David Hingtgen

I doubt a rotating seat--no room. The whole nose splits apart for transformation, as well as the fact that the seat rotates forward, not back.

Where is there a reference to OT in the F-14's? If they had OT, it sure wasn't in the cockpit...

My money's on "The Yamato YF-19 lacks the green "thing" on the seat because the Hasegawa doesn't have it either". It's clear Yamato is using the Hase kit as THE reference whenever possible. I know hologram/HUD emitter is the best guess--what was the final concensus from the big discussion we had about what that green thing was?

Is the pic anime52k8 posted of the Asuka specifically, or just a ship in the fleet? Because those are huge IMHO---far too large for any engine in a Burke class (even with OT) and I think too large even for a OT-enhanced Nimitz-sized reactor. (Assuing OT doesn't make stuff like twice as big) And I do think they bear resemblance to the Macross' anti-grav units, so I kinda like the anti-grav generator theroy. That, or the animators just have no clue what a naval nuclear reactor nor turbine looks like, and just made "Macross-ish" engines.

Look carefully--they added the grey stripes on top of the intakes. (best seen in rear shots of battroid, especially the one with the stand attached)

There are two ways to fire missiles: drop, and rail-launch. Most missiles are one or the other, the AMRAAM can do either. The Sidewinder is rail-launched--it goes straight off, like a model rocket off the launch rod. F-15's almost ALWAYS carry drop tanks under the wing pylons---that's why the pylon is so big--you wouldn't need such massive pylons to carry air-to-air missiles. It's usually pretty easy to tell what missiles do what--if there's no rail, they have to drop--Sparrow, Phoenix. If they're side-mounted (like Sidewinders) they have to be rail-launched. Part of the problem is that MP SS has the missiles mounted wrong, in an impossible way. Ever notice that there's only 3 fins on the back, instead of 4? You can mount most any combination of things to an F-15's wing pylons, the only exception I know of is: If a GBU-15 is carried, AMRAAMs can't be carried.

Finally found "Bye Bye Baby", had to drive to the B&N 30 miles away. Bought it more for the anecdotes than the pics.

Berkut has a lot of Su-27 parts, FYI.

I wondered about his PJ's too... Anyways---today I was thinking and also thought the best explanation is an "accessory" power like a force field, or simply "friction resistant skin" or something. If you think about it, a LOT of "comic powers" require multiple ones linked together, to actually be useful/practical. And I'm pretty sure it was dirt on his face from landing. He wouldn't HAVE a face if he had scorch marks from atmospheric friction.

Just makes you wonder why Takara didn't do some of these mods during the prototype stage. Surely it's not because they "couldn't figure out" how to make their own design have a better range of movement? Drifand---actually F-15's do have an additional hardpoint about where you put it. It's just never, ever, ever used, and I think it was finally removed on the F-15E. Sigh---if MP SS was 1/48, he'd be as big as people want, and there'd be tons of 1/48 model kit parts to use on him for customizing. First thing I'd do is add droptanks under the Sidewinders.

Somehow I missed all the "Leader" pics until now. I rarely get to see any front-line squadron, much less a "colorful" one.

I'd never considered the the "canard mounts" as functioning as swing-bars. That makes a lot of sense now, thanks. (still have to figure quite a bit more out, but I'm one step closer)

The aircraft nut in me had to figure out Nathan's speed and acceleration. My only conclusion is that "I think that in real life, he probably would have ripped his skin off" But yes, that is definitely the coolest flying effect I've ever seen. (And the aircraft nut in me has to also wonder if they based it on the "doughnuts on a rope" effect)

I might just be so used to the M+ version.

Anyone else think the bridge area looks a bit off?

Actually the pic I reposted is from post 1, page 1, of this thread.

I was hoping the PS3 could at least do "one more step" for PS1 games. Though I was REALLY hoping for some PS2 enhancements. (Valk Profile 2+anti-aliasing=bliss)

I think we already saw a stand adapter clipped onto the "codpiece" in the first set of "painted plastic" photos.

