David Hingtgen

I meant the toy. It'd be like trying to jam a CD into a car's in-dash player at an angle. You have to slide it straight in. The angle of the wing has to match the angle of the wingroots it slides into. Yamato has sloped the upper part of the wingroot ever so slightly, which won't affect the internal shape/angle of the wingroots. But if they increased the slope to match the sideview drawings, they'd have to angle the wings to match. My point was, since the wingroots are sloped in every drawing I can find, and since the wings and wingroots have to match angles quite closely to be able to transform (in an actual toy), that was IMHO pretty good evidence that the wings should angle down. All of Kawamori's designs will fly---he knows his stuff, and people (right here on MW) have built flying models of his valks. I only ever reference real aviation to try to figure out why he designs things the way he does, or figure out how "not very well documented" aspects of his designs may be shaped. If there's no drawing of an area, might as well try to guess what he may have been thinking when designing the plane (with his knowledge of real-life aviation/aerodynamics), or go with what the real plane he based that area on has. I never say "it should be like this regardless of what we see because the so-and-so in real life is like this". I say "since we have no definitive reference of this area to go by, it's probably like this because that's how similar planes are in real life or a plane like that would need, or the real thing he based it on is like this" PS---a lot of my aeronautical terms are there/used simply because frankly, most every aspect of plane design has had a term defined for it by now. "Wings angled down when viewed from head on" is "anhedral". A fairly common term, and that's what it is, so I use it. It's just a descriptive term.

Graham---true, but the majority of decent shots show them down. There's a few horizontal, one with slight dihedral (escape from Eden, chased by missiles) and even one with severe dihedral (the shot that's really messed up, because the YF-21 in that shot is messed as well), however: Most good shots show them down. The more detailed and carefully drawn a frame is, the more likely it is to show it. Some of the closest, "non-fleeting" shots in the entire anime of the YF-19 are of it firing guns from head-on---it is drawn carefully and very detailed in those scenes--and they showed the sloping fuselage and anhedral wings. Every side-view drawing shows the fuselage sides and wingroots sloping down (canon and non-canon). Every other kit/drawing/model has them down. The only "reference" for them being horizontal, are sporadic shots in the anime, and people who think they're horizontal because they never really looked that closely--or they look, but see that it's "close to horizontal" and thus assume it IS horizontal. Basically, if the YF-19 isn't drawn with sloped surfaces, it's because it was hastily done because it was a background shot, or the YF-19 was moving/rolling very rapidly and would only be seen at any given angle for a half-frame. Since it's hard to see from many angles, there's little point in drawing it "correctly" for the one frame in a scene when it's nearly head-on. I'll go with "the majority of depictions of it". Plus the whole fact that it looks better, and the fact that since that is how it looks most of the time, that's the mental picture most people have. Even if you don't notice it, it's been there every time you watch. Kind of like how a VF-19F/S has it's v.stabs in a different place than the YF-19. A lot of people don't notice that until you point it out to them--but it was always like that every time they saw one. Also, I'd like to point out that Kawamori's own drawings are inconsistent, even ones that are "grouped" and drawn at the same time--notably the whole "intake separate from hip" thing I mentioned a while ago. Sometimes Kawamori draws it as one piece, sometimes two. Which is the "canon" way? I vote for two pieces, as it allows both fighter mode and battroid mode to "work" better with a real-life 3D transformation. It's not always drawn that way, even by Kawamori--but it works better (part of the reason I think the animators draw it that way so often). If you make it two pieces, you get a better fighter AND battroid mode, that more closely follow the "standard" fighter and battroid mode sketches (the most canon of all). Final point: In every single drawing/sketch/diagram/animation of the YF-19 from the side I can find, the fuselage sides/wingroots are sloped. Show me a drawing of the side, I'll show you the slope. Now, if the wings aren't sloped, everything looks wrong because everything else is sloped--and the wings wouldn't fit in the wingroots anymore when they transformed. Thus, since the fuselage and wingroots are sloped, the wings have to be sloped as well or it can't transform. Now, Yamato has sloped the outer part of the wingroot slightly--not enough to affect the wing (though if you look from behind it appears to retract at an slight angle, since the wings are straight but the wingroot is partially sloped--though I'm basically interpreting single JPG pixels there, the CAD drawing I have from head on and behind is quite small). But the entire upper surface should be done to look right and to have the wing align with the wingroot when retracted for battroid mode. If they had sloped the wingroot to match the drawings, the wing wouldn't fit--since the wing has to be angled as well if the wingroot is sloped more than like the 0.3 degrees Yamato did.

It's had its airbrake replaced recently. I want to see a stripped late F-15E or F-15K do that--they've got 25% more power.

