David Hingtgen

The YF-19 is probably second only to the VF-1 itself, in how much it's liked by MW overall. And there's some pretty big flaws. Not QC issues, flat-out bad design. And they charged a lot for it. As for the armor? It should have been free, included with the -19, for that price---like the VF-0's. Sell the fold booster separately if they want to gouge us. But 4 pieces of hollow grey plastic? That should have been in the basic package, especially since there's no missiles included. Basically---when probably the most highly-anticipated new valk in years has issues, you can bet there'll be an exponentially higher amount of bitching. There will be less bitching about the Sv-51. Why? A lot fewer people like it, so fewer will buy it. And even fewer like it enough to "risk" a first release purchase. We'll hear about its issues, but not to the extent of the -19. If you release something that people have been drooling over for years, and you are the only manufacturer--try not to have crooked gunpods and wheels on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

Wow, production F-35's are really bumpy underneath. Some of that have to be the "JDAM bulges" but it looks like we have gear bulges, and AMRAAM bulges, and flap actuator bulges, and everything else.

I don't recognize the name Roy Sutherland and have no idea of his work, but I'll say this: I have seen absolutely gorgeous, multi-intl-award winning models---that are totally and completely wrong. We're talking F-14D's with F-14A cockpits and engines here. They're built and painted far better than I could ever dream of doing and usually end up in museums--but doesn't mean they're accurate at all. I'd rather hear "they're being done by someone who lives and breathes ALQ-26 placement variations". (yes, I complain about model planes, sight unseen--a lot. It's what I do)

I've been using my 360 to heat up my room this winter. Far more effective than the furnace, and cheaper, too. Hey wolfx--that's my current avatar too. (I like anime chicks with purple hair)

All I can say is--we'll see. Historically, 1/18 models do pretty piss-poor accuracy-wise. You can get far more accurate stuff far cheaper, buying 1/72 diecast. And with the F-4, with all its variants--it's a nightmare to sort what's what, possibly the worst of all jets (that I know of). If even something super-common with very few variants and zillions of photos online like the F-18C can't even be done right, what hope is there for the F-4?

No comments on last night's episode? Amazing how it segues right into our last topic--though I'm thinking the writers predicted the obvious question from the previous ep.

Forget lowering the price (it'll never happen)---just stop making flawed stuff, so that it's worth the price they charge! If the YF-19's gear didn't look all wonky, and the gunpod was straight-----few people would complain at all---sure it'd still be expensive, but at least you'd feel like you got your money's worth. And maybe if the FP's were included with the -19. I've ranted plenty of times how the VF-0 had "free" leg armor, and the -19's is little different, yet we didn't get it AND paid more for it. And no missiles, either.

2nd post, 2nd Mod, so now it's 2x as official. Anyways---yup. And it seems like we may all be paying for a big display stand for the -51 that few of us will use. Last I heard, part of the reason for the -19's small gunpod was because of the stand. Stand, stand, stand----seems quite a bit of design compromises and our money goes into those stands---and I don't even own one! And it's always appropriate to bitch about the -19's angled gunpod. WTF. Seriously---that alone pretty much proves Yamato doesn't test FINAL versions, or doesn't try every mode of the final version, or something. Because EVERY YF-19 has that problem. When it's 100%, it's not a QC error---that's a flawed design, inherent to the mold. And since Graham's samples didn't have that problem--that means somebody, somewhere, changed something---and didn't 'fess up. It's likely in the category of, "oh, this won't make any difference at all, but it'll save us 4 yen per -19 built" changes they all approved 2 days before the molds were finalized, and then realized too late that it DID make a problem. Or something along those lines. Yes, prototypes often have problems that need to be fixed--that's what they're for. But just as often, someone tries to change or "fix" something that doesn't NEED to be changed or "fixed", and introduces new problems---but since it was OK on the prototype, they don't think to check it on the final version, assuming new problems wouldn't crop up. But they always do. Maybe they tried to tighten up the arm-to-shield joint just a little bit more, or get the elbows to tuck in .05mm closer---and didn't realize until it was too late that they little tweak, had a very big effect on the gunpod. Completely unforseeable, but still--would have been caught if ANY final, final version was simply put into fighter mode with the gunpod in place. You always have to check the final version, in every way. If you don't and just ASSUME all the parts will fit because the computer and early mockups said so, you end up like Airbus, 2 years behind schedule and billions over budget, because the wires won't fit. PS--lately, it seems Yamato's answer to everything is "we'll make it out of POM next time". Why don't they do that to START with? Seriously doubt it's because POM costs more--maybe like "5 yen per kilo" more or somethin. For any toy/model, materials cost is miniscule. Did you know that for many injection-molded plastic items, the cost of the paper to make the cardboard box, costs more than the plastic itself? You're literally paying for the packaging-----and we sure are with Yamato and their MegaBoxesâ„¢. They could REALLY learn a thing or two from Takara/Hasbro---they sure seem to be able/willing to pack toys into smaller boxes, even if they have to be partially transformed to do so---and they're still on full display in window boxes. There's no excuse to have GIGANTIC boxes that probably adds 1200Y to the base price, even for customers in Japan. PS---the absolute masters of packing? Hasegawa. Open up one of their kits, and you'll never get it back in the box.

