David Hingtgen

The quantities of wiring are so massive, they are causing EM interference etc with themselves. Also, the sheer weight. Since TWA800, wiring regulations have changed, and Airbus' solution was never seen as good enough, so they had to change again. And the A380 needs literally tons of it, and it's heavier than they thought. Sure, it's only like (pure guess) 1 gram per meter heavier--but it adds up real fast. And they are needing to use more of it than they thought--literally miles more wiring. Also, sheer space. It just plain doesn't fit. There isn't enough room in th walls and floor to fit the wiring for that many lights, fans, TV's, etc. Airbus has run into the aircraft equivalent of the square/cube law. There is simply not enough space to support that much wiring for that many functions. If there were no in-flight entertainment, or simply 70's style "single headphone channel for the movie and nothing else" then it'd probably be ok. The prototypes don't have this problem, as they are basically empty hulks with no support for passengers. But of course, when they are retofitted for eventual delivery, they'll have that problem too. (Though Airbus might just want to make them freighters, if there needs to be serious work to accomodate the wiring changes)

I've often thought the white triangle/diamond logo on the YF-19's chest is the Shinsei Industries logo. There's no other explanation for that marking, and it sure looks like a logo rather than some unique warning marking. (Especially since all other Macross valk markings are 100% current, real-life aircraft markings)

EADS officially announced delays for LH and Emirates too today. Not like they really need too--if the FIRST plane is delayed, every one after it is too. Relevant quotes: "Airbus SAS's parent company delayed deliveries of the superjumbo A380 jet for the third time in 16 months as the planemaker struggles to install wiring, slicing 4.8 billion euros ($6.12 billion) in earnings through 2010. Airbus, controlled by European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., said in a statement sent to the German stock exchange that production is two years behind its original forecast. It expects to deliver the first plane in the second half of 2007." "Airbus blames the A380 delays on the complexity of installing 300 miles of wiring, in each of the double-decker planes. The wires are bundled in harnesses that are strung through the aircraft, controlling in-flight entertainment, lights, air conditioning and the plane's operating systems. Airbus allowed each customer to customize the entertainment systems, adding to the challenge of getting the correct wire in the right place."

Here you go, both of these are 1/48. But the F-15's missing a few parts. Of course, AFTER I take the pic I remember I have the F-15's engines and v.stabs done, I could have just quick inserted them for the pic. PS--since I painted it myself, I know THAT's what color an F-15E should be. Of course, the lighting in my room sucks.

I haven't lit up anything on a valk, only model kits. And they all require a base/stand with power supply. I haven't done anything in a small, self-contained unit that could work in a toy. Basically, I know most all the methods of actually getting LIGHT to somewhere. (I prefer flood lighting and fiberoptics, rarely use LED) But very small power supplies--that I haven't done yet.

Counterpart, not "identical twin". As in, F-14 vs F-15. F-16 vs F-18. YF-22 vs YF-23. And F-100 vs F-8. The F-8 is often cited as being the first time a "compromised" carrier-based plane was superior to its land-based counterpart. The F-100 and F-8 were designed at the same time, to fill the same role, and to use the same engine. But the F-100 was expected to be better, since the F-8 would be hampered by the excess structural weight and equipment needed to operate from a carrier. But the F-8 turned out to be way better in every way.

Actually, I was referring to the hair dryer method. Just don't use it on high for 5 minutes or something. 20 secs on low should be enough. Plastic isn't THAT weak to heat, otherwise you'd just have puddles instead of toys in Arizona in the summer.

Airliner nose-dives always lead to vaporisation AFAIK. Not the entire wing structure being intact, with the gear down and locked. Current theories at Air-Disaster (always the best forum): 1. Broke up prior to to the collision, and the ERJ actually hit falling debris. (Based on how impossible it seems for a missing winglet to bring down a 737) 2. ERJ impact somehow ripped off the entire #1 engine of the 737, causing such a sudden change in thrust vector that it overloaded the structure, combined with the LE damage. Yet without the 737's wing ripping off the ERJ's entire tail. Though that seems hard to believe, as the only similar incident I can think of was the Lauda 767, and that required both engines in climb power, with one in reverse, to cause a structural overload. The 737 had both engined (presumably) at cruise power, and the one would have simply disappeared, not actually cause a reversal in the thrust vector on that side. (while the NTSB etc always says "no speculation" etc, I have found that the right answer can be guessed 99% of the time in the first day after getting decent info--it's rare that something totally unexpected turns out to be the cause----the thing is figuring out which amatuer guess was right) The crash scene most resembles the BOAC 707 in Japan, which was destroyed from turbulence and basically just had the wings flutter down mostly intact. (never let someone tell you turbulence is always harmless---99.999999% of the time it is, but it has ripped large jetliners apart)

