David Hingtgen

Alpha=angle of attack. Basically, what angle the wings are intersecting (attacking) the airflow. A wing is almost never perfectly "in line" with the airflow--the degree to which it is off is extremely critical. Best example: a plane just before landing. It'll be nose-high, but still descending---since the wings are attached to the plane, they'll be leading-edge high as well---but the wing will be moving downwards with the plane, thus the wing is meeting the air at quite an angle. Or, if you see a plane doing a slow-speed pass at an airshow---horizontal flight, but nose angled high--again, severe "discrepancy" between the direction the plane is pointing, and the direction the plane is moving. Negative alpha is possible, but generally only for a moment during severe manuevers etc---that's mainly "pointing down but moving up"--which no plane can sustain, except those that can hover.

Was going to mention DC, but already was. But, in a weird sort of way, I think the PS2 might have had the best launch ever. Read: all the PSX games to try again. I spent 95% of my PS2's first week replaying old games, seeing how they looked. Xenogears and FF8 are still among the most notably improved. FF7 is pretty much only affected by battle backgrounds, but it's very obvious. FF9/Chrono Cross are pretty close in that they're affected all around, but not as noticeable as FF8. (I still remember that the "meltdown" spell gets messed up visually on a PS2)

A waste of company resources IMHO. Would have much preferred the use the time and effort to make an "un-gimmicked" YF-22 Starscream toy or something. (That's probably my number one complaint of TFs of the last 10 years--big firing missiles that cause extra-large arms/hands/weapons, that make robot mode look ugly---the prototype SS we've seen would look a lot better with the "palm blasters" removed) And imagine how much better Cybertron Thundercracker would be if he didn't have to carry around a missile-firing gimmick half the size of his alt-mode on his arm.

The official pics from Yamato used on most sites like BBTS and HLJ are flat-out a different color--it's an early prototype, those pics have been around for like 6 months. The final version is much more subtle. It's not the lighting, it's actually painted differently. Happens ALL THE TIME for toys/models---they don't re-photograph things if there's a change, pics and box art is done early. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the YF-19 uses the painted resin prototype pics we've already seen as "official photo of the final product" and it won't match the actual release.

Italeri/Testors? Generally regarded as the best one. FYI, there's a guy working on a resin 1/32 YF-23. From scratch. But I've seen his other work and the incomplete -23, and I have no doubts when its done it'll be the best, most accurate, most detailed 1/32 fighter jet kit period. And I plan to buy one, unless the price is truly insane. (I'd guess/hope a couple hundred dollars) YF-23: Best-looking plane ever, period. Even the XB-70 and F-14 pale in comparison. And it's got the whole "one contrail" thing going.

Was looking at the Sv-51 tonight and trying to figure out the transformation some more. Is the cover for the lift-fans in fighter mode, also the heatshield in battroid mode? Also, anyone know exactly how the head/chest ends up in front of the lift-fan section? My guess is that that area does something very similar to the YF-19, lifting "up and over" to go over the cockpit area.

Seems the main reasons for that were sheer wing positioning (aft wing=bigger bomb bay) and the better takeoff performance Knight26 mentioned (always a big problem with early jets)--which looking around some more seems to be related to sheer high-alpha capabilities--it's not so much a directly higher production of lift due to shape/sweep or anything, but rather can achieve greater alpha under most conditions, thus higher lift.

1/350? Would go perfectly with my 1/350 Iowa and Tirpitz, and my planned 1/350 Musashi...

Nope, that's the number one myth that even aviation books/sites write. FSW is NOT unstable. It's just that all the famous FSW planes are very unstable. But not because of FSW, they're unstable because they're modern fighters and that's the big trend. They're unstable for the exact same reason, and in the exact same way that the F-16 is. Having FSW has little to do with it. Interestingly, there was an F-16 FSW proposed--it was unstable too--but that's because the F-16 is unstable anyways. And as I wrote above, the #1 advantage FSW has is that it is much MORE stable (in roll) in high-alpha flight.

That's the question---I found there's a separate Hase kit display at the show, with built versions of all the Zero mecha together. So why is there a lone SV-51 in the Yamato display? A 1/72 Hase as a huge hint, a 1/60 prototype (unlikely), or a 1/72 Hase just to "fill out the scene" with the VF-0?

The VF-0A w/Ghost pic has been in the VF-0A thread for several months now. There's a copy for quick viewing here: http://members.aol.com/ncc42768/ghost.jpg (At least I think it's one of Tokyohunter's pics)

Welcome to the forum, your pic of the VF-0A w/Ghost Booster you took at WonderFest is still the only pic of it. Your work is much appreciated here.

