio]

is their popularity dying off that bad????

[Skull Leader]

It has more to do with the war and national security I think. Many bases throughout the midwest have most of their active personnel deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq, and there aren't many people still at the bases that are willing to take up the reins and be the airshow director. (Although I will say airshows sponsored by ANG groups tend to be more exciting than ones sponsored by active-duty people).

I still have plans to attend the Offutt AFB airshow in Omaha in August, the Little Rock AFB airshow in early september, and the NAS Oceana airshow in Virginia Beach in mid-september. That's about it though.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Well from what my lil bro has been following on the local tube back home, apparently the mayor of va beach has announced that they might close Oceana. I know its been back n forth but this is the first I have heard from the mayor. Residents near there always complain about the jet noise......and the super bugs are the loudest there...but still....a lot of the new residents coming should KNOW it won't be that quiet if they move into oceana. Its common sense...its an AIRBASE.

IF they do close I imagine the navy can relocate some bug squadrons to norfolk where they still operate hawkeyes..and it was a former intruder and cat base anyways.

Oceana was the "home" for tomcats at one point....so if it does go out, it goes out with its most famous bird.

In other news I saw one of the new airplane magazines and the MIG-29 with bigger flaps is being flight tested. Also one with OVT all around thrust vectoring engines is being tested and proposed for India.

Also the AIM-9X I think is going into either further testing or operational service on super hornets.

Do you guys think the super bug will get much higher thrust engines later in its career? And I know it does have a lot of drag....would higher power engines put too much force on the airframe?

That and do you think India will buy the F/A-18F super hornet? I hear its being offered in competition with other foreign planes like the gripen, and updated fulcrums.

[Skull Leader]

I think the version of the SH that is being offered to India is a seriously watered-down model (no Advanced Crew Station I think... also a number of other systems missing)

I'm sure there will be a number of serious service upgrades to the Super Hornet over the years. I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of upgraded pylon system. As for engine upgrades, I was under the impression that they're already pretty much using the best engine they could get their hands on that would fit the airframe... not very encouraging, I know. You figure, if the F-4 was a proof-in-concept that a brick really CAN fly (and fast) if you put big enough engines on it, they ought to be able to do the same with the SH. We'll never see a side-by-side comparison, but I bet in a WVR ACM encounter, the SH probably bleeds energy something worse than a Phantom does. I could be wrong, but everything about the SH just screams "underpowered". I guess basically what I am trying to say is, if it's gonna get a new engine at some point (and if at all possible, I think it really should), it's got to be something that has yet to be conceived or tested. Can the aircraft even maintain a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio in the vertical like the Super Tomcat can? Then again, it may be a similar case to the F-111B program (I seem to recall a statement to the effect of "all the thrust in Christiandom couldn't make that thing a fighter!"). Dave, you have any thoughts on this?

As for NAS Oceana closing, I don't really see it happening. The Navy will always want at least ONE master jet base on each coast... and they've been there far longer than most citizens have. They've tried before (to no avail) to get the base closed, so unless something drastic happens, I'll go with "probably not" on that one.

[Apollo Leader]

I still have plans to attend the Offutt AFB airshow in Omaha in August, the Little Rock AFB airshow in early september, and the NAS Oceana airshow in Virginia Beach in mid-september. That's about it though.

Dude, you better make it here this time!

[David Hingtgen]

Lots of various answers/comments.

If Oceana closes, they'll likely re-open Cecil field (Jacksonville, FL). Oceana is realtively "new", Cecil field is the tradtional "massive east coast USN air base". And it's a lot more open. Don't have to contend with Langley for air space. And yes, Super Hornets are loud for reasons I don't know. As a rule, the more modern a jet engine, the quieter it is. Though F100-229's are said to be loud, I've never heard one. But F414's are sure loud in a Super Hornet. (Although IMHO it's more the sound itself, not the loudness---I find a droning, buzzing little Cessna overhead far more annoying than the roar of a jet, even if it is louder---and the Super Hornet has a "ripping" sound that is more irritating than most modern jets--it is not a roar, it is a rip). Kind of like how some particular cell phone rings can be insanely irritating, even though they're no louder than other ones.

Super Hornet engine. It is underpowered. Go way back to the F-18A. F-18A had F404-400's, which are less powerful than late-model J79's. The Hornet's engines were nothing more than a more reliable, lighter version of the J79. Pretty much the same size. No more power, and only slightly better efficiency. F404-402 is a bit more powerful, but still below an F-4J/S engine. The F404 is overall a wonderful engine for ease of use, maintenance, reliability, and is far more "pilot-friendly" than the F100, TF30, and maybe even F110. But it is really no more powerful or efficient than a J79.

