David Hingtgen

On my second run currently. Anyways---you can use Drunken style, but it's more like a special ability. If you really want, you can use it for 90% of the game. BTW, any particular style only has like 5 moves, once you pick a style, you'll be seeing the same sequence 1,000 times. I still like KOTOR better. Jade Empire seems very linear and short compared to it. KOTOR seems to have more "action" in the plot, and better ending(s). Still, better than 95% of what's out there.

The YF-23's Sidewinders were to be launched just like the AMRAAM's. (Though I think the YF-23's AMRAAM launcher was considered more complex than the -22's, but I've never found even a decent schematic of the -23's).

Valk Profile ran much better on my PS2 than it ever did on my PSX. Haven't really played it on my new slim PStwo (only checked to see it'd boot and load saves).

That "Night Falcon" seems even more "changed just for the sake of changing" than the F-15. Looks rather F-22 esque, especially the nose. Every Block 40/42 specific feature is either missing or obliterated due to changes though, can't really tell why you'd call it a Night Falcon at that point. (Night Falcon=F-16CG=Block 40/42)

Re: backwards compatability. It goes with the "multiple versions" thing. $299 is bare bones version. $399 gets you the HD (with Halo2?), backwards compatability, and something else I'm forgetting...

I think those vents are purely a visual holdover from the original F-15, just like the v.stab fintips. Maybe it's got a new gun, but there's no room at all for an M61A1 in there. The canard is EXACTLY where the muzzle should be. I mean, it's also got the standard F-15 TACAN antenna, but I would presume that's only because it's fairly visible on the real thing, not because in the Macross universe they specifically designed this plan intending to use that navigation system. Lack of a visible muzzle/cutout (plus the location of the canards) says far more than the presence of vents IMHO.

Neat! West Coast Super Hornet team put up the entire display, move by move. http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-122/Demo%20Dirty%20Roll.htm Starts here. VFA-122 home page: http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-122/

USAF: http://www2.acc.af.mil/airdemo//demo_schedule.html Navy/Marines: http://www.stevesairshow.com/demos05.html T-Birds/Blue Angels: http://www.stevesairshow.com/jet-teams05.html USAF isn't showing ALL the demos, I'm almost certain the F-15 and F-16 schedules are incomplete past June. Also can't find CF-18 schedule, they go to almost as many shows as the East Coast F-18 team. And there will be no F-14 demos besides Oceana.

I think I'd like it more if they just ditched the front end and made it a "100% new, but very F-15-esque" design. As it is, it looks "too modified". As in, there's no point to either convert existing F-15's, nor re-design the F-15 and start building ones like this. The original design is compromised, and an all-new design along the same lines would be vastly superior. Also, some F-15 design elements are no longer needed, notably the h.stab dogtooth and the v.stab anti-flutter weights. They're now there simply to "look like an F-15" rather than any aerodynamic reason. Finally--while I'm all for "more control surfaces=better" this does seem a bit excessive, especially in pitch---4 large all-moving canted stabs, and canards, and vectoring. If the lower pair was ventral fins (as they should be at this point I think, going back to the 2nd-to-last F-15 design) it'd be better, but it looks like everything on the tail is of movable slab construction.

Hmmn. Don't like the intakes on that YF-23 mod. Reminds me of the F-111. Not as bad as the "quarter" cone of the F-111, but not good IMHO. And of course, not stealthy at all. It's like most 1960's half-cone intakes, but only like .40 of a cone, and underslung. Finally--anyone else getting an A-5 Vigilante vibe from the front end? Kinda neat like that.

I do think the overall shape is better than the earlier ones we saw, but in doing so, they changed it from an F-14A into an F-14D.

F***ing morons! http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50045 Dragon F-14A VF-111 is out. And they f***ed up royally. Wow, the most accurate GE-powered back end of any F-14 model ever! Even beats the Hasegawa 1/72 and 1/48 kits for rear fuselage fairing shape. Nice and square. Too bad that's an F-14A... Grumble grumble. Other things---it's less accurate than it was! The samples, asides from no nose pitot, were nigh-perfect for that block of F-14A, in that era. But no, they have to remove the under-glove antennas, add the ahead of the glove antennas, add the nose gear door antenna. Now it has the details of a recent F-14D. Not good for a high-vis F-14A. Hey, are those NACES seats I see? I think so... And it may just be a reflection, but is that a HUD? Overall, this is REALLY an F-14D, with TF30 nozzles.

I always smirk whenever it's "We've narrowed it down to the 1970's design F-15, or the most modern stuff Europe has to offer". The F-15E/K's aerodynamics are identical to the F-15A's. "We don't need canards or FBW or instability nor vectoring". It's big, and has a lot of power. Which, like the Flanker, seems to solve a lot of problems and offers good performance. Big wings+big engines=good plane. And I think there's always the potentional F-15T for Taiwan. I wonder if the F110 could be bumped up to 33,000lbs each...

Some more VFA-102 50th Ann. pics: http://www.carrierbuilders.net/articles/20...Anniversary.htm

Waiting for mikeszekely's comments. I only have an EB near here, and a ex-SoftwareEtc-now-Gamestop 20 miles away. I snag all my stuff from VideoGameDepot. Non-chain game stores rock. And I can buy Pocky there too EB: buy XB game, get told how much XB sucks by the PS2 guy. Buy PS2 game, get told how much the PS2 sucks by the XB guy.

