David Hingtgen

Ok, here we go. This is an F-18C. Now, there is some slight under-nose antenna bump variation that identifies it, but I don't know it, and it's really subtle. Here's the others (for the A/B, these are simply not there): Right behind the canopy are fairly obvious, triangular bumps. These and all the other bumps are for the ALQ-65. Nose bumps: directly above the 01 modex, directly above the center formation light panel. The one in front of the 01 modex is on all Hornets, but only C/D have the one above. Also, go straight back from the formation light panel, until you're directly below the tip of the LEX. There's another C/D bump. Tailfin: If you look at the pics here of the Hell's Angels A-model, there's a distinctive "gap" in the middle of all the bumps and anteannas and the fuel vent on the rear edge of the top of the v.stabs. Well, the C/D's fit in another one, so there's a pretty continuous line of antennas in that area. (A/B's have 3, C/D's have 4---the "new" one would occupy spot #2, going from top to bottom) A/B's have a small bump, large space, large bump, then the fuel dump. C/D's have a small bump, a small space, another small bump, then the large bump, then the fuel dump.

It's easy when you know what look for. C's have very distinctive antenna bumps at certain locations, where A's have simply featureless areas. The fact that the C-specific antenna bumps are always painted gloss white regardless of camo scheme makes it easier to spot them. I'll post a little guide later on. (Marine and USN D-models are suprisingly different, and quite easy to spot--an odd little quirk of the Hornet family) The really quick and easy way is to look for the 2 bumps on the upper part of spine just aft of the canopy, one on the left and one on the right. Easiest way to tell, though from your pics I actually went by the tailfins first, and confirmed with the nose. F-15A's/C's vary between "very very very hard" and "utterly impossible, even if you're close enough to touch it". Depends on the exact plane. If you're comparing a C with every possible current update, you can BARELY tell from a current A. But as it is, most A's and C's are currently IDENTICAL, due to overlapping updates and such. As of right now, all A's have received 99 to 100% of the C's formerly subtle distinguising features. Your only hope is if a C model has gained the latest C-specific features (mainly itty-bitty antennas on the forward fuselage related to upgraded ECM)

Very interesting---that's an A-model Hornet. Yet it's a current USMC commander's plane... An updated A-model, but an A nonetheless. Markings---that plane's high on the list of wanted Marine Hornet decals, from the entire modeling community. Myself, I'm looking to make the Red Devils (as soon as I find a way to get a twin AMRAAM launcher for the underwing pylons):

A B-52 could have many "dummy" nacelles. I mean, most L-1011 models have only the #2 engine functional, the rest are just hollow nacelles. And with how things are, an R/C B-52 with only like 2 or 4 engines would probably have a much better power/weight ratio than the real thing!

Most people would tell you to check yesterdayland.com, but they're gone now (which truly sucks, they had every 80's toy---they were like x-entertainment, but done seriously and as a true reference source) More details? Colors, materials, etc?

IMHO it would have been much better had they decided to go all the way either serious, or campy. First half very campy, second half more serious. But kept alternating between the two. I hate that. One or the other. Ending 20 mins---too "frenetic and random events/action" even for my tastes.

Following up: I've never had any probs with Smokescreen at all, though many people have trouble getting all the doors to line up in car mode. Maybe all the times I TF'd X-Brawn helped... MG Zeta: you know, ONCE I found like a "secret click" spot, and somehow, some way, the thing became rock solid in wave rider mode. Never happened again, but I left it that way for a while, knowing it was a one time thing. I narrowed it down to where the shield attaches via the long polycap-filled strut. Somehow, you can really "lock" that area, and the shield will be pulled very tight to the main body, and you'll have a non-floppy Zeta. Cybershark and all his incarnations: I think it's more of a "you don't really know when you're done" problem. Like too many BW etc toys, neither mode has definitive "end" points for a lot of his parts. It's just "make it look like the box art as best you can". Half-done and totally done robot mode look much the same, a lot of it is artistic license in deciding where to put all his parts. Same with shark mode--the belly never really folds up nicely, you just tuck the legs in as best you can. It's "done" when you say "this is as much time as I plan to spend on it" trying to tidy up the shark mode.

