Aircraft VS super thread!

[Noyhauser]

heh, I wish

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Speaking of canada,

What are they going to replace their legacy hornets with?

[Nied]

Speaking of canada,

What are they going to replace their legacy hornets with?

F-35s

[hellohikaru]

About the Saudi F3 Tornodas, they are not loaned from the RAF. This belong to the RSAF and took part in the 91 Gulf war. Last i heard they had plans to adapt them for the wild weasel role. They only bought like 24 of them. Maybe the F-15C suited them better though they should know better the ADV was never much of a dogfighter.

The Hind is actually faster than the Cobra/Apache i heard even if not as advanced. As for the mention of Sidewinders, only the USMC deploys the AIM-9L/M on the AH-1T/W. The army Apache/other helos while having the winder capability never deploys Sidewinders operationally since they have the smaller Stingers. I doubt the Comanche could carry AIM-9s inside the weapons bay. They would need to be carried on the stub pylons. AH-66 Comanche would have been the ultimate air-to-air helicopter.

"What do you think of the AH-1Z in comparison to the AH-64?

The UH-60 in comparison to the UH-1Z?

The Kiowa in comparison to the Longbow?"

Kiowa Scout/Warrior has very little combat capability compared with the Longbow. More of a scout/reconnaisance helo. Its not as well protected and certainly not as fast too.

Cobras have almost proved more reliable in the field than the Apache in terms of maintanence. Other than that the Apache is the more capable helicopter compared with pre-AH-1Z cobras. With the upgrades the AH-1Z will have its flight envelope greatly expended making capable of doing what the Apache can. It carries the same amount of weapons as Apache too.

I don't know too much about the UH-1Z Huey other than it will share engines and shaft/boom with the AH-1Z. I take it as a lower cost UH-60 perhaps.

[Skull Leader]

The question is "numbers" The USAF will have more fighters, with far better pilots, and better support. Name me a country you think that would be able to outstrip US fighter production... and actually could deploy more fighters than several US carrier task groups, and 4 or 5 Air expeditionary wings + allied contributions where available. The US will always have over 1500 combat aircraft ready, with more than 200~400 heavy fighters available at any given time. Even china would be extremely hardpressed against that.

Also the question of "always must be better" is a very shallow argument to defence planners. ITs a question of "value for money." The US can spend billions even trillions on "possible threats." The british did so in 1909 with the Dreadnought scandal where Germany was supposedly building 20 dreadnoughts and the UK would only have 12 or there abouts. Britain almost bankrupted itself building 20, and at the end of the war, it was found out that the germans barely had 8. The US doesn't need more F-22s, I'm a strategic analyst by trade, and almost everybody I knows agree. I can't stress this enough. Only the Japanese or the EU has the the economic power to put up a challenge, and if that is the case we should maybe stop giving the Japanese their fighters, and buy the rest of the European inustries (thats a lot of Sarchasm right there). Really I think people should be worried about Europeans doing to little, then them doing too much... in truth though with the creation of a European security and defence program, its likely they will be valuable partners in any threat to the west. They have a vested intersted in the maintence of the International system as it is, they make too much money off of it.

The USAF will have more F-22s than any other small airforce we may potentially fight has fighters. This will not change anywhere in the near future.

Actually, it ISN'T a question of numbers. It only takes one aircraft (you can take your likeliness/feasibility argument and drop it in a river. I'm not arguing whether or not it WILL happen, but that it CAN happen) flying below the radar to sneak in and lay an Iron on a painted target. While we can't cover every square inch of border in equal effectiveness, I would like to know that I have the best interceptors possible to be able to get to a given point as quickly as possible. What's more, I want as many guarantees as I can that my fighters are going to have a definative edge over his. Cookie-cutter/cannon-fodders-of-the-future F-35s aren't going to give that to us, at least not in the degree that the F-22 will.

