David Hingtgen

Omega Supreme---the "train" is the epitome of "we SAY it's a train, so it is". That's a "vehicle" connected to another "thing". Not a train. I'd love a train. TF trains are rare, and 90% of them are bullet trains. You know, there's FREIGHT trains too. Ship half---sigh. Tidal Wave's carrier is clearly based on a real carrier, too many details to be guess-work. But OS's "battleship" is so off, it's cleary along the lines of "hey you, make a battleship" and the guy just went straight to work off of fantasy images in his head, not even glancing at a pic of a real one. PS--just look at the "train" pic, and turn your head sideways---WHAT transformation is there? It's his right half, laying on its side.

E3 is a million times easier to get in.

Here you go: http://www.toy-tia.org/Content/NavigationM...al_TOY_FAIR.htm But you can't just "get in". First thing they want is your Hasbro/Mattel/Palisades/Bandai/etc ID.

Just wondering if anyone has enough connections, etc to get in this weekend. I'm fairly sure somebody (Kevin Lam?) from here went last year. Odds of Macross stuff being there isn't *too* high, but Toynami's sure to make an appearance, and of course Bandai. And even Hasegawa should show, as it's not PURELY toys---lots of model companies come. Never know what will show up, or who might have acquired what license. Maybe we'll all be surprised if Yamato shows up.

A big thing for me is accurately modeled aircraft (of course). For anyone who has the game, can you tell me how the F-4 and F-14 are? Basically, when you roll the plane--what does the game show for moving control surfaces? These two planes will instantly highlight how much (if any) research went into the flight models. AC4's Tomcat is so far off it bugs me every time I fly. The F-4 is unusual, but so highly documented and so old (40+ years) there's no excuse not to get it right. (And for the F-14, I need wings swept and unswept--AC4 is even more wrong when swept). Sigh, I hate it when things get worse--AC2 had overall more accurate control surfaces for most planes, AC4 actually made it worse on most. Tornado's the best. Ironically, the Tornado is really close to how the Tomcat SHOULD be. Sigh(2)---a LOT of military planes do not have ailerons, and/or do not rely on them much. Nobody seems to notice that.

rdenham---yup, they're pretty washed-up/high contrast. PS--Ironically, I have nearly the exact same F-4's, only the Corgi versions.

Yargh! My first draft specifically mentioned the non-Sea Harrier. But I couldn't really think of a good way to say it. I hold the current FRS.2 Sea Harrier as a great BVR fighter. Ok, I'll try again: The F-35 is way better than the AV-8B+, and the GRS.Mk7 current-issue ground-attack/CAS non-Sea non-air-combat Harriers.

If there's one thing truckers chrome (after the bumper) it's the stacks. (then air cleaners, then fuel tanks, then wheels--because chrome on wheels just doesn't last long on a truck).

I'm pretty much agreeing with Graham here----internal payload is almost nothing, and has almost no close-range air-to-air capability. And if you want it to carry anything more than 2 JDAM's for offense, your stealth is gone. The F-35 is superior to a Harrier in every way. However, most everything is. But to make it an F-16/18 replacement? Very apprehensive about that. It should be used for a niche stealth role, IMHO. Of course, if we had naval YF-23's (or even F-22's) we wouldn't have that problem... (I am a fan of *big* planes---they are inherently better IMHO---you don't see them heavily modified to add fuel, fuel tanks, range, fuel, missiles, pylons, more pylons, and more fuel every five years---they're big enough to carry decent fuel and payload as is). If nothing else, the F-22 is big, and that right there solves a lot of problems. Big enough to start with. Coota---you're right, the intake wasn't stealthy on the -32. One of many reasons the X-35 was way stealthier.

Same way nuclear ships do. Shielding. And you can probably rather easily incorporate extra shielding into an over-tech flightsuit.

