David Hingtgen

We DO highlight commander's planes. Where do you think the bright yellow and black Jolly Rogers planes come from? Or shark-mouthed Sundowners planes? Air Force isn't big on it, usually just accenting the tailcode/serial number and modifying the fin-stripe, but the Navy goes all-out. (Unless it's the early 90's, and they're taking low-vis SERIOUSLY)

If you were ever bored and browsed through the member lists at the old board, over half (some pages it'd be like 80%) had 0 or 1 posts ever, or hadn't posted in over a year. The "active" members are about the same I think.

A few more comments: Did some hinge-carving, still not totally enthused about the alternate transformation. Even though the effect is only slightly larger than Smokescreen's chest, it's enough that I don't like it much. BUT, doing it allows the OFFICIAL tranformation to look better! It cuts down the kibble by like 50%. So regardless of how you transform him, do some carving. Tail-lights got me curious, so I took the trunk apart and looked. In the "that's weird" category, the lights are totally clear plastic, with GOLD paint behind them. Yet they look red when viewed the right way. (Well, more of an orangey-pink than red--but not gold! ) Weird. (And I took them totally out of the toy, so they weren't picking up any hues from the red plastic). Smokescreen also has pure clear lights, but he'd be a lot more effort to disassamble just to see the backs of his tail-lights. PS--Transformers.com has confirmed an Alternators Tracks Corvette. (Yes, it's an obvious/rumored mold/name, but they never officially mentioned it before AFAIK). Big question is--C5 or C6? PPS--Sidewipe is taller than Smokescreen, larger overall.

LOL. I edited right as you posted a reply. And yup, the brakelights don't look as good. It seems that the red paint they used throughout is extra-transparent--his cylinder heads are practically pink. They're RED in the box pics. I think Smokescreen actually has clear red plastic lights, while Sideswipe has clear parts with clear red paint over them. For me, I like him mainly because: 1. Not covered in garish logos and stickers. 2. He looks like my all-time fave G1 Autobot. (Alt Smokescreen has G1 Smokescreen's head but little else----but Alt Sideswipe even has G1 Sideswipe's foot and leg markings and design, and with an "unofficial" door positioning, has his arms as well)

That's not the issue I have. It's the BOTTOM. License-plate area. No matter how you cut, it's always about the same distance from his waist. Yes, you can alter the hinge so that the upper part of the trunk is closer to his neck/shoulders, but the lower part is always going to stick way out from his waist. It'd need a section cut out and made into a Z-fold hinge to allow it to get close to waist. ::edit:: I haven't actually tried cutting out the bit yet, as I didn't think it looked like any hinge position would allow it to look good, based on how and where it pivots. But I might as well try it, maybe it'll move just enough. Nothing else to do tonight.

I believe it simply says VF-1, which is the Wolfpack squadron, which is one of the more prominently displayed insignia on their jackets. (I think) (You can find a good half-dozen names and numbers on Maverick and Goose's equipment, but VF-1/Wolfpack is the most common, though VAW-110 is also seen a lot)

Fiddled with the alternate transformation---I think the trunk is just too bulky and juts out too far to have it look good. If they had designed it to do it, they could have incorporated a hinge/collapsing section near the bottom of the bumper, to allow a Z-fold, to bring the rear bumper in much closer to the chest (like a full 1/2 inch, maybe even 3/4 of an inch). But as it is, no matter what angle you put it at, he'll still have like a beer belly. (Or beer pecs more accurately)

Blue vs clear is JP vs US, I believe. No Prime actually matches the Takara box/manual. (I wish it did, I like the *silver-painted* legs much better than silvery plastic legs)

