David Hingtgen

Oooh, ASRAAM's on a Hornet. Can they work with Sidewinder rails, or what? Surely they can use the LAU-115 as a parent pylon to do dual-rails for the ASRAAM. Any more specs of the HUG programme? Did it get the new engines? Because if those are the originals, they're probably down to 15,000lbs or worse now. (Hornet engines are weird--they are designed to reference throttle position to EGT to the exclusion of all else, for long life and to keep maintenance intervals the same throughout its life---so as they age, the RPM's and thrust gradually decrease compared to the EGT--so 100% throttle gives a little less thrust every day) I know of at least one occurance of someone demanding new engines for their "used" Hornet purchase, due to the whole "loss of thrust as it ages" issue.

1. Not minor. It's very visible from most angles. And how is it EASILY fixed by the owner, without ruining it visually? Gluing on chunks of plastic to force it to align is NOT a solution. That's as bad as saying "just don't attach it in fighter mode". And I still don't buy ANY excuse about it "slipping through cracks". It has a 100% occurence rate. 3. The left one should be an exact mirror of the right one. Isn't this what CAD and laser-carved molds are for? Precision and symmetry? So why do the two shoulders act different? Lego was making absolutely perfect mirror-image parts decades ago, in ABS plastic no less. Yamato doesn't seem to be able to do half as well, with tools decades newer. 4. Design decision? They why are the wheels themselves tilted WAY outwards when un-modified? If the gear was supposed to be straight, then the wheels should have been straight. As-is, they can barely even make contact with the ground, they're balancing on the edge of their treads. I'll accept a "they changed it" explanation, but won't believe that's how it was originally designed. What plane has the wheels/axles tilted 30 degrees outwards/downwards when viewed head-on? The wheels should be attached right, if that's how it was originally designed. And if it was originally designed to have fixed, straight-down gear, then why does it have a hinge to angle outwards in the first place? It's not fixed, it just can't angle out enough as-built to look right either way. We're not modifiying it to ADD the ability to angle, we're just adding some more degrees of angling. If it wasn't supposed to be that way in the first place, why is it molded to do so? I didn't care much about the angle of the gear stuts, I just wanted the thing to sit flat on its tires!! That's 90% of the reason I modified mine. (We airplane modelers can't stand the tires not sitting on the ground, it's something we learn from our first model) Unmodified, it looks like it's trying to do ballet on its tip-toes or something. (And would sure as heck break its axles apart trying to land)

Armament for a Phantom? 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders. What else is there? (nobody wants bombs on their fighter to display---unless maybe it's a Marine Phantom) I'd buy an F-8, if they actually do the wing/flaps right. If the wing is up, the flaps MUST be down. And vice versa.

Could always read wm cheng's build-ups right here at MW.

A C-model? Bah. Same exact paint scheme for every squadron, with a few ANG exceptions. Just wait for Robin Old's and buy that one. Naval Phantoms have far better schemes.

He gave them to you and not me to post? Though with me currently stuck on dial-up, maybe that was for the best.

The A-12 isn't a prototype SR-71, either. It's simply the A-12, and more than a few were built and put into service. There was actually a fly-off between the A-12 and SR-71 to decide which version to focus on. Anyways, I've seen the term "hypercritical" used to describe a wing like 3 times in as many days. As far as I can tell, it's not really an aerodynamics term, and if anything, seems to mean either "an extreme version of a supercritical airfoil" (which makes no sense--something either is or isn't supercritical--it can be semi-supercritical, but once you are fully supercritical--you can't be even MORE supercritical) Or---people are meaning "literally extremely critical--as in important or sensitive"---having no relation to the term supercritical, and usually referring to alpha. Either way, it'd be invisible on a toy. ::checks YF-19 just to be sure:: Hmmn, if anything the Yamato YF-19 is flat out wrong--the trailing edge is thicker than the leading edge, and more rounded-it's just plain backwards. But ironically, is semi-supercritical.

Apparently Roy or somebody was house cleaning... Regarding the trailer issue---while I seriously doubt they considered this, Movie Prime looks much more spec'd out for a tanker, than a trailer. The grill is his feet? Is that movie-accurate? Can't recall if we've seen Prime's feet revealed. Also, I think the toy has a much better head, if for no other reason than he has very Transfomer-ish eyes, not springs and erector-set parts. ::edit:: Damn, I can merge posts within a thread, and merge threads---but I can't merge selected posts into a thread. Anyways, it'd help if people would re-post anything said in the last few hours.

