David Hingtgen

From what I can remember: 1. Eliminate the LEX flaps (inboard of the inboard LE flaps). Don't exist on production models. 2. There's several large vents and very obvious external plates in the area that the airbrake used to occupy. And they don't match left/right. Merely filling in the airbrake outline is only 1/4 of the job. 3. IFF antenna on the nose. Part of the reason the nickname Rhino came about. (It looks a Rhino with the horn cut off, leaving only a stump) 4. Pylons. Need to be repositioned, angled, and possibly re-shaped. 5. Wingtip rails. Depends on what squadron you're doing. VFA-115, 14, 41, and 102 (maybe 27 as well?) have the early type. All others have the later type. Don't know what the Italeri kit's look like, but I'm sure it's not the later type. 6. I believe the drop tanks are too short. 7. Cockpit---I'm not big on cockpits, but it seems 90% of modelers spend 99% of their time and effort here. And an inaccurate representation of a test plane isn't very similar to a production one. 8. I just plain don't like the nozzles. Too curved, F110-esque. Or late F-18C/D style, when the F-18E/F actually looks more like A/B nozzles. Attached pic: where the airbrake used to be.

Fit is the least of the Italeri Super Hornet's problems. It's not even accurate for a development Super Hornet, much less a production one. It's got about 1/2 of the changes from a C to an E. Yes, it's bigger, has square intakes and reshaped LERX's, but almost all of the little things are missing. From the pylons to the spoilers to the airbrake to the vents to the IFF antenna.

Build a warship. Try a carrier and pretend it's the Prometheus... Nothing like 1/700 scale for a change of pace.

I find some Corgi planes to be "brittle" with regards to weapons/pylons/gear doors. I would say a Dragon F-18 is much more sturdy than the F-16---no plastic intake nor ventral fins. Anyways---yes, the same people who say Dragon is more accurate are currently praising how wonderfully perfect the new F-14A is. Dragons are more "crisp", with no screws and finer seams and nicer missiles. But that is not accuracy. As seen by their recent F-14"A" and F-15"E" releases... Next Matchbox is a P-38. Finally, I will be getting the Dragon Langley F-15C w/diorama as soon as it comes out, and will review the heck out of it. Will be passing on the F-14, for no matter how much I love that scheme, I will not accept an F-14D with PW nozzles. Guess I better finish my Fujimi one... (Then start on a Hase one in the same scheme! )

I think it boils down to this: 1. We all know it's the games, not the system. 2. That said, what do the developers care about? Are they going to try to reinvent every genre to cater to gimmicky button/screen innovations for a single system, or are they going to make "Sequel number 3 to established series" with much-improved graphics and maybe a re-arranged shoulder button for the top 2 systems? I generally like Square, Namco, Capcom, Konami, and Tecmo. (And recently Bioware) That makes up a LARGE chunk of my games. Who/what do you think they're going to develop for? Final point: EA. Money, and mass-market. That means graphics. Their ads are little more than pretty screen-shots. I am not enthralled by pretty graphics. Sure I appreciate them but they certainly cannot make a game better than it is. Best RPG's ever are Xenogears, Valk Profile, and Suikoden 2---sprite-based! But the developers (and to an even greater degree the publishers) sure like to use them to attract casual gamers. I usually rate music as the most important thing after gameplay, and that's utterly independent of the hardware. Unless Nintendo does "direct brain-input control" there's not many innovations that are going to have developers/gamers come running.