Rudder problem is supposed to be utterly fixed for the NG 737's. (-6/7/8/900) AA191 flipped due to asymmetrical slats/single-wing stall, when it all comes down to it. I was just thinking today (well I've thought about it before but anyways) there really should be a system to allow pilots to retract specific sections of flaps/slats etc to restore balance. Way too many airliners have crashed from what is relatively minor damage/loss of lift due to the IMBALANCE between the wings. AA191 is the best example (had plenty of thrust, plenty of lift--but it was so unbalanced it could't take it---if the pilots could have retracted the outboard starboard slats independently, the plane would have been quite balanced lift-wise, and would have been controllable--though it would have had a higher stall speed, which was a big factor in the port wing stalling in the first place--it was a combination of too slow and too unbalanced---ironically going faster alone would have saved it, but the flight manual specified a lower speed, so they reduced it and that stalled the port wing). The PSA 727 that hit a Cessna was similar. It only lost like 1.5 slat segments on the starboard wing, and the aft-most section of one flap section, but it was enough at the configuration it was in that it started rolling and couldn't recover. And there's been several incidents of 727's having slat asymmetry causing problems, including the rather famous TWA supersonic 727 incident. From reading many airline crash books, one of the biggest things I get out of it is that lift imbalances have doomed many otherwise flyable planes. It's not a loss of lift or a loss of thrust or even a loss of large chunks of the flight controls, it's a loss of balance.

Have you seen their 1/32 F-100? OMG. That thing is insane. Now if they could only do an F-8 like that. (They really should---the F-8 is the F-100's counterpart, same engine, same intake style, same style of "remove the whole back end for engine service", etc)

I'll say I politely and completely disagree with all of your points. I think the earlier version of the mold had much better stomach, wing position, etc. I find it visually superior in EVERY way. I actually find the new version of the mold very top-heavy, and frankly almost feminine in appearance. As for leg movement: just angle the wings a bit. They're effectively ball-jointed. Sure there could be interference it you basically intentionally matched the wings to the legs, but it'd only happen if you had the wing "points" (technically the wingroot fairings) right behind the calves and bent the legs right at the kneees. Just angle the wings in or out like 5 degrees and rotating them the same will give clearance either inside or outside the leg. The G1 mold has that ability, even though it doesn't need it of course. And the original mold was a better F-15, too. Adding "junk" to help hide some robot bits doesn't help, if lots of it is inaccurate. It'd be like adding ground effects to an Alternator to hide robot bits on the underside----if they're the wrong style, the car guys will notice and not be happy. The conformal tanks on MP SS are wrong in so many ways, from front to back, top to bottom. Plus other changes completely unrelated to the conformal tanks, that were apparently either "Kawamori thinks the F-15 would look cooler if it was like THIS" or "sculptor tried too hard to make it symmetrical, when the real thing (and the original mold) are asymmetrical in those areas."

Should the VF-1's gear angle out? Looking at the Design Works, I think it simply has the wheel set quite far out from the strut, such that when unfolded, the gear is outside of the dimensions of the gear bay. In other words, from head on, the gear is an "L". And the wheel rotates to the front to retract. Yet another instance of rotating gear in valks. PS---are there any good pics out there for reference for painting the missiles? I'd like to detail both my 1/48 and 1/60 missiles, but have almost nothing to go by.

A bit OT for this thread, but really bugging me: Though it's getting surprisingly little coverage on the news (here at least) a Brazillian 737-800 collided with a corporate version of the ERJ-135 and crashed in the Amazon. We've got pics of the ERJ: It's missing most of the left winglet, and the very tip of the port elevator. How the hell does that happen? A 737 collides with a regional jetliner, yet the RJ only loses the winglet, but causes enough damage to bring down a 737? Gotta wonder if it's a perverse version of the "golden BB" theory. Also, pics of the crash site appear to show the 737 impacted utterly vertically, yet inverted, with the gear down. That's unprecedented AFAIK.

The Energon combiner individual figures were nice, but it was pretty stupid to just have 2 types of limbs. If there were 4 distinct molds, they'd have been GREAT. It also would have helped the hands and feet a lot---it was pretty clear there was a "preferred" mode for each hand/foot part, for both the robot itself and the clear "energon" piece. It was pretty hard to get a decent pair of hands. I actually made a sorta-Bruticus using Barricade, 2 Combaticons, a Constructicon, and an Aerialbot. Looked better than any "official" combination.

Still waiting to see pics of the VF-1 stickers on it. Surely somebody has used them?

