V.A.M.P. 2011 VAMP

I'm glad I waited to buy the VAMP. Sometimes I find that I wish I would have bought something when I had the chance as often I over think the purchases, and miss out.

Such is not the case with the VAMP for me. I think this 2011 VAMP in green is much more interesting than the 2010 VAMP, just for the color alone. (and the no red suspension)

I came across a sale price on the Thanksgiving weekend on this truck, and while it was just a few bucks off, I thought the price was right. And being more a "classic" figure collector, I wasn't sure if this VAMP would fit well in my own GIJOE motor pool. And at worst I figured the "junior joe" of the house would have fun with it.


I think comparison and contrasting pictures help the best when it comes to vehicles. And here the 25th Anniversary VAMP is simply dwarfed by the new VAMP. Where I felt "ok" calling the original VAMP a "jeep," this new VAMP is much more in the solid "truck" category for me.


But, unlike the Hammer or GvC Brawler, it doesn't overpower the "bigger" vehicle with its size. The Equalizer is my main armor in my Joeverse now, and I want it to literally be the "big dog" when it comes to the motor pool.
The new VAMP has a nice sized foot print, considering it is a large all-terrain 4-seater of a vehicle.

And you know what? EVERY color on the 2011 VAMP is GREAT, in my opinion.



The "junior joe" seems to be having some fun with the VAMP. (yes, "firefighters" reign supreme...) I omitted the armaments for now, as the truck itself is the most fun aspect. (even I was having a not-fun time with that turret stand in the back...)

The best part that I knew the "junior joe" would have fun with is the vehicle interactivity aspect: changing the tires!!! I really like that the post holder can be taken off the back so the spare could totally be absent. What would have been perfect is if that post holder would have fit on the roof holes so a spare could go up top.

Either way, the spare is one aspect that makes me like the VAMP more. If this thing had a small engine compartment to open up on the front, that would have knocked this truck up a notch for me.


The dash and interior has some nice interior, even a floor shifter and a cup holder. The only weapon that I like is that front passenger gun. I kind of wish that was mountable on the back roll bar.

But for me, "my" GIJOE team is sort of on the fence about adopting the VAMP into "my" motor pool right now. For my classic-collecting self, the new VAMP comes pretty close to getting in. Blocker would most likely inherit ownership of this vehicle, although Wild card could jump on board, too. The extra diesel cans are an awesome addition and they fit very well in their holder. (the back tools are nice, but I kind want a "snap-on" point for those..., but still nice that they are there!)
The suspension is excellent, too. The base truck itself seems extremely sturdy, and the truck is kind of fun to "bounce" over obstacles. Right now, I think this new VAMP sill last as a toy very well. It's a solid vehicle.

There are little details on it that make me think there was going to be more to the overall design of the vehicle, like that little indentation at the front end of the 'door.'
And just what is that little bar on floor? An "oh #$%!" bar?
If I put an official "my" VAMP into "my" motor pool, the running boards would be totally useless with the modern pegs, though. And I would have little use for the backpack gear holes to hang on the side.
There is quite a lot of leftover room between the seats and the outer edge of the vehicle, too. Some empty space that I really see as wasted. The top holes would just be holes, as I really don't care for the vehicle accessories weapons that the VAMP has. (the Gatling gun alone looks like it would chew up my Equalizer!)

It is nice to see a foot board, though. It's barely noticed detail, but it keeps figures from sliding into the engine compartment! (yes, this has been an issue, we have a 1/18 scale BassPro Ford pick up where figures disappear under the hood....)
Overall, as a classic-GIJOE-figure collector, this modern VAMP gets an easy 3.5 out of 5 stars for me. And that's very good, considering "my" Joes can't make use of some features on this (pegs). If it had more refined weapons, too, like that front-dash mounted gun, it could have moved up to a 4.

My top 5 favorite features on this new VAMP:

* easy removable tires and a spare!
* sturdy and fun suspension!
* Extra figure equipment (sledge, shovel, fuel canisters)!
* Tow hook!!!!!
* Fuel tank spot (fuel-up!) !



