David Hingtgen

I've ordered from here once or twice: http://www.hobbyplus.net/shopping/default.htm No compliments, no complaints. Ordered stuff, it came. (Yes, they're in Canada and I'm in the US--but local places had jacked up the price so high it was cheaper to get it from Canada! )

I saved the box, and the MAXL appears to be overall pale pink. Very similar to Vierge. (I actually used Vierge as my painting basis--I know its scheme EXACTLY and I swear one of them copied the other--probably Vierge copied MAXL). Big thing to watch for is the hands. Chick-mechs always have white hands but black fingers, and pink wrists and elbows. (Vierge, Fei-Yen, MAXL)

To add to Nied: Max thrust is only one aspect of an engine's performance. Also, there's a LOT of different types of "max". Examples: The last couple (3 mods or so) F-15 and F-16 engines have had little improvement in maximum thrust (with afterburner) compared to previous ones. But they're WAY, WAY better and are being retrofitted whenever possible. Why? Because their non-afterburning thrust is way higher. For VF-1's, this would be "non-overboosted" thrust. Also, engines don't make max power in all conditions. Full throttle at 35,000ft might give you only *25%* of the power you'd get at sea level. Well, what if a new version, which had the same power at sea level as the old one, gave you another 20% at high altitude? That'd be really useful, since that's where you spend most of your time. More stuff: high subsonic and transonic acceleration. Very important, this is the zone where combat takes place. 30% improvement for late model F-16's. Same max thrust (or SLIGHTLY higher), but the intermediate settings at higher altitude are much better. Super Tomcats have a 60%+ improvement in both acceleration and climb rate compared to regular Tomcats, despite only a 40% increase in thrust. Quick summary: jet engines (like all engines) have a power CURVE. You don't get full power whenever you want--only sitting still, at sea level, in cold air. An engine at Denver in the summer will be making 20% less power than the same engine in Juneau in the winter. Everything affects a jet engine. Most people would gladly trade a bit of max power, for overall performance. (This is in fact what F-15C's do--they actually have less power than the F-15A, but the engine is so much better overall in all conditions). Finally, there's time restrictions (also related to temp restrictions). Most planes have a 10/5 minute limit for takeoff/climbout thrust--any more and it'll overheat. Then there's "max continuous"--just like it sounds, the max power available without limits. There's also emergency settings, available for 20-30 secs depending on the engine. (A Harrier actually has like 5 settings--like a 10-sec rating, a 30-sec, 60-sec, 2 minute, etc) This is why I like GE engines as a rule. Most of the time, a GE engine will have a lower take-off thrust, but a much higher max continuous thrust, and a much, much higher emergency thrust setting. And max continuous and emergency are both used in emergency settings of course--when you REALLY want that extra power. Who cares about max power on a normal, everyday takeoff? But when you've lost an engine and are 2 hours from an airfield, you really want the engine with the best "max continuous" performance. Or if there's a mountain right ahead, you want the best "30 secs emergency" setting.

Honestly, I haven't seen the latest version of Austrailian desert camo on one of their Hornets, mainly their uniforms and ground equipment! But it's not far off from the pic above, the main difference is that the overall color is much lighter--there's not much contrast between the two lighter colors. Actually, the only places I've seen it were CENTCOM briefings. (Ones from Australia were very rare)

I still have to get one of those... (Hey, anything's easier than making an Excelsior light up--especially since the deflector and ramscoops and impulse crystals and planetary sensor dome were molded OPAQUE) Maybe after I finish my USS Iowa/Ingersoll/Alaska/San Francisco/The Sullivans/Ticonderoga/other The Sullivans/Tirpitz/Scott. (Yes, quite the ship backlog I have--currently have 5 unfinished hulls laying around) And I DEFINITELY need to get the E: I've got an unbuilt Ertl -E, but the work to make it light up (while much less than my Lakota was), would still be WAY more than correcting any problems the Bandai might have. (And cost about the same, with how much it costs to light one up from scratch).

The main thing is to have the best forward and side vision possible. F-16 is number one by far for this. (No frames forward of the pilot). F-14's suck at this. Seeing behind is just a bonus. (And as said, you can only see behind and above--not behind/below, straight behind, or behind/side---advantage is marginal for a bubble canopy--but still desired) Best rearward vision: another guy who's not busy flying the plane. AKA Goose's job in Top Gun. Now, another thing to consider is: planes don't fly alonw. And formations aren't just "however they look coolest"---they're arranged so that everyone can watch out for everyone else. Nobody can keep up a full 360 search all the time. But there's different techniques and formations for different numbers of planes, so that SOMEONE is always looking in any particular direction. Finally: just use cameras if you really want a good view. Of course, you generally need a nice big cockpit to be able to have room to add another screen. 777-300's do this. They actually have several cameras, to display the main gear, and h.stab tips. (Biggest gear track and turning radius of any airliner by far, 747's got nothing on a stretch 777 for "hard to manuever on the ground" )

Yaaargh! You got me. ::hangs head in shame:: It's still rare/odd/stupid. (Why not go to AV-8D?) Harriers have such a messed up designation scheme. B is way more advanced than C, B+ more advanced than that...