The A can be upgraded to the A+, which actually makes it the best of the Legacy Hornets according to some. Avionics of the latest-version C, but lower weight, and the latest engines means it has the best avionics+best thrust/weight ratio. The US was quite late in switching over to the better engines, so not many USN C-models have them. But the A's engines are getting old, so they need new ones--so they get the latest version. Basically--while your average C model has the original avionics, plus dozens of new little black boxes stuffed in every cavity they can find with not an inch to spare--the A+ model basically has "every upgrade the C model ever had" in a single box. While it was originally believed the A+ could be easily identified by the IFF bird slicers on the nose, VFA-201's A+'s do not have them. Might be the only squadron like that, or they had an "incomplete" upgrade. A big part of the reason for the A+ program is that the C models are actually getting old---due to so many combat ops in recent years, many of the C models are running out of trap-life----carrier traps are far harder on a plane than flying hours. But with so many of the A's sent to the reserves at a relatively young age due to the introduction of the C model--they may have more hours than the C's, but far fewer carrier landings. And so they're thinking about converting even more A's to A+'s, and using them to replace some C models. Very few C-model squadrons are getting E models, the few that are generally have very late-model C's that will get passed down to the not-so-late C squadrons, and the oldest C squadrons will get the A+.

Me---my Target has so many Prime/Megs 2-packs clogging the shelf there's not room for Skywarp/Magnus even if they have it---just checked today.

At least it's not a "Stealth" thread.

Oh yeah, SR-71's have red "no steps". Thanks for the reminder.

Nope. It's all conjectural. Hasegawa just likes putting "common US Navy jet markings" with all their Macross kits, and the practice has spread to Yamato valks now, too. (And it is specifically US Navy markings) I'd go with grey, personally. Don't think I've ever seen a red "no step" on anything.

Australia seems close to getting Super Hornets. 24 F-models for delivery 2009/2010----to fill in the gap in strike capability between the retirement of the F-111, and the delayed arrival of the F-35.

Licensing means NOTHING. Trust me. NOTHING for accuracy. It is PERMISSION, not a guarantee. Know the least-accurate Super Hornet money can buy? The one Boeing licensed and sells in their gift shops, with the big "Accurate and approved by Boeing" sticker on the box. The most-accurate one, beating many plastic models? The unlicensed one made in an anonymous factory in Hong Kong. Overall, the following statement is quite true, having seen most every model out there: The licensed one is the least accurate, the unlicensed one is the most accurate. Other stuff: Boeing often rejects corporate models because of the shade of grey or blue used for the windows/canopy glass. Yup. Couldn't care less about the shape of the mold. American Airlines sometimes licenses models of planes they never operated, because the woman in charge really doesn't know airplanes that well--AA's only concern, and thus her job, is to make sure the tail logo isn't printed backwards. If that's right--it's approved. You could probably get them to approve a Concorde in AA colors, if the logo was right--but that one might be distinctive enough that they'd catch on.

So much aviation humor, yet it rarely shows up in this thread. That said: The different takeoff procedures of military aviators --------------------------------------------------------------------- Naval Aviator: On a carrier, the Naval Aviator looks over at the Catapult Officer ("Shooter") who gives the run up engines signal by rotating his finger above his head.. The pilot pushes the throttle forward, verifies all flight controls are operational, checks all gauges, and gives the Cat officer a brisk salute, continuing the Navy / Marine tradition of asking permission to leave the ship. The Cat officer drops to one knee while swooping his arm forward and pointing down deck, granting that permission. The pilot is immediately catapulted and becomes airborne. Air Force Pilot: We've all seen Air Force pilots at the air force base look up just before taxiing for takeoff and the ground crew waits until the pilot's thumb is sticking straight up. The crew chief then confirms that he sees the thumb, salutes, and the Air Force pilot then takes off. This time-tested tradition is the last link in the Air Force safety net to confirm that the pilot does not have his thumb up his ass. Army Aviator: If you've ever seen an Army helicopter pilot preparing for takeoff, you will note that the pilot gives the ground guy a thumbs up before he is given hover and takeoff signals. There are two theories about the origin of this gesture. One is that it is to show that the pilot has identified which of his fingers is the thumb so that he will be able to properly operate his controls. The most compelling theory says that this is to show the ground crewman that the pilot indeed knows which direction is up.

Techromancer's awesome IMHO. It's not a rip-off, it's a deliberate parody. The plot is, if anything, more Tenchi-Muyo based than anything. This is still the #1 game that "I can't believe they actually translated it and brought it to the US".

This shows the pod a bit better, and also here's the last pic I have.

I skipped Classics Prime and SS, to wait for the 2-pack. Will probably get it when I see it--have to see what color Skywarp really is in person. (I know that purple just doesn't photograph well---especially plastic---photographing purple legos is impossible, they'll look either pink or blue)

It's officially the MiG-35 now--it says so on the nose! And like all planes, it looks coolest with as many missiles as it can hold.

Re: NCC-1701. Of course. The funny thing is---I expected Hiro to go "Sulu?!?!" upon seeing him the first time. Have to wonder exactly what is and isn't pop-culture in the Heroes world.

Well, anyone who watched tonight's ep knows the answer.

Hey, C-17's are also painted 36118 grey. What color would the toy be? MP SS is green, Blackout is blue....

I'm hoping/waiting for a Grimlock repaint/remold--fix all the flaws.

If you're going to go to the effort of redoing the head area for a cone-head, you might as well do all of the cone-heads, since they'd only need new wings etc.