Found Sideswipe myself tonight at Wal-Mart, so he's definitely out. A few comments: Not as shiny/glossy as Alt. Smokescreen. He's not FLAT plastic, but noticeably not as smooth a finish as Smokescreen. Seems a bit orangey, too. More of a Ferrari red than classic Viper red. (But I haven't seen this particular Viper color in real life, so I dunno) Awesome engine--chrome valve covers with red accents and the Viper lettering. WAY more accurate engine than Smokescreen. Has intake plenums, cylinder heads, etc. Hood's a bit finicky to open though. Steering gimmick much better executed that Smokescreen. Doesn't get in way of transformation at all. More kibbly than Smokescreen. The whole back end and hood just hangs off, and the front bumper really interferes with his foot positioning. Like Smokescreen, Hasbro tossed out a few minor transformation steps. (like the steering wheel, tonneau cover, steering mechanism, headrests, and other things that need to be moved/lined up to form the robot chest, and allow the floorboards to fold up) There's like 6 joints in EACH shoulder. You can arrange the doors and sidesills and wheels however you want. I think the "official" way is the worst, making him look like G1 Sideswipe is the best. No, he doesn't need to have *widely* splayed legs. Just a bit. Actually, if you transform it right and figure out what the instructions left out, his "windshield as chest" looks quite nice. The whole interior folds up (kinda like Smokescreen) so there's no hollow areas underneath the windshield. I haven't tried out the "trunk as chest" transformation yet, as it will require a bit of plastic-cutting at the joint. I think the main point of that variation is actually to reduce the amount of back kibble, and make him more balanced. (He's not nearly as stable as Smokescreen). Overall---about as good as Smokescreen, maybe a little worse. Some areas better, some worse. But G1 Sideswipe is my all-time fave Autobot, so a new one is great.

Macross is clearly following USN practice for aircraft markings. They even use "VF" for squadrons (with an S added for space). And they use modex numbers as the main identifiers, not bureau/serial numbers. Because 112 is easier than 161855. Serial numbers are there, but not easily visible and only used for "accounting purposes" etc. I wonder if we'll ever see the Macross equivalent of the F/A-18, and thus a SVFA squadron. Or a dedicated night-attack UN Marines version, thus an SVMFA(AW) squadron.

I have yet to snag a 1/48, but Milia is enough to make me buy anything. Of course, whatever scale the oft-rumored (4 days maybe?) new YF-19 is, will affect how many 1/48 VF-1's I buy. I really like having things in scale. If the YF-19 is 1/60, then I won't replace all my 1/60 VF-1's. If it's 1/48, then I'll at least snag a 1/48 Roy as well, maybe Max.

Yup, that book is worth its weight in gold. More real, factual info about modern jet combat than anything else, period.

Dobber brought up a point I was about to make--2 F-15E's were lost, with 2-man crews. You don't count non-air-combat-losses in a plane's win/loss ratio. The F-15E's were taken down exactly the same way as the F-14B. Getting shot down by a SAM means NOTHING for how good a plane is at fighting. "Golden BB" theory. I mean, we lost FIVE F-16's. Next--They didn't run from the F-14? Time for me to quote: "We were anxious to show what the long-range Phoenix could do. But it didn't happen. On my first day mission, there were a lot of Iraqi airplanes airborne over targets. As soon as we pointed our AWG-9's-our powerful radar-at themm they ran. They skedaddled in ever direction. We we frustrated, but the attack guys loved what the AWG-9 did. They asked us, 'Is there a pod we can carry that will transmit the AWG-9's frequency?' They were serious." --LtCdr Parsons, VF-32. Sounds like pretty good evidence to me. There's more F-15 than F-14 pilot interviews, and not one F-15 pilot ever says anything about MiG's runing away. Blowing them up, sure, but not having them run. More quotes, same report: "I don't know if they knew the F-15's radar frequency, but they wouldn't react when an F-15 got close. But when a Tomcat put his nose out there, they were gone". Finally--yes, a MiG-29 ran into the ground while engaging an F-15, but not because he was SCARED of it. The exact same thing happened with an EF-111! I seriously doubt that pilot was afraid of an unarmed plane... There were two Iraqi fighters downed just because they were lured into smashing into the ground.

Yeah, I need the old forums back up---I never got a copy of my own FSW thread. And I don't want to have to re-do the whole thing!