Yup, the Fujimi has by far the best fit. But it still needs work on the intake undersides, IIRC. And now they're hard to find/expensive. I currently have the following attitude towards models: if there's a good affordable diecast version, I buy it. Thus, I buy 1/72 and 1/400 planes, and 1/18 cars. There are currently no ships anywhere near the price/quality range I want. Ironically Franklin Mint makes one of the cheapest, the $600 Missouri. Which is painted totally wrong. Everything else is either painted even more incorrectly, or costs several grand. Thus, I slowly build my own ships. Finish/fit aren't as good (I am not that good a modeler---mass-produced stuff made by poor laborers in China can and will do a better job than me), but at least they're painted right, which is VERY important when we're talking about camoflage schemes. Nothing annoys me more than seeing an all-grey US battleship, when NONE were ever painted like that. Even in peace-time, there should be 2 or 3 colors on the decks. Dragon's planes rock because they are basically pre-painted diecast versions of Hasegawa's kits. At half the price. (And this has me fearful that Dragon's F-15E will have the same errors as Hase's)

That 1/64 Corgi looks to have a nice finish, but it's the infamous "almost but not quite a D", and the overall shape just looks off. Too short/squat. Anyways---I want a consistent scale if at all possible. Dragon's F-15 is delayed, but it IS coming. (March is current best guess). Ironically, the weapons sets are already out, so you can tell how the missiles will mount, since the AIM-7's are clearly intended for F-15's only. (Makes me wonder what they'll do for the F-14---Phoenix only?) Tamiya---all F-14's are inherently more difficult and time-consuming than any other plane, which is why I don't build them. Even a Tamiya. Also, the excessively high price is another. (Their 1/350 ships are several times larger, fit better, yet cost a lot less) I'd like one of the Gaincorp Flankers, but the price is a bit high. Will snag one if they ever go down. The Su-35 looks especially neat.

Which explains why I have stress marks and a chip in my Sideswipe's arms. You know, it's impossible to TF Smokescreen like they show it, too. Dear Hasbro: how hard is it to photocopy the Japanese black and white instructions? A monkey of moderate intelligence is able to do that, can't you. Why do you persist in doing your own, messed-up instructions lacking half the steps which only lead to broken TF's? And anyways--the ugliest cars are the Focus, and Echo. THEN the PT cruiser and Aztek.

Yeah, but like 99.99999999999% of space is empty. On TV, everything always takes place practically in-orbit, or near a really cool-looking nebula, just so stuff looks interesting. But you can assume that most of the time, you'll be in a pretty featureless area--aka "deep space". Not "3 hours out from Earth".

I've always been fond of the "giant mirror" theory for space camoflage. Just chrome-plate the whole plane. And depending on how scientifically sound the plot of the movie is, it might deflect lasers too!

I'll second that--the gun handle will "click" into place at like 80% retracted---push harder and make sure you've got it 100% retracted. The clearance is small, but it is there--and there won't be any if the gun's not completely closed up.

zentrandude---frontal area is the critical for stealth, at least for fighters. Then rear. (For all). mikeszekely--whoa, hey---I give the YF-22 the edge in close combat, but BVR? Where do you get that? YF-23 is stealthier, and faster--it can launch AMRAAMs from longer range at a higher speed (the two go together), and is harder to detect/counterattack.

The main problem is requiring visual ID of targets. And even that doesn't work sometimes. Doesn't matter if you've got a 100-mile range missile, if the rules of engagement require you to actually see it before you shoot it. F-14 is still #1 in that regard. PS---the "real" name for the F-117 should be the A-11A. Right after our beloved Warthog.

Sorry, not my area. Now, if you want to talk about what scale an Alternators F-15 should be...

24-hour light-grey stealths? Isn't that what F-22's are for? Still, light grey is what they were painted years ago when they operated in daylight. Need more pics to evaluate the scheme's pattern. The F-22's scheme (which is modified from the 80's F-15 scheme) sure wouldn't work on the F-117...

