What do aviation modelers think of the latest generation of jet fighters?

In one sense of the word it isn't. From a purely aerodynamic viewpoint it shouldn't be able to fly. The electronics are the only thing which keep it airborne.

(kim)

Not really - in the aerodynamic sense, anything can fly. It just may not have a high L/D, or be stable. An F-117 is definately an academically aerodynamic shape - look up a Buseman biplane sometime.

What it may not be is statically stable. No modern fighter is designed to be stable (in point of fact, almost all fighters are/have been historically designed to be marginally stable at best). A stable aircraft is not maneuverable. So - you get modern flight controls. The flight controls maintain stability; but they don't create lift.

That doesn't mean you suspend the rules of aerodynamics. The shape still makes it fly.

Interesting point.... The very first 1/700 waterline model I ever built was of IJN Ise - a hybrid "carrier/battleship." The only reason I built it was because I had read innumerable references to it, but had never seen a decent photo.

I've since built about seventy-five more 1/700's - but not a modern (Post WW II) ship in the lot. I just find it to be helpful in my reading to be able to visualize the ship mentioned in three dimensions.

Andy

Whether or not the F-22 or JSF become "coveted" would depend on the personal interests of any given modeler, as is the case with anything else. In a general sense I don't see them becoming the 'gotta have' kits anytime soon for a myriad of reasons. Think about yourself, or other modelers you know, here or in person. Why do you/they build models at all, and why pick the genre that you have? There are cool paint schemes, interesting nose art, historical significance, the pilot was a great ace, etc, etc ad nauseum. In one aircraft you can have all the above. Then take into account all the versions of that one aircraft, all the different squadrons and widely varying paint schemes, and you can have a lifetime of building nothing but 109's or Mustangs or B-17's or.... Build NOTHING but US Naval aircraft designed and built from 1940 to 1945. Just from that five year period you could spend truckloads of money and time because of the variety. Now, build only US Navy aircraft designed and built from

1990 until now. In FIFTEEN years whatcha got? A couple different versions of the F-18, a different A-6 that's already retired, the JSF that may or may not go into real production, and, and hmmmm. Adding to the lack of variety is the lack of personal exploits. There will be no more Richtofens, Boelckes, Rickenbackers, Gabreskis or Yeagers. Can anyone, off the top of their head, name a pilot from the last thirty-five years, other than maybe Cunningham? War has become very unpopular. By virtue of that, there are no glory stories, no heroes or aces, or brightly painted chariots of battle. I don't know of anyone who gets terribly excited about paint schemes anymore; WOW, look at the great low-vis gray on that F-whatever (yawn). That's part of the reason I don't build modern jets. The exception to that is a few F-14's I'll build for the squadrons I was in, but they won't be the low-vis that we had, they'll be from the days when they had some color. A hundred years from now, when/if we have spacefighter pilots, there may be a turnaround in all that, which leads to an idea. Anyone who's a fan of Babylon 5 knows the Starfuries had some killer paint schemes. As ugly as the Raptor and JSF may be in current attire, they could be some great 'what-if's for future space squadrons. Who will care how garish the paint schemes may be in space? Maybe then we can go back to the individuality of days gone by. Maybe a descendant of Yeager, Richtofen or Rickenbacker will come along. Until then, yawwwwnnnnnn.

Venlet...but he was a RIO at the time of shooting down that Fitter.

I could name a bunch of others, too. Some whom have become astronauts...but I would be digressing.

Guess it all depends on what kind of "history" one is interested in. And I doubt that war has ever been "popular"...

Sheesh, I used to think I was behaving childishly by using the hood ornament on my old Buick as a 'gunsight'. I forget where I 'located' the firing button.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

"If it's tourist season why can't I shoot any?"

Robin Olds.

But I agree with most of your post. One of each new thingy would be more than enough.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

I can find some interesting subjects in modern planes, and there are still some interesting schemes if you look. While I find that many of the tiger meet liveries are begining to teeter on garish, I like the look of the T-38's at Beale (and have buiot one for a friend who was an instructor there). You also have the Shamu look at Holoman.

I guess the main personal point I am trying to makee is that "boring" or not is in the eye of the modeler, and I have alot of fun building a specific plane, especially if I have know or even flown with the pilot (which I have had the privilidge to do a few times as a flight instructor in the Aero Club system).

Finally, it is specificaly this discussion that has enforced my theory (call it an observation really) that so much of our hobby is rooted in a painting, and has seemed to me to be the majority of the work. Even with scratchbuilding, the make or break of a good model is the color, detail, and tricks we use to make it look like a real "thing" as opposed to a toy.

Rich

The T-38 hardly qualifies as a "modern plane"- it was developed in the mid '50's. Not only is it (and the F-5 variants) one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft of all time, it is one of the most colorful. Your post strongly reinforces the original post in this thread - as modeling subjects the truly modern planes (F-22 -JSF) are boring compared to those of the past.

Jack G.

I agree that it is not modern, but it is faced with the posibilty of have it's lines obscured by boring paint jobs. The -16, -14, even -15 all had simmilar fates.

I love the realism that we impart on a plane. Capturng the details that even a phot might not cconvey such as dirt, shadows, the things that show it is still a work of man, and used as a tool.

The lines of the JSF and -22 are different. They are very boxy and BIG. I agree, that aesthetically it might be lacking, but even the -101 has been made to look good on occasion.

Rich

You *were* behaving childishly!

Bet you had a lot of fun, though! :-D

Bit of Walter Mitty in all of us I see... Hope your gun button wasn't the horn.

Jack G.

Sharkey Ward?

...a combat pilot, test pilot, student pilot, or just any ole pilot? I know TONS of each flavor.

I used to be a pilot in a brick yard . Take bricks from one pile and pilot in another(:>

snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net (Jack G) wrote in :

I agree that low-vis gray is boring. But why limit yourself to real-world schemes? I've found e.g. the recent threats by the UK to pull out of the JSF program to be a source of inspiration. What would the RAF and RN buy instead? I've seen RAF Flankers, RN Rafales, Yak-141s and loads more based on this premise alone. There's lots of fun to be had not following the instructions to the letter. See

(and especially the forum on that site) for some examples.

I have an RAF Falcon GR.3 in 6 Sqn markings. It is an F-16B with an RB199 engine, an extended nose and a dorsal fairing (although different to the dorsal fairings on Block 60 F-16s). Finished in mid-80s style RAF camouflage while carrying two Paveway III LGBs and two ALARM missiles, it looks rather good.

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Enzo Matrix) wrote in :

Sounds interesting. Want to show us some photos at

?