Oooh, ASRAAM's on a Hornet. Can they work with Sidewinder rails, or what? Surely they can use the LAU-115 as a parent pylon to do dual-rails for the ASRAAM. Any more specs of the HUG programme? Did it get the new engines? Because if those are the originals, they're probably down to 15,000lbs or worse now. (Hornet engines are weird--they are designed to reference throttle position to EGT to the exclusion of all else, for long life and to keep maintenance intervals the same throughout its life---so as they age, the RPM's and thrust gradually decrease compared to the EGT--so 100% throttle gives a little less thrust every day) I know of at least one occurance of someone demanding new engines for their "used" Hornet purchase, due to the whole "loss of thrust as it ages" issue.

1. Not minor. It's very visible from most angles. And how is it EASILY fixed by the owner, without ruining it visually? Gluing on chunks of plastic to force it to align is NOT a solution. That's as bad as saying "just don't attach it in fighter mode". And I still don't buy ANY excuse about it "slipping through cracks". It has a 100% occurence rate. 3. The left one should be an exact mirror of the right one. Isn't this what CAD and laser-carved molds are for? Precision and symmetry? So why do the two shoulders act different? Lego was making absolutely perfect mirror-image parts decades ago, in ABS plastic no less. Yamato doesn't seem to be able to do half as well, with tools decades newer. 4. Design decision? They why are the wheels themselves tilted WAY outwards when un-modified? If the gear was supposed to be straight, then the wheels should have been straight. As-is, they can barely even make contact with the ground, they're balancing on the edge of their treads. I'll accept a "they changed it" explanation, but won't believe that's how it was originally designed. What plane has the wheels/axles tilted 30 degrees outwards/downwards when viewed head-on? The wheels should be attached right, if that's how it was originally designed. And if it was originally designed to have fixed, straight-down gear, then why does it have a hinge to angle outwards in the first place? It's not fixed, it just can't angle out enough as-built to look right either way. We're not modifiying it to ADD the ability to angle, we're just adding some more degrees of angling. If it wasn't supposed to be that way in the first place, why is it molded to do so? I didn't care much about the angle of the gear stuts, I just wanted the thing to sit flat on its tires!! That's 90% of the reason I modified mine. (We airplane modelers can't stand the tires not sitting on the ground, it's something we learn from our first model) Unmodified, it looks like it's trying to do ballet on its tip-toes or something. (And would sure as heck break its axles apart trying to land)

Armament for a Phantom? 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders. What else is there? (nobody wants bombs on their fighter to display---unless maybe it's a Marine Phantom) I'd buy an F-8, if they actually do the wing/flaps right. If the wing is up, the flaps MUST be down. And vice versa.

Could always read wm cheng's build-ups right here at MW.

A C-model? Bah. Same exact paint scheme for every squadron, with a few ANG exceptions. Just wait for Robin Old's and buy that one. Naval Phantoms have far better schemes.

He gave them to you and not me to post? Though with me currently stuck on dial-up, maybe that was for the best.

The A-12 isn't a prototype SR-71, either. It's simply the A-12, and more than a few were built and put into service. There was actually a fly-off between the A-12 and SR-71 to decide which version to focus on. Anyways, I've seen the term "hypercritical" used to describe a wing like 3 times in as many days. As far as I can tell, it's not really an aerodynamics term, and if anything, seems to mean either "an extreme version of a supercritical airfoil" (which makes no sense--something either is or isn't supercritical--it can be semi-supercritical, but once you are fully supercritical--you can't be even MORE supercritical) Or---people are meaning "literally extremely critical--as in important or sensitive"---having no relation to the term supercritical, and usually referring to alpha. Either way, it'd be invisible on a toy. ::checks YF-19 just to be sure:: Hmmn, if anything the Yamato YF-19 is flat out wrong--the trailing edge is thicker than the leading edge, and more rounded-it's just plain backwards. But ironically, is semi-supercritical.

Apparently Roy or somebody was house cleaning... Regarding the trailer issue---while I seriously doubt they considered this, Movie Prime looks much more spec'd out for a tanker, than a trailer. The grill is his feet? Is that movie-accurate? Can't recall if we've seen Prime's feet revealed. Also, I think the toy has a much better head, if for no other reason than he has very Transfomer-ish eyes, not springs and erector-set parts. ::edit:: Damn, I can merge posts within a thread, and merge threads---but I can't merge selected posts into a thread. Anyways, it'd help if people would re-post anything said in the last few hours.

