David Hingtgen

Heh--I cut that part out to separate my posts, but Graham already quoted it. Reply down below. Shin--yup, basically the -22 is *believed* to be superior in a knife-fight. (Of course, Lockheed says its definitely superior. But anyone who's looked at the -23's control scheme, and the fuselage cross-section, realizes it should be able to do INSANE things----the -22 is nothing more but an unstable -15 with more power--but the -23 is all new, with massive wings and massive tails and totally unstable---it's like an F-16 on speed) Graham---the F-22 is allowed to use vectoring, just not to enhance its manueverability. See, a Super Flanker or the like, uses thrust vectoring to do all those post-stall, ultra-high-alpha insane moves that they otherwise would have no chance of doing, being aerodynamically impossible and all. (But not "raw engine power" impossible). However, the F-22 isn't allowed to do that. (By command of the Air Force). It is only allowed to use it to TRANSITION from one manuever to the other, faster. As in, if it's going to an Immelmann from a Cuban-8, then it will use its vectoring to pitch up faster to initiate the Immelmann, the moment its done rolling out of the Cuban-8. A normal plane would need to pause for a second to build up energy, but vectoring will take care of that. However, for say a Herbst turn, an F-22 won't be doing that, as it absolutely would require thrust-vectoring to accomplish, and the F-22 couldn't do it without it. Basically---the Air Force doesn't want a plane to initiate a move, then have the vectoring fail, thus causing the plane to crash because it couldn't finish the move without its vectoring. If you never do a move that REQUIRES vectoring, you'll never have that happen. So while an F-22 may be able to do moves FASTER than the F-16 by using vectoring to "help them along", it won't be able to do anything "new". As opposed to most other new planes, which use vectoring to open up all sorts of "impossible" moves.

My main AC physics gripes are: Acceleration is too fast, speed has no effect on turning, bank angle has no effect on stall speed, and you don't lose energy in a turn. Fix those, and you'd still have a nice arcadey game, but a lot more realistic--mainly, it'd really separate the planes. You'd quickly see the difference between the F-14/15/16/18 if you applied those, as opposed to it pretty much being only a visual difference in AC4. Shin---the YF-23 is basically superior to the YF-22 in every possible way, except low-speed high-alpha flight. It was most obviously superior in speed, acceleration, range, and stealthiness. YF-22 wasn't even close in those categories. For the ATF competition, the Air Force said the two most important things were speed and stealth, and the least important thing was low-speed high-alpha flight. So of course, the -22 was picked. Note: Air Force wanted low-speed high-alpha to equal the F-16's. The YF-23 did. The YF-22's is even better, probably matching the F-18. But both are overall more manueverable than the 16/18. The YF-22 is often claimed to be notably more manueverable than the -23, but neither's specs have been declassified, and the YF-23 DOES have a lifting-body centre-section, much like an F-14, thus giving it better high-alpha agility than it would otherwise appear. So the -23 may actually be pretty darn close to the -22 in overall manueverability. (plus the fact that it has larger control surfaces, and more of them---many things about the -23 are still classified, while -22's are not---basically, it performed better than expected, and they don't want people to know just how darn good it is, especially its speed)

I believe it is----I hate when companies use different names instead of just using numbers. Because then they start swapping and changing and mixing names all the time. Hard enough to keep track of the Legacy of Kain series... It's also called Blue *Wing* Knights, and Deadly Skies III.

Looking around, it seems like AFD's music is cr*p. Also--I really liked AC4's story. Of course he was somber---his family, friends, and home were destroyed. Then everyone he befriended died, too. (Except the barkeep's daughter, she lived)

Yup, never have I thought "why'd they even upload that?" after seeing the AC5 trailer. Even 0.4 secs of actual in-game footage would have been nice... I just really hope they'll finally upgrade the Tomcat to a Super Tomcat. I mean, they've had a decade to do so---but I bet we get a Super Hornet instead. (It's very simple to figure out most JP toy and model plane releases--it's whatever the US has stationed in Japan---we've never had Super Tomcats there, but the Black Knights were there a LONG time--thus you'll often find the Black Knights for models, etc---and lots of Hornet-C's, especially VFA-25--thus that's what we get). And now, we'll probably get Super Hornets, I'm betting on VFA-2-esque markings.

