David Hingtgen

Corgis are more durable. They're simply "heftier" than Dragon. Most of them aren't as "finely cast" though. Also, they are much more difficult to deal with the gear and gear doors etc than Dragon. Weapons are usually permanent, drop tanks removable.

Beat it today, going through again. Trying to determine what gets what. First run, opened Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-27, Su-37, Su-47 (big Russian kick apparently, and that's almost all I used), as well as F-15C, F-14D, Mirage 2000, EA-6B, A-10, Tornado Gr4, Gripen, F-35, X-02 (from AC4 save I think). Second run, got F-18C, F-20A so far. I really didn't like how my first run went---most of the planes sucked for what I needed, I never got a decent multi-role besides the Gripen (which was too expensive and not good enough A2A for much of the game). Having no F-16, F-18, Rafale was a serious hurt for the early/mid part of the game. I used the MiG-29 for most missions (with rocket launchers, because it's about all I could afford), then switched to the Su-27. Found final dogfights way too much effort (XMAA and XLAA utterly worthless), and so bought the F-15C with QAAM for the end, and won with that. Strangely even the Su-37 seemed to suck at the end, as its XLAA won't hit ANYBODY, and sheer agility is worthless when enemies seem to have super-chaff or something to dodge 95% of missiles even when they're just sitting there and you've got a perfect shot. I hate Gault. PS--really can't explain some plane stats. EA-6B notably more agile than F-5E and generally better all around? F-14D slightly superior to F-15C in ALL respects? Should be slightly inferior in agility and speed, slightly better A2A and WAY better A2G. (though transonic acceleration should be much better, but that's too specific for the game)

Whoops, got my systems mixed up. I always think of Ultra 64 as being the official JP name, since it came SO close to being and you saw so many things written that way. And especially since every SNES game was "Super xyz" and so many N64 games were the sequel "Ultra xyz." What other project names do we know? I recall Katana, Dural, and I think Neptune, for the Saturn/DC/DC respectively. X360 was Xenon of course, and I noticed DOA4 even has that in the backgrounds.

AIM-54's were designed to be launched supersonically I would assume, since their primary use is emergency high-speed interception of bombers/fleet defense--which means the F-14 is running as fast as it possibly can when it launches. Phoenix has one neat aspect I rarely see mentioned---when used at long ranges it follows a ballistic profile like an ICBM. It goes WAY up, then dives down at tremendous speed. Most pilots aren't used to dodging a ballistic projectile from above, and they're used to watching for smoke trails etc from below or the side---if you're flying along at 35,000ft, you're probably not watching for missiles from above that had their motor burn out long ago.

It strikes me as "lets make every single piece a different shade of grey with no pattern or reason". That's not camoflage, that's when 20 different people paint their part "grey" and then you assemble all the parts.

Late model Phoenixes (Phoenixi?) can be launched on inertial guidance only, having no radar guidance until they turn their own on at close range. This might be an option only with the F-14D only when using the AIM-54C+. This is so you don't give someone a warning they're being locked on from 100 miles away. Almost all Phoenix launches involve several modes of guidance, switching between inertial, semi-active, and fully-active.

Just plain stupid IMHO. I mean, even the N64's codename (Dolphin) would have been better for a final name than that. What's next, Puu?

Sorry for yet more clarification---so is Set 1 only say the first half of the eps of the series, and Set 2 is end of the eps, the OVA, movie, and everything else? (because I'd be happy with just having the last eps and all the other stuff)

LERX---best guess we can make on what to call that thin grey part right ahead of the intakes. The F-5, F-18, F-20, and Harrier II have LERX's. Leading Edge Root eXtension. (I say Flankers have chines, like an F-16, not LERXes) But since the VF-0's actually comes from the intake, and is inboard and ahead of the wing LE root itself, I don't really know what to call it, and there's no exact real-life equivalent. I personally would probably call it an intake lip extension.

Mislovrit--I posted a photo of an F-8 flying with wings folded, so I'm quite certain it can. The question was whether the folded wings had to be in the raised position to do so, as otherwise the flaps and slats would be retracted. No other plane has to worry about if the wing is up or down, in addition to and independently of if the tips are folded or not.

Quick follow up--so is "Set #2" a 2nd version/release, or like only the 2nd half of the series?