Hasn't anybody here read about Nintendo's plans for their next system? I'm currently 0% interested in it. Basically---they want to go even further along the lines of the DS---more "gimmicks" and touch-screens and touchy-feely etc. Or as they put it, innovation. For some people that's exactly what they want. But I think most people, both hardcore gamers and the general populace, are pretty much going to want eye-popping graphics from the next gen. Nintendo specifically pointed out that "improved graphics etc" are not what they're going for. I for one do not want a "vibrating light-sensitive two-handed wireless stylus connected to a GBAmk2 SP via an infrared adapter" to play "Special Edition Flourescent Orange with a hint of Chartreuse (chromed version) Pokemon 7" I've still probably got more SNES hours than any other system, but I didn't buy an N64 and BARELY bought a GC (and regret spending the money). But I stood in line for a PS2 and my Xbox seems like a better buy every month. Mario and Link won't save the company when they only bring out like one good game per series, per system. And of course, zero N64 Metroid games. But then again, 9/10 of parents buy their kids a Nintendo system because it's the only brand name they recognize... Finally---0% interest could be rapidly raised if they announce Rogue Squadron 4, Metroid 4, and a really neat fairly traditional sequel to Mario 64, especially if it has Luigi. As launch titles.

Not far off, you've got to try to land inside a large transport while it's attempting to zoom off into space.

Flashbacks to a rather annoying AFDS mission: http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=23796

Can't find a warbirds listing, best to check a specific airshow's site. BTW, here's the F-104 listing: http://www.starfighters.net/schedule/schedule.html Not many, but well worth it. I've been to Selfridge before, but that's quite a trip. Maybe Evansville...

Umm, what does "Absolutely, except for the Action part" mean? It kinda sounds like you're disagreeing with agreeing with me or something--I specifically said the PLOT has more action, and didn't say a word about the combat. You agreed with me about plot, and disagreed about fighting action--which I didn't mention. Which I suppose I should now: Actually, I found Jade Empire incredibly easy compared to KOTOR. Final boss hit me ONCE. Focus is overwhelmingly powerful. Have a lot of it, and you can take on anyone without ever changing to magic styles nor using support styles etc. On the occasional chance I'm "caught" without a nice Focus supply, fights can take like 10 times as long. But that's usually because I felt too lazy to run back to a Focus Shrine. Focus makes that much of a difference. Despite JE being real-time, KOTOR seemed more interesting, due to number of options, Force powers, difficulty, etc. In JE, I can just slaughter even high end bosses by simply leaping behind them, active Focus and Chi strikes, and mashing A. So while it may be real-time, it seems a lot less interesting than KOTOR because my character is just so overwhelmingly powerful at the end. It gets easier as you go along, at least in my experience. Your power grows much faster than the enemies.

Night Falcon ALREADY is a name for a specific type of real F-16. The Block 40/42. Particularly those in USAF service. (IAF Block 40's lack the WAR HUD, which is fairly important to night ops) I doubt the "USAF Improved Night Falcon" description was sheer chance, I think they intend that this is an upgraded USAF Night Falcon, not a generic F-16 upgraded and re-named. "Night" Falcon isn't nearly as famous as "Strike" Eagle, but it is a often used term for a specific variant. Night Falcon is more commonly known as the F-16CG. (Or the occasional F-16DG). Strangely, I don't think the F-16CJ has a nickname. Wild Weasel is the mission, not the plane in that case AFAIK. Weasel Falcon?

On my second run currently. Anyways---you can use Drunken style, but it's more like a special ability. If you really want, you can use it for 90% of the game. BTW, any particular style only has like 5 moves, once you pick a style, you'll be seeing the same sequence 1,000 times. I still like KOTOR better. Jade Empire seems very linear and short compared to it. KOTOR seems to have more "action" in the plot, and better ending(s). Still, better than 95% of what's out there.

The YF-23's Sidewinders were to be launched just like the AMRAAM's. (Though I think the YF-23's AMRAAM launcher was considered more complex than the -22's, but I've never found even a decent schematic of the -23's).

Valk Profile ran much better on my PS2 than it ever did on my PSX. Haven't really played it on my new slim PStwo (only checked to see it'd boot and load saves).

That "Night Falcon" seems even more "changed just for the sake of changing" than the F-15. Looks rather F-22 esque, especially the nose. Every Block 40/42 specific feature is either missing or obliterated due to changes though, can't really tell why you'd call it a Night Falcon at that point. (Night Falcon=F-16CG=Block 40/42)

Re: backwards compatability. It goes with the "multiple versions" thing. $299 is bare bones version. $399 gets you the HD (with Halo2?), backwards compatability, and something else I'm forgetting...

