David Hingtgen

I actually have no idea. It's been on my hard drive for years. Just a lone cutaway. No others that I know of. I'm pretty sure it was an attachment from this forum from long ago.

You'd probably be more interested if I remembered to attach it:

YF-19's my fave valk, here's what I think (based on the animaton): Nothing on the leading edge. Certainly not slats. If you've gotta have something, give it the "current standard" like an F-16/22--a hinged leading edge. One big huge flap that is the entire front of the wing. Trailing edge: outboard flaperon, inboard flaps. (That means the inboard section only moves when you put the flaps down--it's a flap, nothing more. But the outboard section normally acts like an aileron, but when you ask for flaps down, it'll go down as well---but if you want to roll with the flaps down, it'll still move, just not as much as normal--it'll try to still act as a flap (staying down) but will move a little) Basically, if you ask for "flaps 35", a flaperon will only go down to like 20, while the "real" flaps go to 35. This way, it's still acting like a flap, but if you need to roll, it'll go like 15 degrees either way--down to 35, or up to 5---it'll still move, but it'll have a "new" neutral. The thing is--Hasegawa's kit doesn't agree with the animation. The kit gives 3, possibly 4 different control surfaces on the trailing edge. Maybe 2 up front. Are they "really" there, or just there because Hasegawa LOVES to add in panel lines and no-step markings? (And didn't want a nigh-featureless wing like an F-15) 4 trailing-edge controls on a fighter is unheard of. Only the most complex of airliner wings have something like that. (727, 747, 767, DC-10) If you want 3 or 4 control surfaces on the trailing edge, you'll have to come up with them yourself. Kind of depends what you consider canon. If you want, I will try to figure out a 4-control surface. ::edit:: Looking closer, I think it may be 3 on the trailing edge, with the inboard-most one just being a little mini-flap, like F-14's have. Only functional when wing is fully un-swept, and will move to match the main flap just outboard of it. Otherwise, it stays in "neutral" whenever the wing is at all swept. Wing loading: YF-19's (in fact, all valks) don't weight as much as they should. It's like saying you've got a new SUV that weighs 2,500lbs. Unlikely. Maybe if it was made of lithium... But, since you're going for a flight sim, and you want it to "behave" right, Try from 80 to 130 lbs per square foot. 80 would make it like an F-16 (if you want the thing agile as heck), 130 would be like an F-14 (more appropriate, since the YF-19's pretty bulky compared to it's wings). But with the YF-19 being very light for its size, plus its small wings, it'd probably come out to be pretty normal by today's stnadards anyway. ::edit again:: So you can get an estimate of the wing area? Well then plane weight divided by wing area is your wing loading. (Of course, whether it wants full or empty weight is the question--most fighters usually list "combat" wing loadings--a decent fuel load, and a decent missile load--not full, not empty) Could you specify the engine stats it wants? Is it asking for like N1, EPR, EGT, or what exactly? Anything not mentioned, I could make up a believable stat. Here, you might be interested in this pic:

I had forgotten how many "wrong plane" shots there were. If it wasn't an F-14, assume the plane they were showing WASN'T the plane they were talking about. (Ironically, they even did a "Top Gun" and showed some F-5's as MiG's)

I was always *this* close to getting the Rinoa statue, but settled on the figure instead. Should have bought it---most of mine are in pairs, but Quistis is all alone...

Those vinyl statues rock. I have Quistis, Lulu, and FFX Yuna. Don't plan on FFX-2 Yuna, but am definitely getting Paine. (Yes, all 3 are being done, just not technically announced by Previews yet for US import--but they've never missed a one since FF8) You can expect Rikku and Paine to be announced soon.

It's been confirmed for a while now the stacks are chopped. Remeber, Hasbro said months ago that it was their GOAL to have the same stacks. Well, they failed that goal. (Nobody really expected them, it was the most "placating" news post in a while from Hasbro). They also said the gun will be black. It's not, it's grey like the JP one, at least for the first wave. Now people are saying it'll be a running change. We'll see. And US Prime has battle damage painted on.

