David Hingtgen

Is that any more credible than the Ben Affleck rumor?

I only just now downloaded the high-res versions, and noticed in the photo with the Shornets and B-2 at the bottom, you can easily make out the Diamondbacks CAG, and I think VFA-27 CAG, but what's the one on the left? It's an E model, so that eliminates a lot of squadrons, and it has black tails---checking around the Navy site makes me think its VFA-115 from the Reagan. But I can't see ANY yellow on it, and their yellow should be visible. VFA-14?

There's more pics, if you want to see the ships themselves in formation and doing manuevers: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35951 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35945 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35946 Fact: The Navy has the best website photos of the armed forces by far.

Photo(s) of the week: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35949 http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=35952 B-2's AND carriers? What could be cooler? PS---sheer coincidence that a USAF strategic stealth bomber group met up with 3 carrier battle groups (half the Pacific fleet) near North Korea this week.

That's pretty much exactly how it DOES fly. Only plane in the world that can stall at 250kts in a gentle turn...

Perhaps a drag issue? Aren't 104 wingtip tanks area-ruled? They'd also act as winglets I'd think to reduce induced drag (much the same way that wingtip missiles do). Droptank drag is critical---there are aircraft that actually have range DECREASED when carrying drop tanks on the belly, due to the drop tank's drag more than cancelling out the increased fuel available.

Oh, the OTHER wolf.

The wolf Decepticon headmaster was Weirdwolf (I had him, one of my faves). Here's the instructions: http://www.tfracetrack.com/instructions/g1...n/weirdwolf.jpg

I generally really want my TF's to have 2 arms/hands. Even if poorly shaped/molded---G1 Brawl is OK by my standards. (heck, all the Combaticons, and most other G1 combiners are like that). But Cybetron TC has "top half of a Flanker" for an arm. And because of a GIMMICK. Nothing I hate more than when some stupid "action firing" gimmick ruins an entire limb. Headmasters and Targetmasters were about the only good gimmicks, as they didn't affect the transformation or sculpt at all.

Same problem as most every jet TF besides the seekers: It's about 5 times as thick as it should be from the side. It's a giant cube with wings and a nose stuck on. That is not a plane. Chop off the bottom half, THEN it'll look like a plane. He's not one big better (and IMHO a whole lot worse) than the Aerialbots. Wings/nose/tail with a folded-up box-shaped robot that's 3x bigger than the rest of the alt mode hanging underneath. Looks good from above, horrible from the sides. Energon Starscream was decent, among the best jet TF's in a while. While the kibble was large, it wasn't very "thick" and much of it could be the plane's fuselage, due to the F-22 design. And BM jetstorm--while it didn't really have a "jet" shape much, (just a bunch of fins) it didn't have 3/4 of the robot mode hanging below.

Hoped/rumored/desired, etc. McKellan (AFAIK) has said he'd like to do it. It's mainly a rights/licensing issue I think.

A related note is that the rumored Magneto movie is to be done that way--for all of it. Hey, why not? They've already got experience on working with McKellan's face. They could also do the same for "The Hobbit" for a slightly younger Gandalf.

Anyone who didn't notice is IMHO blind. I was like "TNG first season Picard!" the second the movie started, and I knew they'd spent a lot of money.

Generally agree, but note ST 4 (which I consider an environmental film starring Shatner--not a Trek movie) and Nemesis. Very light, and very dark, but did about the best and worst, respectively.

Still awaiting wake vortex tests on the A380. As I like airliners more than any other type of plane, I spend more time at those boards than anywhere else. And I'm VERY familiar with DC-9's (most pilots and ramp workers can't tell the -32 and -33 apart, but I can). I'm especially proud of my 707/720 knowledge. (trust me, 707's are among the most variation-filled-yet-the-changes-are-undocumented planes out there, and most books and drawings are just plain wrong, as are most people) One version of my 707 guide (old and incomplete by my current standards) is here: http://airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=72

Hey, the MD-80's full, official, legal name is still the DC-9-80. (unless it's an MD-88, then it's an MD-88--but the MD-87 is the DC-9-87) Either way, the 747Adv is by far the biggest change Boeing has ever done when calling a new version "Advanced" News of the day: Venezuela's getting Super Flankers. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/...s.ap/index.html

