captain america

The pictures on Toynami's site look like those of a test-shot model, so for those of you hoping for an improved final product you're out of luck: aside from (possibly) having a clear canopy for the production toy, that's pretty much what it'll look like. The paint job will probably be worse, as per Toynami's usual qc standards.

Sculpt is poor... I find it both hilarious and tragic that overall, the proportions on the "improved" IMAI sculpt looks even worse than the 20 year-old kit it was copied from; the fit of the LEX/engine nacelle/wing root is clumsy and mismatched... Japanese engineering my a$$ <_<

$19.99 toy in tacky Disney packaging. $80?--HA!

John F. Moscato

I tried the link to G-SYSTEM's website a few times in the last few days, and the site seems to be down. Might anyone know what's up with them?

Strangely enough, I spoke to a fellow model-maker who hasn't recieved a reply from them in almost 2 months as well... Could the big guns at Bandai finally have shut them down for all the unliscenced Gundam models? <_<

If anyone has any info, I'd truly appreciate it.

Cheers!

John.

Hi Bsu.

"And Captain America, there's still a few Airsoft importers operating within our borders. Not many, but there are one or two. If you ever wanted something I'd get it now before they decide to clamp down on them."

Might you possibly be able to recommend a source for these in Canada? I've been searching relentlessly on the internet, but a lot of the links to retailers that look promising end up being dead or outside the country, and I don't think we're allowed to import them from outside... Unless I'm missing something?

Cheers,

I've recently started designing my own guns; turning a passtime into a career is really fun!

Sadly, the oppressive commie government of canada doesn't allow us to collect Airsoft guns anymore; they DO however allow us to own BB guns, which, unlike airsoft, fire metal pellets which can be lethal at close range... Someone please explain to me the rationale behind that one! <_<

He made a boo-boo, he means the 1/35 Gakken toy.

...A 1/32 Legioss model from Genesis Climber Mospeada <_

D'oh!

This is really unfortunate, I was so looking foreward to the Doublas figure, but alas, such is corporate life. <_<

I have one of each of the mazinger figures for sale if anyone's interested; they're original releases, not the re-paints... Maybe one day I'll be feeling generous and offer my Grendizer conversion for the Mazinger figure, hehehehe!

Hi Drew.

Absolutely true. However, George went after that liscence partly because of his own personal interest in it. From a purely financial standpoint, however (which is how most companies work, sadly) the RT liscence just wasn't worth looking at.

When Robotech started rearing its plagarized head again a few years back, I actually asked a member of the Hasbro group what he thought of it, just for fun. The rolled-eyes I recieved as a response was worth a thousand words.

Basically, once a liscence "flops" in the toy industry ( Robotech/Matchbox fiasco of '86) it's VERY hard to get manufacturers to give you a credible second look. As a slightly different example, just have a look at the ROBOCOP franchise: first film was great, but almost no one had jumped onto the marketing bandwagon, deeming it too much of a gamble. R2 was made, hoping to ride the same wave to success, but didn't do too well at the box-office. R3 script comes along, and a few companies try to jump on the merchandising bandwagon; film is an utter disaster at the box-office, and the related merchandise doesn't do much better: that was the nail-in-the-coffin, and as a result, the Robocop franchise is absolutely dead in the water.

In Truth, Toynami MIGHT keep its head above water because they manufacture on the cheap and mark-up BIG (sorry, but the MPC Veritech is an otherwise $19.99 pp item, regardless of what it retails for), so even if sales start to tank, they'd still be able to liquidate without losing their shirts.

Hi Ogami.

I don't think Tommy Yune would have any direct say in who gets to make RT toys. The way toy liscensing works is that you have the liscensor/franchise owner with a new "liscence", who sends out a press-pack to all the different toy companies, and in turn, these toy companies make an "offer" to the liscensor to produce toys/products and offer a certain amount in royalties.

