Jump to content

David Hingtgen

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    17161

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Hingtgen

  1. David Hingtgen
    I agree with most everything Kyp Durron said--it's the VF-4, it carries its weapons on its body. Loading it up with external pylons and gunpods is like putting a bunch of stuff under an F-22's wings---you're missing the point of why it was designed the way it was. The F-22 is notable for INTERNAL missile carriage to remain stealthy. Just because it CAN carry stuff under the wings, doesn't mean it SHOULD nor would it do so very often. VF-4's should be clean and sleek, with missiles embedded in its skin to remain sleek while fully armed. I do want the missiles removable though, if for no other reason than it would result in a super-crisp color differentiation. Having "painted bulges" just wouldn't give the same effect, and there'd be fuzzy edges, missed spots, etc. Actually having a separately molded/painted part would make sure there's no issues there. The desert camo VF-4 looks quite good because of just how "distinct" the missiles are IMHO. The more obviously differentiated they are, the better a VF-4 looks IMHO. Hmmn---really though, so long as the missiles are separate pieces, they could be permanently attached/glued in. Just so long as they are molded independently of the main body. Anything but "molded as a bulge on the body then painted to look like a separate part". They must be "physically separated" from the fuselage, even if they are permanently attached later.
  2. David Hingtgen
    Same for Leader Jetfire, actually. Wouldn't have been perfect, but getting rid of the giant lights-n-sound box would have made for a whole lot less undercarriage. (and if they hadn't have been lazy and actually made the turbine-legs from the turbines!) The whole engine nacelles are giant hollow kibble, instead of actually housing the legs inside. Put arms where the box was, put the legs inside the engines, and you've gotten rid of a whole lot of bot kibble...
  3. David Hingtgen
    Obscurity is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is AWESOMENESS. And the VF-4 is very awesome indeed. (if nothing else, it's different, it's not in the VF-0/1/3000/25 family of "classic valkyrie fighter mode" shape)
  4. David Hingtgen
    I too thought the silhouette looked like Mylene.
  5. David Hingtgen
    How times change---"we've got way too many P-38's, let's just dump them all in a big pile to get rid of them".
  6. David Hingtgen
    Yes, the Typhoon did come to mind, as being among the newest planes with conformal carriage. I've always thought the forward troughs of the Tornado were a great example--they're among the "deepest" I can think of. (a Tornado's rear ones are not recessed) ::edit:: And here's a good one showing an F-4's:
  7. David Hingtgen
    Almost all the official art shows the external armament---but people don't realize they're looking at it! I think a lot of people miss that the "long skinny humps" all over the VF-4 *are* the missiles. There's 12, after all. (3 on each leg, 2 on each forearm, 2 under the nose) They're conformal missiles, to a degree even greater than the F-4/F-14/Tornado do. You just rarely see them "fired off" with a recessed trench left in the valk--though at least one drawing shows this: http://www.macross2....-4/vf-4-la3.jpg That's the only drawing I know of that shows "what's left when the missiles are fired off"----looks very much like modern conformal-carry missile launchers. Kind of a shallow trench. In short--it doesn't need pylons on the wings (there's not much room anyways) because it's already carrying a decent load all over the fuselage. If they're colored a different shade of grey than the rest of the valk, they're easier to spot. :;edit:: Highlighted for clarity: Just look for the grey humps that all look the same. They're not structural bulges of the airframe itself. It's a unique and cool feature of the VF-4. Whoever made the model in the previous above seemed aware of this, as they painted them with typical USAF missile striping, made them a different color than the main fuselage, and they clearly have exhaust nozzles. Hey Graham---could you make sure Yamato is aware of this? They should be painted a different color than the main fuselage, and even making them removable could be one heck of a neat feature. Just make sure they don't sculpt them on as "part of the valk itself". They should have a distinct nozzle at the back end, like on the model above. They should not "taper off and blend" at the rear. They should be more "cut off". They should look "stuck on" and not "part of the valk itself". Making them removable would be the only way to have a "bare" VF-4, as well. Some "standard missile striping" would go a long way towards making them look like missiles---again, just like the model in the previous post. (it's a REALLY good example, Yamato should definitely reference it for how the missiles should be done)