Kawamori has too much class to use "F/A" as a designation. Adding "/A" to the F designation is called "convincing Congress you need more". I still type F-18 when possible, as that's the original, true name. (And "F/A"-22 makes most any plane buff puke)

I had no idea it had that many planes. All the screen shots focused on the same few again and again, I had figured it just had the wierdest selection of planes ever. So what's all in there that's cool? EE Lightning? F-8? Vampire? Me163? YF-23? I've never really liked the AF Delta stuff, mainly due to AC being so cool. (I still play AC2, just to have a YF-23). AC3 sucked, fake planes everywhere, music sucked, etc. But AC4 is one of my all-time faves. Too bad there's still almost zilch for AC5 info, other than "it's coming this year". If there's a lot of cool plane in AF Delta-Strike, I'll probably pick it up, as it's been a while since I've gotten a new fighter game. (I passed on Top Gun of course).

All the current-gen stealths (22/23/35) have twisting intakes. It's for stealth, not speed. The YF-23 can blow past the YF-22 because it's sleeker, and has more powerful engines. YF-23 intakes go in, then up. That's pretty much how most of them do it, though it's more subtle in most others. The X-32 is just simply fugly, its bass-like intake doomed it to be rejected, and to be "not very" stealthy.

So I'm the only one who got Licorice Caribou? Guess it's better than Gummy Worm or Chocolate Mousse(pun).

I can't believe no-one's mentioned the female bridge officer's uniforms in Mac 7. And what about Meltrandi uniforms? They all look good on Milia.

Was that in the very final eps? I don't recall seeing this class in the water, though it's been a while.

Macross follows US aircraft designations pretty darn closely, only exception being of course the use of "V" to mean variable, instead of VTOL. (And since variable fighters tend to be VTOL, it's still correct, sort of) "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. "A" however, pretty much means "not air superiority, and not heavy/strategic bombing". Thus A-6, A-7, A-10, etc. They all bomb, but they aren't heavy bombers like the B-52, B-2, etc. Holds true for both valks and real planes.

Nanashi---is that an "official" waterline placement? Looks rather low. Wow, everything in Macross is huge---that's a LOT of ship and planes for an *Escort* Carrier.

Well, I always figured the F-5 could have paralleled the F-16's development, had we bought any. (Yes, I know we bought *some*, but not enough for anyone to care) Heck, they both started out as pure short-range Sidwinder-only light fighters. But add in some fancy radar, add Sparrow and/or AMRAAM, and you've got yourself a nice, agile fighter. They did for the F-16, but the F-5 never got that chance. Then there's the F-20---but why buy the F-20 when the F-16's already got all those improvements by then, and can bomb, too. And while Sea Harriers have a good air-to-air record, a big chunk of that is because of who and what they fought, not wonderfulness of the plane. Though I did list the upgraded FRSMk2 in my list, for with the new radar (among the best in the world now), and AMRAAM's, it's got quite the long-range punch.

Ah, that actually makes sense. The engine itself is in the lower leg, but there's an auxiliary air pump (which looks way too much like a whole 'nother engine, though it could function as a pre-compressor) that sucks in air, and sends it down the articulated intake to the engine. And actually, with a system like that, no valk would have need for variable intake ramps, since the pump/pre-compressor could take care of all airflow requirements... Of course, a disadvantage would likely be high inlet temps, which is often THE limitation on an engine's power. (But since we know valks are made of nigh-magical stuff, they can probably take 10,000 degrees....)

Yup, gotta wonder about OTHER scales. 1/60, 1/72, etc. Whatever the YF-19 is, is what I'll standardize on. No 1/48 M+? Then no 1/48 M&M (nor Roy) for me. I have some 200 model planes---I try to standardize on scales.

