David Hingtgen

The wings are out whenever the plane's going slow or has little energy (manuevering lingo). Takeoff, landing, approach, low-speed passes, air combat, etc. Flaps/slats are another issue. Anyways, the problem with the hase kits is that they're always out with the flaps FULLY down and slats out. THAT combo is only for landing. Not takeoff or anything else. (the flaps are only partly down for a carrier launch IIRC, with fully deployed slats--landing speed on a carrier is far more important than takeoff speed--full flaps just add drag, not lift) And it's a lot more work, since there's like 24 support struts for the extended slats... It'd be fine if the wings were locked swept, since that works for ground, high-speed flight, etc. But wings out WITH the flaps fully down? Only landing. (or maintenance, but not very often at all).

Yes, this is a bit similar to the "other obsessions" thread in the Other forum, but hopefully this'll be a bit more "directed" in its scope. Anyways, I'm guessing most people don't model ONLY Macross, and the vast majority also model planes or Gundams, since valks are planes+mecha. So, what else do you model? Here's what I like: Ships: Modern US warships, WWII battleships of all nations, WWII US cruisers and destroyers. 1/350 vastly preferred. FULL HULL ONLY. (But I could quickly make a whole fleet of waterline submarines from extra periscopes) Planes: surprisingly, I don't model planes (any more). Diecast models are now cheap enough and good enough (and SEAMLESS) that I can get a model as good or in most cases better than I can do myself, for 0 hours of work and less money. (Planes suck--gotta fill the seams, and there's simply no F-14 kits in the world with good intake/nose fit, and making a bunch of missiles and gear doors nice and white is simply too much effort) And I am especially fond of airliners, but suck at gloss white........ Prefer 1/72 for warbirds, 1/400 for airliners. Trains: MODEL trains, not toy trains. HO scale mainly. Calling a model railroad "toy trains" will incite wrath on the scale of someone a YF-21 a veritech. And don't dare mention Lionel, either. I like just about everything US, but mainly 30's/40's passenger trains, and 80's/90's freight. Mecha: a few Gundams, but I pretty much build straight out of the box. I'm also a big fan of chick-mechs. Pink+female+robot=I own it. I also like Zoids a lot, and build straight out of the box. (I panel line everything though). I mainly like Zoids for the mechanics, so big ones are far far better than little ones to me. Goes with trains--gears and pistons and shafts and such are intrguing to watch. (Few machines more complicated and wondrous than a steam locomotive's valve gear--I'm simply amazed they could be designed 100 years ago) Star Trek: most people have seen my USS Lakota by now, and I am awaiting my Bandai Ent-E. Will see how that goes before I buy their Ent-refit. Have an Excelsior in the box, but will wait to see if Bandai makes one before I build it. Would really like a Bandai Ent-D. Photo: my almost-complete 1/700 USS Iowa (not wholly accurate, I plan to convert a 1/350 New Jersey someday for a truly accurate Iowa) and some of my 1/400 planes.

1. The VF-2 kit is one of the newest and best of the D's, AFAIK. 2. Yes, it IS that much work to change the wings! Redo the entire leading and trailing edge with scratchbuilt flaps, essentially. (Because unlike most fighters, F-14's have fowler flaps, not simple flaps) F-14 flaps don't simply pivot up/down, they move in/out, and have cove doors and eyelet doors that retract and extend in sequence with the flaps. F-14's have the most complex flaps I know of of any plane, even compared to something huge with triple-slotted flaps.

Anyone can translate katakana, even if you don't know Japanese. Anyways, the BF-109 and P-51 obviously list their names, and the Spitfire says "Spitfire" in katakana. But the biplane is simply "Arcadia". (More like "Arukadeia" though) Strange, they go so far as to not only make it a Bf-109*G* but a *G-6*----yet the P-51 doesn't get anything... (It's a P-51D obviously, the most distinctive and famous version)

Hey, I totally accept female ninjas with lavender hair and red eyes wearing purple tights with a giant yellow bow. This is no different.

This is like the 3rd thread in as many months about the M0 F-14, but I'm pretty sure I mentioned the AMRAAM situation in this one... And anyways, I think I mentioned much earlier that I was only going for structural differences. As you said, beyond that is insanely anal... (I didn't mention the bumps on the rear edge of the right v.stab, for example) And the CGI is still too dark and too blue.

Am I the only one who's been following this game for the past year?!? Anyways, yes, it's from Sega. It's a sequel to Shinobi. Supposed to be easier (thank God). Game is called Kunoichi. (Not her name, that's WHAT she is. Just like Shinobi--his name is Hotsuma. The kunoichi in the last game was Ageha).

