David Hingtgen

Airlines nowadays tend to get anything they want as compensation, all agreed to long before the prototype flies. I'd guess it came about from the MD-11's shortcomings. I know United had it set up to be paid thousands of dollars (possibly tens of thousands), per pound, per plane, for every bit the 777 was overweight from design spec. (It ended up like 8 pounds under---which is amazingly "on the money" a basic 500,000lb plane)

There was a blurb that supposedly one of the designers said it was supposed to be an accurate F-15E. Probably from the same magazine Dobber mentioned---but I've still yet to see an actual translation etc.

Front gear is decently close to a real F-15, rear ones are Yamato YF-21-ish--little more than the wheel itself.

Ok, more info, and specifically about the A380 wiring: First, Airbus' CEO's have resigned. Second, Rolls-Royce has suspended engine production for the A380. No new aircraft are being built, so no engines needed. Ironically the 747 had the opposite problem---not enough engines early in the program, with dozen of finished planes sitting around the factory, engineless. Some quotes: "Looming trouble The immediate cause of the disaster was a breakdown in the snap-together final assembly process in Toulouse that has served the company well for over 30 years. Rear fuselages made in Hamburg were supposed to arrive in Toulouse with all their wiring ready to plug into the forward parts coming in from factories in north and west France. But the 500km of wiring in the two halves did not match up, causing huge problems. Failure to use the latest three-dimensional modelling software meant nobody anticipated the effect of using lightweight aluminium wiring rather than copper, which is to make bends in the wiring looms bulkier. Worse, the engineers scrambling to fix the problem did so in different ways. So the early aircraft all have their own one-of-a-kind wiring systems. It will take all of next year to introduce a proper standardised process. None of this would have mattered so much if the airliner's fuselage had all been built in France. But Germany lobbied hard to land a big chunk of the A380, to add to the final assembly of some derivatives of the A320 family. Now the greater complexity of the super-jumbo has shown up the inherent weaknesses in Airbus's production system, just as it faces a revitalised Boeing and a weaker dollar. Most of Airbus's costs are in euros, but sales are in dollars. So Airbus's new boss, Christian Streiff, must slash costs." "It sounds too simple to be true. Airbus' A380 megajet is now a full two years behind schedule—and the reason, CEO Christian Streiff admitted on Oct. 3, is that design software used at different Airbus factories wasn't compatible. Early this year, when pre-assembled bundles containing hundreds of miles of cabin wiring were delivered from a German factory to the assembly line in France, workers discovered that the bundles, called harnesses, didn't fit properly into the plane. Assembly slowed to a near-standstill, as workers tried to pull the bundles apart and re-thread them through the fuselage. Now Airbus will have to go back to the drawing board and redesign the wiring system. It's shaping up to be one of the costliest blunders in the history of commercial aerospace. Airbus' parent, European Aeronautic Defence & Space, expects to take a $6.1 billion profit hit over the next four years. Airlines that have ordered the A380 are fuming, and though none so far has canceled an order, Airbus will have to pay millions in late-delivery penalties." There's a lot more about the software, basically some are using CATIA from the 80's, some are using proprietary stuff from Massachusetts, etc. Dear Airbus: good luck rewiring by hand entire A380's. I bet the unemplyoment rate for electricians (or anyone who can solder) is about 0% in France now.

