turboz

I lived in Southern California. We used to hear it when the space shuttle would come in to land. It was quite jarring, but soooooo cool.

Great shots. Can you please provide some details on equipment? Thanks

This, SO THIS!!!!! Although I would prefer the VX-4 markings. I grew up near Point Mugu and my Dad worked right next door to VX-4. I used to see them fly over all of the time.

Sorry, I guess the tongue was not planted firmly enough in the cheek. But, I would bet these are some of the MOST analyzed landings in history. There are engineer and aviation types studying these traps in great detail. Interesting to me though is if this was just a technology demonstrator for a carrier born UCAV why they didn't choose a more traditional design. I mean why go all stealthy or are tailless flying wings just as easy to design, build, and fly these days?

In what can only be described as the most ideal conditions possible (of course it is to start) the X-47B made it's first arrested landing on a carrier. Looked like a 2 wire. I wonder what the LSO grade was, and who he gave it to. It will be cool to see this thing progress as they incrementally move along the flight testing towards pitching decks and terrible weather. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/x-47b-navy-drone-completes-first-ever-unmanned-carrier-landing-6C10591335

Almost anything is flyable with enough money... :coolio:/> But, I agree, none of those airframes will ever fly again. They are kept for spare parts for any most of the worlds current F-4 operators (the R in AMARG).

I would imagine they will remain until there are no F-4s still in operation.

I believe it was 4 of 6. In late 72 it went 4 for 4. I don't know, that seems pretty impressive to me. But on the F-35 front it's all PR. If they didn't keep dribbling out these press releases people would be questioning what's going on.

Perfect, thanks for the link.

It looks wonderful. I would love to see your full process for this tail section. I've found the phantom tail to be difficult to do well.

What about Jim Brady?

You can also shoot RAW and adjust white balance in post. You can even adjust the exposure up to about 2 stops, but get the exposure right when shooting. There is a lot of noise in the photos, which should be taken care of by lowering the ISO as far as possible. Also play with the positioning of your lights, the photos appear very flat to me. The shadows also seem rather pronounced. How close are your lights to the diffusers? Add some contrast and do some sharpening. You can also play with a larger aperture to introduce some depth of field.

So do the F-16, F-15, F-22, F-104, F-105, F-117.

I grew up in the flight path to Point Mugu. My Dad worked for Targets (QF-4, QF-86, QT-33, QF-9) on base. Targets was right next to VX-4. I was on base fairly often for one reason or another. Watching night afterburner take offs while my Dad played softball. Spending career day shadowing a co-worker of my Dad. Every airshow on base. Fishing the lagoon or pier on base. I could identify the jet type while sitting in class by the sound. Every once in a while an AF jet would throw me off. I even got to take a trip out to San Nicholas island for an overnight stay. I only wish I had taken more pict

But, comments on the design, What are you going to use to "soften" the light or are the bulbs going to shine directly on you target? I would think you want some sort of diffuser for the light. I also think the lights on some sort of stands that you can adjust height/front/rear and distance to the model. It's not just about having tons of light. You really want to be a be to give models some dimension. with all the light so close I think your models would look flat. An acrylic base, white or black, is great to take pictures on.