Super Hornet has F414, which AFAIK is more of a "high-temp" version of the F404. Gets the power by running hotter and faster, not pumping more or nor compressing it better. It is a "sped-up" F404---and you run into over-temp problems REAL fast following that path of engine development. Still, according to this press release, GE says they can eventually get up to 25% more power, which would give an installed power of 55,000lbs to a Super Hornet. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/..._20020722i.html

(I really wish there was more recent news than 2002) Heat, and speed of the exhaust lead to noise--my best theory for why Super Hornets are loud. "It's like a Super Tomcat, but makes more noise for less power".

Re-engining: a quick look shows nothing compatible size-wise, though the J79 is quite close--which'd be pointless.

Edited August 12, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Stamen0083]

Was the Super Hornet a Boeing project or MDD?

I wonder why the engineers didn't design the Super Hornet for bigger engines? The thing is practically all new anyway, might as well.

Why did the pylons have to be angled out again?

[David Hingtgen]

::edit to add snippet:: First AIM-9X's have been seen on operational Super Hornets this week.

Super Hornet is MDC design, not Boeing. The engines had to be the exact same size so as to fit in the rear fuselage. While every part and panel line may be new, the overall size/shape of the fuselage (minus the extension) is identical to the original. If it was a different shape with different engines, they couldn't sell it to Congress as an "upgrade" to an existing plane (therefore cheap). But since it's the same "proven design" fuselage only stretched, with a newer version of the F404, it was much easier to get funding. New designs ALWAYS come down to how it's sold to the bean counters. Same reason the F-22 is now called the F/A-22, despite having 1/10 the bombing ability of the "don't have an A" -14D, -15E and -16CG. If something is multi-purpose, or simply an update to an established design, it's automatically perceived as being cheaper or more economical. For the opposite reason the Ticonderoga-class went from being destroyers to cruisers---Cold War, and cruisers are bigger/more powerful than destryoers, and Congress wanted big powerful ships---so they were redesignated to get more approval. Exact same ship, but now called a cruiser, so Congress thought it was now a more powerful design. You call/design it as however Congress will fund it---either an all-powerful war machine, or the most economical weapon ever.

The pylons are angled because wind-tunnel tests indicated possible problems with separation for some weapons---either they would hit the fuselage, or each other, when released. Still, angling the pylons doesn't really make them any further from each other, and only slightly changes the inboard pylon to fuselage distance, and only at one end. Angling them out along a different axis (bottom edge outwards, instead of the leading edge outwards) would have been better I think, and wouldn't have increased drag. The outboard pylons are angled bottom edge out (in addition to leading edge out). Or, simply change all of the pylon attachment points so all the pylons are spaced out more---they already had to change half of them anyways for the drag-inducing method they went with.

Edited August 12, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Skull Leader]

I still have plans to attend the Offutt AFB airshow in Omaha in August, the Little Rock AFB airshow in early september, and the NAS Oceana airshow in Virginia Beach in mid-september. That's about it though.

Dude, you better make it here this time!

319606[/snapback]

I'm workin' on it! Me and a buddy of mine from aircraftresourcecenter.com are gonna drive up to KC the night before, stay there with ANOTHER friend of ours, and drive up to Omaha the next morning. I've gotta test out this camera before I take it to Oceana and out on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and make sure it'll do the job. As it gets a little closer, I'll be in contact with you more about meeting up

To add on to what David was saying about the SH, McD and Boeing have tried to keep as much of the plane's innards as compatible as possible with it's legacy counterpart for more "efficient" spare-parts control ... now instead of 3 planes needing "part X", now TWELVE PLANES need "part X" (but that goes into my gripe about relying too much on one kind of aircraft, which I won't get into in this post). The DoD jumped up and down in it's chairs like a bunch of hyperactive first graders when they learned this was possible. They thought they were getting a real deal in the bid. What they DON'T realize is that most of those internal components are still 25 year old designs, hardly cutting edge technology. Oh well, I guess it's a way to get a few extra miles out of all those F/A-18A/B airframes sitting out at AMARC.

Dave, any word on if the LRIP Foxtrot Superhornets will be upgraded with the ACS? Since pretty much every F squadron from VFA-103 on is going to be getting the ACS, it's bound to be only a matter of time before the initial production runs get it, don't you think? (VFA-2, 41, 102, 106, and 122 all have the non-ACS planes surely they'll upgrade...)

[Nied]

IIRC the F414 is actually quite a bit larger than the 404 (which is why it can't be retrofited to baby Hornets). The F135 might be able to be squeezed into the Rhino's engine bays but it is a foot or two longer than the 414 so that might not work without a fuselage plug. The Eurofighter's engine is already a few thousand pounds more powerful than the F414 and almost exactly the same size, if the Europeans can follow through on the promised improvements (even more thrust and TVC) they could turn the Super Hornet into one hell of an impressive fighter.

Edited August 12, 2005 by Nied