Jump to content

David Hingtgen

Moderator
  • Posts

    17132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Hingtgen

  1. Do we know Block 1 THROUGH 5 existed? Or are only 1 AND 5 mentioned? Rarely are block numbers sequential. And having 2 sequential numbers (5 and 6) doesn't at all mean others are sequential. The F-16 skipped right from block 1 to block 5.
  2. The Yamato Garland seems to break its arms more than any other toy mecha has ever broken anything. A quick check at ToyBox DX pretty much shows it to be "problem of the year". You probably could get a third, fourth, and fifth, and have all their arms break off in a day. You might just want to cut your losses, unless you want to keep paying and paying.
  3. Re: -19/21 fold ability I always got the impression the -19/21 were the only ones able to use the fold booster, that was their special ability. (though didn't we see Gamlin use one on his -17?) Maybe the booster is actually powered by the valk's engines, and only the high-power engines of the -19/21 etc can produce enough power to allow the booster to work. Or, the system wasn't ready yet, and they had to use the fold booster since it was an emergency. (many a plane has had its first flight with a block of lead in the nose instead of a working radar)
  4. How does Yamato think this price is anywhere near justifiable? With VF-1 FP's, you get about as much plastic as the VF-1 itself. And they have detailed interiors, multiple parts, etc. They're worth the money. The YF-19---they're empty slabs of plastic. Heck, the VF-0 came with its leg armor FOR FREE. The YF-19's armor is really no different than the VF-0's, just with two little shoulder bits added on. And of course, the VF-1 and VF-0 came with tons of missiles. Yang's gotta be worth about 5 cents, since he'll be more amputated than Isamu. He'll be lucky to have an abdomen. Fold booster----green and clear plastic, with a 50-cent LED. Still probably simpler than a single VF-1 booster w/missile launcher.
  5. Yes, but what color does it light up? Canon color is green, as easily seen onscreen.
  6. Hey Graham--how about asking Yamato to include a new forearm piece and corrected landing gear bits with the FAST packs? Straighten out the gunpod and angle the gear correctly.
  7. Sheer lack of steps and photos, IMHO. Good transformation instructions don't need a word of text. Best example I can give: TF2000/RiD Ultra Magnus. More steps for all the modes than anything I've ever owned, and not a word of English. But the NUMEROUS diagrams showing EVERY step and movement make it crystal-clear the first time. If you can show an "inbetween" step/photo, then it wasn't complete the first time.
  8. I think the fact that Yamato had to put up supplemental steps on their site proves my earlier comment that the YF-19 instructions were poor and incomplete. And thanks, rikiryou.
  9. Canonically, -19 gear splays out. The Hase kit is wrong, don't know why.
  10. If someone could translate that page, it'd help a lot.
  11. ::blink blink:: BoB posted? ::checks:: It's been over a year, I thought he'd left the forums.
  12. Almost certainly, but how long will you wait? We're still waiting on VF-0S version 2, while they've gone ahead with two VF-0A's in the mean time. We could see two or three more releases of YF-19's in the next 18 months, and not a revised one in Isamu's colors. Or, they could introduce a running change, and in 6 weeks "fixed" one will be on the shelves.
  13. Plus the fact that Naval ship designations constantly change, and are inconsistent from nation to nation. What the US calls a destroyer, is a cruiser to most everyone else. What we used to call a frigate changed to destroyer, but would now be a cruiser. Frigates are now basically what were corvettes. Naming ships (and designating their type) is mainly political anyways--plenty of ships had their type or mission changed (PURELY ON PAPER, the ship itself didn't alter a rivet) simply to get approval from congress. See "through-deck cruiser" for the all-time best example.
  14. I haven't seen the whole trailer, just some of the screencaps at the 2005 boards etc. SS seemed to be chasing a CGI Hornet that also had blue afterburners. What, are they using Star Wars or Ace Combat as reference? (and the few blue afterburners out there, are not that shade of blue at all---I'm sure you've all stared at a lit match and seen the blue in it--it's that color, almost a purple-blue)
  15. F-22---probably was a CGI'd Starscream, since real F-22's don't have blue afterburners. (Few planes do under daylight conditions)
  16. Warped UP? Never heard of that. Resin can pretty easily warp under weight/stress (even its own, but usually reported in landing gear struts of large kits) but I've never heard of it warping up.
  17. They did it all the time on the 1/60 VF-1's. You only got the type of missile they felt like including. VF-1's without armor, loaded up with RMS-1's look really weird---I had to buy the other missile types from other members here, as I had like a dozen RMS-1's, and not anything else.
  18. David Hingtgen

