David Hingtgen

Seems hard to find in Japan, based on how few places in the US seem able to import them from there.

Experience has shown me that paint and transformation don't go well together. Heck, even Bandai and Yamato have issues with it. The VFX scheme is light gull grey overall, you'd have to paint EVERY bit of an existing VF-11. You'd have 1,000 scratches and chips the first time you transformed it.

Will that affect the VF-19F as well?

Oh, this is a good one--the F-35C's tailhook is too short--it can't land on carriers! http://theaviationis...-hook-problems/ Seems they just copied the F-18's overall design, but made it shorter and at a different location relative to the main gear, ending up with the highest point on the shortest hook ever. Just looking at it you can tell it doesn't look right compared to other planes. And it can't catch the wire, going 0 for 8 in the last tests at Lakehurst. That's not good, considering a runway with wires is much more forgiving than a moving, pitching, rolling carrier... Changing the point/tip alone MAY help, but actually changing where the hook's attached to the aircraft would likely be unfeasible, since such massive stress/energy/load is transferred through the structure during an arrested landing.

Web-exclusive here we come! (seriously, I'd pay for a yellow-striped Ravens VF-11)

Yeah, I don't recall "doing" anything for my PS3 or 360. Plug in the cable, turn it on, hit "ok" and "auto" and let it figure things out for itself. Unless you've got some weird dynamic piggybacked IP or something it should be able to do it with little to no input from you. I do know that my 360 doesn't like open DNS though. Took me forever to figure out why all of a sudden I couldn't connect.

Because so many people LOVE GBP armor, that version must be the "correct" one in their minds. (personally, I think any armored valk other than the -25 is fugly and never understood the obsession)

Is there another well-known scheme you'd prefer? After VFX, I think M3 Max and Milia are the next-best-known -11's.

Graham---understandable if Yamato doesn't want to spend any more time/money for new molds for new parts---but can we at least get 1 more paint scheme? The VFX-2 Ravens scheme is still much-desired, and is frankly about the most-colorful scheme for the VF-11. (I swear the M7 VF-11C has the most boring scheme of any valk ever--it looks like the unpainted VF-1 kits) This please:

Cancelled my Ozma order due to not liking the colors for the new Ozma himself. Never did find an Alto at a reasonable price, so I'm just waiting for a bundle. (I figure Alto+super pack is the most-likely bundle of all to appear, so I'm not too worried)

That's my theory---there will be bundles in the future, but not necessarily the less-seen combos---like a super-packed Ozma or full-armor Alto. While super Alto and armor Ozma are very likely.

This. Trying to make "all of him" become an articulated armor set for Prime is wrong in every possible way, and ruins every mode for it. They should have just made a "traditional" leader-sized Jetfire toy, and make a few parts "pop off" and attach to Prime--like the nose and tailfins (yay for combiner-mode kibble). Would have accomplished "the look" but much better for most everybody involved. (coould empty nacelles suffice for power-up Prime's look?)

I think the more important thing is to prioritize what's truly needed, rather than just saying 'we want everything'. IMHO a great deal of attention needs to be paid to the conformal missiles, as their appearance is critical to the VF-4 and one of its most unique features. Having a VF-1's gunpod too may be nice, but not at the expense of the former.

I took the belt and chest locks off mine, via removing the pins.

A few spares (not just one) would be nice. Of course, this is Yamato---gives everyone spare YF-19 canards (did anyone on the entire planet actually need them?) but doesn't give spare screw or intake covers that always fall off...

Shorter version of above post: I don't really care how they do the missiles, so long as they are done very crisp and cleanly to show that they are NOT "just bulges on the airframe" but separate distinct parts.

I agree with most everything Kyp Durron said--it's the VF-4, it carries its weapons on its body. Loading it up with external pylons and gunpods is like putting a bunch of stuff under an F-22's wings---you're missing the point of why it was designed the way it was. The F-22 is notable for INTERNAL missile carriage to remain stealthy. Just because it CAN carry stuff under the wings, doesn't mean it SHOULD nor would it do so very often. VF-4's should be clean and sleek, with missiles embedded in its skin to remain sleek while fully armed. I do want the missiles removable though, if for no other reason than it would result in a super-crisp color differentiation. Having "painted bulges" just wouldn't give the same effect, and there'd be fuzzy edges, missed spots, etc. Actually having a separately molded/painted part would make sure there's no issues there. The desert camo VF-4 looks quite good because of just how "distinct" the missiles are IMHO. The more obviously differentiated they are, the better a VF-4 looks IMHO. Hmmn---really though, so long as the missiles are separate pieces, they could be permanently attached/glued in. Just so long as they are molded independently of the main body. Anything but "molded as a bulge on the body then painted to look like a separate part". They must be "physically separated" from the fuselage, even if they are permanently attached later.

Same for Leader Jetfire, actually. Wouldn't have been perfect, but getting rid of the giant lights-n-sound box would have made for a whole lot less undercarriage. (and if they hadn't have been lazy and actually made the turbine-legs from the turbines!) The whole engine nacelles are giant hollow kibble, instead of actually housing the legs inside. Put arms where the box was, put the legs inside the engines, and you've gotten rid of a whole lot of bot kibble...

Obscurity is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is AWESOMENESS. And the VF-4 is very awesome indeed. (if nothing else, it's different, it's not in the VF-0/1/3000/25 family of "classic valkyrie fighter mode" shape)

I too thought the silhouette looked like Mylene.

How times change---"we've got way too many P-38's, let's just dump them all in a big pile to get rid of them".

Yes, the Typhoon did come to mind, as being among the newest planes with conformal carriage. I've always thought the forward troughs of the Tornado were a great example--they're among the "deepest" I can think of. (a Tornado's rear ones are not recessed) ::edit:: And here's a good one showing an F-4's:

Almost all the official art shows the external armament---but people don't realize they're looking at it! I think a lot of people miss that the "long skinny humps" all over the VF-4 *are* the missiles. There's 12, after all. (3 on each leg, 2 on each forearm, 2 under the nose) They're conformal missiles, to a degree even greater than the F-4/F-14/Tornado do. You just rarely see them "fired off" with a recessed trench left in the valk--though at least one drawing shows this: http://www.macross2....-4/vf-4-la3.jpg That's the only drawing I know of that shows "what's left when the missiles are fired off"----looks very much like modern conformal-carry missile launchers. Kind of a shallow trench. In short--it doesn't need pylons on the wings (there's not much room anyways) because it's already carrying a decent load all over the fuselage. If they're colored a different shade of grey than the rest of the valk, they're easier to spot. :;edit:: Highlighted for clarity: Just look for the grey humps that all look the same. They're not structural bulges of the airframe itself. It's a unique and cool feature of the VF-4. Whoever made the model in the previous above seemed aware of this, as they painted them with typical USAF missile striping, made them a different color than the main fuselage, and they clearly have exhaust nozzles. Hey Graham---could you make sure Yamato is aware of this? They should be painted a different color than the main fuselage, and even making them removable could be one heck of a neat feature. Just make sure they don't sculpt them on as "part of the valk itself". They should have a distinct nozzle at the back end, like on the model above. They should not "taper off and blend" at the rear. They should be more "cut off". They should look "stuck on" and not "part of the valk itself". Making them removable would be the only way to have a "bare" VF-4, as well. Some "standard missile striping" would go a long way towards making them look like missiles---again, just like the model in the previous post. (it's a REALLY good example, Yamato should definitely reference it for how the missiles should be done)

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html