The Hase kit just makes no sense at all for it weapons mount, just ignore it IMHO. Also---Mk82's are canon? I am SO going to rig up my 1/48 to carry some. Will have to buy some TER's though... I never knew any real weapons were listed. (Though it should be LDGP not LDGB---and yes I know the whole "Bofors vs Bifors and Royce vs Roice" issue, but it really should be LDGP---that's an Engrish thing, not a parody/avoiding copyright thing)

Scouting around all the JP toy show news sites I know of---trying to find more pics of that display. Apparently yesterday and today were "press only" days, the general public is tomorrow and the next--should be a lot more pics in the next 48 hours. Thing is--wouldn't Yamato do Ivanov's first, to go with Roy?

If you split the intakes and nacelles into arms/legs, you'd have a pretty short Jetfire.

Have to find somewhere to put the arms. Trying to make a Jetfire F-14 would totally ruin Kawamori's apparent goals. The F-15 works because it has a deep, flat belly. F-14 has a whole lot of nothing between the engines.

The X-02 is slightly redesigned in every game, to take it further and further from the YF-23. Compare the YF-23 to the original X-02 design, from AC4, not the "redesigned to look less like a YF-23 copy" version from AC5 and AC0. The X-02 started out as 90% YF-23 parts, only recently has it been "resculpted" to only make it "similar" to the YF-23. And might as well: The XFA-27 is a modified F-14. Don't even think about denying that one, it shares PANEL LINES on 90% of the fuselage, exactly matching.

I think my "what forward-swept wings do for the YF-19" thread is still among the missing in the archives. Generally, FSW isn't as great/useful as people think, and a lot of what is published is flat out wrong. Basically--FSW planes are more stable in roll at extremely high alpha, and have a bit less drag at high speeds. That's about it. A few mentions of superior lift/drag ratios, which would actually make it longer-ranged. Traditionally, having wings swept forward have actually been mainly for structural/location reasons, not aerodynamic. The aerodynamic problems of FSW generally outweighs the benefits. Could be the same for the YF-19--they're swept forward because they have to be mounted at the rear because of parts/system/transformation fit, not any aerodynamic advances. Knight26---where does takeoff performance come in?

IMHO the VF-1 is just plain blocky, regardless of when it was designed. When Kawamori was sketching it up, the very sleek F-16 was already well-known. And the F-14 and 15 are sleeker than the VF-1.

chowyunskinny--did you glue them on, or is there a peg or something that'll hold the intake kibble on the wings? Because I *very* much planned to do that if I ever got one. I figured it'd work, but you make it seem like it takes almost no work at all to make it happen.

I doubt the VF-0 and VF-1 are the same design, at different stages. Especially with how very well Kawamori knows and follows current aircraft naming conventions, even in the Macross universe. He would have called the VF-0 the "YVF-1" or "YF-1" if he intended it to be an earlier version of the design. I would draw a parallel with the F-111B and F-14. The F-14 is an "emergency replacment" pressed into service with inferior engines, due to the pure suckiness of the F-111B. As many parts and systems from the F-111 as possible were used, and just as many were taken from the A-6, to get it ready as soon as possible. The F-111B was supposed to be the Navy's primary high-speed Phoenix-launching bomber-shooting interceptor, not the F-14. Same design goal, same features and weapons, same designers (Grumman helped on the F-111 a lot), similar configuration---but different planes in the end. Ironically, like the VF-0 vs VF-1, the F-111 was also a lot bigger than the F-14 (which above all was the #1 problem). I doubt Kawamori went with this parallel intentionally (unlike the YF-22/YF-23 definitely being the basis for Macross Plus) but it does work quite well.

Which is what I was referring to. Said idiots said there were no similarities, when people posted side-by-side pics at the same angle...

Live and dummy missiles in the US (and possibly all of NATO) are 36375 grey. That should match the main color of the original low-vis VF-1. Nosecones are usually off-white, being ceramic or composite or whatever--they're not painted, they're "whatever color the material is". Russian missiles are still white with black stripes AFAIK. Russian missiles seem to have almost no color coding at all.

Never a lack of idiots over at Gamefaqs.

Additionally: Hasbro--you're allowed to use drawings other than directly from the front, and directly above. Angled shots help a lot. As does choosing the CORRECT angle. How many times have you had no clue what was going on, because there were those 3 arrows, but the "from overhead" drawing looked almost identical before and and after, yet a sideview would have clearly showed what moved? If the piece moves "towards the camera" it's really not going to be obvious what happened.