Max Sidewinder load is 4, one on each stub-pylon on the wing pylon, and one on each pylon itself. (The F-14's wing-glove pylon can't actually carry anything itself. But it can take MANY adapters--most commonly the Sparrow adapter. But the stub pylon's rail can only hold Sidewinder adapters, and things like it--targeting pods, etc) Max Sparrow is 6---4 on the belly, and 1 on each wing pylon. You can do 6/2 Sparrow/Sidewinder. You can also do 4/4, just like your standard F-15 load. Sidewinders, 2 per side: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-aim09-01l.jpg (notice that they're live weapons, this is likely on an actual mission photographed by the wingman) Also, I did find a pic of a Sidewinder on a stub pylon while a Phoenix was on the main, so you CAN do 6/2 Phx/Side. But you're not going to see 2 Sparrows anywhere when you've got 6 Phx, there's nowhere to put them. F-14's are much more versatile than F-15A/C's, weapons-wise.

Heh, don't even get me started on battleships. I can tell the individual Iowa's apart... (especially since I'm converting the Missouri into the Iowa, piece by piece...) ::edit:: 6 Phoenixes on an F-14. Perfectly acceptable. One condition: it's so heavy, you cannot land on a carrier like that. So only if you're going to be landing on a "real" runway. Good for training, airshows, Top Gun, etc. If the F-14 ever does its true design role, fleet defense, they would be launched that way, since they would be expected to fire them off and take out enemy planes. (You can take back 4, which is why you usually see them with that many--but if you leave with 6, you better get rid of two before getting back to the carrier, one way or another) Are you sure it was 6/2/2 Phx/Sprw/Side? Because I don't think you can carry Phoenixes AND Sparrows on a wing-glove pylon. Not too sure about Sidewinders either. Of course, for test flights you can try just about anything.

There are no "absolute rules". It always depends on the situation. But at very high altitudes, the F-14 owns all. It's the wing gloves... (and the fuselage) (Also, it's very smooth and stable when bombing, very accurate) (Plus the sheer power that the F-14D has---if they'd have had that engine 20 years ago, the F-14 would be an even greater legend than it is)

Yes, quite a few mistakes. But it's still better than most. Sad, isn't it? 20 mistakes are better than 40... But they do go over the Iranian F-14's, and it's at least a modern overview of the F-14---too many documentaries are too old to even have the F-14D, and sometimes even F-14B, in it.

Fri, Jan 9, 10PM Eastern, 9 central. The History Channel. One of the better and more interesting F-14 shows out there. Of course, try to ignore when they accidently show F-15's instead... The show repeats 4 hours later. Mods---this thread only needs to be up for 20 hours or so, can I have that much?

Pretty darn variable in my experience. But I'll tell you what I can: Overall best day for toys: Friday. TRU, Wal-Mart, and ESPECIALLY Target. If you only check once a week, do it around 2PM on a Friday... Decent/good times to check Wal-Mart: Sun. afternoon, Tues. or Wed. night.

*Alternators* are 1/24. But Prime is not an Alternator. And he is most definitely NOT 1/24. ::rechecks some things:: You know, now I'm thinking Prime might be 1/32, not 1/28. 1mm makes a difference when going by wheel size to calculate scale... But wheels should definitely match. Just about every semi, tanker, and trailer, will have 22.5 inch wheels, at all locations. About the only alternative you'll see is 24.5 inch wheels. ::goes to measure again:: Hmmn, too small for 1/28, can get at most 19 inch wheels from that. But 1/32 gives 20-21 (I don't have micro-calipers or anything to measure THAT precisely). If I fudge a bit and go with 11/16 of an inch actually, in 1/32 that give 22 scale inches--only a TINY bit too small for 22.5in wheels. So now I'm thinking 1/32 is the better fit. (It could be they made Prime a random custom scale, like 1/30.67---but it makes more sense they made him a common model truck scale, just so he'd "look right") (Wheel size is one of the few constants out there for trucks--wheelbase, overall height, and other things vary due to options even on the exact same model for the same year--and wheelbase can vary by several *feet*, overall height by a half-foot at least due to suspension type/condition alone---too much to leave to chance when trying to determine exact scale)

That was kind of one of my points, though it isn't flat-out stated. (Guess I should have)-- valks certainly do have unconventional missions by our standards! You know, fighting interplanetary alien battleships and all, and wooing hot alien women (oh wait, that's just Max's mission...)

