David Hingtgen

Ok, so I'm not painting a valk, but I still need to get pale greys/whites on a model. For many reasons (#1 being that I truly suck with airbrushes, and that is NOT an option), I am going to have to brush-paint the entire thing. (1/350 battleship). Now, I have achieved "satisfactory" finishes brush-painting ships before with Testors acrylic, but this particular paint isn't as good. Dries faster, and is noticeably more transparent (usually 2, sometimes 3 coats). And it seems to REALLY like to pool in corners, ridges, etc. I'm going to be using flat light aircraft grey as a primer/base coat (lightest grey I can find that I know is compatible), but the biggest problem is actually little pieces. I can paint a nice smooth big area without difficulty, but little parts, or anything with lots of curves and surface details--big trouble. (Especially parts with small lips/ridges/overhangs--they're just killing me) But it's the only way, so I'm wondering if anybody has any tips for brush-painting acrylics. Testors Model Master to be specific, MM marine 1943 5L to be really specific.

Many people believe the "Megatron" prototype to be the new Scorponok. I mean, he's green, and a triple-changer, and a scorpion. (Though that is a SAD 3rd mode airplane--there's NO plane-specific parts). A good triple-changer has parts for each mode. Astrotrain had TRAIN parts, and SHUTTLE parts. Blitzwing had PLANE parts, and TANK parts. And they don't share many pieces between modes. This new toy just has a bunch of generic parts roughly shaped into a triangle. No wings, no tail, no engines. More like a fan-based "I fiddled with it until it looked like something" alt mode.

I considered that (insufficient height to flip the backpack, thus an oversweep position for low-ceiling places)---but I mean, the vertical stabs are pretty tall. Not much shorter than a vertical backpack I'd guess. (Anyone got the stats for that? Or a VF-1 vs F-14 sideview?) Because F-14's are pretty tall,(though not REAL tall, due to having two fins) and have enough hangar clearance.

"Oversweep" means you can't fly like that. Maximum sweep is just that--the maximum (useable) sweep angle. Oversweep is beyond that--so far swept it physically interferes with the aircraft, and can only be used on the ground. It's the same as when carrier planes fold their wingtips up 90 degrees vertically--you can't fly like that, it's just a feature to take up less space on deck. An F-14 cannot move its stabs when the wings are overswept. (Well, it can, just not very far, and they bang into the wings if they do). The stabs must be in the neutral position to move the wings into oversweep--I've never heard of any sort of lockout feature, but there must be one, as a powered-down stab wouldn't be in the correct position, and you'd probably crush the stabs if you tried to. (F-14 pivot mechanism is rated for over a million pounds of force) AFAIK, oversweep is unique to the F-14, no other variable-sweep plane has this feature.

Apollo Leader got a nice up-close pic of the canopy w/mission marks. And you can cleary see the intake grill details, which is one of the most advanced parts of the plane. I've read that at some airshows, they have platforms set up so you can get pics from above the F-117! And of course, there's always any F-117 book, which shows each and every single panel, rivet, and button. PS---you can't see the 117's engines at all, they're totally hidden, it's part of the design. And you physically can't stick your head up the exhaust or intake. And of course, that's FAR closer than they'll ever let you get. (Unless you're a professional doing a book about F-117's)

Ok, we'll go with "must have backpack up to *fully* sweep wings". Thus "oversweep" would be "furthest sweep possible without moving backpack". Though it still seems not to have much point---if you're trying to fit into as small a space as possible, why not flip the backpack up to swing the wings back to reduce wingspan? Maybe it's just there for informative purposes, and isn't really ever used.

My Yamato 1/60 Millia. I've wanted a red VF-1J more than any other valk, longer than any other valk.

Hmmn. Overswept and stowage as two different settings. Normally, that's the same thing. Technical question--to have its (VF-1) wings fully back (like in battroid mode, touching each other)---if it's in fighter mode, can it do it? Or does it have to flip the backpack up for them to fit? Otherwise, I can't think of a reason to have an "oversweep" position, since it already has the "ultimate oversweep" of having them straight back touching each other.

