David Hingtgen

It's more of a "why?" Same reason the Blackbird isn't flying now---incredibly complex and expensive to maintain on a day-to-day basis, and satellites are almost as good. Yes, an SR-71 can be anywhere really quickly and take pics of EXACTLY what you want, but the USAF apparently doesn't consider it worthwhile enough to keep in service. I doubt we could do anything notably superior, but to make another similar plane is quite possible, just very expensive. Past Mach 3, the mach cone gets quite tight. Aerodynamic problems, regardless of strength/heat/structure. The sheer shockwave starts eating at the frame. For all the people who claim Mach 4 or Mach 5+ for the SR-71, they obviously know nothing about shockwaves. A Blackbird will self-destruct from its own shockwave at about Mach 3.5. And one A-12 on a high-speed run did ruin its wings and tails trying to do so. (Fastest Blackbird ever--went about 3.5 before parts started ripping off) Survived, but was immediately scrapped after landing due to damage. SR-71 speeds: 3.2 Normal cruise 3.3 High cruise, approved flight-by-flight. Depends on atmospheric temp more han anything. 3.35--Max dash speed, 5-10 mins 3.4---emergency, moderate damage sustained 3.5---severe damage/destruction. Both of the bottom two assume you have a very cold day, and a "cold" engine. 99% of the time, the turbine inlet temp is the limiting factor for the SR-71's speed. The numbers above presume a PERFECT engine running very cool, and that the shape of the airframe itself is the limiting factor, not how hot the engine is running.

Ironically, one of the reasons there's so little titanium in the XB-70 is because had it gone into production, it would have required over 1/4 of the USA's titanium at the time, at the rate and numbers the USAF wanted. The SR-71 was "allowed" to have so much titanium in its structure as it was supposed to be such a limited production aircraft (and it was). They could have a few dozen medium-large spy planes, but hundreds of gigantic B-70's would have required new titanium mines to be opened...

I want an ISD above all else, followed by Executor. And if they lit up, drool drool drool. It's sad that the best ISD by far is the LEGO one. The AMT/Ertl kit has horrendous fit and accuracy, even as the AMT Star Wars kits go. And that's saying something. You need a vise to get some of the parts close enough just to try to bridge the gap with epoxy... And all the little diecast etc ISD's have crude detail. I collect LOTS of mini diecast ships and planes, I know what can be done for what price. They could be done a LOT better, but they're not even worth buying IMHO. Still, I'm looking forward to the Venator-class coming out from Revell. (That's the new "Republic Star Destroyer" in Ep III). Revell's done quite nice stuff lately, and though the design isn't as neat as an ISD, it is neat.

Bought a mini ROTS Anakin at BestBuy today. I'd take pics, but it's raining and dark here. Maybe tomorrow. Interestingly, it's packaged "sideways"---when you open the box, you're looking at what most people would consider the underside of the saber.

It's not so much the structure, as the systems. Even something as "simple" as a fuel pump has to be totally designed from scratch. Early Blackbirds had problems with the wiring becoming unsoldered in flight as it heated up, then resoldering itself in different places as it cooled again. THAT can really mess up the electrical systems... Most equipment and liquids used in jets just will not take the heat of continuous Mach 3 operation.

Seems the one that started the thread is 61-17958. It is an SR-71. Huh, there's 3 A-12's in Alabama, while Georgia has a single SR-71. "What the Hell's an A-12, Anyway, and Why Are They So Cool?" http://www.serve.com/mahood/a-12/a-12s.htm Quite interesting to read the rest of the links on that site, the guy went out to Area 51 and found the crash site of 60-6928 (no one else ever had). And brought home some titanium. List of where all the Blacknbirds are (though I like calling the A-12 the Cygnus): http://www.blackbirds.net/sr71/srloc.html

Gotta ask--which one, where? The majority of "SR-71's" on display are actually A-12's. (Even to the point that the plaque says SR-71, when it's not). I know the one at Offut is actually an SR-71, as is the one at Dulles.

The Vader ESB FX is supposed to be only 1.8mm bigger around than the "real" thing. Not very oversized IMHO. Don't know about ROTS Anakin but since it's similar in construction I doubt it'd be significantly different.

I'll try to get a pic of the Hasbro color-change saber tonight. It's much brighter blue than red. Though retail is $30, almost any Target/WalMart has them for 15.