TF: Beast Wars Ramhorn. The brown beetle that's the arms of Tripredacus. No matter whether you're 1 step in, or 30 mins in, the only possible thing you can think of is "ok, WTF do I do next?" You have no clue how to proceed, and it's often easier to just undo the last few steps until you can get something that resembles one of the steps in the instruction booklet and re-start at the half-way point. Yes, I've owned nearly every G1 toy, nearly every RID, most of BW, a good chunk of BM, and a few Armada/Energon, and nobody comes close to that little brown gestalt component for "I think I'll give up now, but I don't know how to get him back to ANY mode from this point". Being a triple-changer doesn't help at all. After that, Yamato YF-19. At least I know what every step looks like, even if I fear snapping it in half every transformation. Ramhorn's quite sturdy (pop-aprat ball joints) but it's just an utter mess at any step.

YF-19's my fave valk, and the 1/48 F-15E I just bought today will need company... PS--here's the link to the YF-19 auction: http://page7.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/g20989491

The Fujimi F-14D prototype costs a lot more than the others. Has more photoetch than a regular Fuji F-15, similar to a Hase. Still, I believe it lacks the chinpod and gunvents needed for Shin's. I have only seen 1 Fuji F-14 in the US in like 5 years. About 2 months ago, the F-14 Jolly Rogers re-release. They are generally imported by MRC and used to be fairly common. But now that MRC is all buddy-buddy with Academy, they pretty much stopped getting Fuji's. Thankfully, Fuji seems to be doing better recently, and they're producing more kits. (No new molds in years, but they do often tweak the existing ones and reissue new variants, and have been using cartograph decals in most of the recent releases) PS--Hobbytown USA *is* R/C, it's been going that way for years. As stores get remodeled, R/C gets bigger and kits get smaller. Still, usually a good place for Tamiya supplies.

Told you the Revell was messed up. No weapons on the Fuji F-14D prototype? Are you sure? Because the weapons sprue also has some cockpit and gear parts, and I don't think you could build the kit without it. FYI, both the Fuji and Hase F-14's have no hardpoints molded "open"---you drill them out if you want to add something, due to the many options. Your standard "flashed over holes". And F-14's only have 2 pylons anyways.

I thought her expression leaned a bit more towards "scared". Wonderful work either way.

Any CAG/Wing Commander/Squadron Commander plane pics are always appreciated.

Dang, I'm jealous. I NEVER get even half-way decent lighting for the Blue Angels. I have many close, clear, and DARK shots of them. Anyways---5 more weeks until the Super Hornet comes to Iowa! Hmmn, that's the East Coast F-16 team, I've never seen them. I need to, to see how they compare to the West Coast team (whom I always see). A-10's---AFAIK, all the airshow ones are "dedicated" and have chrome-plated muzzles. And the one they usually use is the one that shot down a helicopter in Desert Storm. Can't tell in that pic if it's got the chrome gun, but that's certainly the right squadron (Flying Tigers).

125MB! Wow, even I never get that much. Of course, there's never 125MB worth of stuff to photograph in Iowa... Can we have a quick little preview? Like 1 pic and a paragraph listing highlights to whet our appetites?

Starbase--with starships! Anyways---how much lightsheet is in it? (Looks like lightsheet to me, and there's nothing more appropriate) There's a kit of Moya? That'd be VERY hard to paint IMHO. Unless there's some "quick and easy" way to get approx. the right look.