Yes, black does suck on Earth, at night. That's why B-2's are dark grey, not black. (F-117's are black just because the AF wants them that way). Earth NEVER gets *pitch* black, only very dark blue. 99% of the time, a ship or plane is spotted because it is darker than it's background--and black is darker than anything, even the night sky. Surprisingly, on a moonless, utterly dark night in the middle of the ocean, white is supposed to be best. Of course, that rarely occurs. If there's ANY local light, it's the worst. Stealths ARE quiet, but it's a side-effect. The real goal is to make the engines cooler, to lower the IR signature. However, that's also the best way to reduce noise. Airliners try to have as cool exhaust as possible to make them quiet, fighters do it to reduce their heat signature. Of course, nowadays, it's a good idea for airliners to have lower IR signatures too... The methods are very similar, as regardless of what you're trying to do, it's going to happen by mixing the exhaust with the ambient air more rapidly and thoroughly. The latest 777 engines even have serrated exhausts. It all goes together.

Cdr Fokker---there's no true, accurate, definition of STOVL vs VTOL. It's whatever they feel like calling it. Has been ever since the days of the early Sea Harriers. I've seen X-35B's on TV take off and land vertically. That's good enough for me to call it VTOL. Kinght26---yes, they're all fugly and pointless, but if they're going to build them anyway, they might as well build the better one. I'd still rather have more Block 50 F-16C's though. Sigh, on IMPORTANT things like the front-line ATF, they pick the wrong one. But for a Harrier replacement, THAT's what they spend time analyzing...

Head to Wal-Mart. Not a big selection, but they've *always* got tons of Monogram $10 1/72 F-14/15/18's to work with. Cheap, decent kits, and something you'd probably want a model of anyway. No sense (IMHO) working on a Mustang when you're trying to practice on a VF-1. (Honestly, F-16's and F-18's are among the easiest to work with, as models go--F-14's are inherently not that easy, and F-15's are moderate) It's all about the intakes, and forward fuselage--neither of which most WW2 plane kits even deal with.

Yeah--the -35 is one of the few ones where the obviously superior plane won, and everyone agreed it was better. Buddhafabio's got to be the first person I've ever seen say the -32 was better. And a key thing WAS the -35's engine design--the -32's was markedly inferior (especially if you watched the NOVA program), and everyone was saying one of the most important things for a new VTOL plane was to get away from the Harrier-style design--and the -32 didn't. It also REALLY helped that Lockheed partnered with BAe. Remember--Boeing's never designed a successful fighter, and still haven't. They do the guppy-mouth again and again, and it's rejected every time. And when the "obviously ex-MDC guys" suggested giving it a YF-23-style tail to get a massive boost in stealthiness, they rejected it. The X-32 got further than most Boeing designs before being rejected though. Plus the fact that a production F-32 would have been redesigned to be a delta-winged plane! THAT'D sure delay the program!

Chronocidal--both the YF-22 and YF-23 beat anything we have today, hands-down. Don't worry about them being agile enough to replace the F-14. (of course, we need a navalised version for that to happen). But no other plane can carry the Phoenix, it's just big. And certainly can't carry it internally. However, a key part of a missile's range is the speed it's launched at. Since YF-22/23 supercruise a lot, they'll almost always be able to launch AMRAAM's at high-speed, giving them a nice boost to their range. Still not a Phoenix, but still a good range with very high speed. But of course, with the YF-23 being inherently faster than the -22, it can launch them even faster. The YF-23 is big, but is also has an incredibly low wing-loading, lower than even the YF-22's. It also has MASSIVE control surfaces, most notably the tail. As for costing money to make---Northrop sure knows how to build exotic stealthy shapes, the YF-23 coming straight from the B-2. (That's why it's stealthier than the -22---Northrop's stealths are much stealthier than Lockheed's). The F-22, while generally conventional, still uses lots of pioneering/expensive methods to build it, like its entirely beam-welded center area. Strong, light, and expensive. F-14 did it for the wing-pivot area, as it was critical. F-22's doing it for much of the plane.