I will be the first to say that we shouldn't be relying solely on one or two types of aircraft for our defense needs. It may look good on paper and in an economics discussion, but reports and money are nothing without the people we're trying to protect. It's PART (not all) of the reason why the Tomcat is now in the bitter twilight of it's service. Most of the pencil-pushers making the policy don't understand that diversibility of roles in specialized fighters can be worth the slightly added expense.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Surprised David didn't post this, but

Dragon-models.com has NEW PICS of the VF-111 F-14A. Tal about underarmed, it just has sidewinders!! TWO~!

Either way a nice mold and though some say it looks toyetic, definitely looks more modelish than the FOV version which was panellined to death with a smudged sharpie marker.

The panel lines are molded into the dragon one and are only apparent in the 2nd pic. It's got TF-30 cans, and the small IR sensor rather than the TCS, so from what I know it looks accurate as far as being an F-14A. Lets hope we can mount sparrows and phoenixes on that sucker.

Decals are cool but the red makes me want a VF-1 wolfpack version even more now.

[David Hingtgen]

I saw the pics, didn't feel like posting.

Anyways---I suspect that is an OLD photo of a prototype/sample.

Details-wise, it's perfect for THAT plane. It's 160656, the 1982 CAG. (DW has a typo, that's the 82, not 92 version). Every little detail I know of for that plane is correct. VF-111 is my fave squadron, I have most of their CAG plane's BuNo's memorized. 162594, 160656, 160660, 161621..

HOWEVER: there seems to be no nose pitot. Either they forgot to put it in for the photo (The F-16's is removable), or they have a Block 75 nose or something. That'd be wrong for 90% of F-14's.

Also---did you notice IT HAS A B/D's BACK END? The fairings are separate, but GE's! So they obviously plan to do an accurate F-14B, they just put the wrong ones on for that prototype photo-shoot.

So---if the final actual release has the correct F-14A back end, and a nose pitot, than it will be as accurate as if I built one from a Hasegawa kit. By far the most accurate diecast model jet ever, period.

But, if there's no nose pitot, and it has the back end of an F-14B---then they screwed up as big as they did with the "no pylons" F-15E.

Nose pitots are VERY common on F-14's, but not all. VF-1, 2, and 124 are about the only ones you'd commonly see without them. Maybe 24, 32, 51, 142, 143. (I'm not as up on those squadrons with their very first F-14 deliveries)

Finally--yes, I do think it looks kind of "fat" and/or toyistic in those photos. DW often seems to change many details between pics and release, so I'm waiting for pics of an actual released one, before I buy. But details-wise, if they get the nose pitot and engine fairing right, it'll be perfect.

Edited January 19, 2005 by David Hingtgen

[Phyrox]

Ok, this is a bit off the current topic, but I know a few of you might be able to help me out.

I am looking for 1/72 floats (and attachment braces) for an aircraft project...but don't know what kit to buy to get the size and shape I am looking for. My project is a kitbashed fictional Schneider Trophy racer, so I suppose that one of the Supermarine or late version Macchi floats would look right. But I'm not sure if they will be the right size for my craft, or if I can even find good quality kits of either.

the project started out as a seaplane, then I liked the lines so much I wanted to keep it a landplane, but realized that the empendage I put on screamed interwar floatplane, and now I need to find some floats. The only ones I have are for an old He115, and those are far too big.

For size sake, my plane is the size of a J7W1 Shinden (L: 5.7m, W: 11.1m)

vs a much less bulky, trophy winning S.6B (L: 8.8m, W: 9.1m).

Any ideas on doner kits?

[F-ZeroOne]

Ok, this is a bit off the current topic, but I know a few of you might be able to help me out.

I am looking for 1/72 floats (and attachment braces) for an aircraft project...but don't know what kit to buy to get the size and shape I am looking for. My project is a kitbashed fictional Schneider Trophy racer, so I suppose that one of the Supermarine or late version Macchi floats would look right. But I'm not sure if they will be the right size for my craft, or if I can even find good quality kits of either.

Well, you could steal from the most kick-ass float-plane there ever was:

http://www.modelsforsale.com/catalog/produ...oducts_id=45651

(well, almost - they later made a Mark IX version that could do 377mph. With floats!)

