Jump to content

Noyhauser

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1581

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Noyhauser

    Resin Vs Vinyl?

    in The Workshop!

    Posted

    Im contemplating buying a Wave 1/72 scale either Vf-17 or Vf-19 battroid, however its in vinyl, a medium I've never used. I'm well aquinted with Resin, but is there anything I should look out for? Are these kits fully posable?

    My stand on these recasting threads

    in Model kits

    Posted

    Don't care

    You will when you're not gettin' the kits you want.

    Uhh we can't get the kits anyways unless we recast them.... Seriously was a VB-6 recast going to happen anytime soon? Doubt it.

    Moreover, a scuptor is not going to lose major profits through recasting. If a kit has gone through its first run, a sculptor probably already banked on that being his profit margin, and probably wasn't planning on additional runs later to supplant his profit . I don't see too many low run resin kits being recasted by its sculptor at a later date because its not worth it. The same goes for major studios. Studio Half Eye has already made its profits from its Perfect variable series and has moved on. If they thought more profits could be made they would recast these things but they don't, so we are stuck.

    I agree though that talk of it should be kept to a minimum. Maybe it should be reffered to Shawn before hand?

    Macross Zero

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    Another point that doesn't really turn my crank is the addition of magic and anima spirta. I dislike both of those in the Macross universe greatly, even though the latter IS a big thing in Mac7 (yet one more reason why I don't like that show much). I dislike how Sara is able to cause flowers to bloom or make stones levitate just by her singing. Nuh-uh, not for me.

    this coming from a guy who has a sig saying that there is nothing wrong with robotech.

    Protoculture anybody?

    Yf-19 wings when swept back.

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    You can see it best in Digital Mission VFX-2... where the sweep gives it a wicked looking quality.

    They are swept back for high speeds in atmosphere... which is the only place where it is useful. Forward Swept wings generate a lot of drag because the air is forced towards the body and over more wing surface which equals more resistance. It also creates more of a surface that has to break undisturbed air in front of an aircraft.(I can't remember what its called) A forward swept winged fighter must break undisturbed air across three points (two wing tips and its nose) FSW has other advantages like greater transsonic control and at high alpha, but it slows down fighters considerably. Sweeping backwards (like in a F-14 and in this case) forces airflow outwards and away from the body which generates far less drag. Its airflow's main break point is the nose, and the shockwaves move outwards from the body.

    Just look at it straight on, with Forward swept the 19's forward profile is probably 20% more when they are out, and when they are blended in, thats at least 20% less forward profile to drive through the air. At high speed it doesn't need its wings because it would gain enough lift from its body, and you don't need that much of a control surface to control the plane when there is so much air going over the control surfaces. Moreover roll control can be accomplised through the YF-19's 1 dimentional thrust vectoring system(up and down feet)

    However in space the 19 would probably always have its wings in forward swept mode because there is no drag to worry about, and it give the 19 better roll characteristics having the wings wider from the centerline (because there are verniers in the tips of the wings.)

    Macross VF-1A RC model!

    in Model kits

    Posted

    Uhh thats just insane how well it flies! Wow I wish I had the skills to build something like that.

    AWESOME!!!!

    If you have watched this famous Japan Cartoon, you may know what I am taking about

    Uhh I think I have seen it once or twice or 55,000 times. (sorry I couldn't resist)

    Official VF-4 Order Thread

    in Model kits

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    and maybe I'll attempt to put something in for the box art.... (Don't call it 100%, maybe 40%.... I''ll try to get my friend to photoshop what I can put together)....

    when will you need it by?

    Valkyrie Power

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    hmm I guess I was wrong about the BCI inclusion. I could of sworn I had read it somewhere though... but I always thought it strange that it did have such an advanced and classified system. Maybe I mistook it for the Inclusion of the Q-Rau systems, which I guess refers to the Inertia vector control sytem.

    F-35 to do the job of the A-10?

    in Anime or Science Fiction

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    I’ve been lurking on this thread awhile, and I think there is a bit of myopia on people’s parts. I study defence management, which talks about procurement processes and defence organization and the JSF is an interesting procurement process.