The codpiece is already the lowest and most oddly/mis-shaped part of the underbelly in fighter mode---the basic problem is that the codpiece and the underbelly are curved oppositely on each side. It's one heck of a compromise to make it exist in the real world. Kawamori draws it much more flattened in fighter mode so the curvature isn't so obvious--but it's still there, and the backside seems to change from convex to concave when going from battroid to fighter. It's much much better than the original Yamato, but you're not going to get it to "fit" nice and flush with the rest of the belly in fighter mode without totally ruining battroid mode or magically having three times as much space as there is in the plane's gullet--it's already twice as deep as it should be and there's STILL not room for a double-convex codpiece like there'd need to be to be correct in both modes. And since that piece is very visible in battroid mode, but fairly hidden in fighter, it's obviously "optimally sculpted" for battroid mode appearance. As much as it can without scraping the ground in fighter mode. I think a smaller/better hinge could help with the edges, but it's got to be fairly "flattened" to not totally mess up fighter mode. In other words: the codpiece involves about as much anime magic as the YF-21's arms in fighter mode. As for the chest angle--the new Yamato mold already incorporates the Hasegawa's main spine/cockpit transformation method (at least it sure looks like it to me), which makes it better in that aspect than it'd otherwise be, epsecially compared to the original Yamato/SHE. If you had a sliding hinge where the chest attaches to the spine to raise the chest to allow it to angle downwards more, you'd probably start to mess with the overall appearance with regards to torso height and spine height. It'd basically be hunch-backed I think. Also---due to the YF-19's tranformation, the angle of the chest is usually VERY dependent upon "how you transformed it that time". There's easily a 20 maybe even 30 degree difference in the original Yamato between how it should be, how most people manage, and how the mis-transformed prototypes always looked.

That's a pretty good summary. If it was 100% G1 toy colors, it'd please G1-color fans. If it was 100% real F-15 colors, it'd please real F-15 fans. By being neither, it pleases neither. And GREEN is just plain wrong for an F-15. I still 100% believe they ATTEMPTED to match an F-15E's color, but just royally F'd up. And did it so much, that even people who don't know what color an F-15E really should be, notice that it's way too green. It'd be like if Yamato's YF-19 comes out in a dark tan instead of pale tan---they were obviously going for the "right" color, they just screwed up. It's not even half realistic. F-15E grey is simple black+white. How hard is it to mix that? It's not some obscure pigment made from the petals of a Mediterranean flower that only blooms once a decade... And to agree with Shin Densetsu--yup, G1 *toy* colors are pretty universally preferred to G1 *cartoon* colors. Nobody wants powder-blue, neither Starscream's fists nor Thundercracker overall. The toys had much deeper, better colors.

What about wolfheads? That would be a very cool heatshield logo.

I expect/hope for the next episode to be the best yet. 1st ep was establishing. 2nd ep spent the entire first half rehashing the 1st ep!

The only real difference between Boeing and Airbus is customer service, and that's worth a LOT to an airline. Got a 5th hand 27-year-old 737-200 that needs a gear door hinge that hasn't been made since 1983? Boeing will scour the ends of the earth to find one, and get it to you in 12 hours. Airbus tends not to answer your call once the warranty's up. (Airliners tend to have 3 or 4 year warranties like cars, ironically) Canadair/Bombardier has a similar issue. Airlines tend to like the CRJ a lot, and think it's superior in many ways. (not all ways, it's the opposite of STOL). But, parts/service is such an issue many have switched to Embraer's ERJ family. They just can't keep the CRJ's fixed due to raw availability of parts from the manufacturer--and the parts they CAN get are overpriced. Post-purchase support is incredibly important to an airline--if they buy a plane, they tend to operate it for 20 to 30 years--unlike people who buy a new car the moment the old one's paid for. And they expect the plane to still be 99% reliable 25 years after purchase, with no loss of performance. Engine support-wise, PW is the best, followed by GE, then RR. RR costs more, harder to fix, and generally can only be fixed in the few "official" RR repair shops--but they are more reliable to start with.