Re: cost. It's pretty pointless to accept simply "F-14" or "F-15" from a site. They've got to be way more specific. And cite a year. I mean, a 1974 F-14A is going to be a LOT cheaper than a 1990 F-14D. Just think about cars. 1974 vs 1990. What, quadruple the price simply due to inflation? Maybe only triple. And finally--what DOES cost have to do with how good a fighter is, anyways? F-111 was expensive as hell, and it sucked so bad it couldn't fulfill the role it was designed for. And then there's the whole issue of how military stuff is accounted. "B-2's cost half a billion each." Not really. There's just so few (20) that the cost of the development program as a whole is only spread over 20 planes. If there were 200 B-2's, they'd only be considered to be 50 million each, instead of 500 million. (not *exactly* but I don't feel like trying to calculate out per-unit variable cost vs fixed cost of a military program---and the B-2's is probably classified anyways) If we built 500 more F-15's, the cost per plane would plummet. Does that make it a worse fighter? If we'd only built 20 F-14's, the program cost would be like $400 million each or something--does that make it better?

My point was it's the same effect---flat out noticeably lower quality.

Of course, in a true dogfight, I'd want a fairly early F-16C. Block 30A or so. PS---MiG-25's at speed can't turn worth sh*t. If there's any fighter a Phoenix could hit, it'd be an intercepted MiG-25.

Yeah. The nose cone is utterly blunt.

Diecast models tend to do the most famous/colorful schemes there are. Simple. (You won't find many low-vis models out there, even if they are 90% of the fleet)

The F-14 has the most powerful radar. It has the longest-range missiles. F-15's are faster. If it's a regular Tomcat, it has less power than an F-15. If it's a Super Tomcat, they're equal. Their manueverability is about equal I'd say, in most conditions. (F-14 is probably a bit better when slow, F-15 is probably a bit better when fast)

Recon F-8's survived into the mid-80's. But they were gone as combatants well before then.

::gets big expensive Iowa book:: Ok, it's not armor-piercing. But it's still big, metal, and pointy, and would get through any modern ship's hull. It's based on the standard Mk13 High Capacity 1,900lb round. Your basic Mk13 shell will penetrate nearly 30 feet of steel-reinforced concrete. (the original "bunker buster") Not technically "armor piercing" but not much will stand up to it. (Though it says it is designed to be used as an air-burst nuke, so penetration probably isn't what it's designed for).

Yup it is. And note the "French's Mustard" camo. PS--if you saw Armour at a Franklin Mint store, then it wasn't Armour. It was the "Franklin Mint-ized" Armour. They even changed factories--the molds are the only thing the same--it's like a real Bandai 1/55 vs the worst 1/55 Joon's--same mold, but VERY different quality.

Yup, Corgi Tornadoes are great. All Corgi is good. Some better than others, but all good. (And their F-4's and Tornadoes are REALLY good). Can't go wrong with a Corgi anything, in any scale. (Want BIG? Buy their 1/144 B-52 or 707) I *highly* recommend their F-4 (I need to snag the Sundowners one before they're all gone). Just a note: Corgis tend to include LOTS of extra parts. Be prepared to spend a while putting in the gear, gear doors, missiles, pylons, tanks, canopy, etc. (But this also means you can switch between gear up or down, canopy open/closed, fully loaded or empty pylons). Just be sure to test-fit everything. (I end up often scraping paint from gear-door posts). But they've got A+ paint and detail. They feather the camoflage and everything, and the finish is dead flat, as it should be. I personally am waiting for Dragon's 1/72 Tomcat. But it could be a LONG wait. (But they do promise A's and B's, hopefully D's, too). There is one more choice: Revell now makes 1/72 diecast Tomcats. F-14A's and D's. (Theirs is as accurate as most D kits--close, but not exactly). However, there are quite a few seams, and many visible screws on the bottom. But they are far more accurate than just about anything else, and your only choice for a decent Super Tomcat. I've never seen them for sale in the US, but I know they exist. I recall F-14A Jolly Rogers (of course), and a Tomcatters low-vis F-14D.

Just in case nobody else on this forum does: I get it! LOL