I didn't list the F-16 because it's well acknowledged as a$$-kicking, and practically unbeatable at "knife-range" as it's called. F-111---amazing attack plane. When they really needed something taken out in Desert Storm, they called for 111's, not 15E's. Size matters, for a bomber. (And F-111's are just as fast as an F-15 at altitude, and even faster at low altitude) A-6, A-7----they rock, or they wouldn't have been in service so long. And most people love to point out that in Desert Storm, they could carry more stuff, further, than the Hornet. Oh well, maybe the Super DUPER KF/A_B-18M Hornet II will finally beat them for range/payload.....

I'll go along with F-5 and F-8, and toss in the F-14 as well. (F-14's don't bleed off very much speed in a turn, a little-known but big advantage--there's no point pulling 9G's if you're down to 150kts once you come out of it, with no energy left) Add in the Sea Harrier FRS.Mk2--with the new radar and AMRAAM's, it's pretty darn good at long-range, equal to the Hornet-C I'd say. And of course, let's have over-rated fighters of course: I'll start with the MiG-25 and F/A-18E.

Anyone got a good cutaway? Because I think it's fairly well established that it's only the intake's guide vanes you see, not the 1st stage fan, in the intake. (Though they are about the most fan-like vanes I've ever seen) (And I can't think of any engine with a *significant* gap between the vanes and the engine itself)

And they screwed that up by naming the new attack subs Virginia class, about a day after the Virginia class (the other one) were decommissioned. Plus the Seawolf-class USS Connecticut. There should be some sort of 20+ year rule before reusing a name for a class. I mean, what if the next class of ships after the Nimitz is decommissioned was called Nimitz too? Gotta create a gap between classes. Feel free to reuse names all the time, just don't make 2 classes in a row. I mean, they could have just swapped some around, so the Virginia was 2nd, instead of the class leader. Then it wouldn't ever confuse/need clarification. It's not like the previous Virginia class is some old hulk no-one ever talks about, they're just one class back from our current front-line cruisers and served in Desert Storm.

Dat Pinche Haro (or Druna Skass, whoever's account you're using)---- Battleships were named for states, cruisers for cities. And Chicago had 2 ships in WW2 alone, like 4 this century. Detroit---only 2 I can think of. And all were cruisers, as the naming procedure goes. There were no "bad-a$$" states really left to use. New York was already in use, as was Texas and California. Now, the unbuilt biggest battleships were to be Montana class. But the rest of the class were to be New Hampshire, Maine, Ohio, and Louisiana. Not the largest, most awe-inspiring states. Or in other words--it's pretty darn random. Nowadays it's pure politics (once congressmen found out how easy it was to re-name a ship, we started getting LOTS of sucky names, and out-of sequence ones--especially the new Virginia class, which everyone agrees should have been any of the other 49 states due to the OTHER Virginia still existing and recently being a front-line very famous class of ships)

F-111 rocks at what it wasn't designed to do. (Much like the F-15E) And don't forget, the F-14 was based (sorta) on the F-111. Same idea, same requirement, just executed differently. It's like the YF-16 vs YF-17, and A-9 vs A-10, and YF-22 vs YF-23. Basically, the F-14 is the F-111 done right. A large, heavy, high-speed long-range swing-wing interceptor with bad TF30 engines. It's not coincidence Grumman's listed as an F-111 designer and pretty much used the F-111B as a testbed for the F-14's design. Finally--the F-111 can easily outrun an F-14. It might not be able to turn worth $hit, but it can go sure go fast.

Just a note---Hasbro shortened the mufflers, too, not just the stacks. (As in, the thicker, bottom part--that's the muffler). The bottom of the muffler doesn't go as low as the Takara version. Neither has as large a muffler as a real Freightliner FL86, but the Takara one is closer, and the stacks are sufficiently tall for a good chunk of trailers. (Not tall enough for Prime though---based on what he hauls, Prime should have the tallest stacks you can buy, short of custom-order extra-extra-tall) I really wish the muffler's grill/guard would have been a separate piece, would have looked nice. And maybe have exhaust pipes connect to them...

I'll say it again--depends how you spell it. Die-cast: adjective, describes a process. Diecast: noun, means zinc alloy.

I've yet to hear of anyone removing his mask since the very first time it happened. There's the one guy who did, and we all looked at the pic. And nobody's done it since AFAIK. I think nobody wants to risk ruining it, since it sure doesn't seem to want to come off.