Graham

Back in the mid-to-late 90s, I did spend way too much time pouring over every piece of Mac Plus and Mac 7 mecha lineart available and also spent hours freeze-framing my M7 & M+ VHS tapes to study mecha details.....LOL! That and the fact that I've owned most of the available YF-19 and VF-19 toys and models over the years. I must admit I do tend to be a little short on patience, when people say the YF-19 and VF-19 are the same or nearly the same. Graham

Actually, I don't understand why so many don't get it. Even a cursory inspection of the lineart shows the complete difference between the two. Graham

Nope, the VF-19, shares almost no commonality of parts with the YF-19. Possibly the hands, biceps and canards are the same, but that's all. It is like 98% all new parts. Graham

A couple of interesting Australian articles on the Russian T-50. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/20...f-wake-up-call/ http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/20...50-been-flying/ Graham

Pardon my ignorance, but what's different/special about it? Looks just like any other 747, except no passenger windows. A cargo version?, but I thought they had those for decades already? Graham

I've already informed Yamato that a locking chest is the number one request among our members, followed by smaller gulllet, lower nose, opening leg missile launchers and opening shoulder speakers. Anything else? I'm afraid there is almost no chance of seeing a MAXL. There is 0% parts commonality between it and the VF-11B/C. Also, no mold-milking potential. And let's face it, it's probably one of the least popular Valks. The VF-17D/S is an almost certainty after the VF-19. Graham

Now that I'd buy, rather than the Yamato PVC Breetai. Graham

Yeah.......right. I think you can safely add another 10,000 yen on top of that! Graham

Crappy phone camera pic of what just arrived on the 'alternate source's' desk. Each and every hinge will be inspected before it is shipped to make sure it is free of stress marks or cracks and has a pin that is smooth on both ends. PM your address if you haven't already. These will ship out starting end of Feb. You will be contacted with payment details for the shipping charges. Graham

Apparently still on schedule for end of Feb. That's all I got. Graham

Pass. If it was a DYRL I might buy it, but I never liked the TV version of Breetai. Graham

From what I understand, it is a mix of 1) cream for VT/VF-1D, 2) off-white for DYRL VF-1A/S 3) bright white for the TV VF-1J. Not arrived yet. Graham

There was a last minute color change to the pilot and some fitting issues with the gunpod that needed to be resolved, so the release date may get pushed back again a bit. I will check. Graham

A quick update: 1) Some good news, the replacement shoulder hinges should be arriving today. 2) Some more good news. There should be enough for everybody that has requested them so far (a larger quantity is being provided than was expected). 3) Anticipate these will start shipping out to members round end of February. Sorry, the 'alternate source' is busy until then. 4) PM me your shipping address if you have not yet done so. Graham

Just picked up 41 and saw on the back cover they show how you are supposed to divide the sections between the 5 folders. It doesn't seem to show how you separate the character sheets between folders 2 and 3, or am I missing something? Graham

I've seen it in the model shop on Wanchai Road, the one next to the Charter House hotel. They had several. Graham

Sigh............still no VF-171/VF-171EX. Graham

You are just guessing that the Raytheon Bifors AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 used by the VF-0 was taken out of service and replaced by the AMM-1. We don't know that either way. We do know that the VF-0 was a test-bed for more advanced systems than used by the VF-0. Could be that the AIM200A was the more advanced missile, but there was not time to but it into mass production by the start of Space War 1. Like much of Macross, there is just too much that has never been confirmed, revealed etc. Again, it could be that the AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 has been in service all this time, just we have never seen it. Certainly from at least the VF-11 onwards, most VFs have been shown with only internally carried missiles, rather than mounted on the wings. It is not until Macross Frontier that wing mounted missiles seem to have resurfaced. Again this doesn't mean they weren't used post-SW1, just we have not been shown them be used. Ther is a difference. Also, the missile used in Frontier, while looking similar to the one used in VF-0 actually has a different designation according to the Macross Chronicles. Macross Zero missile = Raytheon Bifors AIM-200A AMRAAM 2. Macross Frontier Missile = L.A.I./AAMS-02A Graham