Re-read my reply 3 posts up. Yes, it's pretty standard to be flying upside down in a dive for a bombing run, but you roll right-side up to release them. Bombs are usually explosively fired off the racks or pushed--they usually don't just "fall". (Doesn't look like it, but they are) You can't fire a bomb upwards while upside down. Also, they'd probably roll to the side and straight through the wing. And finally, how would letting go while upside down, then rolling upright give simultaneous release? It wouldn't, as they'd start rolling off to the side as the plane came upright. (Assuming they had divine balance and could stay on the pylon after being let go) They wouldn't all hover in place and wait until the plane was perfectly upright, then start falling all together. Yeesh, the Super Hornet had to have its pylon re-located because it couldn't drop bombs right while flying straight and level. I seriously doubt any plane could do it upside down without destroying itself. It could easily be a 1-minute inverted dive to a target, then a last-second roll to upright and release then pull away. But you don't drop them when inverted. That's your standard dive-and-toss profile, everything from Harriers to F-15E's to Bombcats. You can do the almost whole attack inverted, but you do roll upright for a split second to release the bombs and pull out of the dive. They usually roll upright as soon as the proper dive angle is achieved while inverted, however. (Modern dive bombing is much more complex than simply nosing-over into a dive)

Sure you've got that right? I really don't think that'd work, for many reasons. It is really common to do the following however: Pull up, roll inverted, then pull up into a dive (think about it), roll upright, then release the bombs. That is your standard modern dive-bomb run.

Told you, it's all about the purple. Just enough to change the shade, without making you think "purple" at all. But it's in there, and you end up with the perfect shade. Look at the very darkest bits of hair in the upper left pic, and you should be able to tell it's there. It's not so much as an overall purple, more of a "the shadowed areas have a purplish tint" PS, Sam----that eye looks perfect to me.

Hey, now you can make her hair slightly lavender! PS--while her eye color varies a LOT, straight red never looks good. Go with either pinky-red, or brownish-red.

1. It's a heck of a lot harder to load! 99% of your standard bomb/missile lifts, etc wouldn't work. A few guys can easily hoist an AMRAAM up onto an underwing pylon, takes a lot more to get one up and over the wing. Physical reason, rather than aerodynamic. Also, you can't "drop" anything from an overwing pylon. No bombs, period. No Sparrows, Phoenixes, or HARM's either. Only rail-fired missiles would work, which pretty much limits it to Sidewinders or AMRAAM's. That's probably the single best thing about AMRAAM---can be rail-fired or dropped. Only missile I can think of that can do both (Matra Magic possibly?). If you want more missiles, just use twin-launchers. (I want to do a Hornet with 2 twin AMRAAM launchers, but nobody makes that part in 1/72 scale--might do 1/48 just to have it, because it looks SOOOOO cool). Usually, aircraft weapon amounts are weight-limited, not "number of pylons" limited. 2. The airflow on the upper surface is generally more important than the lower surface. A minor reason, but everything helps.

That's different. Prop planes use the propwash to increase the effectiveness of the wings. Much like blown flaps. But a simple pylon, with say a missile on it, (like the Jaguar) only disturbs the flow. Even with the engine itself above the wings, the *prop* on a plane like that is still in FRONT of the wings. Designing an aircraft to purposely use the propwash is rather different than just sticking a pylon in the way. Any plane that uses propwash usually depends on it for both lift and control. The VFW-614 is that little Fokker airliner with engines over the wings.

Heh heh--compendium says: "Maximum of twelve standard Raytheon Bifors AIM-200A AMRAAM 2" So it's AMRAAM 2, not Super AMRAAM. Good call! Though "SAMRAAM" sounds kind of neat. Sigh, pretty soon they'll be making the USHARAHAAM or something...

I haven't seen much of Mac 0, don't know what the VF-0 weapons are. Question--if they don't look like AMRAAM's, why do you call them Super AMRAAM's? Is that simply the closest looking real-life missile? The newest AMRAAM is the AIM-120C, the "clipped wing" version for the F-22, but to make life easier (imagine that from the military) all planes can (and do) use that version. It's about all you see nowadays---A's were pretty much only prototypes, B's were the first common in-service ones, and they switched to making C's as soon as they could, and that's rapidly being sent out.

That rocked. YF-23! Anyone else notice these F-14's had a different scheme than the previous ones? These are in Jolly Rogers 60th Ann. colors. Everything but the skull. The older ones were in NSAWC colors. These should have been B's, really hard to see the differences in like 240x resolution! Thankfully, we also see F-15 and F-16's, so "the big four" are all represented. And I only saw one Flanker.