David Hingtgen

I was going to post links to the latest Raptor demo, but it wasn't anything new really. They just got approval yesterday, so they're probably going to expand the demo week-by-week. Still won't see a full demo until 2008 yet. Anyways---a Gripen commercial! No, not the SAAB car one with Gripens, a new commercial FOR Gripens. It's kinda like if Top Gun had Gripens instead of Tomcats. Pretty cool, and they're C and D model Gripens. Can't wait to see the new ones with Super Hornet engines--those will really kick ass. (If I had a military, I would buy so many Gripens---cheap, small, easy to maintain, very effective and modern) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwuhtYHQLnc

Better than seeing him dance! (I will NOT link to "that" .gif, someone else will have to)

Coincidently, I just saw that image recently, even though it's been probably 10 years since I read a Calvin comic.

Anyone getting a 360 elite? They went on sale today. I'm waiting for a 65nm version.

All F-22's have orange canopies---it just doesn't always show up. It's VERY "angle of the sun" dependent, just like the orange-canopied F-16's.

It's a CG though, since the Su-35BM doesn't exist yet.

Problem is, most people can't tell a YF-22 from an F-22, so a lot of pics are unintentionally mis-labled. You can specifically ask for F-22 pics, and end up with YF-22 pics---unless you know the difference, you can't trust anything. Same problem (but even worse) with the F-15ACTIVE and F-15S/MTD----*most* of those pics are mis-labled, and it's very hard to convince people since most any website or source you could turn to will be wrong.

F-15E/K/X isn't much cheaper than the F-22 at this point. The F-22 is a much better bargain. Anyways---the last Flanker! Su-35BM. Super Duper Flanker? http://www.aviapedia.com/fighters/su-35bmt...he-last-flanker Also--which one doesn't belong? http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb...F-6701P-001.jpg

I know of one F-22 crash, I'll have to see when it was. ::checks:: Nope, December of 2004. PS--the comic clearly shows a YF-22. One of those crashed, but it was many years ago. The other YF-22 hasn't flown in a decade.

Not skinny enough IMHO, and still has distinct teeth. They're a lot smaller than we usually see, but he clearly has red gums and white teeth. Carnage simply has "black spikey parts hanging from below where his nose would be".

That's what I meant. IMHO it's sort of a "lazy" way to get a new TF---same design and transformation as a previous one, just with different-looking parts. Due to the F-35's bloatedness and Harrier-style intakes, it worked well for Thrust. But an all-new design would have made a better MiG-29 IMHO. (Of course, if you got rid of the missile-firing gimmick, Movie SS would probably have a pretty nice vehicle mode). Side note: Saw the movie protoform preview toys today. Smaller than I expected. And kind of a waste to have an entire endcap filled with just 2 toys that probably won't be in very high demand.

Based on the VTOL fan and his arms, I really get a Armada Thrust vibe from him---anything from "directly inspired from" to "reworked unreleased mold".

Carnage is decidedly skinnier than Venom, and lacks distinct teeth. And almost always (always?) has tendrils emanating from his "skin".

Force lightning, even maxed out, was never powerful enough. Force exlposion was much better for multiple targets, or Death Field.

I always figured Top Gun 2 would require the F-14B/D. It'd be quick and easy to explain to the audience: "The engines have 40% more power than the older ones". Anyone can understand and appreciate that. All the explanation they need, only 1 line in the movie. They are already familiar with the F-14, so there's no need to "re-teach" the audience which plane to root for. Too late now!

That pic's really old and from a while ago. Here's the newer pic, still a year old. And here's an even newer conceptual drawing, comparing to the Su-47 its based on. (Apparently FSW isn't worth it) Consider Sukhoi's finances and their history of "new" planes---if you strip the canards, get new wings and stabs---but everything else is Su-47---there you go, and it seems a lot more likely/feasible. And since the Su-47 is half flanker to start with...

A MMO KOTOR would be the first MMORPG I actually play. (Assuming it's good).

Direct link doesn't seem to work, here's the article: http://tformers.com/article.php?sid=2070

