David Hingtgen

But there's much better "canon" valks to do first---like the VF-4.

The YF-21 flew fine with the arms gone. It lost all 4 limbs. But the wings were fine, and it had thrust vectoring. The entire belly of the plane was gone along with the tailfins, but it didn't really matter. Think about a plane fully loaded with bombs and drop tanks on the belly---very "rough" uneven surface---flies just fine. Lot more drag than a smooth belly, but it flies the same. F-14's spend half their lives with the gigantic Phoenix pallets installed on the forward hardpoints (completely messing up the smooth belly), but it doesn't do much.

Temjin--except that's not what the YF-19 looks like with the wings back. The pivot point is the same as when transforming. You've basically taken the wings off, and put them back in a different place.

An Sv-51 losing the gun wouldn't have any problems other than drag-related. No different than the YF-21 flew with the legs gone--- so long as the wings are still there, and has sufficient control (either aerodynamic or vectoring), it'll fly. On modern fighters, the rear fuselage between the engines (if there is any) is shaped purely to reduce drag, and/or is a good place to put a drag chute. Nothing more. F-111 is a good example of bad design--it gets like 30% of its total drag from being poorly shaped there. But it doesn't affect how it flies at all. F-14 had that area changed several times, getting smaller and more complexly-shaped each time. F-15 had it chopped off entirely. PS--going along with other recent posts---I want the Sv-51 because it's different. I still don't have a VF-0, simply because it's so similar to the VF-1. That's a lot of money for what is basically a repaint. I'd buy a VF-0D though, as it's delta-winged and that changes everything. But the Sv-51 is so unique--every mode, and the transformation. And I want Nora's magenta one!

It's not so much the wing sweeping back that's the problem, it's the fact that the wing root sweeps forward and in as the tip comes back. If you go strictly with the canon lineart and pivot point, the tailing edge root swings all the way through the legs, arms, chest, and head. The only way to avoid that is if the wing separates in half and with the root being fixed, and the outer part goes above or below its own root, overlapping itself (which doesn't seem to fit the lineart). Or does like the X-02 wing, and "swallows" part of itself. Or along what Graham thought up, having the trailing edge slide up and over towards the leading edge. (I thought perhaps having the entire trailing edge flip 180, since the flaperons are already hinged along that point--instead of a typical +/- 40 degree movement range, it'd be like +40/-180) Sheer pivoting won't work no matter what. You have to either get the wingroot out of the way, or not have it move. Knight26 proposed having a sliding hinge near the pivot, so that you move the entire wing outboard, then swing it back, then move the wing inboard again---but even then there's still SOME root trailing edge issues. In the OVA, it seems to simply swing its wings, no flipping/folding. (yes, you see it happen--it swings them back from head-on, and swings them forward while doing a barrel-roll)

The cockpit sits directly above the gear well--if you "push the gear in further" then there's no room for a cockpit. Yamatos already are flown by amputees, there's not a millimeter to spare. In both real fighter planes and toy valks "the cockpit floor is the nosegear bay ceiling". And if you go by the lineart, the nose is mostly hidden, so it needs to go into the bay quite far.

As discussed at MacrossNexus: http://forums.macrossnexus.com/index.php?s...c=123&st=60 The nosecone goes directly into the gear bay (as best anyone can tell, and make work). Pic credit goes to Mecha Nut

Removable gear solves a lot of problems...

I recently read that the Trek ships are not dead, but there is a licensing dispute. The 1/350 NX-01 is out of production, but the 1/350 1701-A is still being made. But there will be no new kits until licensing is resolved.

I'm going to say here I agree with Dante74. People keep asking about it, but it's been stated for months by Graham that it can't. Plus the fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE. There is absolutely nowhere for them to go. I've been this close to posting a "stop asking about the wings, there's no way to do it in real life" rant, but Dante74 said it first. Now, over at MacrossNexus there was a very long discussion, and Graham took a close look at the drawings and came up with a possible explanation (for part of it, still didn't solve the root-tip problem), but that requires the wing splitting up into multiple, paper-thin parts with sliding internal joints. Maybe possible in 1:1 with overtechnology, but certainly not in a toy. I'll repost this photo---see a problem with rotating the wings?

