David Hingtgen

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

Waiting for mikeszekely's comments. I only have an EB near here, and a ex-SoftwareEtc-now-Gamestop 20 miles away. I snag all my stuff from VideoGameDepot. Non-chain game stores rock. And I can buy Pocky there too EB: buy XB game, get told how much XB sucks by the PS2 guy. Buy PS2 game, get told how much the PS2 sucks by the XB guy.

From what I can tell, the "fat" F-8 bombs are Mk84's, just of WW2 vintage. The design has changed, but the number hasn't. View from the rear of the Diamondback's 50th Anniversary scheme:

I think "vanes" would be a better term than shutters. Going by other jet thrust vectoring, etc. The real-world thing most similar to the YF-21's is the F-15S/MTD's vanes for creating reverse thrust. "Cascades" would also be acceptable, if not looking like a typical cascade arrangement.

Skull Leader: Of all the 1/72 and 1/48 diecast model planes, Dragon has the consistenly best shape. Heck, they beat a lot of plastic model kits. I would not classify them as 'toys' at all. For the F-14 to look "off" is a BIG surprise to us. For VF-2, I was referring to how of the few pitot-less F-14's there were, VF-2 1970's high-vis were among them. Shin: I think the F-18 wingtip AMRAAM issue is pure weight. A second-hand anecdote I read is that they mounted an AMRAAM on the tips ONCE. The bend and droop in the wings convinced them to never try it again. Why the Shornet can't however, I have no idea. Certainly with practically a totally redesigned wing (particularly, it is stiffer, and has less washout at the tips--so it inherently bends and droops a lot less than the earlier ones) it should have been easy to design it to allow AMRAAM's. Coolest Super Hornet scheme ever: VFA-102 50th Ann. http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=23597 No, there's no other pics at the moment. We'll just have to wait.

I don't want AMRAAM's on the tips of a Hornet because they can't carry it. Hornet wingtips are Sidewinder only, period. All versions, all configurations. Yes, Super Hornets actually have the standard USN AMRAAM launcher on their tips--but it's still not allowed to have AMRAAM's there. Even those "lots of AMRAAMs" pics of Hornets will show the tips with Sidewinders.

I think this is the first "official" Dragon Super Hornet listing: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRW50070 An *E* model? C'mon, the demo is always done with an F, and the F is by far the most popular version. I'd love VFA-122, but I want an F. Wonder what weapons it'll come with. 5 drop tanks would be nice. I sure hope they don't put AMRAAM's on the wingtips like they did with the F-18C.

I really need to see a final, production, shipped-to-stores Dragon F-14 to make any more comments. It seems they have molded a lot of different Tomcat parts, but just aren't putting them together right. Much as if you took a Hasegawa F-14D kit, but used a lot of A and B parts while building it. Remember, if Dragon's making it, they almost certainly used the Hase kit as a reference, and the decals. You'd be suprised at how many diecast companies use plastic kit decals as reference---it's easy to tell, just look for errors. But my current main "fear" is that none will have nose pitots, which is pretty obvious, especially since they spent so much effort on the F-16's. Pitot-less F-14's aren't very common. (Though VF-2 high-vis would be so). Asides from the pitot, the VF-111 looks quite accurate. (Though I do have issues with the overall sculpt---strange, since Dragon seems to really be nailing the overall shape/outlines---but the F-14 looks "stubby" to me, or something)

MANY people equate diecast with quality/collectibility. Trust me, I've seen many flame wars that are basically "plastic vs diecast". There are a lot of people who would gladly pay more money for an ERTL F-16 than an expertly built Hasegawa F-16, simply because it's metal. I have seen many people reject a very nicely detailed, new model simply because the wings (and only the wings) were plastic, and it wasn't "100% metal" and they buy the less accurate, less detailed model (with solid metal wings) because it was metal. As for the F-14's: I'm waiting to see the Sundowners one first. No nose probe is as stupid an error as no pylons for the F-15E. And I would be very (happily) surprised if the VF-2 one was done right, as an early F-14A. (Because that would mean the Wolfpack one could be done right) Black Aces: yup, it's Fast Eagle 107, one of the shooters.

May not have a rudder, but you'll always need yaw control. No different than a modern FBW plane. An F-18 has an insanely complex control system, you never have direct control over anything--you tell it what to do and it does it. (F-18's LOOK conventional, but they move 8-10 control surfaces just for a simple roll) What the plane actually uses to accomplish it doesn't matter, whether it's an F-18's rudders or a Viper's verniers. Feet=yaw, regardless of how or why it's achieved. (Pedals also work the brakes on the ground, but that's not very relevant) (and nosewheel steering at low speeds)

Pontiac, though I do believe the Corvette has the option as well. (They also get a tach on theirs, I'm jealous).

In real life, HUD's are very easy to see from the outside, at least those projected on a combiner glass. Don't know about those projected directly on the windscreen. ::heads to garage, checks car:: (Yes, if anyone on this planet got the HUD option on their car, it'd be me) Now THAT is interesting. Can't see it at all from the outside. My car's HUD is like an F-14---it projects it directly onto the windscreen, there's no separate combiner glass plate. Soooo---can we assume any F-14-style HUD isn't visible from the outside? Because I know first-hand F-16 HUD's etc are visible from 100ft away if they're turned on and in a FLIR/LANTIRN display mode etc.

Binaltech/Alternators: Actually like Smokescreen the most. The rest of the line is quickly becoming shellformers. Tracks especially.