I'm well aware of F-14 design history. But why not call it F-14C then? (I can't recall the dates of the proposed C, maybe they'd have to go to D, and then what we call the D would be E). "+" is absolutely utterly unheard of. You simply don't do it. Not in WWII, not in the USAF, not the Warsaw Pact, not on Star Trek. + isn't an option, for any aircraft of any era in any service.

You know, I still have that Magenta paint. Haven't used it for anything else though. Of course, now it's so old and dried out that it's more like eyeshadow or soemthing.

I'll chime in again. 1. Don't use the Scotch Removable (blue) tape for long periods. No more than a few hours. It'll leave a residue that's impossible to remove short of goo-gone (which you DON'T want to be using on a painted model! ) I've actually sworn off it completely after what happened last time. Back to Magic tape (green). 2. "Toys" often have much smoother plastic surfaces than models. They really won't like most paints. They often have special paint that you cannot buy that allows it to be sprayed or pad printed. If it's a really smooth surface, I'd suggest sanding it first to roughen it up. 3. Enamel primer! I always use it. Testor's Light Aircraft Grey, specifically. Both Tamiya acrylic and Testors Acrylic will go over it with no problems whatsoever. I have found Testors and Tamiya to be very very compatible. (Don't go mixing the two, but they can be applied over each other when dry with no problems). Acrylic primer's worthless, IMHO. 4. Prime everything when painting acrylic. Even if you're painting black plastic with black paint. 5. The thicker the coat, the easier it'll chip/peel. 6. Paint takes days to TRULY dry. There's "Dry" then there's "rock hard". My latest coat on my USS Iowa's hull was applied Monday afternoon. It's dry. But it's not DRY. I'm not going to mask it or clear-coat it or anything until it's rock-hard super-dry-cured like the rest of the ship. That'll be this weekend.

Just a quick note from me: The basic, basic idea of jet propulsion (not necessarily kerosene-fueled aircraft jets, merely the concept--waterjets, etc too) is to accelerate mass for thrust. To increase the thrust, you can either move more mass, or move the mass faster. (or both). The current trend in jet engines is to move more mass (actually slower as well, but the increase in mass is so great it more than counteracts the decrease in speed).

If I find battroid---it's packed away somewhere. As for fighter--actually experimented with panel-lining after I built it, sort of ruined it. Plan to strip it and re-do it someday. (Or buy a new one, cheap little kit). Anyways, Testors "Hot Magenta" is the absolute most perfect match you could ever ask for. It matches the pink plastic PERFECTLY. However, it's quite thick and goopy, and VERY glossy. It's like liquid lipstick. I think it's part of their car line, near the bright pale blue and neon green.... (It's also a great color for pink beamsabers for Gundams, and "sublime green" is a perfect yellow-green color)

An F-14 with thrust vectoring (using ACTIVE nozzles--any Super Tomcat could be easily retrofitted) would have an AMAZING roll capability, due to its very widely spaced engines. (It's nigh-pointless to try to use vectoring for roll on say an F-15, F-18, or F-22---but it'd be decent on an F-23 and awesome on an F-14)

Well, the point of agressor squadrons are to simulate enemy planes and tactics. With paint schemes to match. The UN Spacy doesn't really have a need---there's not really anyone else out flying valks around, with different tactics. They generally only fight spiritia-sucking space aliens and rogue Zentradi, etc. Back on-topic a bit more, I don't think I've ever seen a custom along the lines of an agressor, though I do think I recall a Heater-Ferris painted VF-1, which LOOKS like agressor camo, even though it isn't.

http://www.toymania.com/news/messages/3969.shtml Casting suggestions, comments, etc? (It could rock, but it could also suck--like most movie concepts! ) So many choices out there for Snake Eyes and Stormshadow. And we all know who should play the Baroness.

Built the MAXL two-pack. Fighter's better than battroid--battroid isn't feminine enough compared to the line-art etc. Man, nothing like going to a hobby store and buying Hot Magenta Pink paint...

Yes. Blame the Navy for having such a stupid designation. The differences between F-14A and A+ were more than what normally happens between plane variants, and I can't think of any reason to call it that. It'd be like calling the Super Hornets "F/A-18C+". It's a BIG change.

Umm, whom are you replying to? For I did not say one word about quality or details, simply how the molds themselves are made and how much that mold-making process costs. There's a huge difference between me saying "resin isn't superior" and "resin sucks".

Well, it simply depends on what you think represents the movable/retracting hydraulics better. A metal bar through the middle of the nose, or nothing at all. I still vote for 1/60 as most accurate transformation.

