David Hingtgen

They do that NOW with a DVD player because they have "HDTV" component cables (Monster brand, of course) hooked up to a converter to run it through their RF connection...

Yup. XFA-27 is still the coolest-looking (and it's half F-14), followed by the X-02 (which is 3/4 YF-23).

I think that was the non-military version. It's one thing for a lone guy to do something like that as an extreme sport or something, and another to make it standard-issue equipment.

We all knew from watching GI Joe, that someday, this would actually exist for the troops: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

The demo DS at my local Wal-Mart was replaced by a DS Lite. Anyways---love the D-pad, shoulder buttons are nice. A/B/X/Y are small and close, but shouldn't cause any problems (especially once you can actually HOLD it, vs trying to wrap your fingers around the demo-bracket) Screen--reminded me of a backlit GBA SP, but shall I say "finer dot pitch"? The demo is set up for 7-year-olds, so I couldn't really "play" at all--I'm simply too tall. Color--it's obvious that the entire system is matte plastic, with a thick, clear, gloss layer of plastic sheeting over the exterior. The case isn't gloss white plastic as is often reported, it's flat white plastic with a shiny clear cover. So I'm thinking the Navy blue would have no more fingerprint problems than the white, it's purely how they'd show up. It just looks shinier than the white because it's a dark color--same as a white car vs a black car--black cars simply look "deeper" and "wetter" due to the COLOR, not their clear coat. So now I'm leaning towards Navy blue again... (hopefully import prices will go down a bit once the US version comes out)

I was looking at that, and I think it's basically impossible with the transformation scheme they have--they'd have to mounted in his forearms, and they've already got the fists stored inside. Or, they'd have to be a spot where there's not really anything there. Note that the drawings clearly showed accurate, 90-degree-folding gear. Hmmn...

Well I'm very surprised/impressed/happy. Keeping 2 J79's in working order must take a lot of work! Plus the hydraulics... PS--have them come to the Quad Cities! We need more jets! (Since it's not at a military base, EVERY plane has to be brought in--some years we're lucky to get a single A-10) I'd really like to see the Starfighters some day, but they seem to pick the weirdest places to go too... An F-4 is just as good though, if not better.

My question was why was he still wearing his anti-Xavier-mind-zap helmet. Xavier was gone, and Magento knew it. (And he should also know it'd offer NO protection against Jean if she wanted to fry his mind) As for metal: with the "ever expanding" clause of most super-hero powers, Magneto can affect pretty much any metal, since his power is technically control of a decent chunk of the electro-magnetic spectrum, not just SHEER magnetism. This allows lots of new variations in powers, etc. So he could probably affect lead, just not as easily as iron-based stuff. Probably couldn't morph it like he does iron, but certainly enough control to stop it and move it around. Most any metal is conductive, and with relationship between magnetism, conductive metals, and electricity he should be able to affect most anything he (or the writers) felt like.

Is that Collings F-4 flyable? My main criteria is FLYABLE. You can get a non-flying almost anything. A condition of that is also licensing. I know the FAA has very few people qualified to check other people out on most military jets, and even if you could get one, I doubt you could get an F-15 civillian type rating. (Again, we get into other country rules---why that guy in South Africa is there with his jets in the first place)

F-4? Not that I know of. There are privately owned (as in flyable) F-21/Kfir's. That's about the most advanced jet I know of in civillian hands. (Arguably that guy in South Africa who has a Buccaneer is even better) You see reports of people buying anything from F-18's to MiG-29's, but you never hear of them again nor see them fly. The place with the F-21 is available for hire for movies, ads, etc. Anyone know any actual rules/time limits for owning ex-military US planes? There's civillian F-104's and F-86's---I figure if it was feasible to acquire/maintain, the F-8 would be "ok" to have. THAT would rock. Though I think the F-104's are foreign ones, not US ones--that could have an effect. Otherwise the F-101/102/105 etc should be available as well.

The YF-22 had a more mature prototype, but it was no closer to a production F-22 than the YF-23 was to a production F-23. High alpha--not very relevant IMHO--what would the YF-22's high-alpha performance prove about the F-22's? Redesigned wings, tail, and intakes. Sure, they'd be similar, but look what happened to the F-18C vs F-18E wing---lots of little issues crept up, and all they did was scale up the wing and add the original F-17 dogtooth back in. F-22 changed a lot more. Weapons bay---forgot about that. I have yet to find a good diagram of the YF-23's trapeze launcher. But note how complicated and difficult it is to load the F-22's bays. Wonder if the -23 would have been better or worse.

Airshow day! F-15C East Coast team was a last minute addition, as was the IA ANG KC-135. Best pics I got of the day: (hey, I have a 2 megapixel camera with like a 2x zoom---these are amazing by my camera's standards---the Quad City airshow lets you get closer to the planes than almost anywhere else)

The real reasons the F-22 was picked: 1. The YF-23 was several inches longer than could be easily accomodated in all the USAF's F-15 hangars. This could have been easily rectified, but it was a big point with the F-22 already "fitting" in F-15 spots. (not that the F-22 didn't have every single square inch redesigned from the YF-22) 2. Lockheed. Lobby. 3. It looked more "normal" than the YF-23. No matter how cool/awesome the YF-23 looked, it was "unusual". PS---Grumman has nothing to do with the YF-23 design. The company may be Northrop Grumman now, but saying Grumman YF-23 is like saying Boeing F-4 Phantom. The YF-23 is McDonnellDouglas systems/avionics in a Northrop airframe/skin. You'd be amazed how many F-15 parts are in the YF-23. The plane is Northrop's. It's the fighter version of the B-2. (Go look at the two closely--it's obvious they share designers--same era, too). Look at all the cool stuff Northrop made that was never used as intended:

