David Hingtgen

Newer G-suits are designed for "rapid-onset" G's more than sheer number of G's, since F-16 pilots were having a problem with it. (Going from 1G to 7G quickly is much worse than gradually going from 1 to 9, for example--the F-16 is the fastest-accelerating plane there is, both in sheer velocity and turning). Also, UN Spacy pilots train for really high G's. In Mac7+, you can see Gamlin training at like 12 or 13G's, just for basic simulator stuff.

All you FFTA-dislikers: Did you like the first one? Yes, FFTA is inferior to FFT, but it's not very different from it. It's more of the same, not quite as good. But that still makes it better than most strat. games.

Save money. If you just want it for certain games, not because of portability, get a GBA player for your GC. 50 bucks, and as bright and big a screen as you could want. FFTA on TV looks just about as good as the original on PSX. (Though the music is only 1/10 as good). Also, GC controllers are a lot better for some GBA games (Megaman Zero, etc), especially the shoulder buttons. I'm *this* close to selling my GBA (white, HK/Asia version) now that I have the player for my GC. PS--Assassins are the best thing in FFTA by far. Unless you've got a buff juggler, which are just evil.

Just FYI, the B-1A is the Excalibur. As for whiskeyM6---whoa! Everybody knows the F-14 is dead due to Cheney. No ifs ands or buts. It was like a personal vendetta of his to get rid of it, to the point of ordering the jigs to be destroyed, to ensure no more could be built, and that no spare parts could be made to keep them flying in the future. Grumman was pretty much offering new F-14D's 50% off, and the Navy was asking for them, but still Cheney ordered something to the effect of "any more requests for more F-14's from the Navy will result in reprimands for whomever asks for them". So much for carriers and their air wings having a voice... Type in "Cheney" and "F-14" and you'll get a lot of hits.

Could of course, be protoculture storage cylinders. ::ducks::

And totally atypical for flare launchers. M0 is specifically trying to be "compatible" with current military stuff. Chaff/flare launchers are very, very standardized. And they're grids, usually 20 (older) or 40 (since Bosnia) round holes in square-shaped area. Pack them with whatever you want--1 flare and 39 chaff, 20/20, all flares, etc.

Yes you do. But you'll probably want to mask it off BEFORE you put the clear coat on... See wmcheng's YF-21 thread and you'll notice the canopy spent several weeks being masked, to protect it from various things.

Just FYI, the original customized VF-1 that the Yamato low-vis is based on is actually Light Ghost Grey and Air Superiority Blue--which are real-life low-vis colors. The modeler who made the custom obviously knew what to use to make it look realistic, but Yamato didn't quite match it. Intermediate Blue like Yamato used for their interpretation of it is sometimes used on low-vis, but rarely, and usually only as a variation for a particular squadron. (Basically, you're looking at F-14's from VF-1 and VF-154 as about the only uses of Intermediate Blue for low-vis). Neutral grey, though super-ultra-low-vis in all light conditions, is generally only for ships, not planes. (Only exception I know of is F-16 nose-cones). For real-life accuracy's sake, as well as doing a better job than Yamato in matching the original low-vis VF-1, you might want to go with the ghost greys. Ghost grey IS low vis. (As in, the low-vis method of camouflage, as well as the ghost grey paints, were designed together for the express purpose of completmenting each other). Air Superiority blue is also perfectly good to use, for it was designed for the same purpose, just not the same program. (Ghost grey is specifically part of project COMPASS, air superiority blue is just "paint it sky blue to blend it" and was the immediate predecessor to ghost grey)

I simply am not confident that a rudder flapping around to simulate the lack of a rudder and v.stab, is the same as it actually not being there. I mean, flopping an aileron about doesn't 100% simulate lack of wing since the wing's still there making lift, even if the trailing edge is changing it... A v.stab/rudder still has some influence on rolling etc, even if the the rudder is inducing yaw motions. Big factor in the DC-10 design. It wasn't so much the yaw effects from the rudder due to the engine in the tail, it was the rolling motion due to the strange position of the rudder. Also, "we're sure it'll do it, it just didn't actually do it" is the kiss of death for a lot of things. See YF-23 aerobatics...

Seems most of those use B-2/flying-wing style drag-inducing ailerons for yaw-control. You still can't just chop off the v.stab and have it fly using vectoring alone. (X-31 with "simulated" lack of v.stab doesn't count)

X-45 has always struck me as flying-wing-ish. (Mainly in profile). I'm unaware of those F-22 proposals. Let me know when there's a tail-less F-22 flying through turbulence. As I said---there will someday be utterly tail-less non-flying-wing (aka normal) planes, but not until there's a huge jump in TVC technology. (Mainly speed of actuation/deflection). Of course, tech does tend to jump pretty fast...