That's more than enough to make it "Advanced". The 727-200 and 727-200Adv are so similar it is UTTERLY impossible to tell them apart visually. The difference? Higher MTOW for more fuel. That's about it. Airliners often change internally far more than externally. Th 747 will be by far the most "Advanced" plane that Boeing has ever used that term for. And hey, the A350 is nothing more than an A330 with a new wing and engines, and it gets a whole new name, not just A330Adv. And really technically, the A310 is an A300 with new wings and tail. And so is the A330 and A340! The entire A300/310/330/340 line is one single nose and fuselage (in different lengths), with 2.5 wing designs and 3 tail designs. Airbus hasn't had a 100% new design asides from the 320 and 380. Boeing's no different. The 757 was the 727-300 for a long time, and until 2 weeks before the contract was signed, was nothing more than a 727 with a new wing and engines. Had a 727's nose and tail. 727 and 737 originally shared 60% of their parts. And very few people realize the front end of the 767 and 777 are identical, and that the 777 tail is little more than a scaled-up 767 tail. ::rant over::

An even bigger problem is that in addition to the delay, the NEXT YEAR of deliveries will only be for 9 planes. 9 planes. For the 5 airlines that were expecting deliveries in 06/07. 2 planes does not a fleet make. (The original service date was this month FYI, but the end of this year was the "delayed" date--now it's been delayed again, and slowed down for next year) Here's to hoping someone orders some Advanced 747's... (they look 100x better, if nothing else)

Trials and Tribbleations spent great amounts of time and money to look like the 60's. In a Mirror Darkly did the opposite--tried to make it look like TOS was filmed with a modern budget--and did it very well. Also the Defiant FOUGHT.

I have found few things more "mysterious" than trucks when it comes to specs. It's easier to find out the specs of stealth fighters, than basic info on most semis. Go to Peterbilt.com and try to find even the basic wheelbase and weight options of a 379... It's amazing. If there's one thing that there's no info about on the 'net, it's semis. Has always annoyed me, as there's almost no way to get any info on a truck you saw, or a truck you know about.

Truckers go for looks, then spend lots of money on mods to make them more fuel efficient. You can make a more rounded (a bit) semi without looking bad. T2000's the best of the aerodynamic conventionals, Pete 377 looks nice while being slightly rounder than a 379 (377 matches the T600 IMHO). 386 is nice too. Changing the T2000's headlights to square ones would make the whole front end look a lot better.

I really want to see that ep of Enterprise with the Defiant (I heard about it a few months ago) but the local stations seem to show stuff in a random order, so I have no idea if it's been on lately, or won't be on for another 3 years. Plus Trek seasons on DVD are expensive. I've seen a few screen shots---they even completely recreated the TOS bridge and uniforms, only "updated" and made of high-quality stuff---and it works amazingly well. Imagine movie-style computer screens in TOS colors and format. I think even the most purist of pure TOS fans thought it looked good and wasn't at all "sacrilege" to change the bridge displays.

Ouch, my bad, it is an Argosy. The most Isuzu/Volvo-looking American-made semi ever... God that's fugly. Freightliner has made some nice trucks (FLD 120) but that's not one of them. The Columbia's even worse though, IMHO. Honestly I just kind of "ignore" the existence of the more rounded Freightliners and forget they exist. (I am a Peterbilt 379 fan---I like big and square, traditional semis)

Future over the decals? That's the way most people do it AFAIK. Future, then decal, then Future again, then dull coat (if desired).

From the many pics of that truck from last year, it's an Isuzu IIRC. Little more than a large furniture delivery truck. Basically, it's half as big as it should be. And very, very rounded. I don't even think it's in the same class. (literally, trucks are grouped by class, mainly according to size/weight---Prime was a class 8, the biggest there is) Edit: I do think that is a pic from 2005, the tarp and surroundings look identical. Just google "Optimus Prime comic con" and you'll find tons of pics and info. Here you go, pictures from July of 2005: http://www.galactichunter.com/absoluteig/g...3&box=&shownew=