I'm going to debate a while before I pick 1/28 or 1/32 for a trailer. If you notice, G1 Prime has a proportionately wider trailer than the one Mr Sci-Fi used (It is very good though, best fan-trailer I've seen yet, best size, too). As semi's go, G1 Prime isn't that big. If he was say, a Peterbilt 379, he'd look good with a 1/32. But I think a 1/28 might give the extra "boost" needed to make the trailer the correct proportions in size. Wish I could bring my MP Prime into Wal-Mart to do comparisons... (I don't dare) Since you can snag 1/28 trailers at Wal-Mart (just the trailers alone, no semi) they're cheap enough to buy to experiment. I plan on snagging one tomorrow, I'll take pics and let people see how it looks, compared to the 1/32. (Went tonight, but the closer Wal-Mart didn't have any--will go to the other Wal-Mart tomorrow)

I've never seen range as a consideration for missile loading location. If you think about it that way, your standard F-14 and current F-15ANG loadouts are the opposite of that. Long-range inboard, medium in the middle, and short-range outboard. Because long-range missiles are bigger, and thus should be inboard where possible. Generally, most aircraft don't really perform a true mixed mission. It's either air-to-air or air-to-ground. You don't send off a bunch of F-18's to take out a target, then expect them to go air-to-air. Most attack planes carry SOME air-to-air armament at all times for self-defense. But none are sent out expecting to actually fully perform two roles. Even the F-15E isn't expected to do that, despite that fact that once its bombs are dropped, it's effectively an F-15D with FAST packs and AMRAAMs and even better radar and ECM than the D, and would beat anything else in the sky. And you often see Strike Valks configured pure RMS-1's, not mixed with others. It happens, but like F-15E's, they're mainly expected to fulfill an attack role, not dogfight. Come back and get reloaded if you want to engage enemy fighters, don't go head-to-head with whatever you've got remaining after your primary mission's done.

Yup, fuel tank location is even more important than size. (for looking "right") Sometimes, you'll see the tanks mounted right behind the front wheels, for weight distribution. But never "aft of normal". Tank size can vary a lot, but MP Prime's are too small for even the smallest, IMHO. Prime's tanks should have a volume like 4 times what they are, if you want the most common of the big tank--150 gallons. 120's are the next size down. Prime's are like, 50's... Finally--the elbow-pistons---why THREE of them? Really obvious in truck mode. C'mon, if there was just one, the middle one, it'd look much better in truck mode. Off to Wal-Mart tonight to look for trailers...

A-7's had specially designed wings for bomb-carrying---very strong, very stiff. The A-7 is basically a highly modified F-8. Lost the F-8's variable incidence capabilities, and lost its abilities as a fighter. A-7's are WEIRD. (Ugly for a reason) Their outboard pylons are actually rated higher than the inboards. Because it's the outboard sections of the wings that were the most strengthened compared to the F-8. So the outboards actually surpassed the inboards, in load-capacity. And yes, you'll see drop tanks outboard on an A-7---but only the smaller ones, with the larger ones outboard. A-7's have a much higher load capacity than any plane its size, but they still put the heavier stuff inboard. (For drag/balance reasons, not weight--since the inboards are actually weaker than the outboards---so drag/balance must over-rule pylon capacity in some situations) Still--show me a *fighter* with heavy stuff outboard. B-52's can carry heavy tanks outboard, because its a friggin huge heavy strategic bomber. (And because they kind of only ever have to fly straight). (And they still carry heavy bombs and cruise missiles inboard, for they carry such large amounts that they outweigh the tanks) Yes there's lots of planes that can carry relatively heavy stuff outboard. But they still generally keep the heaviest stuff inboard. A big drop tank has more mass/drag/yaw than a medium one, thus A-7's carry the big ones inboard. (Though with drop tanks, you rarely have to worry about asymmetry--you drop them in pairs, not singly--but when full, there's still a lot of mass there) F-111's are just freaks, with their "some of them swing" variable pylons, and the removal of their true outboard ones, with the limited clearance on the inboards with their custom Sidewinders, that they have some pretty weird loading characteristics. Heh heh, found this while I was checking things: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ST-91-09662.jpg 124th TFS, my home squadron. I grew up watching those.