I think they're scrambling to get the 747 certified too. Anyone see the news (NBC) like 2 days ago? They're basically begging for the DC-10 to come back, but there's some red tape involving federal vs state firefighting regulations, so the DC-10 is barred from fighting the current fire and is grounded, just sitting there waiting for federal certification---I think partly because it involves national park lands. Pure bureacracy and red tape. Let the state burn rather than allow a DC-10 to do what it's been doing amazingly well... Who knew there were different levels for state vs federal firefighting aircraft conversion certification? A380--A380 flies fine, it's purely the aspects of making it a passenger-carrying plane with inflight entertainment. If I was UPS or FedEx I'd be ticked, because pure freighters could be being delivered NOW. (the certification is basically halted because they won't finish any more until the problems are fixed for pax ones--otherwise it'd already have the certification flights done, which cover both pax and cargo) 90% of the problems involve (indirectly) all those little TV's in the seats...

Yes, because before Kawamori's "tweaking" of the MP Starscream mold, it was like 99% identical to the animation model, and one heck of a nice (and accurate) F-15. I mean, it looked more like Starscream than MP Prime looks like Prime. It WAS Starscream, utterly. After HFH's revisions to that mold---it's Starscream-esque, with hip kibble and funky curved feet and intake kibble and giant Popeye forearms. I think a lot of the ire (mine included) is the result of seeing the "before" version of the mold. If we'd never seen how amazingly awesome it was BEFORE, we wouldn't complain so much about how it looked after all the changes.

I've never heard (nor would think they could) that Microsol etc could affect stickers. Anyways---we're not talking about heating it until the plastic starts to warp---heck, rubbing the sticker rapidly with your finger will generate enough heat to soften them. Nani---the problem with "mass production" panel lining is that it's always over-done. They don't seem to understand the concept of "subtle". Or it's simply too labor-intensive to do. If something is factory panel-lined, it comes with BLACK panel lines. Like this: Or just look at early Yamatos----WAY too stark and thick.

I have never done it, but some people use a hair dryer or something to heat up the stickers after you put them on----they'll become soft and then you can press on them and they will go into panel lines, and fit corners and curves better.

Hayao--how did you do the panel lines? Oil paint wash? And did you do anything extra for the stickers---did you heat them to make them softer to conform better?

I'm of the opinion most people see Kawamori as the guy who came in and "ruined" the original version of the mold that others had designed.

Which is another reason I prefer toy colors---the stripes on all 3 seekers are unique in both color and PATTERN. Though of course I do prefer an orange canopy, to match SW and TC. Checked Target here today, nothing new. I don't expect Classics here for probably 2 weeks at least.

The first paragraph was about Classic, but the second two (about the stripes and panel lines) were about MP. Masterpiece Starscream IS supposed to be "hyper accurate". There's really no excuse for such messed up wing stripes. It was also partially in response to the claim on the last page that the stripes followed the panel lines. (of course, it was actually more accurate with the first version of the mold--they introduced a LOT of errors when they added the CFT's, starting with the CFT's themselves being unlike any set ever built) PS---my guess for their "reference material" is the Hasegawa F-15E kit, because it's not really an F-15 and has all the errors the MP does. And it'd be readily available in Japan to TakaTomy. Using kits to make new model/toy planes happens so often it's not even funny. Anyone who models planes can easily recognize when a kit was used as reference instead of "real" reference materials (like accurate scale drawings or even better, photos of the real thing). There's rather few truly different molds out there of any plane, most are just copies of the few originals, or upscaled/downscaled versions of the company's own molds. The best clue for any F-15 is to see if there's a speed brake well. Why? Because every F-15 kit ever has one, but the real F-15 doesn't. So if a new toy/model has a speed brake well, then they based it off a kit and not photos of the real thing.

Um, Graham's scan shows all the names pretty clearly. Shin and Roy, and that's it.

I think I recall "Galdo" Bowman on the YF-21 stickers. And the canon name is debatable, but I know "Milia" has been seen on-screen in M7, and maybe the original serieis as well, so "Miria" is wrong IMHO. I think Isamu's name was screwed up as well. Anyways---will any of our intrepid decal makers make aftermarket VF-1 decals for the low-vis VF-0? (VF-1 the squadron, not the valk). And possibly adapt them so we get the FULL fuselage striping and correctly-sized nose markings? Oh, and red ventral fins, that's part of the scheme. Wolfpack markings would rock on the VF-0A, but there's no way I'm going to try to use sucky Yamato stickers for such large areas. Or maybe 1/72 or 1/48 VF-1 decals would work: http://www.camdecals.com/main.asp?img=48-029 (I already have them in 1/72, but they're reserved for building an F-14 in those markings some day--if I had a VF-0 I could photocopy my set and see how they'd fit)