Ah ha. Yaw *control*, not yaw stability. You'd need something like the F-16's pitch control system to eliminate the v.stab to replace stability----- 100 deflections a second. Thrust vectoring is nowhere near that, and won't be for a long time, since you simply cannot deflect the exhaust of a 30,000lb engine at that rate.

EF2000 thrust vectoring will look like this: http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Euro...er/engines.html (very nifty design, better than an ACTIVE nozzle) Also, if you want a tail-less plane, it better be a flying wing. You need a WHOLLY different control system. Vectoring isn't used for yaw. Pitch-yes, roll-yes, yaw-no. It CAN be used for supplemental yaw, usually combined with pitch and or roll. But no plane uses vectoring for yaw alone, not yet. Yaw is just plain different than other forces on a plane. Don't know why, just always has been. There's a difference between yaw control and yaw stability. Vectoring can replace control (but it hasn't yet) but it'll never replace stability. (Not until we have like Star Trek level of tech) If you plan to remove the v.stab, you better attach some massive ventral fins. (Unless you've got a flying wing and are using split-style elevons--flying wings are SO stable and so un-influenced by yaw they can be tail-less---but a normal plane cannot have the stab removed) Normal planes simply need X amount of vertical surface. Check out early F-14, F-15, and F-16 designs. You'll see plenty of swapping between "ventral fins+1 stab" versus "no ventral and 2 stabs". (And even the "2 small stabs with 2 small ventrals to make up for the shortened stabs"---looked kind of cool on the F-15). YF-23's get away with it by having MASSIVE tails, to counteract their low angle. (Plus they do have B-2 style split ailerons for yaw control--a YF-23 does fly like a flying wing, even if it doesn't look like one--it uses opposing ailerons for drag-based yaw control) (A YF-23's tail still has no technical name AFAIK--it is not a ruddervator, nor a taileron---it is simply "an all-moving canted tail surface"---Pelikan tail has come up as a rejected F-32 tail, but it's not quite the same, but still obviously based on the -23's tail)

Until it blew itself apart by firing its main gun in Endless Waltz.... Hero-mecha syndrome: cannot be hurt until plot-line calls for it. It can take nukes and be fine, but a 9mm bullet from a handgun will blow apart its core if the script says so.

Yeah, but these toys aren't being cited for any actual danger to kids, they're simply "bad influences". There's a separate "dangerous" toy list, which is usually anything that shoots anything, or makes sparks, is pointy, etc. These are "anything that's not My Little Pony". And of course, not CLOSELY investigated, simply whatever has a "mean" name or they randomly read a character's bio on the back of the card. (Because they actually DIDN'T list the "Tortured Souls" from McFarlane when they came out----if they missed those, they obviously don't do even a half-assed job looking. If they're going to make lists like these, they could at least not miss the 6 worse ones by far) The second Tortured Souls line is tamer, IMHO. (Though I'm not too familiar with it)

Eh, maybe internal bays are too expensive/maintenance intensive to do for most planes. Maybe VF-5000's had them, but it was found it wasn't worth it, so they were abandoned for the VERY common VF-11. VF-11 is the F-16 of Macross--everywhere doing everything. Needs to be cheap enough to build a million of them. The VF-19 and -22 are like the B-2 and F-117---fewer, special purpose planes that are built in smaller numbers and can thus be full of expensive toys. (Though the VF-19 is more like an F-15E or some such--a large expensive plane trying to do everything, and does it quite well, but it's just expensive enough that we cannot have a million of them, just a fairly decent number to equip a few wings). I mean, look at modern planes. We've pretty much abandoned the variable intake. F-15 is likely the last plane to have one for quite a while. Simply not worth the weight/expense/maintenance for the F-16/18/22/23/32/35. Or maybe it's just now that they've improved internal bays, they're good/cheap enough to put them on the VF-19/22. If someone invents some new light-weight simple variable intake, I'm sure the F-37 or whatever will have it, and be Mach 2.5+

My main annoyance is that they obviously don't look TOO closely at each brand. Example: Transformers. They cite Razorclaw. How is HE the worst TF? (He's the new Tigerhawk repaint). They also cite the BW game. Huh? Far "worse" toys and games, even in the TF line. And of course, any time they don't list some McFarlane stuff means they totally ignored one of Toys R Us' aisles.... Based on previous year's lists, it's obvious they go by the NAME a lot of the time to go pick toys, rather than actually checking out each thing. I.E. "Gun Sniper" was listed as the worst Zoid last year, as opposed to those which wiped out entire cities on the show and have working spring-loaded missiles (the bane of parent groups)... And "Razorclaw" is one of the "harsher" TF names.