The accuracy comments mainly are stated (by me at least) because 90% of the pro-conformal-tank people constantly state they were added to "make it a more realistic F-15 now". Adding fake/incorrect parts doesn't make something more realistic. It just adds more parts. And adding correct features from a different kind of F-15 doesn't make it more realistic either. It makes it a fictional F-15 that never existed. Does it hide the arms? Yes. Is it a better F-15? Heck no. They could add massive ground effects to Alternator Tracks to hide his feet in car mode, but it sure wouldn't make it a more realistic Vette--it'd make it some fake ricey Vette. What does whining do? Hasbro at least knows we want G1 colors and may bring it to us. And if we're lucky (though not in a million years) they could even make a mold off the original prototype. (Who knows how far along it really was, or how many parts really are different---the entire nose and chest are the same, as are much of the arms and wings---it wouldn't need to be 100% new molds, a lot could be reused---it'd be more like Classics SS vs Classics Ramjet) And finally---for me at least, a lot of it stems from the fact that it was so EXACTLY what we wanted, more than we ever could have hoped for. And then it all went away. Not just to the point of being "not as neat" but to the point of "I wouldn't buy it in a million years". Completely and utterly ruined. It'd be like if the next batch of YF-19 pics come and show that Yamato "revised" the mold to have a gullet twice as deep, and much smaller wings. It was really really nice, but now it seems to look even worse than the one from years ago. And they decided to go with bright blue feet instead of grey, and magenta stripes instead of red. And paint the whole thing a deep dark tan.

Put the wolfpack stcikers on it! Nobody else has it seems, I still haven't found a pic of how it looks.

Umm, the pic I posted above WAS perfect. It was one step away from existing as a mass-produced item, only (apparently) Kawamori decided to re-do it at the last minute and make it some bastard child of SS and the YF-19.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the point? If you want a realistic overall dark grey F-15 fighter jet on your shelf, there are many companies willing to sell you pre-painted F-15 models for a whole lot less than an MP SS. And they look even BETTER in fighter mode. And are like 90% diecast if you care about materials. And you can get ones even bigger than MP SS. PS--I'm annoyed about this "toy I'm not being forced to buy" because Thundercracker is my all-time fave TF. And there was (to me) an incredibly amazingly perfect, much larger/improved/new version of it coming out---then they utterly ruined it, and there'll never be another. I basically feel "cheated" out of what would have been my favorite transforming jet toy ever. It went from 'awesome' to 'crap'. I desperately wanted to buy it---the original mold, however.

Months ago, lots of people were fan-coloring the original version of the mold. Sigh, what could(should) have been: That IS Starscream. PS--the "wing spikes"---as I said like a page ago, they wings are so articulated they can easily be positioned out of the way, just like on the G1 toy. (ironically that's one of the few articulation points the G1 has) PPS--as I proposed months ago----they could EASILY have had the best of both worlds. MAKE THE CONFORMAL TANKS REMOVABLE. They're one single piece on the real thing, they're one single piece on model kits of the F-15, and they weren't originally sculpted on the mold. All they had to do was make them a separate piece that you attach to fighter mode IF YOU WANT. There's no reason at all to totally redesign the robot mode to accomodate them permanently. If you want the arms hidden in fighter mode, then you attach the conformal tanks. Would take all of 2 seconds. No need at all to redesign the entire toy. Make it like FAST pack armor--attach it IF YOU WANT. Don't make it PERMANENT. Yeesh, you'd think Kawamori would have thought of that option--since the F-15's REMOVABLE FAST packs are the original inspiration for the REMOVABLE FAST packs of the VF-1... Just 2 little pegs/holes for attachment needed. They could have just snagged any F-15E model on the market, cast and re-scaled the conformal tanks to 1/60, and included them along with the Sidewinder missiles. (which they also screwed up BTW, they're mounted sideways, and that's why they're missing a few fins) And even if they WERE permanently mounted--why change the robot mode? Why have hip kibble, why have intake kibble? There's no need for that, you can sculpt on the conformal tanks just fine with the existing design. (The intake kibble exists because of the hip kibble--the wing "points" only interfere with movement if the massive hip kibble is there projecting into the wing "points" area) (The points are the wingroot fairings, and were one of many areas made inaccurate for no reason in the redesign) The conformal tanks taper rapidly as you move aft, there wouldn't be that much new material on the legs themselves, the tanks end prior to the tailbooms and are only 1/2 as deep as under the wings. It'd still have Popeye (and wrongly colored) foreams, but the intake and hip kibble wouldn't have to be there. Or hey--make the conformal tank blue. Might look a bit strange in fighter mode with the grey fuselage, but would give the proper color to the forearms, and more blue accents on the legs and wings to match the arms and feet.

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."