David Hingtgen

DS9 went in-depth enough that the third-tier characters were better fleshed out than most series' main cast. Heck, even *Morn* got an ep. Also, I'm always impressed that when they got the Defiant, it remained DS9, and not "ST: Defiant" (with pit stops at DS9). Defiant was used as necessary (mainly battle scenes), but DS9 was always the center. Final point: DS9's battles showed something that is rarely portrayed----most stuff in war is not top of the line. Yes, there were a few Defiant and Akira class, but the vast majority was Miranda and Excelsior (and they didn't last long), with a few Galaxy tossed in as command ships. (true that's mainly due to what the studio had, but it is probably very close to what the Federation fleet's true makeup is).

Graham IS evil. We knew that before, but not to what extent.

My point was this is among the few places where ONE piece makes a HUGE difference. We saw it in the Model Grafix YF-19--it makes the whole thing way better in both modes, but especially fighter mode. It's worth it. (I've argued this for years, and still feel this way) Removable nose gear=makes a YF-19 that looks AWESOME in fighter mode and better in bot mode. And again, it's not even really a removable part for transformation---it's only for gear *down* in fighter mode, not needed for fighter mode itself. Nor GERWALK. Same as the FP YF-21 FP-only gears. (bad example, but only one I can think of) Only needed for one particular set-up of fighter mode--I transformed my FP YF-21 plenty of times without dealing with the removable main gears---just did gear-up flying displays with the armor on.

Time for nitpicky comments: 1. Nosecone curves wrong in side view. Should be more shallow top to bottom, straighter. 2. Seems like all aerodynamic surfaces are small. Wings, tailfins, ventral fins, canards. 3. Don't know if it's just from the bulge underneath, but "intake to tip of nose" distance seems short. 4. Personally, as I stated years ago from the nigh-perfect one in Model Graphix based on the Hase kit, making one single small removable piece makes it 100x better--and that piece is the nosegear. Surely we can accept ONE piece that's removable if it make the entire underside of fighter mode THAT much better. C'mon, do people complain that much about the VF-1 TV-style hands? They make the arms THAT much better---otherwise you have to use tiny little fold-away DYRL hands. YF-19 should be the same. If we can have JUST the nosegear removable to clean up the entire forward fuselage, it'd be well worth it. And technically it'd still be perfect transformation---working retractable gear isn't part of the transformation. So long as it can go from plane to battroid without removing parts, it's a perfect transformation. Sure you'd need a display stand for gear-less fighter mode, but we're all going to want one anyways. The sculpt seems SEVERELY compromised for simply having a RETRACTABLE nosegear. ....already making plans to hack mine apart and make the nosegear removable, to clean up the underside of the fuselage--one little mod for vast appearance improvement.

Buried in my first reply is that they are the "booms". Specifically, tailbooms. Same concept as a crane's boom. Cranes have the hook at the end of their boom, with the other end connected to the main cab. F-15s have tailfins (all of them) at the end of their booms, which are connected to the main (center) fuselage. The booms run alongside the engines on an F-15, and most planes don't have enough structure there to really have booms. I wouldn't consider a Flanker to have tailbooms, some people might.

Despite being pro-vehicle-mode in all things TF, I liked the original design better. Technically, it's not the fins I have issues with, it's the booms. (The booms are the part that the v.stabs sit on top of, and that the h.stabs attach to the side of---the booms run along side the engines, from just behind the wings) If you rip the fins off, you have 100% boom hanging off the hips. I wonder what the Japanese reaction is? AFAIK G1 isn't the cultural icon there that it is here---it's not so much "sacrilege" to change SS there, he's not nearly as iconic/beloved. Wonder if Kawamori (or Takara) will change anything if they see an incredible backlash and preference for the old design.

I don't check the toy section for ONE day and this happens... Anyways---yup, make the wings bigger. ALWAYS helps in every YF-19 model/toy I've seen yet.

A little late, but I have ST 5 on DVD--I can explain! Best Buy put all Trek movies on sale, AND all Paramount movies on sale. And both discounts applied simultaneously. It was cheaper to buy the ST 1-6 Special Edition box set, than the three I wanted (2, 3, 6). I'll watch Shatner's commentary on 5 again, see what he says.

Is that any more credible than the Ben Affleck rumor?

I only just now downloaded the high-res versions, and noticed in the photo with the Shornets and B-2 at the bottom, you can easily make out the Diamondbacks CAG, and I think VFA-27 CAG, but what's the one on the left? It's an E model, so that eliminates a lot of squadrons, and it has black tails---checking around the Navy site makes me think its VFA-115 from the Reagan. But I can't see ANY yellow on it, and their yellow should be visible. VFA-14?

