David Hingtgen

That's what happens when you try to modernize/futurize something without knowing what certain design features are. (so many movies do this with planes and ships----can't tell you how many times I've seen a "22nd century" version of something that stopped being used half-way through WWII)

I refuse to register to any more forums than I already have just to view an attachment.

That's how the original series always was. (though IMHO, the boots in the original series were better)

Ok, now that you mention the A-4 and I re-read the description, I think I know what you're talking about. Those aren't metal bars, they're simply cables under tension. That's called a "bridle" style of catapult launching attachment. They were standard for many years. It's the ONLY way to launch the F-8, F-4, A-4, A-3, F-3, F-2, F-7, F-6, F-9, and just about anything else that's older than the A-6/A-7/F-14. Hooking them up via the nose gear is the "new" way to do it. Also, it's not a waste, as the bridle isn't discarded (usually)----they stay with the shuttle and the whole assembly is "caught" at the end of the run. Ever noticed the "prongs" on the bow of a carrier aligned with the catapults? Most carriers used to have 2, then 1, and now usually none. They were there soley for bridle-launching--to recover the bridle cables. As it became less common, they were removed. And the newest carriers weren't built with any. At one point, the number of bridles remaining in inventory exceeded the number of possible/planned launches of the few remaining bridle-launched planes, so they stopped catching them! (this also allowed carriers that no longer had the "prongs" to still launch the occasional plane via bridle, as it didn't matter if they could be retrieved) Here, this shows a bridle pretty well:

All airliners have and use ailerons, it's just that what they use in addition to or primarily instead of, depends on speed/load. Keeping with the 777: 777s have outboard ailerons, inboard flaperons (really more of a drooping aileron), and spoilers. Remember, spoilers can only drop a wing, never raise it. Rapid response, but you WILL lose altitude---try to avoid that on final approach. Outboard ailerons are only used at low speeds, as they actually have too great of a stress/moment at high speeds (and airliners never need to roll much when cruising). When going slow, load/alpha is higher, so the wings are already "pre-bent" due to load, so the outboard ailerons start becoming effective because the wing is effectively stiffer and more responsive. (take a look at an airliner that's near the ground--the wings will be at max upwards deflection) Also, since the ailerons are aft of the spar, fuel capacity isn't affected in the least. Now, eliminating them would reduce weight, and a few planes do that. (A300-600 for example---the -600 version removed the outboard ailerons and added a spoiler) The A330/A340 have split ailerons---a single large one outboard, but it only uses the inboard half at high speeds with the outer half locking in place and effectively becoming part of the wingtip. Generally, outboard ailerons are locked/unlocked with the flaps---if the flaps are up, the outboard ailerons won't move. As soon as the flaps deploy even a little, the outboard ailerons start responding to commands.

"unspecified" gull grey is light gull grey.

The point was that early on, when they had no airliners with those engines, there was apparently a lot of resistance to selling them---because they feared back-engineering! Look what happened.

Valks tend to have small wings---a sign of high loading and a better bombing platform. (look at planes that are designed for low-level strike missions) Of course, since valks have impossibly low weights due to OT construction, the loading may be quite low. (depending on which one, a valk weighs 1/2 or 1/3 of what a modern fighter of the same size weighs) Also---fighter jet wings don't bend nearly as much as an airliner's. Airliners are designed to be smooth and comfy, even in turbulence---fighters are supposed to respond and take heavy loads. Bendy wings means they don't respond as much nor as quickly. (you'll note airliners tend to rely heavily on spoilers for roll control for anything more than the slightest turn--because moving an aileron tends to bend the wing more than roll the plane)

Decals require water, stickers are "peel and stick". The Gundam markings you describe are known as "dry transfers" and are unheard of on valk toys/kits AFAIK.

Point: stupid moronic robot antics are still preferable to the last movie's stupid sophomoric stereotype-laden human humor.

Heck no, they weren't even supposed to HAVE any, much less build them.

No, but it's still cold until the last day or two. And it was snowing until mid-late April. Set records (or should have). PS---yeah, tail decals suck (all of them). If I build an armored Ozma, I'll copy wm cheng and primer the whole fin, and then paint ALL of it, including the black.

..which are all still homages to the F-14 and F-15 test schemes...

IMHO, very few "flat" model paints are truly flat. Almost all have some gloss. Some more than others. Gunship grey is among the "glossiest" flat paints. If you want DEAD flat, you need Floquil or Pollyscale model railroad paint--most of that stuff is so dead flat it's scary. So in short---just use "flat" paint. It won't be totally flat, and will have just enough shine IMHO to replicate the slight sheen on most stuff.

I haven't done anything for a few weeks---still waiting for the weather to warm up! *everything* is on hold until I get the feet and wings clear-coated. Then I need to do the canopy. I have the forward fuselage, wings, shield, upper legs, gun, and arms done---I just can't put them together. Also need to finish the tailfins. Maybe I'll take a pic of the parts pile and post it.

Nothing in particular to note, just that a LOT of stuff* is coming out on Blu-Ray in the next month or two. Just go to blu-ray.com and have a look around. *As in stuff people have wanted for a while.

He's already hinted/previewed several, we're all just waiting for him to finish them up. ::cough, Mylene, cough::

Definitely one of the best I've seen so far. (looks a lot like mine actually!)

The pic's originally from the Air Force, I saw it at ARC.

I said (well, at least THOUGHT) this when I first heard about the show. I *love* the concept---but when I saw her name, I knew it wouldn't work. At least for me it wouldn't work---I just can't see her as anybody else, because she can't act like anybody else! Heck, continue the show, but without her! Or kill her off and get just about any other actress as Echo #2.

Virtual On:OT can be hard (partly because it is just plain unbalanced---some matches are nigh-unwinnable). But 2 people of roughly equal skill fighting each other is utter gaming bliss.

Thanks much for the pics.

Awesome F-22 pic: http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/pho...F-9497Y-902.jpg

Gyah! Want pics WITHOUT FAST packs! (fighter and battroid)

The Squadron Tri-Grit is superior to all other tri-grit-like-things IMHO.