David Hingtgen

Binaltech/Alternators: Actually like Smokescreen the most. The rest of the line is quickly becoming shellformers. Tracks especially.

I don't recall Rogue Squadron games having a HUD. IIRC most every "recent" SW flight sim etc (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Rogue Squadron etc) have a gunsight, but not a true HUD. As I mentioned with the F-4, if all you have is a green circle and a dot moving around (and a little box surrounding the target), that's not a HUD. It's simply to help you aim.

Let's see: 1. According to the SW Vehicles guide (can never remember exact title) the X-Wing normally has Incom "4L4" engines, with 4j.4 engines as an alternate installation. Perhaps Red 3 has the 4j.4's, and some even have 2x 4L4 and 2x 4j.4's. Mixing engines is quite possible on airliners, though rarely done AFAIK. Can't think of any military fighter etc. that ever mixes sub-types. (Though not much reason it can't be done, most modern engines can "recognize" a mix of types and automatically lower the performance of the other engines to match the least-powerful engine installed, so they all behave the same). In any case if it's an "approved" mixing of types, they behave so similarly anyways you probably wouldn't notice a difference. (Actually, acceleration rates are the main thing, total thrust etc. isn't so much a factor as how the engines "behave") 2. Rebel ships have their handy "targeting computer" that comes out in front of the pilot's eyes for "critical" targeting. Unless you're using The Force to target... 3. If you want to see a big HUD, look at a USAF Block 40 or 42 F-16. Those are huge. Much bigger in real life (heh heh) than you'd think from the pics. It's very similar to my current view sitting here typing this in front of my monitor. Though a Block 40/42 HUD has very thick framing, unlike the "frameless" EF-2000 HUD pic Graham posted. 4. I can't find any mention at all of the first fighter with a HUD. F-14? (Plenty of F-4's have HUD's NOW, but none were built with one AFAIK---while they did have a "glass plate with things projected on it" it's a floating gunsight only--no speed/alt/G/alpha/vector/range etc) 5. I'm going to agree with Skippy and say it's purely to see the actor's faces. Like the helmet design in that "Stealth" movie.

The dual tandems (those would be the wheels etc for those unversed in trailer lingo) just kill it for me. MP Prime's biggest flaw IMHO is the entire wheel/fender/suspension setup. Completely utterly unrealistic to a real semi. Hotwheels are more accurate. And this trailer just copies it and emphasizes it. Not to mention that Prime's wheels (size-wise) are very disproportionate compared to the rest of the toy/real trucks, which has always made it hard to try to calculate what scale MP Prime is. When only part of it is to scale with itself, what scale is it? Of course, I've ranted (not here though) quite a lot on how much vehicle mode was sacrificed on MP Prime for robot mode, to the point that very minor robot mode improvements came at major inaccuracies for truck mode... (I have always favored vehicle modes in any toy, from G1 to Macross---which is why TF Armada etc does nothing for me but I loved TF Robots in Disguise)

Hmmn. The YF-23 has a surprising number of accurate details. The gear is quite correct, if crude. However, it is YF-23 #1, painted up as YF-23 #2. (PW vs GE is really obvious on the -23). And the belly panel lines are totally made up. I'd say it's closer to 1/72 than 1/100. 1/80? 1/85? It should be a little bit longer than a -15 with a little bit LESS span. (Real life it's about 5 feet longer but 5 feet narrower than the -15, but the overall wing area is 50% greater due to chord) It's far too big to be 1/100. Hey Graham--if you need replacement YF-23 gear, just do like the manufacturer did--take an F-15's nosegear and an F-18's main gear. Just remove the "shock absorbers" from the -18 gear and you're good to go. Everything that's not the actual airframe of the -23 is standard McDonnellDouglas parts. From the ejection seat to the gear.

Some of the more recent Dragon F-15's are being re-released with Sparrows, Drop Tanks, a tarmac, and ground crew: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp Just scroll down a little. Hmmn, looks like the Sparrows are attached like they should be, on the fuselage corners. I still haven't bought the Langley F-15C, guess I'll wait for this version to be available. And no, I don't think they added the pylons to the F-15E, we're not that lucky. And I really don't think they carry twin Paveways like that on the wings. (They're obviously re-using the set some F-16's come with)

I'd like to see the engines and belly.

$35,000 is a LOT for a PSP cover... http://www.the-magicbox.com/0503/game050328i.shtml

I'm on TFW2005, and I know Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 is as well.

I never got S on Ace for Whiskey Corridor. Mission is just so LONG to try over and over. Still got every scheme though.

Now that I think about it, I think you can actually do considerably less than that. Merely unlocking the X-02 isn't that hard, it's getting the 2nd and 3rd colors that requires all the aces, etc. X-02's are like 2 million bucks each I think, took me more than 1 entire playthrough to get enough cash for each of the special colors. Though IMHO, getting the 3rd Su-37 color is hardest of all, last thing I got.