From what I can tell, the "fat" F-8 bombs are Mk84's, just of WW2 vintage. The design has changed, but the number hasn't. View from the rear of the Diamondback's 50th Anniversary scheme:

I think "vanes" would be a better term than shutters. Going by other jet thrust vectoring, etc. The real-world thing most similar to the YF-21's is the F-15S/MTD's vanes for creating reverse thrust. "Cascades" would also be acceptable, if not looking like a typical cascade arrangement.

Skull Leader: Of all the 1/72 and 1/48 diecast model planes, Dragon has the consistenly best shape. Heck, they beat a lot of plastic model kits. I would not classify them as 'toys' at all. For the F-14 to look "off" is a BIG surprise to us. For VF-2, I was referring to how of the few pitot-less F-14's there were, VF-2 1970's high-vis were among them. Shin: I think the F-18 wingtip AMRAAM issue is pure weight. A second-hand anecdote I read is that they mounted an AMRAAM on the tips ONCE. The bend and droop in the wings convinced them to never try it again. Why the Shornet can't however, I have no idea. Certainly with practically a totally redesigned wing (particularly, it is stiffer, and has less washout at the tips--so it inherently bends and droops a lot less than the earlier ones) it should have been easy to design it to allow AMRAAM's. Coolest Super Hornet scheme ever: VFA-102 50th Ann. http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=23597 No, there's no other pics at the moment. We'll just have to wait.

I don't want AMRAAM's on the tips of a Hornet because they can't carry it. Hornet wingtips are Sidewinder only, period. All versions, all configurations. Yes, Super Hornets actually have the standard USN AMRAAM launcher on their tips--but it's still not allowed to have AMRAAM's there. Even those "lots of AMRAAMs" pics of Hornets will show the tips with Sidewinders.

I think this is the first "official" Dragon Super Hornet listing: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRW50070 An *E* model? C'mon, the demo is always done with an F, and the F is by far the most popular version. I'd love VFA-122, but I want an F. Wonder what weapons it'll come with. 5 drop tanks would be nice. I sure hope they don't put AMRAAM's on the wingtips like they did with the F-18C.

I really need to see a final, production, shipped-to-stores Dragon F-14 to make any more comments. It seems they have molded a lot of different Tomcat parts, but just aren't putting them together right. Much as if you took a Hasegawa F-14D kit, but used a lot of A and B parts while building it. Remember, if Dragon's making it, they almost certainly used the Hase kit as a reference, and the decals. You'd be suprised at how many diecast companies use plastic kit decals as reference---it's easy to tell, just look for errors. But my current main "fear" is that none will have nose pitots, which is pretty obvious, especially since they spent so much effort on the F-16's. Pitot-less F-14's aren't very common. (Though VF-2 high-vis would be so). Asides from the pitot, the VF-111 looks quite accurate. (Though I do have issues with the overall sculpt---strange, since Dragon seems to really be nailing the overall shape/outlines---but the F-14 looks "stubby" to me, or something)

MANY people equate diecast with quality/collectibility. Trust me, I've seen many flame wars that are basically "plastic vs diecast". There are a lot of people who would gladly pay more money for an ERTL F-16 than an expertly built Hasegawa F-16, simply because it's metal. I have seen many people reject a very nicely detailed, new model simply because the wings (and only the wings) were plastic, and it wasn't "100% metal" and they buy the less accurate, less detailed model (with solid metal wings) because it was metal. As for the F-14's: I'm waiting to see the Sundowners one first. No nose probe is as stupid an error as no pylons for the F-15E. And I would be very (happily) surprised if the VF-2 one was done right, as an early F-14A. (Because that would mean the Wolfpack one could be done right) Black Aces: yup, it's Fast Eagle 107, one of the shooters.

May not have a rudder, but you'll always need yaw control. No different than a modern FBW plane. An F-18 has an insanely complex control system, you never have direct control over anything--you tell it what to do and it does it. (F-18's LOOK conventional, but they move 8-10 control surfaces just for a simple roll) What the plane actually uses to accomplish it doesn't matter, whether it's an F-18's rudders or a Viper's verniers. Feet=yaw, regardless of how or why it's achieved. (Pedals also work the brakes on the ground, but that's not very relevant) (and nosewheel steering at low speeds)

Pontiac, though I do believe the Corvette has the option as well. (They also get a tach on theirs, I'm jealous).

In real life, HUD's are very easy to see from the outside, at least those projected on a combiner glass. Don't know about those projected directly on the windscreen. ::heads to garage, checks car:: (Yes, if anyone on this planet got the HUD option on their car, it'd be me) Now THAT is interesting. Can't see it at all from the outside. My car's HUD is like an F-14---it projects it directly onto the windscreen, there's no separate combiner glass plate. Soooo---can we assume any F-14-style HUD isn't visible from the outside? Because I know first-hand F-16 HUD's etc are visible from 100ft away if they're turned on and in a FLIR/LANTIRN display mode etc.