    #1 The US cannot cancel the JSF… ever. Because of the level of offshore involvement in the aircraft, canning the project would be hugely expensive (legal issues pertaining to offshore partner contracts), and would blow the bottom out of the US arms market. As we have discussed on here, the JSF isn’t that needed in the US, maybe the Marine Corps has the best argument in support of it. It is however absolutely vital for the UK, Spanish and Italian navies as their follow-on primary naval aircraft to the Harrier, not to mention other countries such as the Netherlands, Canada and Norway which see it as their next generation fighter.

    The next generation of UK carrier is built around the specifications of the JSF… and if it gets canned, the UK will have a carrier without a fighter to pilot it. I think you can imagine the political fallout from that. No other defence project in American history has had such a major international involvement at this phase. For the most part, capital equipment has been presented to foreign nations fait accompi, such as the F-16, F/A-18 ect (we have this fighter the F-16, do you want to buy one, vs. do you want to be involved in the project to build the JSF?). Over 25% of the development costs are paid for by international partners (the Three level partnership program).

    This is unlike the Comanche (which was canned last week) because that project was paid for by the US alone, so they bear the economic cost in full. If the JSF gets cancelled, the US will be on the hook not only for the development costs but for huge cancellation feels written into these partnership contracts. I don’t know the exact figures off hand (even if they were published, which I doubt, but an excellent contemporary example was the 1994 Canadian government decision to cancel the $4.8 billion dollar contract to purchase the EH-101, afterwards they were on the hook for $500 Million in cancellation fees. You can just imagine the costs incurred for the JSF.

    Moreover the credibility hole the US arms manufacturers will have if the JSF is cancelled will be huge. The most of Europe will probably never trust the US again with a major procurement project when they could ask the EU’s OCCAR to manage a common project and have EADS, a European company to do the work for them. Having OCCAR do the work for them has far more advantages because they retain more control over the development process… rather than have little input if the US cancels. Actually this is the reason why the French build all their own carriers, fighters, Tanks ect… they don’t want to be caught if the US or some other country pulls the plug on them.

    If the A-400M contract is successful, EADS could become a monster in the world’s arms trade, because it can legitimately say that its equipment is designed for how the world operates, rather than US equipment which is designed for the US arms market. (compare the C-17 to the A-400M… you’ll see what mean….)

    #2 There has been one successful single service fighter in American history that has served as the ideal for fighter procurement for US market… the F-4 Phantom. Although it was originally a Navy project, the F-4 was used by all three flying services (Marines, Airforce and Navy) and worked quite well. I’m not saying the JSF comes close to being in the same ilk as the F-4 was at its time (There was not a single plane the could touch the F-4 in western Inventories ) but many projects have attempted to follow in its footsteps. F/A-18 came close, had the Airforce accepted it as the F-17 rather than the F-16, then it was likely that it would have been chosen as the next generation Carrier fighter as well (which is was). The F-16 came close to this ideal as well, (from what I vaguely know about it ) but it was disqualified because of the Naval Aviation Penchant for dual engined fighters.

    That’s been the problem with the whole idea of single service equipment, nobody can decide on a rigid specification sheet for a proposal, and therefore any design has to bridge a lot of capabilities that often are equivocal. Welcome to the world of the JSF. I think the JSF is particularly hampered by one of these requirements… the STOVL (short take-off Vertical Landing) requirement which in my mind disqualifies it as a single service fighter.

    #3 Gunpods in the JSF (and other thoughts)

    I’m almost certain that the JSF doesn’t have an internal gunpod because of its STOVL quirement. If you need to take off from a very short runway, payload optimization is key. Having several thousand pounds of dead weight you “might” use (ie gunpod), than two extra bombs that you most definitely WILL use is a powerful argument against having an internal gunpod. Had it of been a normal fighter, this would not be a problem, however the weight factor that must be considered in the F-35 STOVL design makes every pound count. I think this is the very reason why the JSF program in the end has had serious problems living up to its expectations of being an advance from the previous fighter designs is the requirement of STOVL.

    It is just ludicrous for the Airforce who has no need for such a capability, yet has had it forced on it as a replacement. STOVL puts extremely tight tolerances on a fighter that are not easy to get around. First you need an engine that gives a pretty impressive power to weigh ratio (like the Rolls Royce Pegasus) and has some way of creating equal downward force both at the front of the plane and at the rear so that it can hover. That means you need a lot of power (lack of fuel economy) and a engine design that must accomplish both level and horizontal flight. Somehow I don’t see the JSF becoming the next Airforce F-16 when it barely beats out the F-16, and when you can get upgraded F-16 for the fraction of the cost and get a better fighter. I think the Navy will probably adopt it as a supplement to the F/A-18, and it will become the Marine Corps mainline fighter for no other reason than it can be used from the decks of Iwo Jima Class (with the inclusion of a Ski Jump… easily retrofitted), or forward air bases.