Taurus, Intrepid, Grand Prix etc---they are physically/externally VERY different from the NASCAR versions. There's not a single piece of a NASCAR Grand Prix that will fit on a street Grand Prix. The NASCAR cars have only the overall external shape SIMILAR to the street versions. Rear-wheel drive manual V-8's and FWD automatic V-6's have completely different chassis, for starters... Putting stickers on a Monte Carlo means you've got the same colors, nothing more. The body is completely different. As is the chassis, and interior. And drivetrain. If you ever see a rally Vette, you at least know that underneath it all, it's still a Vette. Not the same with any NASCAR car. A '97 Camaro RS is much more mechanically similar to a '99 Grand Prix than a NASCAR Grand Prix is. (Wanna guess what I drive?) As opposed to a Subaru Impreza, where you can actually make a rally version from a street version, etc. They're different in the details, not wholly different cars that somewhat look alike.

Got mine today too, (barely). Windows are frosted-slightly-blue. I expected *clear* blue based on pics, but that's apparently not the case. I noted the LED itself is actually a white LED, which is why it's so bright. (Gotta wonder if the US one will be toned down to be child's-eye safe) Ah, tall stacks. As they should be. (I know semi's--not nearly as well as I know planes, but enough to know what factors dictate stack-height on semi's--and Prime's should be the tallest of any type of truck on the road) I'm probably one of the few people who want the most accurate truck possible--I think the truck mode was compromised too much for the robot. --It's always the fuel tanks. They make or break the truck mode. Large ones don't ruin robot mode, but little ones mounted too far aft ruin truck mode. And the waist is too visible. Interestingly, if you look at the last few pages of his instruction book, it looks like Hasbro actually designed a perfect truck mode, with a robot mode more reminiscient of the G1, then handed it over to Takara for the detail engineering (as usual) and Takara kind of redid everything so as to make a perfectly accurate robot mode. Though they kept all of the gimmicks Hasbro asked for. (The original design sketches are obviously US in origin--the notes and details are in English, with US-references--like TM Optimus Primal, Armada Prime, etc) Interesting how pretty much the entire transformation was already thought out, yet almost none of it made it to the final design. Makes me wonder--what if we had gotten that perfect truck, but a "better but still not TV-accurate" robot mode? Who'd prefer what? (If there was just like a flap to cover his waist, and we had larger, more forward-mounted fuel tanks it'd help truck mode a LOT, without compromising robot mode very much at all)

Mr Sci-Fi---what'd you start with? And was it 1/28 scale? I just got my MP Prime today, and a quick estimated-calculation of my own came up with 1/28, which is fairly common for model/toy semi's. I saw some 1/28 trailers at Wal-Mart recently, and thought they'd be good, if they were the right size. Now I have to go back and see if they still have them. (Not having the specs for the real truck Prime is based on, I went by drive-wheel size, which is fairly constant among all semis for the past 30 years)

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Editor: Jon Lake. (It's by World Air Power Journal/Aerospace(Airtime) Publishing--all basically the same company, many names)

We really could use a sequel to Sega Rally 2, especially with "Smokescreen" in it. Build awareness, etc.

Trying to clarify my point: Yes, all rally cars have "that look". But only the ones made from Japanese cars often have "copies" (usually riceified) running around on the streets here. I mean, you don't usually see a steet Volkswagen looking like that, despite there being rally racing versions of them. Many many cars have racing versions. But only the JP Rally cars are copied, by ricers.