Pretty much just venting. (As for stickier tape--no way. Acrylic+resin=low paint adhesion--I'd have entire layers peel off rather than a few smudges/leaks) I use the lowest tack possible. It's just one of those "it happens" things. Piece of tape some 30 inches long, sealed exactly evenly (magic tape+flashlight=you can see EXACTLY how sealed it is) yet at like the 4 and 22 inch marks--it just didn't work, despite that layers of paint had been applied over it prior the the one that "leaked". Kind of like how the bow actually repelled paint upwards against the force of gravity for the first coat. THAT was weird. (I've had "runs" but never one that actually made the paint flow upwards) As for posting--feh. If you don't have photo-etched brass railings, you're not a "real" ship modeler pretty much. (Doesn't matter than they're still like 700% overscale, they're expected nowadays) Kind of like submitting Star Trek pics--unless it's the greatest one ever, they don't really care. But they'll take all the Bf-109's in the world... I'll post here or at one of the diecast model forums when it's done. Actually, the next things done will be USS Conolly and USS San Francisco. They're quite close. Less than a week unless something happens.

Umm, I've never seen a CGI F-14 asides from Mac 0, I'm not quite sure how it's painted. Looks very dark/blue as Tomcats go, almost overall 35237. If you're planning to use the M0 kit just for the decals, it should say how it's painted. (I can tell you how just about any real F-14 is painted, but a fake one with "they tried too hard" patchy texturing?" Sorry) The most common F-14 low-vis scheme (also the most common US scheme period) is 36320 upper surfaces with 36375 lower surfaces. Some F-14 schemes use all 3 of the colors I've mentioned. (Black Knights do, as did the Wolf Pack)

Actually I did that. The stern was still visibly wet when I started pulling the tape off the bow. At least for how I fix mistakes, I want the paint to be rock-hard super-ultra-cured before messing with it. Due to the multi-color splinter camo in combination with waterline and lower hull, the painting order is thus: 1. Pale grey. (done) 2. Dark navy blue. (more grey than blue) (done) 2.5. Flat clearcoat (to try to stem paint bleeding--but since 3 layers of grey didn't stop the navy blue I don't know if it'll help) 3. Black. (next week, after mistakes are fixed and the hull is dry) 4. Red. (as soon as the black is dry enough to mask directly over it--3 or 4 hours if possible) But any other way would involve masking the same area multiple times, and you can never line it up again perfect. (I spent about an hour on the waterline alone--30 inches of perfectly parallel lines on each side--ack)

No, I'd have to go get my Blackbird book. Give me a few hours to find it and read up on the "pre" Blackbirds.

Well, just got done from airbrushing the camo pattern on the Iowa's hull. About 98% perfect. Now, upon reflecting, I know how I might have been able to prevent 2 spots where the paint leaked under the tape, but another two just defy explanation. (and dark navy blue on pale pale grey is VERY obvious) 1. Bare hull. Masked the waterline, then sprayed primer. 2. Then sprayed a thick coat of light grey. 3. Then sprayed 2 more coats of light grey a few days later. 4. Masked over that layer at the waterline again. 5. Painted navy blue. 6. Pulled off tape, and found navy blue paint that had leaked underneath all those layers, to "swim" up along some non-existant gap in the primer, and find its way to the very first layer of light grey. WTF? The first layer of tape was SEALED under the primer, as well as multiple layers of paint. *sigh*. Will let dry for a week, and hope the light grey is thick enough that I can scrape off the navy blue, and still have some light grey beneath. And one piece needs to be stripped down to bare plastic. (Aft funnel's forward director platform). Went pretty well overall, but I was hoping for perfect. (The Tirpitz's hull was perfect, and masked in exactly the same way with the same tape). And will have to brush-paint turret #1's demarcation line. Am considering brush-painting the camo on turrets 2 and 3 based on how #1 went.

I've got to recommend the Testors $18.44 or so set you can find at Wal-Mart. Sprays ok, and is *easy* to clean. Only one piece needs cleaning, and no disassembly to do so. If you're using acrylic, you can clean it in 30 secs in the sink.

Nope nope nope. Go to the site I listed above. Explains the whole SR-71 name. Nobody screwed up, some people just switched some things around on the final version of the speech...

Ah. Well then, here's some advice: a *lot* of painting suggestions/colors are wrong. And unless it gives a specific FS number, then it's only "the closest color we or our affiliates sell is" not "exact match" nor "the closest color anybody sells". PS--especially since 99% of kits come from Japan, they will almost always suggest Imperial Japanese Navy etc colors---even for the USAF, Royal Navy, Star Trek, etc. Pick what you think looks right, not merely what they suggest. Very rarely are color suggestions officially approved/matched by the people who made the original.

I'm not big on *any* MiG and can't comment off the top of my head. If nobody here is a MiG-29 buff, I'll go find my WAPJ "MiG-29 variants" issue and see what I can find out.