Retractable stacks comes up fairly often, but I bet they aren't because: 1. Why? They should be long in BOTH modes. Long in truck mode for realism/accuracy, and long in robot mode because that's how he's looked since 1984. 2. Sure don't look retractable to me.

Powerglide as an F-32? Sort of an homage, but too ugly IMHO. Yeah, the A-10 is ugly, but ugly in a good way, like the F-4. The F-32 is just plain fugly. It could have been superior to the -35 in every way and still would have lost on fugliness alone. (The Navy pretty much flat out said no to the -32, no matter what the results of the competition were, based on the intake) Tracks: the new Vette's pretty neat (though I haven't either end head-on) and the pics circulating around of the deep red one (real Vette, not TF) is a GORGEOUS color. However, if Hasbro cheaps out and does flat plastic it'll ruin it. Just go with medium blue. (You know, model cars REALLY need to be painted, especially metallic ones--Hasbro needs to figure that out) Starscream---YF-22 would work better than F/A-22. (More angular). Doubt Hasbro or Takara know the difference, though. F-15's are still being built, keep with that.... Sideswipe--agree with everyone who says it should be a Lambo, not a Viper. '99 Diablo is the best of the more recent ones IMHO. Didn't like the 2000+ Diablos, and the Murcielago does nothing for me. Or hey, why not a '89 Countach? Different, yet newer than the original LP400ish Countach. (Despite his stickers and various websites, G1 Sideswipe is anything BUT an LP500S--he's not really any particular one, but close to a LP400 with a few prototype parts--he lacks every single distinguishing feature of the LP500 series)

Apollo Leader (I'll watch the tape soon, I swear): F-16XL's main advantage over F-15 was range. It's a big sleek wing, with a TON of fuel inside. Huge lift/drag ratio, large quantities of fuel, and only one engine. And the enlarged fuselage was for one thing--more fuel. F-15's carry a big chunk of their fuel outside. And even the E often has 3 big huge drag-making externals, even with CFT's. And as Nied said, sleek enough to supercruise under the right conditions. (Though most any F-15/16 will supercruise if totally clean and light---Thunderbirds configuration, etc)

Yes, the -16XL was better to the -15E. A bit better, not a lot. However, it'd take a lot before it was ready. The F-16XL was only an F-16 as much as the Super Hornet is a YF-17. The F-15E was a D with modified FAST packs. It'd be ready way way sooner, way way cheaper. Now, the -22 vs -23, that's a different story. An F-16XL is not simply a new wing, it's a new, longer fuselage too. The new wing hides the fact that the fuselage is new. The only F-16 parts it has are the nose and v.stab. (And the engine would be seriously hurting for performance--Block 30C/30D/40 F-16's were lacking for power with a full load, only newer block 50's have equivalent power to a 25/30A/30B). F-15E's were lacking in power until recently with the F100-229E engine. Early F-16XL's I bet would have had little power reserve. (of course, had we gone ahead with more Super Tomcats, with the same engine, there'd be plenty of development and money to improve the F110 even faster) Also, the whole "F-15E's are still just as good at fighting as an F-15C" sounds really, really good to people. (Even though it'll likely never happen that an F-15E will engage in a fight with a MiG, etc). Cant say that for an XL. (I am not anti-XL or anything, I love F-16's (and -15)'s) Just pointing out some stuff, and spouting off my opinions.

My point would make more sense if I didn't forget the pic:

Re-winging a plane is prohibitively expensive. I'm surprised it was even half-way seriously considered. Cheaper to make a new plane than re-engineer a wing to fit something else. (And it's not like the -22 has all that wonderful a wing). Probably cheaper and more effective to just do F-18-style RCS reduction. (RAM in the intake is a good place to start with that curved big inlet) Anyways---yup, tails are the #1 problem for stealth. Best solution is no tail at all. Which is why the B-2 is the stealthiest plane, and will be for quite some time. YF-23 is far stealthier than the -22/32/35, due to having only 2 fins, and at a very shallow angle. Big vertical fins=radar reflectors. Firefox---a key point for "stealth angles" is making them all the same. Don't just put angles whereever. Have like 2 or 3 "angles" for the entire plane, and make every leading/trailing/side edge line up with them. YF-23 is the best example. See how the wings/fuselage/tail all have the same angles? Perfectly parallel. That General Dynamics ATF does it pretty well actually. It'd be stealthy if not for the tail. (and maybe intakes)

That was there in the theatrical version. Though the final scene referencing it(with Gimli on the orc) I think was new.

Nobody's mentioned He-Man yet? No matter how much I like the franchise as a whole, the movie was just BAD. Of course, I watch it every time it's on.