Scream Man Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 Still pretty impressively done. Between that and the shoulders being hidden, this is really an exceptional piece of work. Im not a huge fan of the 21, but Im sold on this. Bravo Yamato, Bravo!
sqidd Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Still pretty impressively done. Between that and the shoulders being hidden, this is really an exceptional piece of work. Im not a huge fan of the 21, but Im sold on this. Bravo Yamato, Bravo! I am not a huge fan of anything but fighter mode, but I feel the same way you do. It looks so nice that I will certainly be picking up at least one. Maybe two.
eugimon Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 ah, haha, i just noticed the feet sticking out in fighter mode.
myk Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Right. Odd how on the '72 FP the feet are completely hidden. Everytime I think about the "impossibility" of this design the more I wanna' see it...
Nani?! Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 ah, haha, i just noticed the feet sticking out in fighter mode. Nice observation. yea, looks like they make a triangle and fit underneath the top piece. Odd way of dealing with the feet. We'll see soon enough...
Sumdumgai Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 nice catch eugimon! I can live with the feet being stored that way. For a fighter mode that awesome, it's forgiveable.
David Hingtgen Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 The D'stance had the feet the exact same way. Note that the D'stance could do "limbless mode", and AFAIK that is why the feet were done that way. There is no reason to put the feet inbetween the nacelles and sticking out the back, instead of nicely tucked away inside the nacelles like the 1/72 and SHE did---unless you need to have fully-formed, 3D internals visible when you remove the legs and belly plates..........
eugimon Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 The D'stance had the feet the exact same way. Note that the D'stance could do "limbless mode", and AFAIK that is why the feet were done that way. There is no reason to put the feet inbetween the nacelles and sticking out the back, instead of nicely tucked away inside the nacelles like the 1/72 and SHE did---unless you need to have fully-formed, 3D internals visible when you remove the legs and belly plates.......... oh, I don't mind and yamato even got the feet to conform to the triangular shaped piece between the nacelles (what is that called anyways?).
Vic Mancini Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 oh, I don't mind and yamato even got the feet to conform to the triangular shaped piece between the nacelles (what is that called anyways?). The "beaver tail", I think? Hmmmm, I'm not crazy about those visible feet.
eugimon Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 The "beaver tail", I think? Hmmmm, I'm not crazy about those visible feet. beaver tail? heehee, the 13 year old in me made me giggle. hahaha.
Vic Mancini Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 beaver tail? heehee, the 13 year old in me made me giggle. hahaha. Ahu huh huh... Ahu huh...he said beaver. Not crazy about that gap between the arm and the belly plates either. Stupid anime magic.
David Hingtgen Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Graham had asked me a while ago what that part is called. AFAIK a shape like that is unique to the YF-21. Most aircraft have either a standard tailcone, nothing, a tailhook fairing, or a "stinger". The closest thing is actually an F-14's, which is called the beavertail. But the YF-21's isn't shaped like that. I voted for "ducktail", as it's much more triangular. The B-2 actually has something very similar in shape and location---but it's movable and acts like an elevator, as opposed to being a fixed drag-reducing fairing. However, I have seen it called a "beaver tail" regardless. Officially it's the "gust load alleviation system". I would call it a body flap, as it's almost identical to the space shuttle's body flap asides from outline. But a body flap is basically "an aileron on the fuselage", not a large immobile structure. So I would call the B-2's a body flap, not a beavertail. But since the B-2's IS called a beavertail, I guess you could call the YF-21's that as well, since apparently there's a pretty broad definition for it. You can see a B-2's deflected in several shots here (especially on takeoff): http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Air...5/B2/index.html
Sumdumgai Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Heheh, beaver tail. I still can't get over that sleek fighter mode. I drool whenever I see it.
myk Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Ugh, reading this thread while having to wait is killing me. When is this thing coming out again? April?
eugimon Posted December 1, 2007 Posted December 1, 2007 Heheh, beaver tail. I still can't get over that sleek fighter mode. I drool whenever I see it. yeah, whatever missgiving I may have on seeing the feet, they're more than offset by the sleekness and overall accuracy of the sculpt.
Mog Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 Damn guys! Thanks for pointing out the feet; I really didn't notice them in fighter mode until now. You think it was a design compromise to keep the arm and leg proportions okay in all three modes? Uh-huh-huh, you said "tail."
eugimon Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 Damn guys! Thanks for pointing out the feet; I really didn't notice them in fighter mode until now. You think it was a design compromise to keep the arm and leg proportions okay in all three modes? Uh-huh-huh, you said "tail." that would be my guess.