Believe me, Harmony Gold didn't exactly have the cream of the crop beating-down their doors with the "Robotech" liscence. For all we know, Toynami were probably the only ones willing to stick their necks out for it. When HG was shopping for new liscensees roughly 3 years ago, the general consensus in the toy industry was "thanks, but no thanks."

Basically, I wouldn't worry too much about this new series either; it'll probably be a flop, just like everything else HG has tried to market. Eventually, they'll have lost enough money to no longer justify keeping the franchise alive, and it'll eventually recede into nothingness... Just like the Matchbox toys of the mid 80s

The dimensions for the YF-23 and the Gundam have both been covered by their respective sources. The FSS LED Mirage, however, is a slightly trickier subject. <_<

Nagano officially stated the height of the LED at 15.2m at the shoulder, but he's been known to change designs and information within the storyline to suit his needs. Garage kit companies have had WILDLY different dimensions/sizes for the LED Mirage. The 1988 Kaiyodo 1/100 vinyl led mirage kit stood about 19cm tall, whereas the 2002 Led Mirage by Volks is just about 31cm tall. Same machine, waaaay different dimensions.

Basically, try not to dwell on the scale thing TOO much. The deeper you dig, the less sense it all makes

See what I mean?

I'm actually quite surprised that he hasn't been moderated for his insults yet.

Hi Dave.

I have that very same quote about the Tomcat's radars in the Gulf Air War Debrief. It's a great little brick with a wealth of great info

Unfortunately, I think that if you're trying to make headway and imparting facts that DON'T exhonorate the F-15 to whiskey, you're just waisting your time; aside from the fact that he's just downright insulting and arrogant, in his world, the sky is/will always be orange, no matter how many pics of a blue sky you offer as evidence.

Anubis, Whiskey's photo of the "F-22N" was part of a proposal put forth by Lockheed about 14 years ago to offer the USN a naval derivative of the ATF, dubbed the NATF. It was a genuine proposal put forth by Lockheed, not a fan concept.

After numerous design and name changes (A/F-X) being one of the last I can remember, the whole project was shelved on cost grounds. The variable-geometry wing was to give the aircraft better low-speed handling which is critical for a naval fighter.

Hi Coota.

Are you sure that the AIM-54 climbs and dives on its target?

Here's a little technical blurb explaining the MO of the phoenix:

"When an AIM-54A is launched, its Rocketdyne MK 47 or Aerojet MK 60 solid-fueled rocket motor (in an MXU-637/B propulsion section) propels it to a speed of Mach 4+. For mid-course guidance, the missile's AN/DSQ-26 guidance section employs an autopilot, which gets regular target position updates by semi-active radar tracking. The FCS radar periodically illuminates every target to which a missile has been dispatched. For maximum range, the missile flies an optimized high-altitude trajectory for reduced drag, and the AIM-54A can engage head-on targets at a distance of up to 135 km (72.5 nm). For the final 18200 m (20000 yds) of the interception, the Phoenix switches to active radar homing for high terminal accuracy. Minimum engagement range is about 3.7 km (2 nm), in which case active homing is used from the beginning. The 60 kg (132 lb) MK 82 blast-fragmentation warhead is detonated by a fuzing system consisting of a MK 334 radar proximity, an IR proximity, and an impact fuze. "

The whole article can be found here:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

Basically, the missile travels at an optimized higher altitude for reduced drag and optimized range, but it's still designed to hit incoming targets head-on, and according to Raytheon, is designed to shoot-down high-performance, highly-manoeuvrable fighters at either high or low altitudes, supersonic bombers, and even sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, though there are certainly better weapons available for the latter role.

Considering the crudeness of russian electronics and ECM systems, something like a Mig 25/31 would probably end up pulverized in a standoff.

The Mig-25 with ample warning can avoid the Phoenix. A TU-95 Bear has no chance.

Whiskey: a Mig 25 can evade an AIM-54 with ample warning, you say??????