Just FYI, http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f014.html is one of a zillion sites that repost/store/copy/steal Joe Baugher's work. Can never tell if he wants his stuff on a particular site or not. His actual site is here: http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher/ He's got the most complete list of serial/bureau numbers, period. Note however, that a lot of his stuff is direct quotes/paraphrasing from World Air Power Journal. Actually a lot of EVERYTHING about jets on the web is originally referenced from World Air Power Journal. A complete set of World Air Power Journals would be the best reference for military jets, period. I have most of them. They're worth their weight in gold. As for a YF-23---not as a Hornet replacement. They'd want a Hornet replacement to carry everything and anything, and a YF-23 couldn't do that. Not internally at least. It could replace any pure fighter, but will never be as multi-role as a F-16/18. A few small bombs does not a bomber make. (See F-22---it can replace the F-117 since the F-117 has such a limited and specific payload---but it can't replace the F-16C Block 40)

Basic problem: can't go all-out with powers, makes for poor story-telling. Otherwise: Magneto would just kill everyone he wanted quickly by stopping their blood. (iron) Jean would have just vaporized the entire planet, then re-made it how she wanted. Again, having the story just be the Dark Phoenix saga would have given Cyclops a LOT more screen-time, and good screen time at that.

You'd think the Navy would let museums have more parts for their display Tomcats--- every part mounted on a US one means it won't be mounted on an Iranian one! Honestly I think museums might be more secure, rather than having the parts in "miscellaneous DOD warehouses". The stuff the military "loses" is scary.

Could be related to the whole "VW doesn't want war toys" thing. Though IMHO Bumblebee simply isn't "cool" enough to warrant a Camaro. PS---so what IS this thread supposed to be about? There's sites far larger and more active than MW dedicated soley to car polish and wax... (And they are so engrossed about it I can't even wade through to find out any info---it'd be like a total newbie Robotechie here trying to understand a M0 bird-human discussion on their first day)

The "eyes" of the Decepticon logo are quite different. They're 4-sided instead of triangles, and it's almost as if they're rotated 90 degrees.

Hmmn. It's cold at altitude everywhere in the world---the ground-level climate doesn't have THAT big of an effect AFAIK. Once you get high up, temperature is pretty similar wherever you go. Does 5 degrees colder at alt over Alaska than Langley cross some threshold? Are we talking high as in 25-35,000ft cruise, or HIGH as in 50-60K? ::edit:: Ack, Nied already pointed that out. Cold-soak issue? But I mean, a 777 can start up after like a 2-day ice-water soak in a Siberian winter---I'd expect a sheltered F-22 to do better.

I've always thought a lot of Trumpeter planes seem like they took your standard Jane's 3-view as absolute gospel and their only source. A 3-view will not make an accurate 3D model. Trumpeter planes are often either amazing, or pretty poor. Respectively--tons of photos and research, or fed a 3-view into a rapid prototyper. They seem to do consistently better on their ships, many of which are among the best ships money can buy. (Though their 1/700 Iowa class have issues)

Unscented as in nothing added, or unscented as in you just plain can't smell anything? Unscented chemicals still smell "chemically" if you know what I mean. (Certain smells really bug me, and they're often in cleaners/sealers etc) I don't use "allergy-free" stuff or anything, it's just some brands of certain things really get to me for some reason. I'm also intrigued by the NXT stuff, see lots of positive reviews for much of the whole line. Though most products are sealed, don't know how they smell until after you buy it.

But that's FAKE new car smell. My point was that I had authentic new car smell for years, due to the amount of care and cleanliness. Also, if there's a dash spray that smells as weakly as say, pure water, please let me know.

Back to X3 itself: I saw it last night, and will give just my main point: It should have just been the Dark Phoenix saga. Jean and Cyclops for the whole movie. Famke did very well with what she had, she just needed a lot more. "The cure" plot quickly overshadowed what should have been the #1 X-Men story ever. Plus it lead to 1 hour of Jean just standing silently next to Magneto. I will say I thought Magneto made a very good "substitute" for Mastermind/Hellfire club for the whole "corruption" of Jean Grey etc. We could have still had Magneto in a "pure" Phoenix movie. There was no need for a bunch of new evil mutants etc, could have just had Magneto alone (as there's little need for a villain, as Phoenix will do that herself). And we needed flaming Phoenix effects. At least ONCE.

My car's garaged, and I intend to keep it that way. Seriously, you can't tell my dash from a factory-fresh one. My lack of "additives" is not due to lack of care, it's flat-out what I want. Tire dressing: they all fling off onto the paint, and wouldn't last 2 days here anyways. Rain+bugs=frequent washing. Plus my current tires just plain aren't all that "pure black" to start with. (every brand and model is different) Dash stuff: it all adds shine, and smells. I really, really, really, really hate any and all sorts of smells in my car. My car had "new car smell" for some 3 years due to how stringent I am about not allowing smells in my car, and even at the 4/5 year mark it'd occasionally get a comment from someone. My dash is currently dusty, and has NEVER had anything on it--and I still find THAT too reflective. I want something like Testors Dullcote... Half my criteria for car cleaning products is how they smell, I won't let a lot of them touch my car based on how they smell alone. My "nothing on the dash" actually comes from what my Mom did on her last car. It was garaged for the first couple years, but spent the last few outside. She never had anything put on the dash for the same reasons I do, and it was one of the few parts of the car that was still perfect by the time she got rid of it. There's way too many products that are almost "addictive" to the dash--use them once, then you have to keep using them or it'll start cracking. I think basic ArmorAll is the worst of them for that.

Well, with how much plastic etc is in new cars, and how many products still expect to find a 1950's pure iron engine bay, it's a valid issue. Also, so many things will screw up something else. It's why I don't put ANYTHING on my tires nor dash.