David Hingtgen

F-22---probably was a CGI'd Starscream, since real F-22's don't have blue afterburners. (Few planes do under daylight conditions)

Warped UP? Never heard of that. Resin can pretty easily warp under weight/stress (even its own, but usually reported in landing gear struts of large kits) but I've never heard of it warping up.

They did it all the time on the 1/60 VF-1's. You only got the type of missile they felt like including. VF-1's without armor, loaded up with RMS-1's look really weird---I had to buy the other missile types from other members here, as I had like a dozen RMS-1's, and not anything else.

Don't forget that our own wwwmwww recently got a D'stance: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=20048

All jets have arrestor hooks, no point in redesigning and attaching a weaker one just to replace the carrier-rated one. There's a slight change in the mounting system on non-US ones though. Australian ones originally didn't have a launch bar on the nose, but since the nosegear was designed to operate with one attached, serious vibrations resulted due to the changed natural frequency of the nosegear so they had to go design a non-functional one and add it back on! Number of landings? I think about 1,000. Hooks are designed for 100 landings. That's the basic number for most modern Navy jets AFAIK.

Re: extra weight--yup. Every non-US Hornet is carrying unnecessary weight around. But it does lead to added strength, so the airframes last a lot longer than they do in carrier service. Recently, the US Navy has actually been pulling F-18C's out of frontline service and giving them to the reserves, and taking the reserves' F-18A's and upgrading them to the F-18A+, and re-equipping that way. Why? Due to such heavy use in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of F-18C's are starting to "run out of traps"----carrier planes are life-limited by number of carrier landings, not hours. The reserves' Hornet have "lead easy lives" comparatively--so while they may have more hours on the airframes, they have far fewer carrier landings. And the reserves get the F-18C's which don't have many carrier landings left, but have plenty of hours to use up. An F-18A+ has electronics as good as a late F-18C (which makes it better than any early/mid F-18C), weighs less, and has the late F-18C engines. It's now the best Legacy Hornet out there. Much like the F-16C, the main reason for the new model being physically different never materialized, so with some avionics/engine tweaks, you can make the old ones just as capable as newer ones. I'd guess Australia would want Super Hornets mainly for compatability (what there is) with their Legacy Hornets.

Latest news: Australia wants 2 dozen F-model Super Hornets to cover for JSF delays, USN wants 200 for the same reason. Read on another forum Australia really should have gone for some Strike Eagles---great F-111 replacement, and would have filled the gap nicely.

???? VF is the most anti-button-masher fighter I know. SC is pure button mashing. Tekken's in the middle.

http://www.hlj.com/faq/q41.html I've done it several times for F-14 and F-18 parts, never had to wait long--but again, it depends on Hasegawa's own backstock/warehouse. It's pretty easy--just email them---parts(at)hlj.com--the sprue(s) you need and wait. You can figure out about how much it'll cost by looking on the instruction sheet back page--there'll usually be a little rectangle with a list of sprues and yen prices--that's for customers in Japan to just mail in for spare parts, but you can use it to figure out the price of each individual sprue. I always get parts shipped SAL---since you never have any idea how long it'll take to get the parts in the first place, no point in paying for faster shipping--especially since the parts are so light SAL is 1/4 as much as EMS at that point.

Fit and finish is a lot better than an F-14. Which brings me to my next point---looks like we may finally have a good/accurate 1/72 diecast Tomcat. Look at this one: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586420 Yes, it's expensive, but I'd rather have 1 really good one, than a bunch of "A's with D cockpits and B nozzles". There is also a "catapult lauinch" variant of that one, kneeling with flaps and slats down: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586437 Would like other people to look/evaluate in case I missed something, but it seems correct for that block/year so far. Of course, those are sample pics, not the final product---Dragon's VF-111 F-14 went from an A to a D from sample to final. Also, someone is finally getting around to the most obvious F-16--the Thunderbirds: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/WT-WTW72010-13 I'll need plenty of pics before I buy one though, I won't buy it unless it's got a small intake. (I don't have any Witty F-16's, so I don't know if they have both types, or only big, etc---Dragon has both types, but seems to think all F-16C's have the big one)

As posted an entire page ago, a YF-19 with the wings back looks like this: http://www.un-spacy-qmtdb.com/uns/variable...bur_yf_19_4.jpg The canon overhead lineart of the YF-19 also marks both the pivot point, and the exact sweep angle: 119.4 degrees back from the "standard" position. (Or, 90 degrees straight back along the leading edge) I often wonder if that drawing/spec was done by Kawamori himself---the sweep angle is given along the quarter-chord for the forward position---which only someone very familiar with jets would know to do that.

I was going to post something similar. I thought Kawamori's explanation would be "Nora's Sv-51 is actually the exact same shade of red as Milia, as an homage--the animators just screwed up and made it pink" Anyways---yellow spray would be more opaque than yellow tampoing IMHO, for a given thickness of paint. It would also do much better across the panel lines--when you spray, the paint gets in the panel lines--when you tampo, it usually passes over them, creating gaps of color wherever a panel line is engraved. However, overspray is a big issue, with 500 different edges on the mask that could lift.

Thinking more, I doubt they'd be tampoed, rather, they would/should be sprayed. That would work and look better, especially considering they're yellow. If you want white or yellow to look good, you should spray. Yamato does spray some of the markings (usually big stripes on the wings etc)---anything with overspray is obviously sprayed--tampo can't overspray (it'll drip, pool, or leave sponge/pad marks--but bad tampoing is rare---it's usually misaligned, not poorly applied) Finally---detailed skulls are very obvious when off-kilter, but "random yellow wiggly stripes" could be off and wouldn't be noticeable.