Quick reality check for you: if your Mig 25 is travelling at say... A conservative Mach 1.5, and an incoming AIM-54 Phoenix is travelling straight at you at Mach 2.8 ( it has a relative speed of mach 3, by the way), that means a relative closure speed of Mach 4.3, which is almost TWICE the speed at which the best rifle bullets travel at.

Now we both know that the F-14's Phoenix missiles were used to shoot down big russian bombers, but they also had a secondary capability of using the Phoenix to shoot down incoming missiles, and knowing this, do you HONESTLY think that you, in your fast-in-a-straight-line, slow-turning Mig 25 would have a GHOST of a chance of out-turning or dodging a Phoenix; ESPECIALLY with the crude (read pre-historic) ECM/EXCM systems on board?

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on your choice of fighter, as is everyone else on here, but when you start sticking-it to people, questionning their reference sources, and then making a blatantly-stupid comment like the one above, you're just ASKING for trouble.

Oh, and unless you can produce scanned documents/diplomas of your own engineering "prowess", have proof that you've flown one/all these aricraft, or have access to HARD data on their performance, then you're just doing what ALL of us here are doing: speculating and making guesses based on what you/we've seen, read, or been told.

So PLEEEEASE, no more "you're on crack" comments, or insulting stabs at people of that nature. Antagonistic insults aren't going to make your life better, and certainly won't do anything to improve things here in the MW forums.

Thank you,

You don't really need to "catch" a Mig 25/31: at it's top speed of Mach 2.8-ish, the plane will use up all its fuel in 80 seconds. Just be patient and wait for it to run out of gas and fall out of the sky... Don't even need to waste an expensive missile

Fi VF-19. I don't think the "$30 million" includes the cost of R & D though, I think that's just the fly-away cost. The government likes to quote prices to the public selectively, to avoid giving everyone a cardiac arrest; the "true" cost of an airplane is usually 40-60% more than the fly-away cost.

As "cheap" as the F-15s are, SU-27s are even cheaper, and that's why countries like Australia are dumping their F-18s in favor of the cheaper, less sophisitcated & easy to maintain russian fighters. It's shocking, but a huge goose like the Flanker costs about as much as an F-16, and has much greater service range... Hard bargain to beat.

The F-14B/D is roughly $10-13 million more than the F-15, depending on whose figures you use, and what year you choose to quote from... Too rich a price for just about everyone except the US, and for a VEEERY short period, Iran

Without wanting to be a stickler on this issue, I must disagree with 91Whiskey on his choice of words: with identical engines, the F-14 is still a superior airframe. Why? Better aerodynamics, better transient performance, lower RCS, better fire control system, greater missile range, and also better in one very important facet...

As it has become policy now to actually visually identify a "hostile" target before taking action (moving away from the BVR warfare concept of the 60s), the Tomcat beats all aircraft because of the standard inclusion of the Television Camera System mounted on the chin of all models. This allows Tomcat crew the ability to visually identify targets up to 9 miles away; a feat impossible to the naked eye, and no other fighter has this feature, thus giving the F-14 an extra added edge.

Why did all the supposed "wealthy" nations not opt for the F-14 in stead of the F-15, you ask? Probably for the same reason the US Navy didn't use the Tomcat to replace all the A-6 and A-7s aboard ship the way it originally wanted to: the bloody thing just costs too much. The F-14 is considerably more expensive to purchase, and also to maintain, so even countries with a good chunk of change to throw around wouldn't be able to afford it.

Interesting little tidbit: Grumman had proposed an F-14L to the air force. "L" for LAND-based version, minus the extra weight of a reinforced undercarriage, landing gear, etc, etc, which would have outshown the F-15 in range and agility, but because the Air Forced had been forced to "accept" a navy plane as its standard fighter just a generation back with the F-4, the brass in the AF killed the idea out of spite.