Shoot down the aces in every level, in an actual play-through (not free mission), on hard. Also helps to have an S on every mission (can use free mission for this). (There's still AFAIK no consensus on EXACTLY what the minimum requirements are, but this'll almost certainly do it)

I cannot STAND dead pixels of any kind, period. The "wait a week and see if it still bothers" you is about as utter BS as I've ever heard. And what's with "if determined to be defective"? Do they have testers play your machine after you send it to them, and see if they think it's annoying enough to warrant a new screen or machine? Anyways, when I bought a GB color, it had a "dead" pixel. Always lit blue, just left and above of dead center. Less than 1 hour after I called Nintendo (on my 1-hour old GBC) they had contacted a FedEx driver, who stopped at my house and sent it to Nintendo at Nintendo's expense, and I had a new GBC within 5 days, again returned via FedEx overnight. I may consider Nintendo at the bottom of the list for games/hardware at the moment, but their customer service can't be beat in my experience.

F-12 would have had vastly greater endurance than the F-108. F-108 had like 10 mins max at Mach 3 (which is actually a lot as supersonic interceptors go). Blackbirds etc CRUISE at Mach 3... AFAIK, most Mach 2+ fighters can only go max speed for less than 10 minutes (usually more like 5), mainly as a result of afterburner fuel usage, secondarily for heating effects on the aircraft.

The comparison that is always made is F-100 vs F-8. Same engine, same role, same time. And the F-8 kicked its butt, hard, in every category. Thus, the F-100 wasn't that good, since with the same knowledge, materials, engine, etc the F-8 did a much better job. All while carrying a few extra thousand pounds to make it carrier-capable! (mainly the massive landing gear) That could really be considered a "Vought vs North American" contest---give two teams the same goal, same materials, etc---and see who makes the better plane. PS--if you like the Matchbox F-100, get it. For the price, Matchbox 1/72 planes are nice.

Finally some news to post... Elmendorf is going to be the 2nd base to get F/A-22's, after Langley. http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-742601.php Interesting, I wonder how replacing Strike Eagles with Raptors will work out. "Half the load, twice the ingress speed" has never really seemed to be an objective for bomb-delivery... I would have figured Kadena or Osan, not Elmendorf of all places...

If it's a fighter jet, going out to fight, it's got HEI. A-10's of course have their tank-busting ammo, but that's certainly not your standard anti-air load... (it's 4:1 AP:HEI btw) The "does everything" round still isn't that common in the US AFAIK. Because it likes to explode... There's little need for AP because aircraft no longer have armor. The only reason the new SAP/HEI came about is because so many planes nowaday are multi-role, and are 100x more likely to be firing at tanks, jeeps, trucks, bunkers, SAM sites, infantry, etc than they are another plane. The only time a US F-14 has ever used its gun has been for strafing. The F-15E, F-16CG, etc are probably going to get a LOT more use out of a "stops vehicles dead" round than a "makes fuel-filled aircraft wings burn" round. Basically---since the MiG-29 (in original form) is about as pure air-to-air as it comes, it'd almost certainly be loaded with HEI. The MiG-29 isn't nearly as adaptable to the strike role as the Flanker, and will probably remain primarily air-to-air with only limited air-to-ground for its entire existence.

I'd be surprised if it was anything but HEI.

Nitpick: The Intrepid has an A-12, not an SR-71. There actually are rather few SR-71's on display, 9 out of 10 "SR-71's" are actually A-12's. Even otherwise "accurate" museums will proudly put up a big "SR-71" plaque next to their A-12, figuring nobody would notice, and since the A-12 has almost no name recognition. And don't think it'll ever move, it was a heck of a job to get it on board in the first place. The only real true SR-71 on display I can think of right now is the one that was at Offutt, and is now roughly in the middle of nowhere, Nebraska. Maybe the new Dulles part of the NASM has one. (Actually I think they do, probably the one that did the final record-setting flight).

I would absolutely postively make sure to see the carrier Intrepid. If you're going to the WTC, it's not too far away AFAIK. Intrepid's collection of planes rivals that of the Smithsonian IMHO for "coolness". http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/

If you want a hot ninja, buy Nightshade. In addition to being an awesome game in its own right, Hibana's one of the best video game females in a long time, IMHO. And after you win, you can play as Hisui.... And Nightshade/Kunoichi is easier than Shinobi, thankfully.

Guessing: Cobalt blue with blood red. That's an incredibly "red" shade of purple. Do not dare add any sort of "bright" red for they are inherently orange, and orange+blue=brown=drab, and you need an intense color. Use pale blue (watch out for greenish-blues) to lighten if necessary, or even pinks/magenta. Actually, royal blue plus hot magenta might work pretty well. Insignia Red is probably the brightest "non-orange/scarlet" red there is. Best paint-mixing book I've found is "Yellow+Blue DOESN'T make Green" or something like that. Because it's very true because pigments are not "pure". Depending on differences between paint/monitor/what you want, you may want to try EVA-01 purple. On TV (at least mine) EVA-01 is pretty "neutral" but a lot of models/paints of it lean towards the reddish side of purple.

Worked for a little while. Now forums and threads are ok, it's reply and quote that keeps refusing me.

Sea Harriers are 1980's, nothing later. I have the Matchbox F-104's, due to there being no other 1/72 F-104 to get. Nice enough, and for $12 at Target, hard to complain. The bare-metal F-104 is actually two different shades, not simply "silver all over".

Back on topic: Clearing out MW's cookie seemed to work (for the moment), but I won't know until I click through a few dozen more sub-forums etc.