I don't recall Rogue Squadron games having a HUD. IIRC most every "recent" SW flight sim etc (X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Rogue Squadron etc) have a gunsight, but not a true HUD. As I mentioned with the F-4, if all you have is a green circle and a dot moving around (and a little box surrounding the target), that's not a HUD. It's simply to help you aim.

Let's see: 1. According to the SW Vehicles guide (can never remember exact title) the X-Wing normally has Incom "4L4" engines, with 4j.4 engines as an alternate installation. Perhaps Red 3 has the 4j.4's, and some even have 2x 4L4 and 2x 4j.4's. Mixing engines is quite possible on airliners, though rarely done AFAIK. Can't think of any military fighter etc. that ever mixes sub-types. (Though not much reason it can't be done, most modern engines can "recognize" a mix of types and automatically lower the performance of the other engines to match the least-powerful engine installed, so they all behave the same). In any case if it's an "approved" mixing of types, they behave so similarly anyways you probably wouldn't notice a difference. (Actually, acceleration rates are the main thing, total thrust etc. isn't so much a factor as how the engines "behave") 2. Rebel ships have their handy "targeting computer" that comes out in front of the pilot's eyes for "critical" targeting. Unless you're using The Force to target... 3. If you want to see a big HUD, look at a USAF Block 40 or 42 F-16. Those are huge. Much bigger in real life (heh heh) than you'd think from the pics. It's very similar to my current view sitting here typing this in front of my monitor. Though a Block 40/42 HUD has very thick framing, unlike the "frameless" EF-2000 HUD pic Graham posted. 4. I can't find any mention at all of the first fighter with a HUD. F-14? (Plenty of F-4's have HUD's NOW, but none were built with one AFAIK---while they did have a "glass plate with things projected on it" it's a floating gunsight only--no speed/alt/G/alpha/vector/range etc) 5. I'm going to agree with Skippy and say it's purely to see the actor's faces. Like the helmet design in that "Stealth" movie.

The dual tandems (those would be the wheels etc for those unversed in trailer lingo) just kill it for me. MP Prime's biggest flaw IMHO is the entire wheel/fender/suspension setup. Completely utterly unrealistic to a real semi. Hotwheels are more accurate. And this trailer just copies it and emphasizes it. Not to mention that Prime's wheels (size-wise) are very disproportionate compared to the rest of the toy/real trucks, which has always made it hard to try to calculate what scale MP Prime is. When only part of it is to scale with itself, what scale is it? Of course, I've ranted (not here though) quite a lot on how much vehicle mode was sacrificed on MP Prime for robot mode, to the point that very minor robot mode improvements came at major inaccuracies for truck mode... (I have always favored vehicle modes in any toy, from G1 to Macross---which is why TF Armada etc does nothing for me but I loved TF Robots in Disguise)

Hmmn. The YF-23 has a surprising number of accurate details. The gear is quite correct, if crude. However, it is YF-23 #1, painted up as YF-23 #2. (PW vs GE is really obvious on the -23). And the belly panel lines are totally made up. I'd say it's closer to 1/72 than 1/100. 1/80? 1/85? It should be a little bit longer than a -15 with a little bit LESS span. (Real life it's about 5 feet longer but 5 feet narrower than the -15, but the overall wing area is 50% greater due to chord) It's far too big to be 1/100. Hey Graham--if you need replacement YF-23 gear, just do like the manufacturer did--take an F-15's nosegear and an F-18's main gear. Just remove the "shock absorbers" from the -18 gear and you're good to go. Everything that's not the actual airframe of the -23 is standard McDonnellDouglas parts. From the ejection seat to the gear.

Some of the more recent Dragon F-15's are being re-released with Sparrows, Drop Tanks, a tarmac, and ground crew: http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp Just scroll down a little. Hmmn, looks like the Sparrows are attached like they should be, on the fuselage corners. I still haven't bought the Langley F-15C, guess I'll wait for this version to be available. And no, I don't think they added the pylons to the F-15E, we're not that lucky. And I really don't think they carry twin Paveways like that on the wings. (They're obviously re-using the set some F-16's come with)

I'd like to see the engines and belly.

$35,000 is a LOT for a PSP cover... http://www.the-magicbox.com/0503/game050328i.shtml

I'm on TFW2005, and I know Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 is as well.

I never got S on Ace for Whiskey Corridor. Mission is just so LONG to try over and over. Still got every scheme though.

Now that I think about it, I think you can actually do considerably less than that. Merely unlocking the X-02 isn't that hard, it's getting the 2nd and 3rd colors that requires all the aces, etc. X-02's are like 2 million bucks each I think, took me more than 1 entire playthrough to get enough cash for each of the special colors. Though IMHO, getting the 3rd Su-37 color is hardest of all, last thing I got.

Shoot down the aces in every level, in an actual play-through (not free mission), on hard. Also helps to have an S on every mission (can use free mission for this). (There's still AFAIK no consensus on EXACTLY what the minimum requirements are, but this'll almost certainly do it)

I cannot STAND dead pixels of any kind, period. The "wait a week and see if it still bothers" you is about as utter BS as I've ever heard. And what's with "if determined to be defective"? Do they have testers play your machine after you send it to them, and see if they think it's annoying enough to warrant a new screen or machine? Anyways, when I bought a GB color, it had a "dead" pixel. Always lit blue, just left and above of dead center. Less than 1 hour after I called Nintendo (on my 1-hour old GBC) they had contacted a FedEx driver, who stopped at my house and sent it to Nintendo at Nintendo's expense, and I had a new GBC within 5 days, again returned via FedEx overnight. I may consider Nintendo at the bottom of the list for games/hardware at the moment, but their customer service can't be beat in my experience.