We all know about it, most of us (AFAIK) dislike the idea and just ignore it. I've never personally seen it on mine, as it does take effort/risk breakage to do it. There were pics from when it was just a prototype. Anyways---Piranacon/Seacons stickers! http://www.reprolabels.com/Decepticons/ Finally! I've waited years for these! Piranacon was the last "real" G1 toy I had (everything Hasbro made afterwards was gimmicky stuff like Pretenders and Legends) and the replacement one I eventually pieced together is missing half the stickers, with the other half in poor condition. I can have a Piranacon in awesome condition with this. (I have EVERY piece, 1 techspec, Snaptrap's instructions, and 1 entire cardback) And while some may consider it sacrilege to hack away at an original G1, I trimmed and sanded down part of Tentakill's knees--you WILL break it otherwise, if you transform it a lot. Or at the very least, get a heart attack every time you hear it SNAP into position, and watch the stress-marks grow... I don't know why Piranacon "gets no love", to me he's one of the best combiners ever--and only Predaking is bigger. He's made of 6 instead of 5, and also has a "unified" color scheme like Devastator. After much experimenting, and going by various boxart and the Japanese eps, I believe the best way to form him is: Overbite is the gun. Nautilator is the right arm, Seawing is the left. Skalor is right leg, Tentakil is the left. This is basically how the giftset artwork shows, but the giftset only gives you 5 of the 6 (what a ripoff). They have Overbite as the right arm, and Nautilator is just gone (which sucks, as he's my fave Seacon). Make Nautilator the right arm and have Overbite as the gun. I really think that's the "proper" way for the following reasons: 1. Color. Skalor and Tentakil have the same colors (pink and magenta and blue) . Nautilator and Seawing have the same colors (teal and black and grey). Overbite is unique---teal and purple and magenta. Thus, make each pair of those guys a pair of limbs, and Overbite is the unique one--the gun. 2. He just looks better proportions-wise---nothing worse IMHO than gestalts with thick arms and skinny legs--or being asymmetric left/right. 3. Overbite is clearly the gun---he has the most gun-like gun-mode by far, especially when using the generic Seacon rifle instead of his own gun. This is not in any instruction, but it's very obvious the designer intended the rifle to be used for the gun in combined mode. Do NOT use Snaptrap's own oversized gun---contrary to every other gestalt (and the box art, and the instructions). Trust me, I've owned 2 Piranacons in my life, and spent many many hours trying every combination. (Due to having a separate gun, there's a lot more possible combinations than any other gestalt) 4. Nautilator is about the only one that can hold Overbite in gunmode without doing so at a weird angle. If you want an alternate, have Seawing as the gun. Piranacon's so cool he gets his own logo:

Fat Albert arrived home with the casket, pics here: http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/p...Params=Itemnr=1

Why did THRUST get new molding, but not Dirge????? Dirge didn't even need all-new bits, just a few tweaks from Ramjet would have done well. And what's with the yellow intake fans/wheels? PS---diecast on Leader Prime is pointless, but chrome would SO have me buying the JP version. That mold really needs chrome, or at least silver paint.

Also, please don't reply to obvious spam---it does noticeably slow down the forum when we're cleaning it up, as each post is linked to every other reply in its thread---so if the spam post is all by its lonesome, it's quicker and easier to clean up. And well over half of the spam posts are "Famous actress nude pics" or along those lines. If you see a thread with a famous person's name in the title---don't waste your time by clicking.

Both the F-4 and A-7 were designed purely for the Navy. But they were so superior to their land-based counterparts the USAF would have been stupid not to get them. Though interestingly, Naval F-4's never got guns despite how many gunned F-4's the USAF got as fast as possible, and it was the USAF's modifications (the D model) to the A-7 that really unlocked its potential, which lead directly to the Navy's A-7E. I would say great planes come about when they're designed for the Navy, but modified for the Air Force. The reverse usually leads to nightmares like the F-111B (and potentially JSF). PS--if the UK was smart, they wouldn't be "debating" about putting catapults in their new carrier instead of a ski ramp--they'd have the parts on order already. Whether they have to go with a USN-style JSF or navalised Typhoon (or even the Rafale), having a VTOL JSF shouldn't be counted on, especially when the loss of it would basically cripple the carrier for its operational life. Most people including me think its just stupid to make a design that large NOT have catapults. Ski-ramps are for mini wannabe carriers with a dozen helicopters and small VTOLs. The new UK design will be roughly equivalent to the US Midway class, which operated 60-plane mixed F-4/F-18 airwings at the end. It's really pointless to build a large modern carrier, yet equip/operate it the same as the Ark Royal. They have the hull design to build a world-class carrier equal to anything the US has, but they don't seem to want to give it the "real" air wing it deserves... Pic for comparison, showing how big the new carrier will be (France has the right idea--they're planning on building one with the same hull design, but equipping it with catapults and a bunch of Rafales, as well as an E-2D for AWACS) PPS---an E-2 you say? Aren't they old? Yes they are--but since the JIGS WEREN'T DESTROYED, we can build more, and equip them with the latest avionics and engines---and it's a lot cheaper than designing something all-new to replace it in the exact same role. All E-2D's AFAIK will be new-build planes.

Thus the main reason I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 never appears on a carrier. The #1 reason it has weight issues now is due to raw airframe strength. The prototype was built light enough (and thus, only barely strong enough) to survive a few dozen demo flights, and hover around with no payload and minimal fuel. To make the fuselage and wings strong enough to survive thousands of hours, carrying thousands of pounds---every part has to be stronger and thicker. Thus, heavier. And that's just for the USAF version. To make it strong enough to survive carrier landings---doubt it. And the heavier it is--the faster it has to fly--also bad for carrier ops.

That is outstanding for a first model, and better than I think I do even after all these years! And for a first-time decal application, with so many large ones--even more impressive.