The Japanese made a lot of floatplanes:

http://www.hlj.com/scripts/hljpage.cgi?HSGNP11

including some much later ones (such as the N1K1 Kyofu). You could also try looking at Fairey Swordfish models; there was a floatplane variant and kits of the popular Swordfish would probably be reasonably common.

You could also look at kits from the Miyazaki anime-inspired "Porco Rosso" series; but I'm not sure if they do a kit of the Curtis racer-inspired twin-float bi-plane that appears in that.

[Phyrox]

Thanks, but...

The spitfire's float pylons just won't work. They don't look like they belong to the 30s era.

I'll have to check out more of the Japanese floatplanes. Some of them have the same problem that the spit's floats do, but there must be a couple that should work.

The Swordfish is a rather large aircraft, and I think it's floats would be a bit too big.

But I think I will try one of the Japanese recon floatplanes. I had a kit of one once, but its floats were both rather small, and "not fast" looking...but maybe one of the others will work better.

Thanks again for the help.

[F-ZeroOne]

Thanks, but...

The spitfire's float pylons just won't work. They don't look like they belong to the 30s era.

Thanks again for the help.

You're welcome. I kind of figured the Spitfire would be a bit "wrong", but I couldn't resist mentioning it. I only found out about the floatplane variant recently, and I love the fact they tried it twice - once with the Mk VB and then later with my favourite Mk. IX...!

[David Hingtgen]

Have you considered any of the battleship/cruiser-based float-equipped scout planes, both US and German? Most are 30's designs, though certainly not sleek.

[ewilen]

I don't know about the attachment braces, but would scratch-building be an option?

Or (thinking a little more creatively) what about modding a torpedo from larger-scale kit? Or something from a science fiction kit? (Some part of a Star Trek vessel?) Or something that isn't a model at all, like a deodorant bottle or somesuch?

Maybe you could post a sketch of what you'd like the floats to look like and the approximate dimensions, and we could keep our eyes open for thingamajigs that would fit.

[Phyrox]

Thanks for the further suggestions.

I'm not too good at pure scratchbuilding, I mostly modify parts I come across.

I think I will try to get a part that originally was a float, so I don't have to add or take away texture.

Just for reference, this is what the rest of the project looks like so far.

So, if anyone knows if any aircraft had floats that would be particularly appropriate for this, please, let me know.

If not, thanks to all those above who already gave me suggestions.

Back to your "this vs. that," and "F-22 pro/con" thread.

[Noyhauser]

wicked idea... its a Shinden, reversed... with a FW 190 prop and rudder change.,.. took me a few seconds to recognize it

[Nied]

That's cool. I'm having trouble not seeing the shinden in some views, but I think that will go away once it's painted. I love how poor the frontal visibility is, very 1930s racer.

[Phyrox]

Glad you guys seem to like it. It is actually a Ju87 spinner/prop.

Yah, without paint, the Shinden jumps out at ya...which is why I want those floats.

the faster I can primer this thing the faster I can begin to work out paint schemes.

[F-ZeroOne]

Having now seen the picture - wow, strange how you don't recognise one of your favourite aircraft when its pointing backwards! - it feels to me very "German Focke-Wulf". So, how about the Arado-95:

http://www.fach-extraoficial.com/fotos/maq...ar95_mpm_72.jpg

There was a later monoplane, the Arado-196, which might be even more suitable, but unfortunately the very first search I did turned up the phrase "models of this plane basically don't exsist in 1/72 scale... "

Edited January 21, 2005 by F-ZeroOne

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Shindens are awesome that's great work man!!!!!! Very cool looking.

[Zentrandude]

Having now seen the picture - wow, strange how you don't recognise one of your favourite aircraft when its pointing backwards! - it feels to me very "German Focke-Wulf". So, how about the Arado-95:

http://www.fach-extraoficial.com/fotos/maq...ar95_mpm_72.jpg

There was a later monoplane, the Arado-196, which might be even more suitable, but unfortunately the very first search I did turned up the phrase "models of this plane basically don't exsist in 1/72 scale... "

box sounds dirty."the canopy is injected"

the custom looks look.