You know, I think it also shows the shoulders angled out as well--and weren't a lot of people asking for angled shoulders for battroid mode? That was like, page 2 of this thread. Angling the wings/wingroots/intakes/fuselage also angles out the shoulders (otherwise they wouldn't fit). The YF-19's upper surfaces slope, and that carries through to all modes. The original Yamato YF-19 was sloped as I recall (the chest plate sure was), they seem to have "forgotten" that.

...as if none of that has every been said/complained about for any other Yamato toy... It's part of MW culture. Toys are made, we b*tch. That's how it is. Anyways---nope, never had a single class or ground school for anything aviation related. I just read a lot. (And investigate a lot--you'd be surprised how much wrong info is in modern day text books) Basically---I like planes, and want to know how they work. Intricately. When it's a hobby, and not a job/class, you pay more attention, as you WANT to learn about it and do it on your own time/terms.

Exactly. Characterization is very important---Starscream and Thundercracker are the same toy, it's their personalities that have earned them fans--and more importantly, television ratings and toy sales. Beast Wars---the characters sold the toys. No line emphasized that more---a lot of the early toys were pretty mediocre, but you bought the toys because you liked the characters. Armada/Energon----saw lots of comments over the years contrasting it to Beast Wars---you bought the toys IN SPITE OF the characters. Characterization matters a lot--at least to anyone over 8 years old.

The wings still retract and fit when angled down because the wingroots are angled too, at the same angle. Fuselage is also angled (on the upper surfaces). Basically you can start on either side of the center fuselage "tube" and go down along a straight line (but at an angle) from the fuselage to the wingroots to the wingtips, all along the upper surface. This is a very simple schematic I made up. Note the green line. It is not only the wings, but also the upper surface of the wing roots, and the upper surface of the intakes. It's ALL sloped. Now, it's exaggerated a bit to show what I'm talking about. Also, the slope should become more shallow as you move in towards the fuselage tube. The wings are the most angled, then the wingroots are shallower, then the intake/fuselage are is the shallowest--almost horizontal, but not quite. But that's hard to show without a detailed drawing of the wingroots and intakes. As for the legs---I was hoping for some variation on the SHE in that area. As I said--they've had literally years to figure out a more durable/practical version of that for a mass-production toy. The SHE would have left a huge gap if it didn't have the extra folding panels that unfolded to cover up the hole left for the shoulders when it went into battroid. The SHE's leg transformation is probably 3x as complicated as the Yamato's, just so it can move the legs closer to the shoulders, yet not have a gap in battroid mode--it basically folds up the calf, and stuffs it down inside the ankle, thus making room for the shoulder by the knee.

Whatever the Army picks to replace the Chinook would be a good choice, since they basically want a modern version of the C-123. Or just new-build C-27's. They lost an entire category of air transport when they got rid of the C-27, and have realized that mistake many times. They have no "smaller turboprop" so they have to use Chinooks and Humvees. And they've used up like 10 years of Chinook airframe hours in like 2 years now, they're flying them so much, doing jobs they really shouldn't be doing. And Humvees are much more vulnerable and carry far less of course. C-295 is a good option. Basically anything that looks like a smaller, 2-engine C-130.

Watched M+ again (well, all the YF-19 scenes). The wings have anhedral in nearly every shot that it's drawn well. (not a rapidly-rolling little speck in the background). It's most obvious in the scenes where they show the guns firing from head-on----this happens early in the YF-19's testing (fires both gunpod and wingroot-mounted guns) and very soon after the "screen full of ISAMU" sequence starts. Also, just before the first "gun-range" head-on firing sequence, we get our first actual look at the YF-19--it rises up out of the ground as Isamu watches---also a good shot of it. Any quick/easy/freeware screencap programs out there? I could then just pop the DVD's in and show where I mean. Also, they angle more than I showed. Finally, the "sloping" upper surface is always present, period. Even if the wings don't appear to angle in some drawings, the upper fuselage/intakes do in every drawing. And yes, there are a few scenes where it seems to have no angle, or even DIhedral---but those scenes are few, and half the time involve the YF-21 which also has no anhedral in those scenes--but the YF-21 has EXTREME anhedral across both body and wings, and so those scenes are just drawn wrong or something--I suspect they're actually drawn upside down----the details on the planes are the upper surface, but the overall shape seems to imply the lower surface. Or along those lines. Most of the time, the YF-19 is shown as having anhedral. Is there any official head-on drawing from Kawamori of the YF-19? I can't find one---the YF-21 has several. For comparison, the VF-9 has a nice head-on drawing (Kawamori's other FSW valk), definitely has flat wings, but has an extreme amount of washout--which is strange, as forward-swept wings basically negate the phenomenon which washout counteracts. (In otherwords, it's really pointless, but clearly there) YF-19 appears to have a small amount of washout (going by what I think is a canon side-view, from my M7 TIAS book) but it could also be incidence.