    #4 Bombs

    The US is in development next generation JDAM called the small diameter bomb to replace the current retrofit kits it uses today. This would allow the JSF to carry more bombs and employ them more effectively than the current generation of Fighters. I don't know the program specifics but apparently it is pretty advanced so far.

    #5 I think some of you need to take a course in international relations. The idea that the US and EU would ever get into a war is just ridiculous. The EU has been based on liberal democratic values, it was born precisely to prevent war, not just between themselves but others. Read this essay: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...,680096,00.html

    or the first section of this one

    http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/chai55e.pdf

    These two articles talk about the future role of European militaries and european Security thought. If you are interested I can send you essays anyd my article about it (its my #1 area of study, in front of defence management. )

    Even more ludicrous is the idea that France and Germany will ever even come to blows ever in the even remotest future imaginable. Ties have never been closer between the two states, and with the direction of the EU (especially in light of last weeks tri-power summit in Berlin) relations can only get closer.

    Valkyrie Power

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted

    The Pheyos valkrie also supposed to have the Same BDI/BCS sensor as the yf-21

    I think in light of the other thread, on the YF-21-YF19 discussion that hte YF-21 was more effective, but waaay too expensive. I'd put my lot in with the -21 being the most effective fighter of its 2040~50 timeframe... except that it was too expensive and a one off.

    macross 7

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted

    Cmon,

    you know the hands are for max to fight Boldolza mano a mano

    Seriously though... I suspect the hands can serve many purposes. its possible for the Battle7 to punch, move its weapon faster, but also for ease of replacement. The whole new macross project was designed to be moduar. Ships docking on other ships, specialized colony vessels, ect ect. Lets say that there is the need for quickly changing weapons... look what happened to the SDF-1 with the meltrandi fight... they shot off its Main gun and the thing was screwed. This way the Battle-7 can quickly replace a damage weapon, or upgrade it to a new one without an extensive rebuild. Hands may have been for stylistic purposes as well (would you rather see it with a plug in its hands.

    Also many Capital ships in macross transform to some degree. The Algenix crusier, The Stealth ship from VFX-1. Almost all of the Crtitical Path Corporation Ships from VFX-2.. and so on.

    The Megaroad Class

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted

    I didn't think the Guantanamo stealth carriers were around at that time. I thought they were around the Plus era- long after 2012. I thought the next design of ARMD platforms were of the class now attatched to the Megaroad design.

    Was Stealth technology being developed in Space war One? I don't recall any stealthy ship designs in-use at the time. And if we are to assume M3 is cannon, does this mean the Haruna is a prototype to stealth design?

    Just because it says stealth doesn't proclude it being built in the 2012 timeframe. Remember that the UN Spacy's manufacturing capabilities must of grown to unimaginable levels after the capture of the factory satillite compared to the SW1 time period. I'm sure a stealth design could be pumped out in a matter of months to be built from the satellite. It also looks like a Zentredi/Human hybrid ship, probably to ease its production. M3 is cannon, so its design was around at 2018 at the earliest. The "guantanamo" 'class seems pretty old compared to the newer valhalla type carriers, so my contention is that these ships may be older than first stated. The look far more like the 1st generation ARDMs than later ships.

    I'm still putting my vote that the lower ship in the Megaroad launch scene is a Haruna , or haruna predecessor.

    The Megaroad Class

    in Movies and TV Series

    Posted · Edited by Noyhauser

    There is only one other ship from this period we have definitive stats on, which is this one...

    http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macross.htm

    http://unsd.macrossrpg.com/harunacruiser.html

    I don't know about the accurracy of the last site as I haven't seen any source material from macross M3... but if the story starts in 2018 its design would make sense. I think its possible that the ship from FB-2012 below the megaroad might be the same design (maybe from a earlier model)

    I have a suspiscion that this ship was developed soon after as well...

    http://unsd.macrossrpg.com/maizuru.html

    But I have no real definitive answer.

×
×
  • Create New...