Also, the Navy had commissionned an F-15N in '75 to evaluate as a possible alternative to the F-14. The plane had lost so much agility and gained so much weight in the navalization process that the concept was deemed unsuitable for carrier use.

The F-15 is faster at high altitude in it's maximum speed range (mach 2.5) as opposed to the F-14's mach 2.34. However, as almost any fighter Jock will tell you, the aircraft are hardly (if ever) pushed to these limits because of the massive fuel consumption rate ($$) and safety issues.

Speed tends to be more important at low altitudes, when a fighter has to get in/out of a target area quickly. Here, the venerable F-14(B/D) is king, having the best acceleration and top speed of 1.5+ at sea level, matching that of the SU-27.

In terms of manoeuverability, the F-14 B/D will more or less match the performance of the F-18C in a dogfight, but has far greater range, a better fire control (and missle reach) system and is somewhat more stable in the mud-moving job. While we're still on the topic of "dogfighting", it might be interesting to note that the F-14 has a better lift/drag ratio than the F-18 AND the SU-27 and will actually lose energy more slowly (out-manoeuver)than a Flanker in a tight-in dogfight. According to the russians, the Tomcat is also superior to the Flanker in terms of instant turn performance and rate of climb.

Basically, the reason the Tomcat is being retired is because of its high maintenance costs and safety record. The F-18E is more cost effective in this arena, and is much safer to bring-back aboard deck (mainly because of it's newer, all-digital flight control system... A similarly-equipped F-14 would do about as well) but it loses out to the Tomcat in almost every respect in the combat arena: far shorter range, poorer acceleration, lower speed, rate of climb, rate of turn, etc...

For what it's worth, Mc Donnell Douglas won't even give any performance data for the F (which is the REAL replacement for the Tomcat, not the E model) model Hornet, which it knows will fare far worse against the Tomcat due to its extra bucket and reduced centerline fuel tank.

Hmmm, I don't think waiting until the item is no longer "new" will affect the price of parts. Rather, it's probably a better idea to try to procure them while the kit is still being produced and the dies are all set up. I doubt Bandai would bother to re-set all their machines to pump-out a handful of spues once it's off the production list.

Rather, my question was aimed at anyone who may have already tried to order the parts, and whether this is cheaper than just purchasing a whole new kit.

For those Gundam fans among you who have the Perfect Grade GP01, I'm sure you'll agree that it's an absolutely spectacular model: sooooooooo many parts (1250 in total, to be exact) and all that wonderful engineering. It's without a doubt the best plastic model I've ever purchased.

Having said this, I'm left with a bit of a hollow feeling. Why, you ask? Well, quite simply, the kit gives you parts to build one and a half Gundams, and that "half" is the problem. I have all the FB parts laid-out, built, but unused. My fear is that due to the enormous complexity of the PG, the constant "swapping" of parts will eventually cause something to pry loose, or break, and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile at all to simply order the parts trees necessary to build another gundam "frame", and simply build that one as an FB.

Has anyone else considered this option, and if so, is it worthwhile to just buy the twenty-odd sprues, or is it simply cheaper to just buy a whole new kit.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear 'em

How sad that such a formidable aircraft is being "replaced" by a slower, less manoeuvrable aircraft with less payload capacity and shorter range... The things the US NAVY will do to save some maintenance bucks!

Had they opted to replace the F-14's front windscreen, build it with a greater amount of composite materials, replace the engines and avionics with those derived with the F-22(and an MATV nozzle), it could have flown competitively for another decade...I'm really going to miss that ol' turkey.

Hi Haro.

They seem to be using the F-14A, as Hasegawa has already released the kit in 1/72. No idea why though; the A model is practically out of service.

Hi Ewilen.

To answer your question as succinctly as possible; the Zentradi Arii kits are junk. Very low on parts count and simple to construct, they nevertheless look terrible once finished.

Considering the organic design of the ships, you'd be much better off building your own from scratch.