Generalsjoes.com 2010 VAMP

Generalsjoes.com 2011 VAMP

GIJoe Skyhawk

I first got a 1984 Skyhawk (upper left corner of the group of vehicles above) from my best bud way back in the day. The upper rudder wing was super glued the jet engines were loose to the point where they could hardly stay in any position except straight vertical. These things were used pretty heavily on the cartoon when I was watching it back then, too.

I guess I didn't use it a whole lot. In some ways, being that most of my collection was (and is) from 1986-forward, some figures didn't fit the easiest in the 1984 craft. I may have used the Razorblade more than this thing now that I think about it. I guess I don't remember using a whole lot.

Perhaps I used mostly to fight off the Cobra Flight Pod? I can't help to wonder if that's what my best bud back in the day was doing at times when he had both of these...


Either way, I was able to acquire the 3-piece collectors convention Skyhawks when I was at the 2005 convention. I thought it was a great deal at the time. And with 3 figures in that bonus attendee purchase pack (Gung-ho, Dragonsky, Steel Brigade Commander) it was really nice as that little sub-set of figures ended up with instant transportation. Of course these Skyhawks did not have the twin-chin cannon, which really took away some fun. Not to mention the plastic itself on the craft was a little unrefined, each swirl pattern was different, but so were the angles of the landing gear, excess flash in certain spots, etc. Still, for the price, these were pretty decent.

I actually took the guns off my old '84 Skyhawk and added to one of them. I can't find a picture of that one, but either way, it was traded away.



Just a short couple years later, Hasbro put out the 25th Skyhawk which simply made me not want any previous production Skyhawk. Seriously, when I saw the pictures, I wanted THAT and not what I had.
I don't think I saw more than one of these 25th-style "Ghosthawks" and between that point and the time I considered snagging it, it was already sold. Of course, I traded off all my convention Skyhawks and parted out my old 1984 Skyhawk since the 25th release was just so much cooler looking. Still haven't gotten the anniversary edition, but, that's ok... there's still a better (?) option right now.
(Check out this Youtube.com review on the 25th Ghosthawk.)

In the Pursuit of Cobra line-up, there's an even more refined (modern?) Ghosthawk now, and I have had several chances to snag this one. And I guess I still do as of this writing.

I just can't decide if I really "need." I mean, it looks cool, but will I actually use it?
Check out GeneralsJoes.com review for more information!


In my old age, I found that the best spot for a Skyhawk (or Ghosthawk) would be on the Transportable Tactical Battle Platform. Of course, I do not have a TTBP anymore, so the "need" for a VTOL craft for that landing pad is no longer there...


That's about where this little VTOL pod ended up sitting in my world.

And it's that little pod-thing about it that is what is holding me back from thinking I "need" the POC-Ghosthawk now.

It looks cool, don't get me wrong. But, I also think back to old Devilsdue.com board discussions where a lot of people were debating if the thing would even fly. And looking at the visual-weight balance of the toy..., well, I don't think it would!

But with the Ghosthawk POC "vectored thrust" engines, I think there very much might be a strong possibility of it seeming to work. Really, add in that third thruster on the back end, and the twin vectored engines would really only have to get it up, while that 3rd nozzle would give it the push. And it is nice that the engines are angle up a little higher and away from where the old engines were. It seems a little more complex of a craft, and a little more realistic to me this way.

I also think with the rear bomb (or rocket) attachment points on the back wing (bombs not included, however), the visual weight shifts back. It helps the Ghosthawk not seem so front heavy, which was one of the main argument points for this thing NOT being able to fly back on the old Devilsdue.com discussions.

Add in I have no use for the figure that is included, and it bumps the purchase up as too much expense for what I want out of the box. If figure is really $6, $7, or $8 a piece now, I would gladly pay the $7, $8, or $9 for JUST the vehicle. I don't want to get stuck with more stuff I most likely will just toss in a baggie to sit with other baggies in a Rubbermaid container.

With no Dragonfly in my motor pool now, I could use a little gunship to escort my Tomahawk, though, and a Ghosthawk would be pretty useful out in the field for some quick and compact air support for my (planned) field support team/ ground vehicle team.

Anyone get this and now not like it, or did you get one and can't imagine Joe-life without it?