Waco

Having built several of both, I'd give the nod to the Bronco J-10, at least in 1/48th. Slightly better panel line details, the positionable speed brakes, etc., all combine to make a slightly better kit. The ease construction and fit for both is very similar, however, and the difference is NOT huge. Both of them suffer with a challenging forward intake trunk to lower fuselage fit, which if not done carefully, will result in a rather significant step. Not sure what is meant about the "fictitious" dual missile rail launcher for the J-10A however. J-10As are capable of carrying a dual-rail la

Really good looking build!

I look forward to enjoying A-10 on my next trip to Chicago! You think it can compete with B-1 Korean restaurant in Baltimore?

You are the most magnificent troll I've ever seen. Tell your friends at the other sites I said, "hi."

Your calf muscles must be like iron from that much back pedaling.

This is incorrect. Low observable features are one of many design aspects of modern aircraft that contribute to increased survivability. LO features take many forms, and can apply in many different spectrums, including the RF, IR, visual, and acoustic spectrums. "Stealth" is not an accurate term, and has many negative or frankly SF connotations, hence the reason for LO. Adding LO features involves tradeoffs, no doubt, but it most certainly is a feature of survivability. Electronic warfare systems--both active and passive; aircraft signature--in all spectrums; decoys; expendables--chaff, f

I would like a doctrinal definition for murder box, please. I don't understand the term, nor what it's being used to argue.

I'll just leave this right here, but there is more than one gold quote in this article. Complete article: B-1s in fight for Ramadi instead of A-10s Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren:

The rather pedantic need to differentiate between the two has largely disappeared. I've worked with folks from both sides who use the terms interchangeably, and with the rise of Raptor T-38 Adversary Dets and Navy Contract Aggressors, it's pretty meaningless. It also doesn't account for the USMC Snipers. In the end, they're all doing the same thing, and they are all--as stated above--red air.

MUFASA GETS KILLED BY JAFAR IN THE LITTLE MERMAID!

AT THE END OF DIE HARD, BRUCE WILLIS REALIZES HIS CHARACTER HAS BEEN DEAD FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE MOVIE!!!

AT THE END OF TITANIC, THE BOAT SINKS!!!

See, you've kind of proven my point. It wasn't a rant, although I can generate one if you like. As in other places, if you join a discussion about this movie but don't salivate over how wonderful it is, you're "ranting" about the film, As for exposition....oh, God save us, that's the last thing we need. The film starts out clubbing you with explanations and exposition. "Best pilot," is given right up front; although I'm not sure what that has to do with espionage/reconnaissance work on the first place. We'll further hammer that point home by having another character proclaim, "that is on

Oh, that guy! Welcome back, sir!!! Fly, fight, win!!!

Who?

Actually, with the exception of a few points, the Huffpost article is spot on. People keep saying TFA "feels" like a Star Wars movie. Well, that is because it is Star Wars...as in Star Wars, Episode 4, before it was known as "A New Hope," and it was all that existed of SW. TFA isn't a sequel, it's a reboot to get new characters online (and new merchandising, apparently, because they haven't made enough money). The movie is almost exclusively fan service, with very little development or advancement of the SW canon. The super weapon trope is boring and repetitive, right down to a single vul

Haters gonna hate.

Not to mention the fact that every single line of code for the avionics, mission software, sensors, datalink, weapons employment, comm, nav, and identification on the f-22 is produced by Boeing.

Having struggled through 3 different SOL conversion sets over the years, I am very excited for this release. I look forward to building mine up as a J-15 prototype, probably in primer and with photo calibration markings.

You heard it from the source everyone! Don't knock the 'winder unless you have done what this warrior has done... 'winder be like... Flanker, im gonna eat you for breakfast, crap you out, and come back for more!

I've been hearing this for 20+ years now, as simulator technology gets better, and the alleged cost savings of spending more time in the simulator wins out over fuel and flying dollars. It has yet to pan out. The reality is, simulators cannot adequately replicate some of the more difficult tasks of operating a fighter, specifically the physiological demands. The sim community and the services at large would LOVE to get away from flying the airframes at all, except in combat, and to move all training into the simulators. Unfortunately, it's been fairly well proven that you simply cannot tra