David Hingtgen

And Shockwave simply increased his badassitude.

http://www.holloman.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123148046 Go pick your own wallpaper, many good ones.

A through G deck for bridge to engineering. 625 feet tall. Those are some really friggin TALL decks... (assuming the "belly of the ship" is like deck M or something) The Kelvin's interior was much better IMHO. PS--apparently all the Hot Wheels are like that, it's not a variant/error. There is no "A" version out there, despite the packaging.

VF-0D would need so many new parts it may as well count as all-new. (and I want one!)

Didn't they actually reduce the capability of most LED-backlit TVs this year? As in, no more local dimming?

I'm only 20 mins (or less) from "that Iowa town" and I can tell you that it's fairly simple: Kirk will be born there. "New Kirk" was raised there. (remember, Roddenberry himself approved it, even on-screen movie canon can't over-ride that IMHO) PS---as for Kirk being born in a ship---I figure it's the same as the babies that are born in airliners (especially if said airliner is over the ocean and not even in any particular nation's airspace)---wherever the parents say on the birth certificate.

That really doesn't seem to scale with details etc. Though it would explain how they have space inside for 4-story mostly-empty engineering spaces... (that was my main nit to pick--not how the engineering areas LOOKED, but how OPEN and EMPTY they were----no ship/plane ever built has room for empty, unused space all over--you just plain don't see high ceilings in a man-made vessel)

IAD's Sv-51 is so awesome, Shoji Kawamori has seen the footage of it flying, and it was briefly shown on TV in Japan as part of a Macross special.

While it may not have "meshed", the Kobayashi Maru scene was hilarious IMHO.

It's not so much a "Jolly Rogers" camo, but an "early 90's experimental" camo---thus my comment. It's not unique to them, but it is very rare. (I believe VF-1 had a few like that) It's so rare I don't even know the terms or exact dates. But Saratoga and Ranger keep coming to mind.

That made my day. ::edit:: LOL, the entire page of this thread is nothing but "Purple Shockwave!" http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers...scussion-8.html

HISStank and Toyark all refuse to recognize my TFW account. Anyways--the colors seem right, but the pattern's wrong. Unless they're planning on modeling planes of the Saratoga in 1990...

That's what happens when you try to modernize/futurize something without knowing what certain design features are. (so many movies do this with planes and ships----can't tell you how many times I've seen a "22nd century" version of something that stopped being used half-way through WWII)

I refuse to register to any more forums than I already have just to view an attachment.

That's how the original series always was. (though IMHO, the boots in the original series were better)

Ok, now that you mention the A-4 and I re-read the description, I think I know what you're talking about. Those aren't metal bars, they're simply cables under tension. That's called a "bridle" style of catapult launching attachment. They were standard for many years. It's the ONLY way to launch the F-8, F-4, A-4, A-3, F-3, F-2, F-7, F-6, F-9, and just about anything else that's older than the A-6/A-7/F-14. Hooking them up via the nose gear is the "new" way to do it. Also, it's not a waste, as the bridle isn't discarded (usually)----they stay with the shuttle and the whole assembly is "caught" at the end of the run. Ever noticed the "prongs" on the bow of a carrier aligned with the catapults? Most carriers used to have 2, then 1, and now usually none. They were there soley for bridle-launching--to recover the bridle cables. As it became less common, they were removed. And the newest carriers weren't built with any. At one point, the number of bridles remaining in inventory exceeded the number of possible/planned launches of the few remaining bridle-launched planes, so they stopped catching them! (this also allowed carriers that no longer had the "prongs" to still launch the occasional plane via bridle, as it didn't matter if they could be retrieved) Here, this shows a bridle pretty well:

All airliners have and use ailerons, it's just that what they use in addition to or primarily instead of, depends on speed/load. Keeping with the 777: 777s have outboard ailerons, inboard flaperons (really more of a drooping aileron), and spoilers. Remember, spoilers can only drop a wing, never raise it. Rapid response, but you WILL lose altitude---try to avoid that on final approach. Outboard ailerons are only used at low speeds, as they actually have too great of a stress/moment at high speeds (and airliners never need to roll much when cruising). When going slow, load/alpha is higher, so the wings are already "pre-bent" due to load, so the outboard ailerons start becoming effective because the wing is effectively stiffer and more responsive. (take a look at an airliner that's near the ground--the wings will be at max upwards deflection) Also, since the ailerons are aft of the spar, fuel capacity isn't affected in the least. Now, eliminating them would reduce weight, and a few planes do that. (A300-600 for example---the -600 version removed the outboard ailerons and added a spoiler) The A330/A340 have split ailerons---a single large one outboard, but it only uses the inboard half at high speeds with the outer half locking in place and effectively becoming part of the wingtip. Generally, outboard ailerons are locked/unlocked with the flaps---if the flaps are up, the outboard ailerons won't move. As soon as the flaps deploy even a little, the outboard ailerons start responding to commands.

"unspecified" gull grey is light gull grey.

The point was that early on, when they had no airliners with those engines, there was apparently a lot of resistance to selling them---because they feared back-engineering! Look what happened.

Valks tend to have small wings---a sign of high loading and a better bombing platform. (look at planes that are designed for low-level strike missions) Of course, since valks have impossibly low weights due to OT construction, the loading may be quite low. (depending on which one, a valk weighs 1/2 or 1/3 of what a modern fighter of the same size weighs) Also---fighter jet wings don't bend nearly as much as an airliner's. Airliners are designed to be smooth and comfy, even in turbulence---fighters are supposed to respond and take heavy loads. Bendy wings means they don't respond as much nor as quickly. (you'll note airliners tend to rely heavily on spoilers for roll control for anything more than the slightest turn--because moving an aileron tends to bend the wing more than roll the plane)

Decals require water, stickers are "peel and stick". The Gundam markings you describe are known as "dry transfers" and are unheard of on valk toys/kits AFAIK.

Point: stupid moronic robot antics are still preferable to the last movie's stupid sophomoric stereotype-laden human humor.

Heck no, they weren't even supposed to HAVE any, much less build them.

No, but it's still cold until the last day or two. And it was snowing until mid-late April. Set records (or should have). PS---yeah, tail decals suck (all of them). If I build an armored Ozma, I'll copy wm cheng and primer the whole fin, and then paint ALL of it, including the black.

..which are all still homages to the F-14 and F-15 test schemes...