The A can be upgraded to the A+, which actually makes it the best of the Legacy Hornets according to some. Avionics of the latest-version C, but lower weight, and the latest engines means it has the best avionics+best thrust/weight ratio. The US was quite late in switching over to the better engines, so not many USN C-models have them. But the A's engines are getting old, so they need new ones--so they get the latest version. Basically--while your average C model has the original avionics, plus dozens of new little black boxes stuffed in every cavity they can find with not an inch to spare--the A+ model basically has "every upgrade the C model ever had" in a single box. While it was originally believed the A+ could be easily identified by the IFF bird slicers on the nose, VFA-201's A+'s do not have them. Might be the only squadron like that, or they had an "incomplete" upgrade. A big part of the reason for the A+ program is that the C models are actually getting old---due to so many combat ops in recent years, many of the C models are running out of trap-life----carrier traps are far harder on a plane than flying hours. But with so many of the A's sent to the reserves at a relatively young age due to the introduction of the C model--they may have more hours than the C's, but far fewer carrier landings. And so they're thinking about converting even more A's to A+'s, and using them to replace some C models. Very few C-model squadrons are getting E models, the few that are generally have very late-model C's that will get passed down to the not-so-late C squadrons, and the oldest C squadrons will get the A+.

Me---my Target has so many Prime/Megs 2-packs clogging the shelf there's not room for Skywarp/Magnus even if they have it---just checked today.

At least it's not a "Stealth" thread.

Oh yeah, SR-71's have red "no steps". Thanks for the reminder.

Nope. It's all conjectural. Hasegawa just likes putting "common US Navy jet markings" with all their Macross kits, and the practice has spread to Yamato valks now, too. (And it is specifically US Navy markings) I'd go with grey, personally. Don't think I've ever seen a red "no step" on anything.

Australia seems close to getting Super Hornets. 24 F-models for delivery 2009/2010----to fill in the gap in strike capability between the retirement of the F-111, and the delayed arrival of the F-35.

Licensing means NOTHING. Trust me. NOTHING for accuracy. It is PERMISSION, not a guarantee. Know the least-accurate Super Hornet money can buy? The one Boeing licensed and sells in their gift shops, with the big "Accurate and approved by Boeing" sticker on the box. The most-accurate one, beating many plastic models? The unlicensed one made in an anonymous factory in Hong Kong. Overall, the following statement is quite true, having seen most every model out there: The licensed one is the least accurate, the unlicensed one is the most accurate. Other stuff: Boeing often rejects corporate models because of the shade of grey or blue used for the windows/canopy glass. Yup. Couldn't care less about the shape of the mold. American Airlines sometimes licenses models of planes they never operated, because the woman in charge really doesn't know airplanes that well--AA's only concern, and thus her job, is to make sure the tail logo isn't printed backwards. If that's right--it's approved. You could probably get them to approve a Concorde in AA colors, if the logo was right--but that one might be distinctive enough that they'd catch on.

So much aviation humor, yet it rarely shows up in this thread. That said: The different takeoff procedures of military aviators --------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval Aviator: On a carrier, the Naval Aviator looks over at the Catapult Officer ("Shooter") who gives the run up engines signal by rotating his finger above his head.. The pilot pushes the throttle forward, verifies all flight controls are operational, checks all gauges, and gives the Cat officer a brisk salute, continuing the Navy / Marine tradition of asking permission to leave the ship. The Cat officer drops to one knee while swooping his arm forward and pointing down deck, granting that permission. The pilot is immediately catapulted and becomes airborne. Air Force Pilot: We've all seen Air Force pilots at the air force base look up just before taxiing for takeoff and the ground crew waits until the pilot's thumb is sticking straight up. The crew chief then confirms that he sees the thumb, salutes, and the Air Force pilot then takes off. This time-tested tradition is the last link in the Air Force safety net to confirm that the pilot does not have his thumb up his ass. Army Aviator: If you've ever seen an Army helicopter pilot preparing for takeoff, you will note that the pilot gives the ground guy a thumbs up before he is given hover and takeoff signals. There are two theories about the origin of this gesture. One is that it is to show that the pilot has identified which of his fingers is the thumb so that he will be able to properly operate his controls. The most compelling theory says that this is to show the ground crewman that the pilot indeed knows which direction is up.

Techromancer's awesome IMHO. It's not a rip-off, it's a deliberate parody. The plot is, if anything, more Tenchi-Muyo based than anything. This is still the #1 game that "I can't believe they actually translated it and brought it to the US".