David Hingtgen Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 If you recall wm cheng's model, he had to fill in that area with plastic--Hasegawa leaves it as a gaping hole in the rear fuselage. If you check the official drawings--it's in permanent shadow, with no clear structure or covering. It might actually be, that the feet are visible through a large opening, canonically. Or that they perfectly match the contours of the area and themselves are a flush covering. They're just always in shadow in the animation. Something to think about.
eugimon Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 If you recall wm cheng's model, he had to fill in that area with plastic--Hasegawa leaves it as a gaping hole in the rear fuselage. If you check the official drawings--it's in permanent shadow, with no clear structure or covering. It might actually be, that the feet are visible through a large opening, canonically. Or that they perfectly match the contours of the area and themselves are a flush covering. They're just always in shadow in the animation. Something to think about. that's a good point. On the 1/72, we had the kick down stand to mount the belly plates to... I think is a more elegant solution, acutally.
Chronocidal Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 I think Hasegawa left that hole open so people could use the Macross display stand set they put out.. there are a couple of extra parts included that slip into that rear area for mounting. (given the recent conversation, I can't believe I just said that.) Aerodynamically speaking, that whole rear area is a bad deal, since it's not streamlined at all. So I guess the question is, why else would it be there, except to make room to store the feet/legs? If it wasn't needed, it probably would've been streamlined in the original design. There could have been a fancy sliding cover for it in "reality," but that probably would've been too complex for a toy this size, and it's not even in the anime to begin with.
David Hingtgen Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 This is one of those "we need to ask Kawamori" things. Regardless of how the toy is, we don't know how the "real" YF-21 is designed back there.
ruskiiVFaussie Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) So that means we haven't got anything yet to pick at with the 1/60 incarnation. Damn man. None of this gullet business. heh Edited December 2, 2007 by ruskiiVFaussie
Guest sh002 Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 was there a pic of the feet in fighter mode?
SuperHobo Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 So that means we haven't got anything yet to pick at with the 1/60 incarnation. Damn man. None of this gullet business. heh Why fight it? Its too beautiful. The YF-21 has already cast a spell upon us. Saying, BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME ..........
bowman Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 was there a pic of the feet in fighter mode? can someone point it out where the feet is visible in fighter mode?
isamu_dyson Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Look carefully at the pict of the rear view, we can see the end of the feets between the engines. Edited December 2, 2007 by isamu_dyson
Guest sh002 Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 i see it and it doesn't bother me because look how damn slim that fighter is. plus this thing is going to be larger.
Vic Mancini Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 If you recall wm cheng's model, he had to fill in that area with plastic--Hasegawa leaves it as a gaping hole in the rear fuselage. If you check the official drawings--it's in permanent shadow, with no clear structure or covering. It might actually be, that the feet are visible through a large opening, canonically. Or that they perfectly match the contours of the area and themselves are a flush covering. They're just always in shadow in the animation. Something to think about. That is a good point, except it looks like the feet might actually protrude out past the lower beaver tail (belly plates), which is definitely not in the line art or anime. That won't look very cool when viewing this toy from the bottom. I'm still hoping that something internally wasn't transformed properly on that demo model.
Wicked Ace Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) There is no reason to put the feet inbetween the nacelles and sticking out the back, instead of nicely tucked away inside the nacelles like the 1/72 and SHE did---unless you need to have fully-formed, 3D internals visible when you remove the legs and belly plates.......... I hope this is the explanation for the visible battroid feet in fighter mode. If I had to nitpick the YF-21. . . the empty shell which makes up the rear section of the fighter always bothered me; I always wondered where the guts of the fighter (even with the space-saving measures made possible by overtechnology) would go in order to get my mind to imagine the YF-21 actually working. IIRC, some aircraft nut on this site pretty much covered the micro ducts from the intakes to the engines in the nacells, but one can imagine a whole lot of other necessary stuff to make this fighter plane/soldier work. Where's all that stuff? Note, I don't have benefit of any line art books containing mechanism sketches. Edited December 2, 2007 by Wicked Ace
eugimon Posted December 2, 2007 Posted December 2, 2007 That is a good point, except it looks like the feet might actually protrude out past the lower beaver tail (belly plates), which is definitely not in the line art or anime. That won't look very cool when viewing this toy from the bottom. I'm still hoping that something internally wasn't transformed properly on that demo model. if you look at the bottom of the "beaver tail" there are indents carved out that conform to the shape of the feet. I think that's pretty clear evidence that the feet are supposed to stick out.
Recommended Posts