  8. David Hingtgen
    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html
  9. David Hingtgen
    Lockheed unveiled their F-22 replacement proposal: Huh. Looks kinda like a certain F-22 competitor, only flattened. So we could apparently have had the F-22's successor, years ago, had we just gone with Northrop in the first place...
  10. David Hingtgen
    Never doubt HFH's generosity nor awesomeness, for he will provide for us all.
  11. David Hingtgen
    That's my thought.
  12. David Hingtgen
    Hmmn. The G-variant is by far the best-known of the VF-4's, but the best-known scheme is Hikaru's of course---but presumably he wouldn't have been flying the G-variant. Or perhaps the G-variant is externally identical to the VF-4A, etc. (the "finned" head could be like the VF-27β, where there's two different head options for the same variant)
  13. David Hingtgen
    Yeah, only really works on those where the hands tuck into the shield, rather than having the shield sit on top of the arms.
  14. David Hingtgen
    If you slice an F-14 right down the middle, you basically have a traditional airfoil cross-section.
  15. David Hingtgen
    That's how I "erased" my last PC's hard drive. Or maybe 2 PC's ago. Either way, cheaper and easier/faster than using any program IMHO.
  16. David Hingtgen
    The first time you die in Bastion will likely be one of your all-time fave moments. Trust me.
  17. David Hingtgen
    I was going to make a follow-up comment to Graham's about body lift but didn't. I'd assume the VF-4 actually gets more lift from between the nacelles than outboard of them. Like an SR-71 does. I'd love to see some numbers for fighters, especially say F-14, F-15, and F-16, to compare different configurations.
  18. David Hingtgen
    Hmmn. True. And I rank animation over polygons for "what is canon"...
  19. David Hingtgen
    Thing is, if they follow their only canon appearance, they would be pastel, even more than their VF-22's are. The above art is more of a "how they SHOULD look" and not "how they DID look".
  20. David Hingtgen
    The sad part is not the crash itself, but that she then GUNNED THE ENGINE AFTERWARDS to try to get unstuck, and had to be coached that perhaps backing up slowly may be the better option... Or maybe she wanted to cause even further damage after the initial scrape.
  21. David Hingtgen
    Cool Russian stuff: (check out 5:45 in on the second one)
  22. David Hingtgen
    The history of aviation has shown that "more power" can beat "fancy aerodynamics" most every time, and solves many problems. (the link between engine power and a wing's ability to produce lift is often overlooked-----wings are not perpetual motion machines, they cannot "create" the force of lift out of the void---they are more like converters, the original source is the engine---this is why when a two-engine plane loses an engine, it may lose 90% of its climb ability---the wings are just as good as they were, but there is now almost no excess power beyond what is needed for maintaining level flight--there's nothing to spare to dedicate to increasing altitude)
  23. David Hingtgen
    I think of the VF-4 in fighter mode like I do the VF-17----gunpodless. If there's one valk that doesn't "need" one IMHO it's the VF-4---it's got some big guns in the forearms, to me they look much more intimidating than the YF-21's. Remember--a gunpod still only uses one barrel at a time to fire, so much of its size is "wasted"---the actual barrel diameter/round size isn't nearly as big as it looks from the outside. Question I just had----what's in the VF-4's shoulders? When it transforms, the "covers" flip down and expose---something. Missile launchers? Or at least the upper part--related to the guns in fighter mode? Surely the forearm guns work in battroid mode, so do they get a "power boost" when they're in fighter mode by hooking up directly to the aux/upper engines there?
  24. David Hingtgen
    Wrong. Macross-Myth that is oft-repeated (and oft-corrected). See here: http://macross.anime...ndex.html#Mecha The VF-4 has been fully variable from Kawamori's earliest sketches in the 80's of it.
  25. David Hingtgen
    Edited first post.
×
×
  • Create New...