Offutt Air Show at Offut AFB. Just south of Omaha. SAC headquarters. Anyways: 1. Inconsistency of the USAF! I was 30 ft away from the rope (so like 50ft from the plane) from the last F-117 I saw, and they (guards) yelled at me the second I took my camera out. You get pics of yourself next to it. 2. Inconsistency---all the A-10's, F-18's, and F-15's looked to have pretty far-off ropes. At same "no F-117 pics" show, I could touch whatever I wanted, no ropes (except the 117). (F-14 was at another show, but it's ropes were only like 2 feet from the plane--rather pointless, didn't restrict access at all) 3. Oooh, E-4B. Interesting that it doesn't appear to have any IR/ECM for the engines, only the APU. (Contrasting with Air Force One, which has them on the engines too) 4. I'd NEVER thought there'd be a Nimrod there. PS--it's a modified Comet 4C, which is quite a bit different from the original Comet. (Like, YF-17 vs F/A-18F different) 5. Man, I've NEVER seen a Harrier. That's the number one reason I wanted to go this year. (I haven't been there since 1990). Never seen a B-2 either, nor a B-1B in the air. This year appeared to be a GOOD one. 6. F-16's rock, especially ones from Hill AFB. (Even if Shaw AFB is now considered the main F-16 home) 7. F-15's my fave *operational* jet too. (YF-23 rules all)

Will go check it out, thanks. PS--anyone have the official numbers for the wing sweep angle for any of the valks? I'd rather not have to go get a protracter and line drawings...

Well we haven't had any new "valks vs real planes" threads on the new board, so I figured I'd bring one up. Anyways---anyone know the rate of wing sweep change for any of the valks? There's lots of issues to be addressed: 1. What affects wing sweep angle for a valk? Speed alone? AOA? 2. Is it affected by transformation? (As in, could a VF-1 sweep its wings back VERY quickly while in fighter mode, since it can do so to transform to battroid) 3. G's. Real planes sweep their wings slower as the G-forces increase, as the mechanism simply can't handle the strain. Any evidence of this happening in Macross? (As in, a hard-manuevering valk having a visibly slow wing movement) 4. We've already discussed the FSW aspects of valks, but that may become an issue here. Hey--should we archive that thread? I put a LOT of effort into it, and a lot of people commented how helpful it was.

The Yamato's -19 wings are too small (and I've alsways thought the nose was too short). It should actually be even bigger in fighter mode. Anyone got a Hasegawa VF-1 and YF-19 in fighter mode to put together and photograph? That'd give us a better sense of size, since they're both very accurate to the anime. (As a 1/48 YF-19 hopefully will be)

IIRC, the original Alien suit (first movie) used an *actual* skull behind the dome-thingy, not just a mold/cast. Freaky. As for why--I've always thought for shock value/coolness. Makes you think. (Anyone have a good shot of the alien skull from Predator 2?--might reveal a lot more)

One of the things I missed while MW was down: Areaseven's bad anime reviews. PS--how about Pilot Candidate? Nothing's caused me more pain than that.

Since VF-103's current modex is 100, they can match a modex with their squadron number---#103. Thus, they usually keep 3 planes in high-vis: 101, 102, and 103. 103 is generally the most colorful of all for VF-103--and is currently in annv. colors. (Right now for most Navy squadrons, X01 will be in FULL colors, while X02 will be in a slightly colorized version of the low-vis colors). I would presume 101 and 102 are still in the last style we saw---high-vis full color, with a rather deep shade of golden yellow. VF-111 could never do this, as they always got 200-series modex numbers. (At least for the F-14--might have had 100-series decades ago)

I'm pretty sure it starts at 10---Shawn is 10, and Graham is 11. Can't imagine anyone being ahead of them.

I'll second (third?) the notion for a D'Stance style YF-21. Check out the shoulder (of the battroid) in fighter mode--WAY better than Yamato's. They actually have flaps/hinges etc--Yamato just has a rubber shoulderpad.

Looks like that kit does a good job with the shoulder, 1000x better than Yamato. (As in, the part where the new FP version has the removable rubber shoulders, and is probably the least anime-accurate part of the entire valk in fighter mode---there's no blending at all between the intake/sides, it's just a big round mecha shoulderpad hanging out to the side)

Just found it mentioned in my Tomcat vs Hornet issue of Air Forces Monthly, and now there's pics online. Go here for all of them: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/jollyro...ers60thdp_1.htm Just imagine what the 100th anniversary will look like! (1943-2043)--maybe on a VF-19.

I just came here to ask about the "Other Stuff" forum too--I'm wondering where to post the new-and-very-cool 60th anniversary scheme for the Jolly Rogers.

I think my only copy of my .sig quote was on the old board! I literally paused the game and typed in in. Need to go see the archives when it's back up. As for members--if you ever browsed through "the old" members list, you'll see a LOT of people never posted, or did so less than once a year. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a 50% loss in number of members--but we won't actually see a post/thread decline. Finally---my birthday was the 20th--but the board was down all day so nobody knew. (Got JP Armada Tidalwave (Shockwave) btw) (Also my 1/350 "USS Missouri to convert to the Iowa" which I got early)