There's more pics, if you want to see the ships themselves in formation and doing manuevers: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35951 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35945 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35946 Fact: The Navy has the best website photos of the armed forces by far.

Photo(s) of the week: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week.

That's pretty much exactly how it DOES fly. Only plane in the world that can stall at 250kts in a gentle turn...

Perhaps a drag issue? Aren't 104 wingtip tanks area-ruled? They'd also act as winglets I'd think to reduce induced drag (much the same way that wingtip missiles do). Droptank drag is critical---there are aircraft that actually have range DECREASED when carrying drop tanks on the belly, due to the drop tank's drag more than cancelling out the increased fuel available.

Oh, the OTHER wolf.

The wolf Decepticon headmaster was Weirdwolf (I had him, one of my faves). Here's the instructions: http://www.tfracetrack.com/instructions/g1...n/weirdwolf.jpg

I generally really want my TF's to have 2 arms/hands. Even if poorly shaped/molded---G1 Brawl is OK by my standards. (heck, all the Combaticons, and most other G1 combiners are like that). But Cybetron TC has "top half of a Flanker" for an arm. And because of a GIMMICK. Nothing I hate more than when some stupid "action firing" gimmick ruins an entire limb. Headmasters and Targetmasters were about the only good gimmicks, as they didn't affect the transformation or sculpt at all.

Same problem as most every jet TF besides the seekers: It's about 5 times as thick as it should be from the side. It's a giant cube with wings and a nose stuck on. That is not a plane. Chop off the bottom half, THEN it'll look like a plane. He's not one big better (and IMHO a whole lot worse) than the Aerialbots. Wings/nose/tail with a folded-up box-shaped robot that's 3x bigger than the rest of the alt mode hanging underneath. Looks good from above, horrible from the sides. Energon Starscream was decent, among the best jet TF's in a while. While the kibble was large, it wasn't very "thick" and much of it could be the plane's fuselage, due to the F-22 design. And BM jetstorm--while it didn't really have a "jet" shape much, (just a bunch of fins) it didn't have 3/4 of the robot mode hanging below.

Hoped/rumored/desired, etc. McKellan (AFAIK) has said he'd like to do it. It's mainly a rights/licensing issue I think.

A related note is that the rumored Magneto movie is to be done that way--for all of it. Hey, why not? They've already got experience on working with McKellan's face. They could also do the same for "The Hobbit" for a slightly younger Gandalf.

Anyone who didn't notice is IMHO blind. I was like "TNG first season Picard!" the second the movie started, and I knew they'd spent a lot of money.

Generally agree, but note ST 4 (which I consider an environmental film starring Shatner--not a Trek movie) and Nemesis. Very light, and very dark, but did about the best and worst, respectively.

Still awaiting wake vortex tests on the A380. As I like airliners more than any other type of plane, I spend more time at those boards than anywhere else. And I'm VERY familiar with DC-9's (most pilots and ramp workers can't tell the -32 and -33 apart, but I can). I'm especially proud of my 707/720 knowledge. (trust me, 707's are among the most variation-filled-yet-the-changes-are-undocumented planes out there, and most books and drawings are just plain wrong, as are most people) One version of my 707 guide (old and incomplete by my current standards) is here: http://airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=72

Hey, the MD-80's full, official, legal name is still the DC-9-80. (unless it's an MD-88, then it's an MD-88--but the MD-87 is the DC-9-87) Either way, the 747Adv is by far the biggest change Boeing has ever done when calling a new version "Advanced" News of the day: Venezuela's getting Super Flankers. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/...s.ap/index.html

That's more than enough to make it "Advanced". The 727-200 and 727-200Adv are so similar it is UTTERLY impossible to tell them apart visually. The difference? Higher MTOW for more fuel. That's about it. Airliners often change internally far more than externally. Th 747 will be by far the most "Advanced" plane that Boeing has ever used that term for. And hey, the A350 is nothing more than an A330 with a new wing and engines, and it gets a whole new name, not just A330Adv. And really technically, the A310 is an A300 with new wings and tail. And so is the A330 and A340! The entire A300/310/330/340 line is one single nose and fuselage (in different lengths), with 2.5 wing designs and 3 tail designs. Airbus hasn't had a 100% new design asides from the 320 and 380. Boeing's no different. The 757 was the 727-300 for a long time, and until 2 weeks before the contract was signed, was nothing more than a 727 with a new wing and engines. Had a 727's nose and tail. 727 and 737 originally shared 60% of their parts. And very few people realize the front end of the 767 and 777 are identical, and that the 777 tail is little more than a scaled-up 767 tail. ::rant over::