747's are quite agile for their size, and have an incredibly low stall speed for their size----triple-slotted fowler flaps, plus variable camber flaps, plus kruger flaps. Yes it needs the flaps out to fire-fight, but it's not "5kts from stalling". 747's can than their own weight in fuel (actually, slightly more). When a 747 is empty, its thrust:weight ratio is doubled (again, actually slightly more). Being full of water is nowhere near its max weight. Most people only see 747's lumbering along at 99% MTOW for trans-pacific flights. But when empty--very impressive. Sheer quantity---drop as much as 10 other planes. Can be refilled fairly quickly AFAIK. Better to drop 10x as much, rush back to base at 500mph, refill, then do it again, than wait for a bunch of other planes to lumber back home slowly, get refilled, slowly make their way there, and drop a few gallons. It's been so impressive to most places they're looking at converting some DC-10's as well.

Don't know, wasn't me (claims mod-innocence)

I don't like panel-lined things from the factory, because the factory usually does such a harsh job. (Us modelers tend to like washes etc---fine, subtle highlighting--see wm cheng's stuff----NOT stuff that looks like tar slathered in deep trenches, outlined like a drawing in a coloring book)

Plus Chevy seems quite affable to having Alts made, and you can be sure they'd love to promote the new Camaro--heck, I think the new TF movie and new Camaro have the same target audience.

It's simple--straight, or angled. The exact angle isn't important--a line is either straight, or it's not. IMHO it looks a lot better with the angled wings. (since that's how real fighters are, generally, and that's how the YF-19 is based on everything I can find) Of course, gravity and joint looseness alone will probably have the wings angle down a bit anyways even if it's not designed to, but that won't affect the shape of the top of the intakes/wingroots. It's definitely there in every drawing on Graham's "lineart comparison page". PS--if a company is going to spend lots of time and money making something, they could at least spend sime time to note the finer aspects of its design/shape. "Forgetting" wing anhedral and quasi-gulling of the entire upper fuselage (F-14-style) just kinda says "we don't really care, the shape is close enough". Just because a shape is subtle, doesn't mean it should be ignored. Basically--it is a part of the YF-19's design, as much as having canards and forward-swept wings are. No, it's not real obvious, but it affects the upper surface of the entire mid-fuselage, the intakes, the wingroots, and the wings. Looking from sides, you should be able to see the upper surface of the intakes, wingroots, etc--because they SLOPE UPWARDS. They are not flat. PPS--if I was *really* being nitpicky, I'd start commenting about the INCIDENCE angle of the wings...

Re: Phyrox's concerns. I'd guess the nosecone is too symmetrical and ogival in profile. It should curve up more/be steeper on the bottom, and be slightly flatter on top. Honestly, I think it needs to be a bit more VF-1ish. (They have similar noses---the real-world reference for both appears to be the F-111, look up pics of it)

Re: feet. The feet (AKA nozzles) are actually too short IMHO--the upper one mainly. It's hpartly how they're mounted (far apart), and also how thick they are (vertically, when viewed from the side in fighter mode). It's all so they "fit" in the thickened legs/ankles without having gaps. The leg is bigger that it should be from the side, so the feet are thickened and moved apart to fill in the bigger space. Nose gear: as I posted above, having thinner legs (up closer to the shoulders) would lower the entire plane--thus allowing a smaller nose gear but still having a "level" fighter mode. Oh, one more thing: I think the whole plane may be off from the front. There's no anhedral. There should be anhedral across the entire wing/LERX/wingroots---it's definitely there in every drawing I can find but clearly not there for the Yamato. Basically, from head on, the wings should angle down a bit, not stick straight out perfectly level. The wingroots/LERX/tops of the intakes should also follow that line. Ok, modified the CAD drawing--my version is on top, original version below. I have the anhedral go all the way from the wingtip over to the sides of the nose--but it's a shallower angle across the intakes due to looking strange trying to modify the drawing that much in that area. Wing anhedral exaggerated a bit so you can see what I'm talking about. Does anyone else think that the wings (and intakes) should have anhedral like my drawing, versus the "perfectly horizontal" ones?

