David Hingtgen

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).

Agreeing with what F360 said---going only by the outline of the profile is misleading IMHO--I mean, in sheer "silhouette", a AGM-86 cruise missile and L-1011 airliner are pretty close, since by only using the outline you can "ignore" any sort of three-dimensional issue or things in the horizontal plane. Example: F-16 and F-16XL. Almost identical profiles, but very different planes due to one being a tailless delta. Of course they are very similar, but by going solely by their profile you get the impression that they're 99% structurally identical, when really they only share fuselage parts and v.stab. Or, for an extreme example, from head-on, a bowling ball and a cheap pen are utterly identical--perfect circles.

Is there any gold in the paint or is it just the lighting? Because that instantly reminded me of bare titanium, like the A-12.

Just finished it. Overall thought it was inferior to KH1. There were just hours and hours of "doing stuff without advancing the plot at all". It was like: Play through Beast's stage. "Find Riku yet?" "Nope, I'll keep looking". Play through Aladdin's stage. "Find Kairi yet?" "Nope". "You'll find her eventually" Play through Mulan's stage. "Find Riku yet?" "Nope, I'll keep looking". Play through Halloweentown. "Find Kairi yet?" "Nope". "You'll find her eventually" Basically, if you're not at Twilight Town or Hollow Bastion, there's no plot. The middle 20 hours of the game not a thing happens. KH1, while also suffering from "lots of time spent not advancing the plot" didn't have it nearly so bad, and I liked the music better. Though Wonderland and Tarzan's Jungle just sucked--I still hate those stages---the 2 hardest/most confusing stages in all of KH, and they're the first 2 of the first game--I bet a LOT of people stopped early in KH1 for that reason.

The Long Beach plant will be turned into a planned community, but the "Fly DC Jets" sign will be saved because it's a national historic treasure/landmark etc---but they're going to move it. A lot of the buildings are already gone. The DC-8/9 assembly building will become a big warehouse. Here's Boeing's website for it--buy land in "Douglas Park!" http://www.douglaspark.org/ Who wants to be the first?

Ok, we're now completely OT. Back to discussing the VF-1 or take it to PM please.

We've got TWO vice-mods participating, we'll keep things in check.

That's a big issue for most all WW2 engines---liquid cooled inlines tend not to do well for battle damage---one bullet in any line will stop them dead really fast, while air-cooled radials tended to suck up a lot more punishment, as well as usually being easier to armor.

From the side, you mainly see the angled intakes and the engine nacelles---neither of which the F-18 even has. And the overall profile of the nose is F-111, as has been discussed. Which isn't surprising since the F-14 really is the F-111B hastily redesigned for air combat with a bunch of A-6 parts. THAT's a project for tonight--look for A-6 stuff in the VF-1.

The thing is, the VF-1 has a ton of small, specific details that are almost direct copies of F-14 parts. IMHO the intakes and wing glove alone preclude most any F-18 elements--two angled, widely separated intakes with a tunnel between them mounted below the glove right up front is a completely different design from round intakes on the sides of the fuselage mounted well aft behind a LERX that lead to side-by-side engines. The VF-1 has no spine nor LERX. Also it has the F-14's beavertail, which is incredibly distinctive and makes the entire rear fuselage like an F-14's. I just don't see any F-18 in the VF-1 from any angle except POSSIBLY having the fins mounted a bit forward from normal.