The F/A-22 is quite shiny/silvery and it's considered low-vis. But that's mainly because how they say it's painted and how it actually looks totally disagree. The markings are certainly low-vis... (In the 1980's there were lots of "camo vs markings" combos that were part high and part low vis, so many times you have specify exactly what part is or isn't low-vis) Technically almost any brightly-painted plane nowadays has low-vis camo with high-vis markings, but many planes in the 80's were high-vis camo with low-vis markings.

Well, I got quite whipped at level 49. Went back at 54, took off a few life bars, but not enough items to keep it up. Plus his life bar is just "stupidly" long, I'd either get bored or my thumb would hurt by the time I got to the end. KH1 Sephiroth took a while, but not THIS long.

I'm guessing the stabilators simply fold up and lay next to the v.stabs---nowhere else for them to go. I really should go to TFW2005 and make a "basic parts of the F-15" post, as we get 50 people calling the same part 50 different wrong terms, confusing everyone... What I really want to see are the missile launchers, as opposed to the cannons. I hope the robot-mode cannons aren't the only option to put under the wings in fighter mode. PS--Fit For Natalie---I've heard nothing about the Hasbro Classics SS being an F-15. Is that confirmed or just a good guess? I was highly unimpressed with Astrotrain, and frankly don't expect the new line's jets to resemble real ones any more than G1 Hot Rod resembles a real car.

Su-33 is NO WAY. Quickly calculating from a drawing, it loses 74% of its wingspan when folded---it folds everything but the root pretty much. Basically, it folds in-line with the canard tips---and it can't fly on "canard-span" alone. Plus remember that the Su-33 also folds its stabililators up, and that when the wings are folded, the flaps fold to fit against the v.stab, in such a way that the wing may even produce negative lift and probably blanking most of the rudder.

Possible, but unlikely. 90%+ of stores will have it Wed. Of course, sometimes the 25th actually does mean AVAILABLE the 25th, as opposed to SHIPPING on the 25th. I haven't heard anything about a flightstick shipping with any version.

I'm 99% certain the engine nacelles open to allow you to switch between TV/Toy-accurate robot-mode-foot-nozzles, and modern, real-life-accurate nozzles. It's the standard "fist-swapping" mechanism, only for engine nozzles. What you're seeing under the cover is the other style of nozzle, not an engine.

Bumping the thread up as it ships on Tuesday.

The F-4 can fly folded. I've never heard about the F-18, I doubt it since the ailerons are on the folded part---that's the key reason the F-4 and F-8 can do it--the ailerons and spoilers are on the inboard part so they retain full roll control. Also the -18 folds more of its wing lift-wise than those planes I think. PS--I'm almost certain the F-8 would require the wing to be raised to fly like that, as there's no way it'd have enough lift with flaps and slats retracted---flap/slat position on the F-8 is absolutely determined by wing incidence.

Seeing as how I've only ever seen them in low-rate AVI's too, I'm interested in getting a decent copy as well. Anyways---is "Fleet of the Strongest Woman" included in the FX set? And neither of the places Keith mentioned seem to have the series.

You have NO idea the depths of my nit-picking when it comes to airliners. It IS scary. Of course, a lot of it is backed up by the sheer existence of Airliners.net and their super search engine. If it ever flew for an airline, that site has 500 pics of it--there's no excuse for paint errors etc when the ultimate reference site is RIGHT THERE. It's amazing how many people will swear by a memory they had of a plane they saw once when they were 7 years old, and say the 140 photographs of that plane and the 3,000 photos of it's 42 sisterships online are all wrong. I know memories can be wrong---to this day I still have a clear memory of finding a G1 Arcee toy in a Kaybee toy store. But since it never existed, I'm pretty sure that never happened.

Hase model kits are much cheaper, but much smaller. Other companies' kits, usually being resin/garage/limited can be as expensive or more than a Yamato, depending on the valk.

All of us airline enthusiasts debunked it the moment we saw it LONG before any site mentioned it was a fake---nothing like having the paint scheme wrong and the wrong type of engines to make us think it's a fake... I spend a LOT of time nit-picking 747 model engines online, I am VERY well-versed in the variations, even if most model companies (and fake graffiti taggers) aren't. Ironically, it's actually more accurate than the 747 they used in the "Air Force One" movie, which was WAY off physically. Paint scheme on that was a lot better though.

2007? That's a long ways off. Especially with Energy/Over-G Air Force coming in June. Still, seeing as how I really hate the 360's noise, I might just wait for the PS3 and buy it with my now-returned 360 money, then get a 360 in 2007.

I found Sephiroth much harder this time around---haven't beaten him yet. (Only tried twice though).