Jump to content

David Hingtgen

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17163

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Hingtgen

  1. David Hingtgen
    I still can't figure out Takara's coloring scheme reasoning for MP-11. (and future seekers). It's like they combined the worst aspects of animated and toy. Light blue fists and feet? Animation. Black squares representing hinges? An insanely pointless and ugly homage to the toy. I mean, couldn't they NOT paint on big fake black hinges* on the fuselage? I'm surprised they didn't paint the tires silver and a few fake screws on the arms, "just like the G1 toy". Some things should NOT be emulated, especially when they only exist due to limits of technology. (hey, they could add some black rubber tubing to a MP Shockwave or something, or maybe a big fake AA battery compartment and bulbs to MP Galvatron, when modern tech would allow tiny batteries and LED's) *weren't the big black hinges on the wings a common complaint of the "US scheme" MP-03? So they fixed that by making them match the grey wings now, but then added other ones on?
  2. David Hingtgen
    Sorry to say, but yes, "don't use putty for weight" is a known issue for models. Most putties intentionally dissolve styrene to some degree--it's how it "sticks" to the model.
  3. David Hingtgen
    A production F-23 would have had a smaller rear fuselage around the engines, due to not needing room for thrust reversers---so it would actually have weighed less there. (the YF-23 didn't have reversers either, but the change was late enough that the rear fuselage was still designed to have room for them)
  4. David Hingtgen
    A lot of the detail/sculpting seems to have been "softened" from the grey prototypes we saw earlier. Frankly, they look a lot cheaper than I expected.
  5. David Hingtgen
    A production F-23A would have had a separate Sidewinder bay right in front of the AMRAAM bay---though it would have been 1 bay that held 2 missiles, rather than the F-22's "1 missile per bay" setup.
  6. David Hingtgen
    Very empty AFAIK. I do wonder if production F119 engines would fit in the #1 plane. Much of the actual systems were repurposed stock McDonnell parts---F-15 cockpit, F-18 hydraulics/gear AFAIK. Wouldn't have been so for production of course, but worked well enough for a prototype.
  7. David Hingtgen
    The X-32 was just plain UGLY. That's different. Plus, an intake like that actually is a serious safety concern on a carrier---the A-7 was legendary as a "sailor sucker", the F-8 a bit less so. Plus you know, the X-32 couldn't actually really hover without removing structural parts of it to reduce weight first. Finally, an actual F-24 (or F-32 if you prefer) would have had a different tail and possibly even delta wing----VERY different from the X-35, as Boeing admitted the current basic design wouldn't satisfy the requirements. The changes from X-32 to production JSF would have made the YF-22 vs F-22A changes look trivial. (and would have both cost and delayed the program a lot---and look how long it's taking to get the closer-to-production X-35 into service!)
  8. David Hingtgen
    Seems the British govt had some just-delivered unassembled-in-factory-crates Spitfires buried underneath a Burmese airfield in 1945 to prevent them from falling into Japanese hands. And were then forgotten. And now found again. And the British govt is paying to dig them up and get them back----so there may soon be a lot more flyable Spitfires out there---or at the very least, one heck of a nice batch of spare parts for the existing ones. Makes you wonder if there isn't still an Fw190A in a crate somewhere in the Alps or something...
  9. David Hingtgen
    You mean, same ending as otherwise, with a 1.5 sec clip added on to the end if you choose "red" for your ending color-scheme.
  10. David Hingtgen
    Yup, would you expect anything less from the military-industrial-govt complex? The "look" of the Spruance-class destroyer was also highly controversial, compared to modern Soviet designs. (as in, the Spruance-class didn't LOOK very powerful, because most of the weapons/reloads were in the hull, whereas Soviet ships tended to have many single-shot non-reusable weapons all over the decks--so many people thought the Spruance class had vastly inferior firepower based on how it looked, and nearly got the thing cancelled, if not severely reduced in numbers---luckily it was pointed out in time that they were actually quite well-armed, you just couldn't see much of it) Imagine if the F-22 faced that---"I don't see very many missiles hanging off the wings, it's a waste of money!"
