-Neu-

Flying Heritage collection has a Mig-29UB. That probably accounts for the "weird nose"

We're above most NATO states for yearly flight hours, (above 170), but I haven't seen the latest figures. I know there was a significant bump last year due to two ongoing operations abroad that increased pilots flight time. Its debatable about the actual effect on pilot training. As I noted earlier, Canada's ranges are very close to our bases so our base flight hours give pilots a lot of experience: they tend to eat up airframe flight hours more than most other missions. Operational missions (including sovereignty ops and foreign deployments to combat zones) is a lot of time spent flying fairl

We suffered twice the crash rate as the USN in the first decade (7+ over 100,000 versus 3.5+), but there were a number of factors like different training emphasis, perceived technical issues with the HUD, and a focus on low-level operations over Europe and rugged areas of Canada. The last one is important: analysis showed that a lot USN hours are diluted by a large number of high altitude transit time, especially between bases and training areas. In Canada we've always had the luxury of having our training areas very close to bases, so we got more time training at low altitude (especially whe

I'd be really hesitant drawing comparisons between Canada's selection of the CF-18 to what a next generation fighter brings. We were the first major customer of the CF-18: In 1982 we had more of them on order than the USN/USMC. The aircraft was far more maneuverable and powerful than antecedent aircraft. We were unprepared for some aspects of flying it, and we lost aircraft as a result; 13 in the space of eleven years from 1984 to 1992. The F-35 is much different, and we're unlikely to make those mistakes for a number of reasons. First we won't be the first, second or even the tenth nation to

Yes, 65 was in part decided upon to meet a government funding cap. However, all of the other legitimate options cost more (or significantly more), while the F-35 remains within the 9 billion acquisitions cap. the Opposition leaders are well aware of this: notice the distinct lack of discussion of this topic, despite all the hay it once engendered. See, that's the wrong assertion. F-35s are most certainly not 1:1 replacements for CF-18s. They are much more capable on an aircraft to aircraft basis, so you require less aircraft to do the same task as you once did. Another way to look at it i

We can fly them to 2025 with little problem: we have our own airframe regeneration capability, so there isn't really an air safety issue. Past that gets dicey. Selecting the F-35 in the next year will allow us to convert fully by 2025, if not earlier if we desire it. Well, we should probably chose the aircraft that the Government has selected twice through detailed analysis: the same aircraft that was seen to be lowest cost, most capable and with the highest industrial benefit. I suspect the choice for the F-35 will be made fairly quickly after the election, due to contractual consideratio

Do you really expect the dear leader to use the same headrest as everybody else?

I don't think you can be wrong with either statement, but if you're in a situation where a professor is a pedant, then you can just chose and cite a choice. On that note I'd suggest you say they were western or US oriented, rather than pro-American. The former is a more exact term for their foreign relations, particularly in international relations circles. As for the question, the republic's revolving leadership seemed to be more interested in keeping themselves in power through the client relationship with the United States. If you're talking about "western" you're talking about a cultural

Probably LBJ or McGeorge Bundy.

Canada's Cat A rate was 27 incidents per 100,000 Hours. It had to do with timing. You have to remember that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, NATO's primary focus for deterring the Soviet Aggression was New Look and Massive Retaliation. Basically, it meant meeting any Soviet aggression with an overwhelming nuclear response. Even though Kennedy moved away from Eisenhower's very binary formulation of Massive Retaliation to "flexible response", the concept had already made an indelible impression on Western Strategy. The CF-104 was part of that view: Canada needed a fast, effective low level

Sure... actually, it would hurt our current generation of aircraft more. Basically the authors posit that the F-35 other new aircraft are too technologically advanced and are full of flaws, so the U.S. reactivates huge number of 4th Generation aircraft from AMARC and other places. These are then used to fight the Chinese into a withdrawal. The problem is that to keep these aircraft viable, they need to use standoff weaponry like the JSOW to stay out of the range of Chinese Air defence systems. Without GPS, how will they be able to guide weapons accurately? Its really a questionable assertio

I've read the first few chapters...and its really bad. I know quite a few people in "certain defence circles" that have the same view. Its really unfortunate because I like Singer's work: he might be looked back upon as one of the first real UAV analysts. Its just got too much in the way of a leap of faith for me to agree to... these following events all happen in the beginning of the book: #1 China and Russia stage a major "conflict" in Siberia to distract attention away from their actual plans. - I'm sure that they could fabricate hundreds or thousands of casualties without US intelligenc

It really isn't hard to find them.... one them is also known as my wife.