And to counter that point, another comparison! From the sides, the legs don't fit right. The legs should be "higher up" with the shoulders retracted into them. The legs are simply too tall and too low (red lines). The shoulder and leg should mesh together well enough that they almost combine into one shape (green line). Now, while there's some anime magic in there, THE SHE MODEL COULD DO THIS. Now, the SHE doesn't look all that much better for it (it can't retract them all that much, but it can bring the legs up closer to the shoulders by folding away area surrounding the knee---the back of the knees themselves are the problem), it does help at least a little The new Yamato might even be doing this, but compared to the 1/72 it doesn't look like it. Basically---with "how to do that" already figured out years ago, how come it doesn't seem to show up all that often? Surely by now Yamato should have been able to improve on it and incorporate it--they've had years. By making the legs able to "wrap" around the shoulder better (or conversely, sinking the shoulders into the legs), you get a much thinner valk from the side, from intakes to feet. And with a thinner/lower valk, you can have smaller/shorter nose gear while maintaining the same stance---thus a smaller/thinner neck/belly...... :edit: I guess I should attach the drawing I was referring to...

Most purples in general are too red. 95% of all purple paint you can buy of any type is quite "red", when it seems 95% of the purples you see anywhere are way on the "blue" side of the scale. Even "Royal" purple, which most people consider to be very blue, is often times red when you try to buy some. So check for redness! I've been disappointed many times by thinking I've found a good, bluish purple, only to actually test it and have it dry red.

Question for Graham: You keep saying the real thing looks better in person than the CAD drawing. Does that mean the prototype is actually DIFFERENT than the drawing, or it merely translates to 3D better than people think? Also---the Hase YF-19 just looks so "right" to me, and I think most everyone else. PS---just have a removable nosegear! Solves all the problems in the entire front half of the plane...

Boeings float pretty well, historically. And airliners don't jettison engines. Of the few with structural fuses to have clean breakaways from certain types of failure/damage, I seriously doubt it'd be possible to get it to work on a newer 737, due to how the pylons are integrated with the wing (both ahead and behind) and the mounting of the engine (more in front than below). Basically the 737's engine mounting has been F'd up since the initial design, due to using 727 engine and nacelles--designed for tail-mounting! Also, in almost all cases you'd want engines to flip up and over the wing--rear mount fails first. On a water landing however, the engines will dig in the water and flip down, forward mount failing first. There's not much you can do to try to make the engine mounts fail oppositely of how the water will force them.

After you do all that, take that box and put it in ANOTHER box, surrounded by foam peanuts. Here's a few articles about shipping model planes: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/TnT_...ransporting.htm

Re: fuse location at front: On bombs, yes, on missiles, no. Missiles don't make direct contact (unless you're really lucky). Missiles simply get close (proximity fuse), then fragment into shrapnel, shredding the plane. Nastiest is the 'expanding rod' style like a Sparrow, which basically creates a buzz-saw to slice the plane in half. (in theory--in practice it just goes boom like any other--but its a big boom) The proximity fuse on most missiles is behind the warhead. Always in the front half, never the very front. Front to back, most missiles go: seeker/guidance, warhead, fuse, motor. Re: ASW. The P-3 is to be replaced by modified 737-800's, the P-8 MMA (Multimission Maritime Aircraft). Yup, Harpoons on pylons (and torpedoes and sonobuoys) on an airliner. Plenty of concpet pics out there.

Just repaint the tail entirely, that's what I plan to do eventually. (Since the odds of a G1-accurate TC seem low---if SS looks more like TC, imagine what TC will look like---black with lavender? Seafoam green with orange stripes?) TC's tail is simple to do, it has the easiest to paint striping of all the seekers.

Latest pics reveal to me the first actual "they got the shape wrong" part. The tailbooms ironically enough. From the leading edge of the v.stabs back, it's off. Like there's strakes or something. Basically the rear "inch" I'd guess on the actual toy.

It's stupid because nobody expected that they would change the colors to overall teal-grey, with fuschia and blurple accents. For a character that is DEFINED by his color scheme (since he's physically identical to Skywarp and Thundercracker) changing the color scheme pretty much re-writes the character. I don't see anybody who actually prefers the scheme that's coming out--some find it acceptable, but it seems all would prefer the many digi-repaints we've seen of either G1 toy colors, or a real F-15E grey with G1 red and blue. If the G1-colored version was the normal version, and was as easy to get and the same price, I think almost everyone would go for it. Nobody prefers the teal/fuschia one, but they'll take it because it's easier/cheaper to get. It's no different than if the Yamato VF-0S would have had dark grey and orange accents (and how about a purple visor to boot). Kinda close, but clearly not what it should be. Then making "correct" yellow and black with green visor a limited-run exclusive. How many people do you think would have gone for orange/grey as their first choice? How many would have preferred black/yellow but ended up with orange/grey because it's all they could get? What would MW's boards be like if if Yamato just flat-out changed the colors of certain valks, then made the REAL colors only available as exclusives, so most people couldn't get the colors they wanted, they colors that should have been available in the first place? "New VF-22 announced! Available in Milia orange and Max purple!---also we will make 20 red and 20 blue ones to people who win a cell-phone contest in Paris--good luck"