David Hingtgen

No, because 1/48 would be huge (you think you have problems displaying a VF-1? Try a plane 50% bigger) and there'd be VERY limited appeal. Valks appeal to even the most "casual" Macross fans, while far fewer people have seen M0 (be honest, even Robotechies buy Yamato VF-1's) and would want a non-transforming valk. It's not a bad guy for the VF's to fight, and it doesn't "do" anything like transform or fire off 36-missile clusters.

You could always just watch the show and see what colors they're supposed to be. It's not like an F-15 kit, where there's a "real" one to match paint to---just match the animation.

A is attack. Go figure for the A-12. (Hey, *F*-117.). Anyways, SR-71 is one of those "doesn't fit the rules". It SHOULD be the R-1A. U is for utility--nice way of "hiding" CIA/spy functions. "It's just a generic utility plane, not painted black with no markings for any particular reason flown by non-USAF pilots for covert black ops" M in M-21 (actually the M-12, but since it carried the D-21 it is AKA the M-21) is for "Multimission". Here's the best site, explains it all: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

MiG-25 is rated for 2.8 normally, not 2.5. Even in "normal" operations it's faster than any other fighter by far. Of course, it totally sucks in all other categories. (Man, if you want to dogfight and win, go after a MiG-25) Also, MiG-25 is such a horrific gas-guzzler, it literally has to INTERCEPT an SR-71 from head-on or thereabouts. It's one of the few planes whose top speed is actually fuel-limited in some situations. As in, it guzzles fuel so fast, if you simply taxi out at max weight, takeoff, and give it full afterburner, it'll run out of fuel while still accelerating. The only way you'll get 3.2 (and not run out of gas) is to be lightly loaded with only 2 missiles. Even the gigantic F-108 was only designed to be able to go Mach 3 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes in an ideal situation. Mig-25's a lot smaller. Probably has about a 30-sec Mach3+ ability. (I am not a MiG-25 fan, BTW)

After looking through a few hundred biplanes, I'm going to go for "fantasy" as well. Main point: inverted gull wing-- AFAIK, no biplane (asides from R/C and modern stunt custom-builts) have ever had an inverted gull wing, upper nor lower wing. Also, the lower wing simply looks too big like that. The lower wing is *generally* smaller or equally sized, yet with the gulling, it might have more area than the upper. Again, only stunt biplanes with massive engines tend to use "funky" wing designs like that. Inverted gull wings were pretty rare, and were used by monoplanes. Ju-87 is the earliest major plane I know of with one. (And of course, the F4U later on)

Cheap, good primer: Krylon automotive grey primer. Stuff rocks. Too dark for a lot of colors though, but red is so transparent it'll take 3 coats anyway. It dries ROUGH and will make anything grab it. (you can make it smooth with a medium-thick coat, but it'll be ROUGH if you just mist it on thin) Krylon ruddy brown auto primer is actually my first and final coat for US ship hulls. Nothing like finding a primer that's just the right color for something...

I believe he means acetone. Acetate is a type of plastic, acetone is a solvent. Best source for acetone: nail polish remover. PS--most hobby shops sell cheap replacement tops for CA bottles (because everybody's clogs---also, try trimming the tip off the top)

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".