I just figured out what the standalone Ghost's color scheme reminded me of. MS32a/1b. US WW2 anti-submarine camo, very rare variant, best known for being on the USS Iowa. The colors look close, the pattern is roughly similar. (wide, alternating, sharp-edged angled bands) Though being symmetrical left/right defeats the whole purpose of that type of camo.

Image Anime already has it? Hmmn. They were fairly high on my list of places to order from. (They usually get stuff in pretty fast---is that the first US arrival?)

Is Yamato retconning (or simply screwing up) the designations? From our previous discussion, and the compendium, they are the QF-2200A and QF-2200D, not QF-2200D-A and D-B. All previous Macross stuff from all series has followed post-McNamara US-style designations perfectly (why do you think the Ghosts have a Q in them?), but now we have this weird D-A and D-B nomenclature. Unless I see some "quote straight from HFH" I'm going to assume Yamato is wrong.

I hadn't seen it in so long I forgot what it really looked like. It's like they were trying to build a P-38, but ran out of materials.

BBTS doesn't even mention it in their latest email, so it may be a while for those who ordered from there. Though I think it's good news that so far no one has missing/wrong/broken pieces--all the issues seem related to the design/mold itself. Anyways, just from looking at the photos, my current guess/plan to straighten the gunpod is to sand the foward side of one post, and the rear side of the other. That would effectively "align" the posts, moving their centerlines towards each other. Of course, it all depends on how tight the gunpod is--if sanding both pegs would make it too loose, then I'd probably go with WolfX's idea, and just "eliminate" whichever peg is the real source of the problem, relying on just one, tight peg to hold the gunpod.

What about the HLJ/Rainbow10 route? You can order sprues from them individually--though the rarer the kit, the less likely they can get it. I've ordered many sprues of parts from HLJ for Hasegawa and Fujimi kits--both replacements, and spares.

The arms look to be secured together in like 4 different places--to themselves in 2+ locations, to the shield, and to the legs. I think it'd be easier to adjust the posts on the forearms that the gunpod attaches too.

No, really strange-looking one-off. Could easily be one of Burt Rutan's designs. ASYMMETRICAL. Very. Like, if you took an F-15, and replaced one tailfin with an A-10's, and one wing with an F-14's.

Propeller effect. The spinning makes the air take slightly different paths, etc. Most noticeable with a nose-mounted prop. Most planes just ignore it, or use a bit of rudder etc to counteract it. But if you REALLY want to, you could make one wing bigger than the other, set at a different angle. The one I always think of (possibly the only one actually built to do so) was called the "Boomerang" IIRC. Same idea with a helicopter I'd guess---angle/shape things so that everything "lines" up aerodynamically/balances each other out---might not look "right" but would fly better.

That's what I was thinking--and looking at the drawing seems to confirm something else--that the entire upper fuselage and rotor assembly is tilted too. Or the fuselage doesn't match the tailboom and stub wings, or something. They drew a handy reference line for us. I didn't think any camera/lens error could "twist" the fuselage like the pic seemed to show, but I also didn't think any chopper would be built like that----it's like the helicopter equivalent of planes built to counter the P-effect. (Which makes for really weird, incredibly asymmetrical ugly planes, that are like 1% more aerodynamically efficient)

Ssshhhh! The other part of MW is supposed to be a secret!

Far more important than its rarity (or lack thereof), is the fact that it looks cooler than any other version.

Or reduce the resolution and/or frame rate. That's HUGE.

Word of advice: Go easy on the Goo Gone. Just get a napkin or something damp with just a bit of it, then work/rub it in.

Is there somewhere they actually mention a concrete reason for not making freighters in that massive thread? The pages I checked were the same as every other thread on every other aviation forum--it degenerated into an Airbus vs Boeing thread, citing subsidies vs govt contracts.