  11. David Hingtgen
    Plus, the fact that it just looked so cool/futuristic--there's way too many USAF generals that are "visually conservative"----it's amazing the SR-71 got approved. Many of them do not like "futuristic-looking" planes regardless of performance. The F-22 looks like an angular F-15--and they liked that, and gave it points for that. It's a primary reason no US fighter has canards, yet nearly all other highly-agile designs do.
  12. David Hingtgen
    Yes, but I didn't want to write an entire essay on it. Those were the most egregious.
  13. David Hingtgen
    The hand-feet seems a little too fan-boyish IMHO.
  14. David Hingtgen
    FlightGobal is about as reputable/informative as websites come--their blogs are better (and often more factual) than many paper magazine articles.
  15. David Hingtgen
    Should have done it in the 90's, with a Super Tomcat. VERY easy to explain to the audience Tim Taylor style---"it's Maverick's old plane, but with 40% MORE POWER"
  16. David Hingtgen
    Love it, but I gotta wonder about how it could "fly" in battroid mode---most valks have their main engines as foot-thrusters. This does not. Or is battroid for ground use only?
  17. David Hingtgen
    Eh, I like the uber-white plain look of Unicorn. Kind of goes with the whole "hidden" theme.
  18. David Hingtgen
    They seem to have completely ignored the 2000-ish cartoon series, which IMHO was fairly good---certainly had some plot arcs that paid off. (yes, the snake-men saga sucked)
  19. David Hingtgen
    Part of the problem is that NASA calls itself "Nasa" and the NACA had a similar mandate. But NACA is letter-by-letter, like nearly every other gov't agency. FAA is FAA, not "fah". But yeah--it's a pure aerodynamic term, that most automotive people/groups don't know the origin/pronunciation of. Like pitot or vernier.
  20. David Hingtgen
    Gah, she pronounced NACA as "naca". It's en-ay-cee-ay. Just like CIA is "cee-eye-ay" and not "siah" or the ACT test is the ay-cee-tee and not the "act" test. NACA is an acronym, not a word. USAF is not "ooh-saf".
  21. David Hingtgen
    Wait wait--the Pizza Planet one is *awesome*. Because Pizza Planet.
  22. David Hingtgen
    It's not any better than anything that's come before, and it's inferior in many ways (like the basic transformation sequence having the legs fold the wrong way). It's BIG but that's it. True, a 1/30 version of a Takatoku 1/55 VF-1 may be a god-send to many people, but raw size wouldn't make it better than a 1/48 or V2 1/60 from Yamato... (especially if the backpack folded up the wrong way)
  23. David Hingtgen
    Wow, I thought I was the only person on the planet who genuinely liked that game. (still hate the timing for many moves though)
  24. David Hingtgen
    I wonder if each shuttle will get its "own" OMS pods prior to being displayed. I'm not sure all are available though---I know one of Columbia's wasn't on Columbia when it was lost, and last I heard it was on Discovery. So presumably one of another shuttle's was on Columbia at the time. Are those recent pics of Discovery? Last good series of pics I saw of it had the RCS assembly in the nose and both OMS pods removed, so it looks like it's complete again---and again---does it have "its own" ones installed, or just whichever were handy? It didn't matter for any particular mission/flight, but since this will be the final installation, I think it'd be nice for each shuttle to have its "own" parts as much as possible. Last pic I saw of Enterprise showed it with none. (which is a heck of an omission)
  25. David Hingtgen
    To be correct, you'd need Phoenix pylons to mount a Phoenix under the gloves---each weapon has a unique adapter in that location. You'll note that the aft fin of a Sparrow mounted there exactly matches the angled cut-out at the rear of the adapter. However, I don't think I've ever seen Phoenixes loaded on the glove pylons INSTEAD of on the belly. Generally, the first 2 spots that a Phoenix go are on the belly up front. Then the rear. THEN they go under the gloves. About the only exception will be when carrying a single Phoenix on one side, while the belly is full of bombs and a LANTIRN pod is on the other side---because bombs absolutely can't go under the gloves and the Phoenix is needed more for balance than anything. As for Sidewinders----they can always go on the stub pylons on the outside of the main glove pylon, with any weapon. An F-14 will never need to be without Sidewinders no matter what else it carries.
×
×
  • Create New...