Well this was easy... http://www.luckymodel.com/scale.aspx?search=Y&q_brand=HAS&q_category=&q_scale=48&q_word=F/a-18&q_show_instock_only=N

While that is almost certainly true for operational pilots, the test pilots can give you a lot of those answers... partly because they are part of the iterative process that got it changed a certain way. That's been my experience anyways.

If I can make a plug for the little guy, Greg Williams at Modern Hobbies makes a really nice set of seated pilot figures. A lot of people on here like them and use his accessories for their modern aircraft builds.

There isn't much point to going to 4 or 5 over three: the drag is so high that the range gain is minimal.

I wish Artur Model would ship internationally, or make it easier to ship internationally. From what I know, they are the best stocked supplier in the Czech Republic. http://www.arturmodel.cz

No I totally agree. I built the hasegawa and fujimi kits for that reason. The Hasegawa kit I built at rest; wings at full sweep and slats/flaps retracted. That was a bit of extra work that wasn't really necessary. Conversely I built the Fujimi kit on the cat with flaps and slats out. The kit also comes with a compressed oleo and pilots, which is a nice touch for that option. Thinking about this logically, I think the FM/MG are aiming to be a very specific type of display model: an aircraft with its panels open inside the ship. If you are not concerned with that (i.e. want to build it sitti

I'm sorry, but your post is extremely contradictory. On the one hand you're basically extolling the virtue of a high speed nuclear bomber. Then on the other you're basically denigrating almost every component of the United States' defence against the Soviet Unions' bomber force. You should just have mentioned SAGE just for a matter of completeness. So what would you have US military do? Nothing? How would you even justify that to the american people? The Soviet Union couldn't even do that (despite the fallacious claims that its government did not care about its populace), deploying vast num

Every major one in Vancouver carries it.

So, I'm a 1/72 modeller, and I really like to build new and classic highly regarded kits. I've built several F-14s, including the Fujimi and Hasegawa kits. Hasegawa Fujimi I've also built two Model Graphix/Fine Molds zeros, as well as the Tamiya and Hasegawa Zeroes. (The closest is Tamiya, furthest right is Fine Molds, the left and furthest back are Hasegawa) So this morning when I saw this thread, I immediately sent off a few emails to see if I can get one or two (I even have an unbuilt Hasegawa of VF-31, which is what the FM kit seems to offer). Why? Because the Fine Molds Zeroe

If you're using Mr Surfacer, use the Gunze product. You have two choices. You can use Mr Leveling Thinner, which comes in similar bottle sizes to its regular thinner, or you can buy the regular thinner and add Mr Paint Retarder to get the same effect. Personally I do the latter: its more economical than having a bottle of levelling thinner which I don't have much use for. Also you can change the ratio of mix with paint retarder, rather than being stuck at one concentration with levelling thinner. I think the latter is more useful if you're primarily a brush painter and need strokeless paint jo

No... its pretty conclusive that hasegawa's F-35A is probably the most accurate version available and provides a very, very good representation of the A-model. Its not perfect, but it definitely feels right. They are nothing like the X-35 which looks positively anorexic compared to the production models. I'd also caution against trying to be too focused on having the bomb-bays. There aren't that many great photos of the bays in full, its a veritable mess of conduits and wires, and unless you're modelling a specific aircraft with refs, it will see additional modifications in the future (part

That's the one! thanks!