I think those vents are purely a visual holdover from the original F-15, just like the v.stab fintips. Maybe it's got a new gun, but there's no room at all for an M61A1 in there. The canard is EXACTLY where the muzzle should be. I mean, it's also got the standard F-15 TACAN antenna, but I would presume that's only because it's fairly visible on the real thing, not because in the Macross universe they specifically designed this plan intending to use that navigation system. Lack of a visible muzzle/cutout (plus the location of the canards) says far more than the presence of vents IMHO.

Neat! West Coast Super Hornet team put up the entire display, move by move. http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-122/Demo%20Dirty%20Roll.htm Starts here. VFA-122 home page: http://www.lemoore.navy.mil/vfa-122/

USAF: http://www2.acc.af.mil/airdemo//demo_schedule.html Navy/Marines: http://www.stevesairshow.com/demos05.html T-Birds/Blue Angels: http://www.stevesairshow.com/jet-teams05.html USAF isn't showing ALL the demos, I'm almost certain the F-15 and F-16 schedules are incomplete past June. Also can't find CF-18 schedule, they go to almost as many shows as the East Coast F-18 team. And there will be no F-14 demos besides Oceana.

I think I'd like it more if they just ditched the front end and made it a "100% new, but very F-15-esque" design. As it is, it looks "too modified". As in, there's no point to either convert existing F-15's, nor re-design the F-15 and start building ones like this. The original design is compromised, and an all-new design along the same lines would be vastly superior. Also, some F-15 design elements are no longer needed, notably the h.stab dogtooth and the v.stab anti-flutter weights. They're now there simply to "look like an F-15" rather than any aerodynamic reason. Finally--while I'm all for "more control surfaces=better" this does seem a bit excessive, especially in pitch---4 large all-moving canted stabs, and canards, and vectoring. If the lower pair was ventral fins (as they should be at this point I think, going back to the 2nd-to-last F-15 design) it'd be better, but it looks like everything on the tail is of movable slab construction.

Hmmn. Don't like the intakes on that YF-23 mod. Reminds me of the F-111. Not as bad as the "quarter" cone of the F-111, but not good IMHO. And of course, not stealthy at all. It's like most 1960's half-cone intakes, but only like .40 of a cone, and underslung. Finally--anyone else getting an A-5 Vigilante vibe from the front end? Kinda neat like that.

I do think the overall shape is better than the earlier ones we saw, but in doing so, they changed it from an F-14A into an F-14D.

F***ing morons! http://www.flyingmule.com/Merchant2/mercha...t_Code=DM-50045 Dragon F-14A VF-111 is out. And they f***ed up royally. Wow, the most accurate GE-powered back end of any F-14 model ever! Even beats the Hasegawa 1/72 and 1/48 kits for rear fuselage fairing shape. Nice and square. Too bad that's an F-14A... Grumble grumble. Other things---it's less accurate than it was! The samples, asides from no nose pitot, were nigh-perfect for that block of F-14A, in that era. But no, they have to remove the under-glove antennas, add the ahead of the glove antennas, add the nose gear door antenna. Now it has the details of a recent F-14D. Not good for a high-vis F-14A. Hey, are those NACES seats I see? I think so... And it may just be a reflection, but is that a HUD? Overall, this is REALLY an F-14D, with TF30 nozzles.

I always smirk whenever it's "We've narrowed it down to the 1970's design F-15, or the most modern stuff Europe has to offer". The F-15E/K's aerodynamics are identical to the F-15A's. "We don't need canards or FBW or instability nor vectoring". It's big, and has a lot of power. Which, like the Flanker, seems to solve a lot of problems and offers good performance. Big wings+big engines=good plane. And I think there's always the potentional F-15T for Taiwan. I wonder if the F110 could be bumped up to 33,000lbs each...

Some more VFA-102 50th Ann. pics: http://www.carrierbuilders.net/articles/20...Anniversary.htm