I hadn't even thought of that (stickering the yellow parts). There's NO WAY stickers could ever work, even decaling that is a challenge. Let Yamato know I'd pay a premium for Nora's paint scheme, to have the yellow markings tampo'd on. 10 bucks more than Ivanov or CF schemes would be well worth it--especially since aftermarket decals would cost that much anyways. I think most anyone would pay a little extra to not have to deal with gigantic thick stickers ALL OVER Nora's. Tampo is the only way to go. I like Nora's scheme for the same reason I like the Sv-51--it's different! Not "yet another white valk with black stripes and a yellow or red accent". And while all black/grey Ivanov is unique canon-wise, now it's fairly common for Yamatos.

But there's much better "canon" valks to do first---like the VF-4.

The YF-21 flew fine with the arms gone. It lost all 4 limbs. But the wings were fine, and it had thrust vectoring. The entire belly of the plane was gone along with the tailfins, but it didn't really matter. Think about a plane fully loaded with bombs and drop tanks on the belly---very "rough" uneven surface---flies just fine. Lot more drag than a smooth belly, but it flies the same. F-14's spend half their lives with the gigantic Phoenix pallets installed on the forward hardpoints (completely messing up the smooth belly), but it doesn't do much.

Temjin--except that's not what the YF-19 looks like with the wings back. The pivot point is the same as when transforming. You've basically taken the wings off, and put them back in a different place.

An Sv-51 losing the gun wouldn't have any problems other than drag-related. No different than the YF-21 flew with the legs gone--- so long as the wings are still there, and has sufficient control (either aerodynamic or vectoring), it'll fly. On modern fighters, the rear fuselage between the engines (if there is any) is shaped purely to reduce drag, and/or is a good place to put a drag chute. Nothing more. F-111 is a good example of bad design--it gets like 30% of its total drag from being poorly shaped there. But it doesn't affect how it flies at all. F-14 had that area changed several times, getting smaller and more complexly-shaped each time. F-15 had it chopped off entirely. PS--going along with other recent posts---I want the Sv-51 because it's different. I still don't have a VF-0, simply because it's so similar to the VF-1. That's a lot of money for what is basically a repaint. I'd buy a VF-0D though, as it's delta-winged and that changes everything. But the Sv-51 is so unique--every mode, and the transformation. And I want Nora's magenta one!

It's not so much the wing sweeping back that's the problem, it's the fact that the wing root sweeps forward and in as the tip comes back. If you go strictly with the canon lineart and pivot point, the tailing edge root swings all the way through the legs, arms, chest, and head. The only way to avoid that is if the wing separates in half and with the root being fixed, and the outer part goes above or below its own root, overlapping itself (which doesn't seem to fit the lineart). Or does like the X-02 wing, and "swallows" part of itself. Or along what Graham thought up, having the trailing edge slide up and over towards the leading edge. (I thought perhaps having the entire trailing edge flip 180, since the flaperons are already hinged along that point--instead of a typical +/- 40 degree movement range, it'd be like +40/-180) Sheer pivoting won't work no matter what. You have to either get the wingroot out of the way, or not have it move. Knight26 proposed having a sliding hinge near the pivot, so that you move the entire wing outboard, then swing it back, then move the wing inboard again---but even then there's still SOME root trailing edge issues. In the OVA, it seems to simply swing its wings, no flipping/folding. (yes, you see it happen--it swings them back from head-on, and swings them forward while doing a barrel-roll)

The cockpit sits directly above the gear well--if you "push the gear in further" then there's no room for a cockpit. Yamatos already are flown by amputees, there's not a millimeter to spare. In both real fighter planes and toy valks "the cockpit floor is the nosegear bay ceiling". And if you go by the lineart, the nose is mostly hidden, so it needs to go into the bay quite far.

As discussed at MacrossNexus: http://forums.macrossnexus.com/index.php?s...c=123&st=60 The nosecone goes directly into the gear bay (as best anyone can tell, and make work). Pic credit goes to Mecha Nut

Removable gear solves a lot of problems...

I recently read that the Trek ships are not dead, but there is a licensing dispute. The 1/350 NX-01 is out of production, but the 1/350 1701-A is still being made. But there will be no new kits until licensing is resolved.

I'm going to say here I agree with Dante74. People keep asking about it, but it's been stated for months by Graham that it can't. Plus the fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE. There is absolutely nowhere for them to go. I've been this close to posting a "stop asking about the wings, there's no way to do it in real life" rant, but Dante74 said it first. Now, over at MacrossNexus there was a very long discussion, and Graham took a close look at the drawings and came up with a possible explanation (for part of it, still didn't solve the root-tip problem), but that requires the wing splitting up into multiple, paper-thin parts with sliding internal joints. Maybe possible in 1:1 with overtechnology, but certainly not in a toy. I'll repost this photo---see a problem with rotating the wings?

I just figured out what the standalone Ghost's color scheme reminded me of. MS32a/1b. US WW2 anti-submarine camo, very rare variant, best known for being on the USS Iowa. The colors look close, the pattern is roughly similar. (wide, alternating, sharp-edged angled bands) Though being symmetrical left/right defeats the whole purpose of that type of camo.