Just saw one on display in fighter mode in the big Animate branch in Mong Kok. First time to see it in person out of the box. Really, really ugly. Even had a drooping (warped?) nose in fighter mode. Really completely unacceptable. I've seen better looking dog vomit. Graham

To give a real life example about the longevity of certain missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile (with sucessive upgrades) has been in service with US forces continuously since 1956. That's 54 years in service. So there's no reason why an upgraded version of the missiles seen on the VF-0 in Macross Zero in 2008 shouldn't still be in service in 2059. Anyway, back to talking about Destroids. Graham

I seem to recall reading in one of my books that the F-35 can't use Sidewinders in its internal weapons bays, as the IR seeker head is partially blocked even with the missile extended on its launch trapeze. If this is true, then it is limited to AMRAAM in the self-defence A2A role, which is not the most suitable option for close-in defense as I understand it. IMO, lack of a close-in IR homing missile would seem to be a definite disadvantage, especially combined with the lack of a gun on some models. While there's the arguement that the F-35 is not supposed to get into a knife fight, crap does hit the fan and if and when it does, I can see the F-35 pilot having serious trouble. While both the F-22 and F-35 are 'supposed' to fight at BRV and that is their forte, many times in recent history political considerations (not military ones), have prohibited firing at BRV and required WVR visual identification/clarification of a target before engagement. Remember, rules of engagement are often set by the politicians not the military and more often than not don't favor the good guys. Graham

That was the model kit. Graham

Nobody has answered about the stand, because nobody knows. It's as simple as that. It's nothing to do with caring or not. Can't answer about what is unknown. All I can say is, I buy both Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby magazine every month and so far no stand has been shown in any of the hobby mag pics of the DX VF-27. Likewise, no stand has been shown (that I know of) in any of the online pics of the DX VF-27. I think we all want it to come with a stand, but indications are not looking too good. But who knows, Bandai may surprise us and package it with a spiffy looking Galaxy stand. Worst case and it doesn't come with a stand, there are other options, such as the excellent FlexiStands. I'd actually prefer it not to come with the standard SMS stand, given that the VF-27 is not part of SMS. Graham

That's one way of looking at it. The way I see it is that after Space War I, the Destroids Tomahawk, Phalanx and Spartan were found to be extremely lacking in the necessary offensive and defensive capabilities, not to mention mobility to combat Zentran/Meltran mecha on a 1/1 basis, which could explain why we have not seen any futher development of those models (non-canon Macross II not withstanding). The Destroid monster while more than adequate in offensive capabilty was found lacking in mobility, hence the developemont of the more mobile and self-transporting Konig Monster. Whereas perhaps the Cheyenne was found to be more capable and suitable for further development than the original Destroids, hence the Cheyenne II in Macross Frontier. Whereas the original Tomahawk , Phalanx and Spartan are seen relegated to construction mecha duties and then to nothing more than amusement park attractions by 2045 in Macross 7. While the Cheyenne II is superficially similar to the original Cheyenne, it seems to offer enhanced capabilites over the original SDFM Destoids and the original Macross Zero Cheyenne. Note the twin heavy duty beam weapons, two heavy-caliber gunpod class gattling type guns, and larger twin missile launchers, not to mention the obvious improved mobility over the SDFM class destroids offered by the wheeled feet. As mentioned, while superficially similar in outward apearance, the Cheyenne II could likely have far improved armor weapons, sensors, mobility etc than the original SDFM Destroids or the first mark Cheyenne from Macross Zero. It could be said that an M4 Sherman and MI Abrams are superficially similar. Both are tanks, have tracks, a turret and a main gun, but are worlds apart in terms of capability. Just a counterpoint to those that automatically write off the Cheyenne II without a second thought. While not that relevant to the discussion at hand, it should be at least noted that the Cheyenne and Cheyenne II in the PSP Macross Ultimate Frontier game are far more versatile and comabt effective than the Tomahawk, Spartan and Phalanx (at least I find them so). Graham

Heh, yeah that pic above actually makes me think about picking up a Toynami for a cheap fun transforming VF-1. Revoltech transforming VF-1 = free advertising for Toynami! Graham