I think part the issue is people confusing instability with divergence. (divergence is another long story about FSW, but let's talk stability) Shaggydog's comment about trends is correct--stable and instable is all about what'll happen if you do something--will it correct itself, or further deviate--so long as you can prevent things from getting out of hand, a little instability helps it "deviate from the course" faster. All airliners are stable--if they pitch/roll/yaw, and you let go of the wheel--they'll naturally return to straight and level flight. Now, when talking about stability in a plane, 99% of the time we're talking about PITCH stability. (Roll stability is determined mainly by wing dihedral or anhedral--and I think people are sick about me talking about YF-19 anhedral) Pitch stability is most important, mainly because the lift of the wings is the biggest force acting on a plane, excedding any wind or gravity. And pitch is also very important in turns, even more so than roll. (because anyone who's flown a sim or game or real plane, knows that simply rolling won't make you turn much--you have to pull back and increase your pitch to actually get around) So pitch stability is the most important. Now, pitch stability of a plane is determined by a simple relationship: Center of lift vs Center of gravity. "Wing sweep angle/direction" is not in the formula. Center of gravity should be obvious. Center of lift works basically the same, but the force is up instead of down---aircraft tend to produce maximum lift at around 25-30% of the chord length (distance from leading to trailing edge). Now, sweep angle will affect center of lift and center of gravity, but indirectly: To be stable, center of lift must be behind center of gravity. If center of lift is forward of center of gravity, aircraft is unstable. (If you've ever heard about "tail heavy" planes being hard to handle but manueverable---that's related to instability---moving weight aft is effectively the same as moving lift forward) Now, center of lift can be affected by FSW in two ways: The sweep angle itself, and the location of the wings (which also affects center of gravity). Look at the YF-19 or X-29 from above. See how the wings are mounted quite far back? That's actually mainly to make it more stable than it otherwise would be. (X-29 is unstable, but not insanely unstable---by design, it was carefully tweaked to have the exact amount of stability (or lack of) that the designers wanted) By having the wings mounted far back, the center of lift (since the wings make the lift) is moved back. The farther back the lift (and farther forward the center of gravity), the more stable the plane is. However, moving the wings back also moves the center of gravity back, since they're fairly large parts of the plane. But wings always make more lift than their own weight (a lot more, usually) so the net effect is moving lift back. Now, sweep angle also affects center of lift. Lift tends to be concentrated inboard, so the location of the root is more important than the tips for affecting center of lift. But, sweeping the wings back will bring the center of lift back, and sweeping them forward will bring it forward. Usually the sweep angle and wing location tend to "average" out the affects of each other---swept-back wings tend to be mounted forward, swept-forward wings tend to be mounted back. So all that together? Basically, it just averaged itself out. BUT, there is one big factor that does tend to lead to FSW being easier to make unstable: Engine weight. Engines are by far the heaviest thing in a plane, proportionately (and sometimes absolutely). And with few exceptions in FIGHTER planes, jet engines are in the rear. And having big heavy engines in the rear will bring the center of gravity back. Now, most planes will be able to easily compensate--look at the F-14 and F-15. Very large engines in the back, yet still stable without having odd proportions. However, with FSW, since the wings are typically mounted a bit further aft, you're going to end up with more weight at the rear, and will generally be less stable. Note, LESS stable. Like how a 737 is less stable than a C-5. They're both very stable, but there is a difference. Now, you'll note that the Su-47, X-29, and YF-19 all have their wings mounted far aft. The YF-19's is probably just to look cool, or copy the X-29. The X-29 and Su-47 do that to bring the center of lift back to counteract the canards. Otherwise they'd be *very* unstable. Canards actually will have a bigger effect than almost anything else to instability, far more than FSW IMHO. Moving the wings back pretty much counteracts all stability affects of a FSW. But moving the wings back can't alone counteract the combination of FSW AND canards. (canards generally move lift forwards) So all together, I'm basically saying: it's not so much the SWEEP of the wing, it's the POSITION. You can easily make a plane that is very unstable, with swept-back wings. Just move the wings forward--that's how they made the F-16. Forward swept wings will move the center of lift forward a bit, but not enough to completely change a plane from stable to instable. If you took the canards off an X-29 or Su-47, they may very well be stable (or close to it) with their current wing position. If you moved the wings even further back, that could also make them stable. The X-29 and Su-47 were designed to be about as unstable as could be controlled, and a big part of that was the COMBINATION of FSW and canards. And I think the canards are an even bigger factor than the FSW in their instability. I'll try to update this later with some images, but I have to go get supper now. Basically--wing sweep, wing position, and canards will affect pitch stability the most. (since center of gravity is harder to change, and almost all jets have the engines in the rear--there's not much to mess with, the overall configuration is fairly set). But, if you COMBINE the least stable options all together, then you will almost certainly get an unstable plane. The X-29 and Su-47 are examples of "every possible way to reduce stability combined". But FSW alone certainly isn't enough. It's just the most visible. Everyone notices the FSW, few people notice the canards. X-29, YF-19, and Su-47 all have canards, and are unstable. (we presume the YF-19 is). The HB-320? FSW, but no canards--and stable. The Ju-287--FSW, no canards-and stable.

And as I mentioned, FSW isn't unstable and has been used on passenger biz-jets. It just happens that the two most famous FSW planes are unstable so a lot of people (and books, magazines) think they all are. Also, planes that are unstable are barely unstable. The F-16 was designed with an alternate wing location in case the FBW couldn't be made to work, to make it a traditional stable plane. Move the wings 8 inches back, and it's stable. Alternatively, put a really fat person in the cockpit. Only a few hundred pounds up front will make an F-16 stable.

I think this is Graham's way of saying "the Sv-51 will be even more expensive than the YF-19".

The whole duck/canard thing actually is the reason they're called that on planes. Long story, but basically both ducks and canard-equipped planes look like they're flying backwards. To the French at least it would seem. And remember--the very first plane had both canards and warpable wings. I too have read FSW is extremely unstealthy, but never any comment/reason why. Could be a myth like instability. PS--Sumdumgai--the Yamato YF-19 canards don't fold, they simply rotate 180. Due to their extreme dihedral, when they're rotated 180 they closely follow the fuselage contour. A VF-4 however actually "folds down" its canards (that's both canon and on the SHE). The YF-19 officially seems to have its canards both shrink and fold UP flat against the sides of the "spine". That or they magically disappear--hard to tell from the lineart alone.

I have scans of (I think) all the battroid and fighter drawings of the Sv-51. Does the newer Design Works book have any actual transformation drawings? I find the battroid rear view to actually be the most useful for figuring out transformation.

I would add a little bit about the usefullness of displaying as topics vs displaying as posts. Can make life a lot easier when searching.

Nope, there's tons I don't know, stuff I consider "basic". Pitch control of delta-winged planes still eludes me, for example.