I wondered about the 1995 pic too, but since the first FX saber came out in like 2002, I figure it's just a camera battery problem or something. Anyways---the .45 mini sabers are 100% as nice as the full size ones, just smaller. Basically---you can either have 1 full size saber, or every mini saber ever made, for the same price. I'd rather have a whole collection. (Unless you've got like 5 grand to spend on full-size ones) PS---the non-battle-damaged .45 Maul saber is coming out soon. You have to join the new collector's club for it though. It's like $60 for the membership, and you get the saber with it, and coupons for like 50 bucks off a full-size saber, 20 bucks off an FX, and 10 bucks off a .45 mini. (2 coupons of each type--but you can't use both on a single saber) It pays for itself and then some. Heck, a .45 Maul alone would be like $45 due to its size.

My Vader looks just like that in some photos. Told you it was possible to make it look bright yellow. PS--for anyone that doesn't own an FX saber, this is how they really look to the human eye, in a dark room: http://www.rebelscum.com/mr/mrfxsabers1.jpg

I've got several of the MR .45 scale sabers, plan to get ROTJ Luke and AOTC OBi-Wan soon. Just bought a Vader ESB FX last week. BTW, Borders (yes, the book store) and GameStop sell them for $99, much better than BestBuy's $120. I wanted Anakin, but Vader's all I could find. Will probably still snag Anakin's when I find it. REALLY want a Qui-Gon, maybe late next year they'll have one. Anyone have both a Vader and a blue one to do a brightness comparison? I do think a blue one would be brighter, based on both photos and how blue LED's seem inherently brighter than red. Also have the Hasbro ROTS color-change. Good for practicing how to twirl a saber. (Though FX's are much easier---smaller diameter, better balance). But if you should drop an FX while practicing.... PS---no matter how hard I try, I cannot photograph my FX to get the "white core with colored aura" effect. Anyone know how? Lots of people seem to get it without even trying. Pretty sure it involves over-exposure. I can make it appear pure yellow though.

Well, actually more like "clicked on higher-res versions of pics I'd already glanced at". Sorry. Mainly the same pics from FlyingMule.com. (FlyingMule always has the best pics---they take their own, and they use the actual final released versions, not samples)

Found some more Dragon F-14 pics, found another change they made! NACA gun vents! Yet another "it was right, now it's wrong" thing. That's not automatically wrong for an F-14A, just most of them, and all of VF-111.

From what I can remember: 1. Eliminate the LEX flaps (inboard of the inboard LE flaps). Don't exist on production models. 2. There's several large vents and very obvious external plates in the area that the airbrake used to occupy. And they don't match left/right. Merely filling in the airbrake outline is only 1/4 of the job. 3. IFF antenna on the nose. Part of the reason the nickname Rhino came about. (It looks a Rhino with the horn cut off, leaving only a stump) 4. Pylons. Need to be repositioned, angled, and possibly re-shaped. 5. Wingtip rails. Depends on what squadron you're doing. VFA-115, 14, 41, and 102 (maybe 27 as well?) have the early type. All others have the later type. Don't know what the Italeri kit's look like, but I'm sure it's not the later type. 6. I believe the drop tanks are too short. 7. Cockpit---I'm not big on cockpits, but it seems 90% of modelers spend 99% of their time and effort here. And an inaccurate representation of a test plane isn't very similar to a production one. 8. I just plain don't like the nozzles. Too curved, F110-esque. Or late F-18C/D style, when the F-18E/F actually looks more like A/B nozzles. Attached pic: where the airbrake used to be.

Fit is the least of the Italeri Super Hornet's problems. It's not even accurate for a development Super Hornet, much less a production one. It's got about 1/2 of the changes from a C to an E. Yes, it's bigger, has square intakes and reshaped LERX's, but almost all of the little things are missing. From the pylons to the spoilers to the airbrake to the vents to the IFF antenna.

Build a warship. Try a carrier and pretend it's the Prometheus... Nothing like 1/700 scale for a change of pace.

I find some Corgi planes to be "brittle" with regards to weapons/pylons/gear doors. I would say a Dragon F-18 is much more sturdy than the F-16---no plastic intake nor ventral fins. Anyways---yes, the same people who say Dragon is more accurate are currently praising how wonderfully perfect the new F-14A is. Dragons are more "crisp", with no screws and finer seams and nicer missiles. But that is not accuracy. As seen by their recent F-14"A" and F-15"E" releases... Next Matchbox is a P-38. Finally, I will be getting the Dragon Langley F-15C w/diorama as soon as it comes out, and will review the heck out of it. Will be passing on the F-14, for no matter how much I love that scheme, I will not accept an F-14D with PW nozzles. Guess I better finish my Fujimi one... (Then start on a Hase one in the same scheme! )