[hellohikaru]

A very interesting thread comparing the MiG-19/J-6 and the F-100.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=37701

[hellohikaru]

Nice large scale warplanes here.

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/

[hellohikaru]

[hellohikaru]

This guy has some incrediblely detailed models.

http://www.scottsaircraft.com/home.htm

Edited January 25, 2005 by hellohikaru

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Both sites are pretty cool! The debate of the F100 and MIG19 was something I never thought of. What are your opinions? The Hun get any love around here?

[bsu legato]

Awesome custom, Phyrox! It's new, yet it looks credible enough to be one a "what if" design. It almost makes me want to try my own Crimson Skies/Luft '46 design.

[Final Vegeta]

The question is "numbers" The USAF will have more fighters, with far better pilots, and better support. Name me a country you think that would be able to outstrip US fighter production... and actually could deploy more fighters than several US carrier task groups, and 4 or 5 Air expeditionary wings + allied contributions where available.

In this regards you are right, even though if you had to name a country which has an army bigger than the US you would find some of them: North Korea, Iran, Pakistan...

Also the question of "always must be better" is a very shallow argument to defence planners. ITs a question of "value for money." The US can spend billions even trillions on "possible threats."

Actually, I doubt the US can't anymore. The dollar was strong at first because it was tied with gold, and then it was strong because it was still tied with oil. Now Iran and other countries (like Iraq) have started to sell oil in Euro, and US dollar is falling against the euro while gold prices are rising. Some economists have already started worrying the US dollar may become paper poo in the very next years if the US doesn't change its politics (which is not gonna do).

During WWII US economy was 50% weapon making and 50% agriculture. Now it's 2% agriculture, 18 industry and 80% services. A soldier doesn't consume services, so even a world war isn't likely to do any good to US economy. I believe the empire game is over for the US. There is always someone trying to conquer the world. One century it was Spain, following century was France, then United Kingdom, now United States' turn. Everyone lasted a century, then it couldn't grow anymore and collapsed. There is no reason to think history has changed that much.

Starting a WWIII would be easy, though. Someone just need to give weapons to Arab countries to attack Israel, then US would intervene and attack even Iran. Now, Iran was chosen by China as its strategic oil reserves, so that would bring even China in the game (the other way to harass China are North Korea and Taiwan). Now, US has key firms gaining profit from China (including even weapon making). If China chose to freeze US assets that would be the final blow to US economy, unless US would do as it did during WWII.

Since news may differs from country to country every analisis I found which isn't based on

real knowledge of the history of propaganda myths like the good army, the good treatment of prisoners, the good treatment of conquered lands and the "we are the best ones" that every country that call itself civilized got, such analisis can't made good guesses about real future outcomes.

A good war must be swift and "luminous". Nazi army was crushed by Russians at Stalingrad battle. WWII was already lost before D-Day, but both US and Nazi military might was boosted (and Japanese were strong but they have an embargo on their oil). Iraq had the weakest army of the region after the embargo, but I've heard someone said Saddam's was supposed to be one of the strongest army of the world. Now the US has its two "major theatres of war" already occupied, so for now it won't able to do much else because it just lacks men. Besides this it just doesn't seem Americans have an imperial spirit. The British fought on in World War I accumulating over 900,000 souls for heaven or hell, with over 3 million casualties. Entire villages and towns in England were denuded of their manhood. The “cowardly” French suffered even more horrific numbers killed and wounded. It doesn't seem Americans won't stand such death toll unless there are directly invaded, which isn't likely to happen if not by land from Canada or Mexico.

Third world countries are to be considered the only countries that a civilized nation can attack or install a dictatorship into. Enemy fighters are most likely to go down in the first round, after this you just need bombing and drones are more than enough for that. No-one should dare to attack a big fish country to which you can sell your products.