D is the rarest of all Tomcats, A is the most common. As for "Super"---the rule is the engines. If it has GE engines, than it's a Super Tomcat. That means A+/B, and the D. (Way too many people think D=Super. Nope, B and later is Super) Anyways---some F-14D's ARE built from old A's! Not many, but they exist. Most D's were built as D's, but a few are converted from A's. And you can also make B's from A's. (which they did until the D came around, then they made A's into D's) Production numbers (excluding Iran's): 637 F-14A's. 38 F-14B's. 37 F-14D's. Super Tomcats are RARE as you can see. To get the "real" numbers, there were 48 A's converted to B's, and 18 A's converted to D's. But A still outnumbers B and D combined. With VF-154 (the last user of the A model) effectively gone (came home, will switch to Super Hornet before next major deployment), the current fleet is as follows: 4 Squadrons of B's, 2 of D's. Assume 12 planes per squadron. Strange that they call it the F-14A+ Kai. It REALLY, REALLY should be F-14B Kai. You don't just ignore name changes. You don't see people saying TF-15A or TF-18A. It's F-15B and F/A-18B now. And NOBODY uses the old designations. (Yup, there didn't use to be an F-15B or 18B, they had different names)

My answer: Nobody uses resin because it's better in any way, it's used because it's easy to make. Sure, Bandai can spend $100,000 to make a steel die for an injection-molded plastic MG Gundam. But no single person can, nor many smaller companies. So if they're going to make something more obscure, with low production runs, then they'll use resin, since resin doesn't require expensive laser-cut acid-etched copper-lined steel molds (which is AFAIK the best you can get, used by all the top makers). Resin can use simple poured/cast rubber/latex molds. I mean, I just bought some resin parts to convert the USS Missouri to the USS Iowa. I'm probably one of a only few dozen, (maybe a few hundred, but I doubt it) to do so. Yes, injection molded plastic would be much better, but then it wouldn't exist, since it would be prohibitively expensive for the manufacturer to design and offer such a "obscure" item. But being some simple resin cast parts (as opposed to injected into a die), it does exist, and doesn't cost too much. In summary: resin is the only way to get a lot of obscure/rare things, because injection-molded plastic simply costs too much. Yes, Hasegawa can sell all the VF-1S's in the world, and pay off the cost of the mold. But there's simply not ever going to be enough VB-6's or VF-3000's etc sold to justify the cost of making a die for it. But with resin, you just sculpt one master, and make rubber molds from that. Cheap and easy.

I know the M0 F-14 has AMRAAM's--I was just explaining why the kit (and every kit) doesn't have them. If Hasegawa didn't even make the right type of F-14, they certainly would not include the correct missiles as extra parts! Revell F-14D is the same as the Monogram F-14D. They are little more than 20-year-old F-14A's with new nozzles, and new cockpits. All the little things are wrong---nose door, fairings, wing gloves, etc. Which Tamiya kit? The 1/32 F-14A Black Knights that just came out? It's an A, every kit of an A is correct for SOME type of A. (Most A kits are 1970's A, not 1980-2000+ A) Though the new Tamiya A is a late, current A. Generally, every Italeri and Revell/Monogram kit of an F-14A+/B/D in any scale has something wrong with it. (Always fuselage fairings, often ECM bumps) Hasegawa and Fujimi are your only real choices for an accurate A+/B/D. (A+ *is* a B, it's just that a lot of kits still say A+ instead of B--and the Italeri 1/48 A+ is really, really, 100% totally wrong for an A+ --but shave off the ECM bumps and you get a wonderful kit of an early 70's A, or leave them and use the alternate chin pod for a mid-80's F-14A--can't do late 80's or later, for it has the early gun vents) Finally, I do believe that ANY Hasegawa F-14D could do Shin's (except for the cockpit) since he doesn't have LANTIRN or TARPS, which are the main problems for trying to do a standard "F-14D on a carrier in service" model.

The OLD Monogram F-14D, or the re-release? I know they both still have the wrong fuselage fairings/nibs. (Nose gear door may or may not be correct, very few reviewers even know to look for it) But I do think that it is as you said--the previous release had the wrong cockpit (which is right for Shin). But everyone was disappointed that it (the newer release) still had the fuselage fairings of an F-14A. (And if those are wrong, you can be 100% sure that part of the engines are wrong too---most companies only replace the NOZZLE, while leaving the aft stages those of the PW--there's a lot of "F-14D" models with PW parts in their GE engines) Frankly, it's much easier to take a B and make a D's chin-pod (just add a tube), than take an inaccurate D (with it's chin pod) and try to modify the fuselage into a correct D. Finally---F-14's don't have AMRAAM's. That's why no kit includes them. They were supposed to be the first plane in the USA to get them, but since Cheney killed the F-14, they cancelled the program, so even Super Tomcats still carry Sparrows. (Super Tomcats have carried AMRAAMS and fired them, but only for tests---no in-service Tomcat can equip them)

I would guess that the UNAF is for *Earth* air defenses, while the UNSAF is for atmospheric fighters on other colonized planets. And of course, UNS for "space".

Might as well: name your fave MM (or RM) bad guys! For me, Snake Man and Shadow Man were the two coolest. (Both from MM3). Yes, Metal Man has the all-time most useful weapon, but he himself wasn't cool. Heat Man gets a mention because of his stage, and how cool it felt to FULLY power up his weapon before releasing it. Also, people you hate: Air Man, Needle Man, Crash Man, Dust Man, Skull Man.