I think it boils down to this: 1. We all know it's the games, not the system. 2. That said, what do the developers care about? Are they going to try to reinvent every genre to cater to gimmicky button/screen innovations for a single system, or are they going to make "Sequel number 3 to established series" with much-improved graphics and maybe a re-arranged shoulder button for the top 2 systems? I generally like Square, Namco, Capcom, Konami, and Tecmo. (And recently Bioware) That makes up a LARGE chunk of my games. Who/what do you think they're going to develop for? Final point: EA. Money, and mass-market. That means graphics. Their ads are little more than pretty screen-shots. I am not enthralled by pretty graphics. Sure I appreciate them but they certainly cannot make a game better than it is. Best RPG's ever are Xenogears, Valk Profile, and Suikoden 2---sprite-based! But the developers (and to an even greater degree the publishers) sure like to use them to attract casual gamers. I usually rate music as the most important thing after gameplay, and that's utterly independent of the hardware. Unless Nintendo does "direct brain-input control" there's not many innovations that are going to have developers/gamers come running.

Hasn't anybody here read about Nintendo's plans for their next system? I'm currently 0% interested in it. Basically---they want to go even further along the lines of the DS---more "gimmicks" and touch-screens and touchy-feely etc. Or as they put it, innovation. For some people that's exactly what they want. But I think most people, both hardcore gamers and the general populace, are pretty much going to want eye-popping graphics from the next gen. Nintendo specifically pointed out that "improved graphics etc" are not what they're going for. I for one do not want a "vibrating light-sensitive two-handed wireless stylus connected to a GBAmk2 SP via an infrared adapter" to play "Special Edition Flourescent Orange with a hint of Chartreuse (chromed version) Pokemon 7" I've still probably got more SNES hours than any other system, but I didn't buy an N64 and BARELY bought a GC (and regret spending the money). But I stood in line for a PS2 and my Xbox seems like a better buy every month. Mario and Link won't save the company when they only bring out like one good game per series, per system. And of course, zero N64 Metroid games. But then again, 9/10 of parents buy their kids a Nintendo system because it's the only brand name they recognize... Finally---0% interest could be rapidly raised if they announce Rogue Squadron 4, Metroid 4, and a really neat fairly traditional sequel to Mario 64, especially if it has Luigi. As launch titles.

Not far off, you've got to try to land inside a large transport while it's attempting to zoom off into space.

Flashbacks to a rather annoying AFDS mission: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=23796

Can't find a warbirds listing, best to check a specific airshow's site. BTW, here's the F-104 listing: http://www.starfighters.net/schedule/schedule.html Not many, but well worth it. I've been to Selfridge before, but that's quite a trip. Maybe Evansville...

Umm, what does "Absolutely, except for the Action part" mean? It kinda sounds like you're disagreeing with agreeing with me or something--I specifically said the PLOT has more action, and didn't say a word about the combat. You agreed with me about plot, and disagreed about fighting action--which I didn't mention. Which I suppose I should now: Actually, I found Jade Empire incredibly easy compared to KOTOR. Final boss hit me ONCE. Focus is overwhelmingly powerful. Have a lot of it, and you can take on anyone without ever changing to magic styles nor using support styles etc. On the occasional chance I'm "caught" without a nice Focus supply, fights can take like 10 times as long. But that's usually because I felt too lazy to run back to a Focus Shrine. Focus makes that much of a difference. Despite JE being real-time, KOTOR seemed more interesting, due to number of options, Force powers, difficulty, etc. In JE, I can just slaughter even high end bosses by simply leaping behind them, active Focus and Chi strikes, and mashing A. So while it may be real-time, it seems a lot less interesting than KOTOR because my character is just so overwhelmingly powerful at the end. It gets easier as you go along, at least in my experience. Your power grows much faster than the enemies.

Night Falcon ALREADY is a name for a specific type of real F-16. The Block 40/42. Particularly those in USAF service. (IAF Block 40's lack the WAR HUD, which is fairly important to night ops) I doubt the "USAF Improved Night Falcon" description was sheer chance, I think they intend that this is an upgraded USAF Night Falcon, not a generic F-16 upgraded and re-named. "Night" Falcon isn't nearly as famous as "Strike" Eagle, but it is a often used term for a specific variant. Night Falcon is more commonly known as the F-16CG. (Or the occasional F-16DG). Strangely, I don't think the F-16CJ has a nickname. Wild Weasel is the mission, not the plane in that case AFAIK. Weasel Falcon?