Astrostrain, though not my fave, is by far the best triple-changer. Perfect shuttle, perfect train--and he changes color! Depending on what version, he's either a grey shuttle and purple train, or white shuttle and black train. (Blitzwing also has very good color changes, but each mode isn't quite as good--turret's too obvious as a plane, afterburners too obvious as tank)

I use primer as paint all the time. I've honestly never found much of a difference. I've painted several kits with 50% to 100% primer, and have never had a problem. Everything from Gundams to spaceships to submarines.

1/72 Super Tomcat? Not many choices. However, if you can find one, the Fujimi 1/72 F-14A+, B, and D are excellent kits. Well worth seeking out, IMHO. (And cheaper than a Hase). (As it is, an F-14A+/B is the closest thing to Shin's, though Shin does have the distintive chin-pod of the "D") I know there's a Revell 1/72 out there, but don't know much about it. PS--never buy a kit that's the prototype F-14D (white and red)---they are usually quite accurate *for the prototype* which means quite wrong for all other D's.

Here, maybe you'll find something I didn't: http://members.rogers.com/ww1aircraftdrawings/ Some 1,000 profiles of 1911-1919 aircraft. 500 from Germany alone. I went through a LOT of stuff and didn't find it. But if you really want to, go look through EVERY plane. If it's not in there, it doesn't exist. Also, the Arado above is from the same era as the Ju-87. I doubt you'll find an inverted gull wing 15+ years earlier. (And that is BARELY a gull wing---Harlock's is the most gulled wing I've ever seen, more than the Corsairs). BTW, Arado was the prime maker of German floatplanes--they were about the only biplanes of that era (Fairey Swordfish is the other) because biplanes are better when you need absolute minimum takeoff speed. Harlock's not flying a 30's ocean-going biplane. I'll add another comment to why I think it's fake: No point to the gulling. The reason planes have inverted gull wings are for prop clearance. That simple. Ju-87's and F4U have BIG props. The F4U's is the biggest of any fighter ever. But to gain ground clearance, it'd need huge heavy landing gear. But if you just bend the wing down at the gear attachment point, you can use simply, lighter, shorter gear. That's the reason. Not aerodynamics or anything. But Harlock's plane--well the gulling sure doesn't affect its gear! And the prop's not big enough to need it.

No, because 1/48 would be huge (you think you have problems displaying a VF-1? Try a plane 50% bigger) and there'd be VERY limited appeal. Valks appeal to even the most "casual" Macross fans, while far fewer people have seen M0 (be honest, even Robotechies buy Yamato VF-1's) and would want a non-transforming valk. It's not a bad guy for the VF's to fight, and it doesn't "do" anything like transform or fire off 36-missile clusters.

You could always just watch the show and see what colors they're supposed to be. It's not like an F-15 kit, where there's a "real" one to match paint to---just match the animation.

A is attack. Go figure for the A-12. (Hey, *F*-117.). Anyways, SR-71 is one of those "doesn't fit the rules". It SHOULD be the R-1A. U is for utility--nice way of "hiding" CIA/spy functions. "It's just a generic utility plane, not painted black with no markings for any particular reason flown by non-USAF pilots for covert black ops" M in M-21 (actually the M-12, but since it carried the D-21 it is AKA the M-21) is for "Multimission". Here's the best site, explains it all: http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

MiG-25 is rated for 2.8 normally, not 2.5. Even in "normal" operations it's faster than any other fighter by far. Of course, it totally sucks in all other categories. (Man, if you want to dogfight and win, go after a MiG-25) Also, MiG-25 is such a horrific gas-guzzler, it literally has to INTERCEPT an SR-71 from head-on or thereabouts. It's one of the few planes whose top speed is actually fuel-limited in some situations. As in, it guzzles fuel so fast, if you simply taxi out at max weight, takeoff, and give it full afterburner, it'll run out of fuel while still accelerating. The only way you'll get 3.2 (and not run out of gas) is to be lightly loaded with only 2 missiles. Even the gigantic F-108 was only designed to be able to go Mach 3 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes in an ideal situation. Mig-25's a lot smaller. Probably has about a 30-sec Mach3+ ability. (I am not a MiG-25 fan, BTW)

After looking through a few hundred biplanes, I'm going to go for "fantasy" as well. Main point: inverted gull wing-- AFAIK, no biplane (asides from R/C and modern stunt custom-builts) have ever had an inverted gull wing, upper nor lower wing. Also, the lower wing simply looks too big like that. The lower wing is *generally* smaller or equally sized, yet with the gulling, it might have more area than the upper. Again, only stunt biplanes with massive engines tend to use "funky" wing designs like that. Inverted gull wings were pretty rare, and were used by monoplanes. Ju-87 is the earliest major plane I know of with one. (And of course, the F4U later on)