Only the Japanese or the EU has the the economic power to put up a challenge, and if that is the case we should maybe stop giving the Japanese their fighters, and buy the rest of the European inustries (thats a lot of Sarchasm right there).

Buy the way, US Federal Reserve is owned mostly by London banks.

Really I think people should be worried about Europeans doing to little, then them doing too much...

Actually neo-cons are not gonna let NATO or AMPO fall. They like a net of global control as it is, and they would even like to plant more nodes.

P.S.: About the Balkan threat, that was simply propaganda. Americans had to feel compelled to intervene simply because of the military-industrial complex. Europeans weren't much worried, aside from a matter of oil ducts.

FV

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hey FV,

Though that was pretty long and informative, that kind of had nothing to do with aircraft aside from the fact that you mentioned bombers. That and it was mainly about political agendas and the forces behind it and whatnot. Which came to my attention since there's not supposed to be political discussions here.

Don't get me wrong but it's just OT. I don't want this thread to derail into something about political mascinations behind the theories of war and whatnot. This thread is mainly for military aircraft and things directly related to it, like flight sims, model kits, jet art, stuff like that. The most politics we have ever come about with this is budget cuts and cancelled aircraft programs like the rumor that DIck CHeney had something to do with the super tomcat cancellation and debates of the like, but even then that whole debate was just a cleverly guised super hornet vs super tomcat debate, which as it seems, comes up very often.

But bringing up political motivations for war and hidden truths behind them written by those who do independent research is just ultimately going to derail this thread into a while debate fest between those who support the govt, those who hate it, and those who want the thread back on topic. My point is, politics has no place in this thread.

Now back OT.

I was reading through aviation and space technology 2005 sourcebook. Apparently India has 7 MIG-29Ms!! I know they are procuring MIG-29K's(naval variant of the M), but when did THIS happen?

Pretty ironic. They got Russia's best made fulcrums and flankers while russia on the other hand doesn't.

[Noyhauser]

Actually they will have 16 Mig 29Ms. These will be used to equip the CV Gorshkov, if and when they ever make a deal.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Is thAt a special unit of the IAF? Or a testing unit? This is very interesting. I remember feeling sad that the MIG-29M program could not go further in the late 90s due to budget cuts and restraints. but it's great to know that years later, it LIVES!!!!!! I kind of hope they give it canards and thrust vectoring just to see how it compares to the SU-30MKI.

[David Hingtgen]

Ooh, VFA-102 repainted their CAG *again*. What is this, scheme #4 in 2 years? At least they know how to make a nose-stripe look good on a Shornet. Interestingly---the tailcode has been moved back to the rudders... (VFA-102 was one of the first to have to move their tailcodes off the rudders)

Best of all--the Diamondbacks have a diamond on the back! Haven't seen that since the very first F-4 deliveries.

http://drastic.cside.com/fly/CRW_0025.jpg

[David Hingtgen]

The A-10C is out:

Pics: http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php...m1106685416#new

Article (strange the USAF doesn't have an article): http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny...692.story?coll=

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Aw man I wonder if KNIGHT26 knows about this!! This has got to make him happy!!!

If we get a 2 seat version....droooool.

This was certainly on the low, I haven;t even read about this in the magazines or net!! I wonder if they will improve the existing eagles and falcons too!

[Knight26]

*maniacal laughter* ah my baby is finally getting some of the recognition it deserves. It still isn't a NA/AW by any stretch of the imagination but she is looking better. I do have to say one thing I do not like about it at this point. The stick. Sorry but I do not like the F-16 stick, would have much prefered to see them transition it to the F-15 style control column instead of mounting an F-16 stick. It makes me uneasy, and I know a few hog drivers won't like it too much either.

[Graham]

If we get a 2 seat version....droooool.

Arghhhh.....2 seater A-10 looks very ugly IMO.

The A-10C cockpit looks nice and modern, not that I really know much about cockpits tho .

So are the instruments on the A-10C NVG compatible?

Graham