David Hingtgen

All that and Stan Lee was the bus driver!

More like next week's... But hey--at least they've got enough twists and turns to keep things interesting.

Well I'm typing this with my new keyboard--ended up with Eclipse II, but NOT because it lights up---it simply had the closest shape and button layout to my current one. 99% of the current ones are "ergonomic" in SOME way, and I hate that. I want a pure rectangle, period. The Eclipse II is about the only one like that now, that's not a 9 buck cheap one. And it feels/types nice. PS---I found that I actually had 2 more USB ports on the back of my PC, they were always just hidden between the monitor cable and speaker jack--they're really tucked in there, and mounted sideways near the edge of the case. And covered in dust. So I have both my new keyboard and mouse hooked up there. Eclipse II is really nice--I swear I can type faster/more accurately---and I generally suck at typing. (I swear girls are inherently faster typists---noticed it all my life with few exceptions--the average girl can type WAY faster than the average guy, and they can flat-out embarass me in that category) My new mouse is a Microsoft Comfort mouse 3000. Wired, not wireless. All the wireless ones had weird buttons IMHO--not inherent to the design, they just did. I must have really long fingers or something--I tend to really click on the "edge" of a mouse, not the center of the buttons--so I really want buttons that tend to wrap around to the "front" of the mouse, and well to the sides-that's just how I click. I had a logitech mouseman for many years, lasted through 3 computers---one of the first with a third, center button. But it was outdated the moment scroll-wheel mice came out, so it was retired. But I still keep it, as it's built like a tank. Currently trying to figure out what to configure my mouse's thumb-button for. (just one, not 4 or 5 like some of them had) I actually prefer the notched/clickly scroll-wheel, but the button shape was far more important. Any way to reduce the sensitity of an analog scroll wheel?

Yup, you can bleach out most any decal sheet with a few days (or weeks, depends) in the sun. Just tape them to the window. Though there's not many aftermarket decals that I know to yellow---ATP and Xtracolor often have the PAPER yellow, but leave the film/decal fine. Mainly sucky Revellogram decals that yellow, and Dragon.

Any suggestions for a PC keyboard and mouse? I need a new one of each. My PC is used pretty much solely for surfing the web, all my gaming is console. Minimal word processor/spreadsheet/powerpoint etc use. So I need "comfortable" stuff more than anything else. Keyboard: Considering a light-up one, based on how much typing I do in semi-darkness. But it seems there's only 2 opinions out there about them: either they're not bright/clear enough to really make it worth it, or they're the coolest thing ever and it works great. Also, I have a concern about the paint rubbing off and leaving "glowing blobs" instead of clear letters, as that's the main reason I'm replacing this one. Finally---since all the light-up ones are USB-only, that's kinda bad for my PC--it's JUST old enough to not have a conveniently located USB port for a keyboard, and it won't work until the OS actually loads the USB drivers--bad for entering setup/BIOS etc, I'd have to keep a spare PS/2 keyboard handy just for that. (I plan to keep this PC a while, as processor speeds have really leveled off the past few years--memory upgrades alone should keep this one ok for some more years) PS---the Logitech G15 is not an option--WAY too big.

Tiny pic, but this looks like a launch bar (in the horizontal position): http://img.search.com/thumb/b/b8/FS_CdG_Ra..._CdG_Rafale.jpg

More interesting is when Argentina practices with their Entendards, plenty of pics of that.

We're anal because this is a MACROSS forum, so don't act haughty and expect people to immediately recognize the ROBOTECH designations for things, espeically when posted in our *Macross* toy sub-forum. You would have gotten a better response in the "other anime" forum, where Robotech toys are discussed, with their Robotech designations.

Seconding(thirding) danth's point---I could have paid HALF what I did for my YF-19, and a crooked gunpod and wheels is still inexcusable!

Green-to-red LED's are VERY cheap and simple. That's why they're the on/off status indicator on so many electronics--go look at a PS2. It's been around for decades. You can go to Radio Shack and get a bunch cheap. And I could wire up the circuit myself in 30 secs to make it switch colors. (And if you get really fancy, you can get the tri-color red/green/yellow LED's for slightly more money) And also, the switch/circuit to make it change colors, is almost identical, and VERY VERY VERY easily integrated into an on/off switch like you'll find on any electronic toy. Anyways----somebody, somewhere, changed something to make the YF-19 gunpod not fit. Molds don't just mysteriously change themselves, yet the prototypes didn't have that problem. Also, "it was too late" means they don't check FINAL production versions---just "near final"---which isn't good enough. The very first one off the line would have shown the gunpod problem, but that didn't matter, as they were shipping them all immediately since the PREVIOUS version didn't have any gunpod problems.

Legacy Hornet stopped production when the first Super Hornet was built. There was no overlap in production. Went right from one to the other. AFAIK, single-seat F-15 is dead. You can still order an air-to-air optimized F-15 instead of a Strike Eagle, but it'll have 2 seats. The F-15S order was originally going to be split between strike and air-optimized versions, but ended up as all-strike.

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.