    Graham's Sig

    Don't forget that our own wwwmwww recently got a D'stance: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=20048
  19. All jets have arrestor hooks, no point in redesigning and attaching a weaker one just to replace the carrier-rated one. There's a slight change in the mounting system on non-US ones though. Australian ones originally didn't have a launch bar on the nose, but since the nosegear was designed to operate with one attached, serious vibrations resulted due to the changed natural frequency of the nosegear so they had to go design a non-functional one and add it back on! Number of landings? I think about 1,000. Hooks are designed for 100 landings. That's the basic number for most modern Navy jets AFAIK.
  20. Re: extra weight--yup. Every non-US Hornet is carrying unnecessary weight around. But it does lead to added strength, so the airframes last a lot longer than they do in carrier service. Recently, the US Navy has actually been pulling F-18C's out of frontline service and giving them to the reserves, and taking the reserves' F-18A's and upgrading them to the F-18A+, and re-equipping that way. Why? Due to such heavy use in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of F-18C's are starting to "run out of traps"----carrier planes are life-limited by number of carrier landings, not hours. The reserves' Hornet have "lead easy lives" comparatively--so while they may have more hours on the airframes, they have far fewer carrier landings. And the reserves get the F-18C's which don't have many carrier landings left, but have plenty of hours to use up. An F-18A+ has electronics as good as a late F-18C (which makes it better than any early/mid F-18C), weighs less, and has the late F-18C engines. It's now the best Legacy Hornet out there. Much like the F-16C, the main reason for the new model being physically different never materialized, so with some avionics/engine tweaks, you can make the old ones just as capable as newer ones. I'd guess Australia would want Super Hornets mainly for compatability (what there is) with their Legacy Hornets.
  21. Latest news: Australia wants 2 dozen F-model Super Hornets to cover for JSF delays, USN wants 200 for the same reason. Read on another forum Australia really should have gone for some Strike Eagles---great F-111 replacement, and would have filled the gap nicely.
  22. ???? VF is the most anti-button-masher fighter I know. SC is pure button mashing. Tekken's in the middle.
  23. http://www.hlj.com/faq/q41.html I've done it several times for F-14 and F-18 parts, never had to wait long--but again, it depends on Hasegawa's own backstock/warehouse. It's pretty easy--just email them---parts(at)hlj.com--the sprue(s) you need and wait. You can figure out about how much it'll cost by looking on the instruction sheet back page--there'll usually be a little rectangle with a list of sprues and yen prices--that's for customers in Japan to just mail in for spare parts, but you can use it to figure out the price of each individual sprue. I always get parts shipped SAL---since you never have any idea how long it'll take to get the parts in the first place, no point in paying for faster shipping--especially since the parts are so light SAL is 1/4 as much as EMS at that point.
  24. Fit and finish is a lot better than an F-14. Which brings me to my next point---looks like we may finally have a good/accurate 1/72 diecast Tomcat. Look at this one: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586420 Yes, it's expensive, but I'd rather have 1 really good one, than a bunch of "A's with D cockpits and B nozzles". There is also a "catapult lauinch" variant of that one, kneeling with flaps and slats down: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586437 Would like other people to look/evaluate in case I missed something, but it seems correct for that block/year so far. Of course, those are sample pics, not the final product---Dragon's VF-111 F-14 went from an A to a D from sample to final. Also, someone is finally getting around to the most obvious F-16--the Thunderbirds: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/WT-WTW72010-13 I'll need plenty of pics before I buy one though, I won't buy it unless it's got a small intake. (I don't have any Witty F-16's, so I don't know if they have both types, or only big, etc---Dragon has both types, but seems to think all F-16C's have the big one)
  25. As posted an entire page ago, a YF-19 with the wings back looks like this: http://www.un-spacy-qmtdb.com/uns/variable...bur_yf_19_4.jpg The canon overhead lineart of the YF-19 also marks both the pivot point, and the exact sweep angle: 119.4 degrees back from the "standard" position. (Or, 90 degrees straight back along the leading edge) I often wonder if that drawing/spec was done by Kawamori himself---the sweep angle is given along the quarter-chord for the forward position---which only someone very familiar with jets would know to do that.
×
×
  • Create New...