David Hingtgen

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.

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?