Phyrox

I hope you got some decent photos of the Ki-46 they have. It's one of the most beautiful planes ever made, and they've got the only one. ...to think I spent 3 months in England and didn't manage to work a visit to Cosford into the mix, and it was only #3 on my list!

...and you say there was a weight/maneuverability penalty with this sophisticated installation? Hard to believe...

Oh, this is one I have to pick up, if i see him. Animated Lockdown was pure cool (the figure, never seen the show).

Mospeada would have been even cooler had this been Jim's ride.

Dunno, T-birds scheme hasn't looked good on...well, anything that I can remember. They SHOULD make the A-10 the new team. That would be worth seeing.

I do.

I was going to say something about being surprised that you would recommend this rather poor article...but I see, as I had hoped you just linked it before really reading it. I am an aviation historian and can't say too much about his contemporary comments (although his assertion tha 100:1 kill ratios are likely to be drastic underestimations makes him pretty hard to believe on that front), but his historical analogies are really poor. And it doesn't seem any better in the analysis either.

If my lifetime in history has taught me anything it's that Occam's Razor does not apply to the real world. Theoretical physics; yeah...real life; not so much.

Hey, thanks dude. I just meant that detail and finish-wise, my stuff is a bit...plainer than a lot of the guys who post in this thread. I'll try to post what paint schemes I come up with once I get around to painting this bunch.

Well, I am pretty impressed with the usual posters in this thread. Although my own work is considerably more pedestrian, I wanted to join in the fun. I hate painting models...so what I have here are the projects I've been working on the last several months...all curiously in the same state of WIP. That is to say, all done except the painting and prop+canopy glueing. I also like to build things no one else has built...which is why everything here has been modified (if you can't build a P-51 as good as the pros, build a P-51 the pros never will, that's my motto). If you're interested in my unfinished stuff: P-38 built upside down (no pilot/cockpit...) P-61 with gunner hump deleted R3C-2 built upside down (porco rosso kit, so its a modification of a modification) modified Pfalz D-III (awaiting floats) Ki-100 (w/ Ki-44 wings) modified F4U corsair modified and re-engined Br.693

Remember that planets and suns and all that stuff don't sit still in space. They move. And they move fast. No surprise that the Nostromo was the first thing to run across Acheron (it isn't LV426 until Aliens). Also: This is all based on post-Aliens franchise work, and can therefore be safely ignored.

I'd say all the starfleet designs after TNG and classic-cast movie era have a very "generic sci-fi" feel to me. They maintain the basic saucer/nacelle theme, but just don't feel star-trekkie or something. No thanks.

[yawn] Call me when i can facerool feddies in a Romulan Warbird.

All I can say is we had quite different readings of that artice. Especially the author's sidebar directly addressing the issue.

You should read the recent IAPR articl on the J-10 if you think its a LAVI knockoff. Short version: it's not.

According to my memory of the recent IAPR article on USNavy aviation, the EA-18G is replacing the EA-6B across the board. It isn't an instant process, but that's the intent. I do not recall reading that the Marines will have their Prowlers replaced by Growlers at this time... I do not think any Growlers (Grizzlys) are currently planned on being delivered to the USMC

I try not to be a movie snob...but I guess the older I get, the more I find I am. poo blowing up just isn't good enough. I don't care how much poo, and how much it blows up. I want a good movie. Good story, good dialog, good pacing. Previously (pre-Titanic), Cameron delivered on these. Aliens is a great action movie, but it is also a great movie, period. Now, perhaps the trailers are not trying to capture this "quality movie" feel, as trailers are wont to do...but so far, I do not like what I see. I see "Awesome FX and amazingly overthetop acton." I do not see "plus, it's actually good." I should note, I don't really like over-the-top action. I like my action to be realistic, with a bit of a flourish added for dramatic effect. Does't one of the trailers have someone jumping from a flying beast onto the back of a dropship or something? I must be getting old but that stuff just makes me groan.

I'll just say that for my part, it always seemed implied that Koji's sister was the core of Eva-03. Maybe I didn't pick up on this until my second viewing, but that could be said about pretty much everying in Evangelion. I wouldn't bother arguing the point, for the same reasons others have stated here: one of the best things about Eva is that not everyone sees the same things, but it still works (for most of us). But I thought that one was clearly implied from the show.

It's not. We get it. It's getting tiresome. At least to me. No offense though, seriously. (I'd use an emoticon to lighten the tone of my post, but I am a curmudgeon and hate emoticons)

I'm was under the impression that Nato names for warsaw pact machines had gone into disuse with the fall of the iron curtain. Their main purpose was to give clear names to aircraft, ships, missiles, etc that could not otherwise be gotten due to intelligence restrictions. Now that we pretty much KNOW all the proper designations for everything, there isn't a clear need. Most aviation and naval writers avoid using the old, outdated names for equipment now. And yeah, Nato names were only for the equipment of the Soviets and similarly allied nations (china, north korea). No need to give the Western allies reporting names...we KNEW the real ones. Of course, over time, we learned the proper designations for most soviet equipment as well, but the handy and informative nato names remained standard usage until the mid-90s, as far as I remember.

The nearly completed captured aircraft, Go-229 V-3, was unarmed, and none of the pre-production armed fighters had been started yet (Go-229 A-0). The Putnam book mentioned below states that among the incomplete prototypes captured at the workshops was a (barely begun) armament trials airframe. So the selection for the the eventual production aircraft was still in the air. That said, I have three different answers from three different books: Four MK 108 (from, Luftwaffe Secret Projects: fighters 1939-1945. Decent book, but not sure about its fine accuracy) Two MK 103 or Four MK 108 (from, The Horton Flying Wing in World War II) Four MK 103 for the unbuilt A-0 version (from, Putnam's German Aircraft of the Second World War. Usually pretty definitive, maybe not here however?) Final verdict: No, it is not clear (but probably not 4 MK 103s!)

That is exactly the impression I got.

That sorta sums up some of the plot troubles. Here's a question, maybe it's because I had already turned my mind off by the half-way point, but did it ever explain why

I was expecting some harmless fun with cool giant robots. I was sorely disappointed. That might have been the stupidest blockbuster I've seen since, well maybe ever. I'm not film snob, but seriously, this movie offended me it was so stupid. Plot, dialog, even action, everything was disappointing. I found the first one entertaining in its way...but I'll never be watching this one again, even if it's on cable. And since when is the Smithsonian ajoining a desert airfield?

Search function: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=22845