David Hingtgen

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.

Image Anime already has it? Hmmn. They were fairly high on my list of places to order from. (They usually get stuff in pretty fast---is that the first US arrival?)

Is Yamato retconning (or simply screwing up) the designations? From our previous discussion, and the compendium, they are the QF-2200A and QF-2200D, not QF-2200D-A and D-B. All previous Macross stuff from all series has followed post-McNamara US-style designations perfectly (why do you think the Ghosts have a Q in them?), but now we have this weird D-A and D-B nomenclature. Unless I see some "quote straight from HFH" I'm going to assume Yamato is wrong.

I hadn't seen it in so long I forgot what it really looked like. It's like they were trying to build a P-38, but ran out of materials.

BBTS doesn't even mention it in their latest email, so it may be a while for those who ordered from there. Though I think it's good news that so far no one has missing/wrong/broken pieces--all the issues seem related to the design/mold itself. Anyways, just from looking at the photos, my current guess/plan to straighten the gunpod is to sand the foward side of one post, and the rear side of the other. That would effectively "align" the posts, moving their centerlines towards each other. Of course, it all depends on how tight the gunpod is--if sanding both pegs would make it too loose, then I'd probably go with WolfX's idea, and just "eliminate" whichever peg is the real source of the problem, relying on just one, tight peg to hold the gunpod.

What about the HLJ/Rainbow10 route? You can order sprues from them individually--though the rarer the kit, the less likely they can get it. I've ordered many sprues of parts from HLJ for Hasegawa and Fujimi kits--both replacements, and spares.

The arms look to be secured together in like 4 different places--to themselves in 2+ locations, to the shield, and to the legs. I think it'd be easier to adjust the posts on the forearms that the gunpod attaches too.

No, really strange-looking one-off. Could easily be one of Burt Rutan's designs. ASYMMETRICAL. Very. Like, if you took an F-15, and replaced one tailfin with an A-10's, and one wing with an F-14's.

Propeller effect. The spinning makes the air take slightly different paths, etc. Most noticeable with a nose-mounted prop. Most planes just ignore it, or use a bit of rudder etc to counteract it. But if you REALLY want to, you could make one wing bigger than the other, set at a different angle. The one I always think of (possibly the only one actually built to do so) was called the "Boomerang" IIRC. Same idea with a helicopter I'd guess---angle/shape things so that everything "lines" up aerodynamically/balances each other out---might not look "right" but would fly better.

That's what I was thinking--and looking at the drawing seems to confirm something else--that the entire upper fuselage and rotor assembly is tilted too. Or the fuselage doesn't match the tailboom and stub wings, or something. They drew a handy reference line for us. I didn't think any camera/lens error could "twist" the fuselage like the pic seemed to show, but I also didn't think any chopper would be built like that----it's like the helicopter equivalent of planes built to counter the P-effect. (Which makes for really weird, incredibly asymmetrical ugly planes, that are like 1% more aerodynamically efficient)

Ssshhhh! The other part of MW is supposed to be a secret!

Far more important than its rarity (or lack thereof), is the fact that it looks cooler than any other version.

Or reduce the resolution and/or frame rate. That's HUGE.

Word of advice: Go easy on the Goo Gone. Just get a napkin or something damp with just a bit of it, then work/rub it in.

Is there somewhere they actually mention a concrete reason for not making freighters in that massive thread? The pages I checked were the same as every other thread on every other aviation forum--it degenerated into an Airbus vs Boeing thread, citing subsidies vs govt contracts.

It's not unprecedented for a manufacturer to "ignore" freighters to focus on pax versions---Boeing did it for the 777. The 777 as a freighter was VERY much in desire YEARS ago, but only recently has Boeing offered it as such---that way they could get more 767 and 747 freighter orders. (The MD-11F was in even more demand, and had no pax orders at all---but Boeing wanted to spite MDC products so bad they actually cancelled outstanding orders--apparently it's better to not make money at all, than to make money with someone else's design for which you have no equivalent) MDC actually did it right with the MD-11---the first ones were freighters! No waiting. As for why Airbus is still not making A380F's when the situation is desperate: There's either a clause in the SIA/AF/LH/QF contracts that would be even more expensive than the money they're currently losing if they went ahead with the A380F, or the wiring is so messed up that even the far-less-wiring freighters have issues as well.

Well, since the only one built is currently several million shards imbedded in the dirt around Zhukovsky, that's unlikely. And it'd be kinda pointless, since the Su-30MKI is superior in every way, and IS in service.

The only reason the 747 has a hump, is because the long-term design goal was for it to be a freighter.

I'd much rather see it here at MW than Youtube. The conversion to Flash always seems to lower the quality IMHO. Plus it's easier to actually DOWNLOAD as opposed to stream, or convert and save...

Two-seat Flankers are all the rage. MKI, MKK, etc. Most "Super" Flankers are two-seaters.

Basically---yup. No A380F's until the pax version is fixed. Which is why half the A380F orders are now cancelled. You can't "skip" a customer and deliver someone else's planes first, it's just not done. (not without a lot of money changing hands and contracts---one of the few times I know of occurred when the Sultan of Brunei paid Lufthansa a lot of money to "takeover" one of their early A340 production slots--and even that was only possible due to someone else cancelling their order, making the "replacement" Lufthansa plane available much earlier) The A380 is physically fine, but the wiring for in-flight entertainment just doesn't fit and weighs too much. As for freight---just look at the 747. Like 90% of the last couple years of production has been freighters. And until LH's announcement, all orders for the new version was for freighters. On an unrelated note, Venezuela's first Flanker: