Retracting Head Ter Ter

Well, when you think of how small and sleek the basic F-5 frame is, combined with more power than the best of the F-8s, combined with aerodynamic tweaks from the YF-17 team...

I remember when I was a kid (early 80s). There was this defence mag I was reading and they had an advert from Northrup on the F-20 (this was when they were trying to market it to the RSAF, I am from Singapore) and most of the advert space was a graph like thingy showing how the F-20 is fastest in the world to 60000ft or something like that. (cant remember the exact stats)

One thing about the F-16 which definitely gives it an advantage over the F-20 is the slightly higher mounted wing and landing gear arrangement. Having to stick with the basic F-5E/G roots, the F-20 didn't have the ability to carry much bulky ordnance like fat bombs for the air-to-ground role. I think even sticking an M-61 in the F-20 to replace the twin M39s would be quite a project. Not sure if the airframe can take engines bigger than a F-404 as well, so it may not be able to accept the current 14-15KN class engines being stuffed into the F-16.

One of the few (only?) flying EE Lightings crashed at an airshow in Cape Town (as in South Africa), killing the pilot.

IIRC, those South African guys have about 2 or 4 flyable Lightnings but some guys in the US? are trying to restore one to flying condition as well AFAIK.

Japan's answer to not getting the F-22 looks a lot like...... an F-22! (well a bit at least.)

Shinshin ATD-X

'Three Boards Type Vector Nozzle Engine!'...... hmmmmm, where have we seen that before?

there is a serious lack of Gatling gun on all three of these.

Mega Beam Launcher!

I think there are several scans of the ships lineart somewhere in my HD, I'll post them here if you want, I got them from 4chan few months ago.

PLEASE DO! Thank You!!!

I currently have Vol 2 and Vol 1 is in the mail right now.

Does anybody here collect these? I kind of want all of them but they are really really expensive for such tiny little things.

Is there a web site out there which shows the line art and names of the ships in the story? I really have no idea which is which except for the more famous ones like the Rio Grande and the Brunhilde.

I do hope this one sells well. Wouldn't hurt our chances of a smaller version coming.

You know, I paid a GOOD amount of dough for the 1/5 scale Minmay, and likewise, just bought all 3 1/1 scale helmets.

You....have...all....three....of......those.....1/1.....helmets!?!??!?!??!

Polyurethane Resin. Not sure what exact spec they are using but it PE is used for stuff like the rocker covers on your car engine and dashboard mouldings. Its quite different from the typical resin used in garage kits.

I wouldn't cuss out Yamato for pricing it over-the-top. I'm thankful that there are a bunch of banzai nutters out there making this stuff so I can at least look at pretty pics.

After all, 200k x 100 units = approx usd 200k. Its not a _lot_ of money for a company to make given the effort and costs needed to do a project like this.

Hmmm, this does make the 38 inch Executor I was eyeing look cheap though.

The story of the WW II Yamato is tragic. Dunno if you can call the anime nationalistic, seems more a tale of redemption. Besides there was even a Star Trek ship called Yamato and that didn't even raise an eyebrow.

I would think there is definitely an element of nationalism in it. But as stated previously, Hollywood does it 100000x more.

In any case, Uchu Senkan Mutsu, Uchu Senkan Kirishima, Uchu Senkan Mikasa or Uchu Senkan Fuso doesn't quite have the same ring as UCHU SENKAN YAMATO right?

From the Cinefex issue for "Aliens" :

"When we got it the vehicle weighed seventy-two tons. The outer structure was four-inch plate steel and the wheel arches were lined with lead."

Eh? 4 inch steel plate for the outer structure??!?! That seems crazy. It would be quite a lot cheaper to use lead I would think!

Hard to find specs for those, but this is one of the larger ones (won't do a 747, but most anything else): http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/00...le/specs_page_2

Bigger one, fewer specs, but an interesting note: http://www.douglas-equipment.com/uploads/p...d765c9a18a5.pdf

112,000lbs of tractive effort exceeds that of most any steam locomotive. Though it has the huge advantage of using rubber tires on pavement, instead of slick steel tires on steel rails.

Cool. Thanks David. 70 tons. I understand that most of that is lead?

Got interested because I just found out that the M577 from Aliens was built over one.

Got a question on those commercial aircraft towing trucks. Is there a good site out there for their pics and technical specs? I am curious what engines they use, how much they weigh, what kind of torque figures they are chucking out, are they AWD etc etc.

Meh, give me the F1 8 days of the week. The Veyron is an aesthetic vulgarity---looks like a dung beetle, with wheels.

Quite a testament to the F1, really. Unless you take them to a place with vast expanses of straight, perfectly smooth highway--like Abu Dhabi? the high deserts of CA? etc--that 17+ year old McLaren will hand the Bugatti it's a$$.

Now, I agree 100% with you on the aesthetics. Gimme the F1 anyday too. I really HATE how each successive generation of cars get bloated on dimensions and weight.

However, in some defence of the Veyron Porker, it has to comply with Euro 4 and current 'Crash' legislation. The F1 would be slightly 'crippled' too if it was to be sold as a new model in 2009.

Having said that. I DO wish they would use all these 2009 'Overtechnology' and do a McLaren F1a*

using the same light weight cost be damned philosophy.

*Because F2 just doesnt sound cool.

hell no, way too much waste heat generated and minimum range limitiation.

multiple medium lasers, plus skillful use of line of sight blocking terrain, is the way to go.

Bah! You lot of Atavistic Level 1 techies. My Clan ERPPC says 'Nyah! Nyah! Freebirth Apes!'

Canadians - what I was trying to get across is that I can't name any names from 1940 off the top of my head;

I think Woodward was flying in Africa with 33 Squadron before 1940.

I asked this question back on the old thread that got locked due to political 'debates'.

1. Are NATO reporting names classifed? I thought there were not. (and if so, how come the J-10 hasn't got one yet?)

2. Are NATO reporting names for Soviet-Bloc/Russian Aircraft and their derivatives only? e.g. Non NATO fighters like the Viggen or Kfir did not get a NATO reporting name AFAIK. But Soviet-Bloc derivatives like the 'Fantan' got one. Or is it some 'Good guys/Bad guys' kinda thing?

Don't yell at me for being the odd one out in this thread but I just find find the current SW merchandise really boring. Ok, so stuff like the Fine Molds Falcon is nice (but I am not a hardcore M Falcon fan enough to pay that kind of money _and_ spend months building it).

Until Fine Molds makes an Executor (or even a vanilla ISD), i'm gonna be yawning.

No one mentiond pulling the lever marked 'G' yet huh?

In the PC version, I am always amazed at how benign the Me-262 is (aside from the flaming engines!).

In a P-51 or Bf109 or Fw190, you yank the controls too hard (esp on the Fw-190) and the plane WILL spin.

In a Me-262, you can jerk the thing any which way you want and although it will stall, it doesn't spin.

I can't quite imagine the real life Me-262 being so easy to fly.

If you guys have a PC, might as well just play the PC version right? Does the console version have better graphics? I doubt it has even half the number of flyable planes the PC has?

Considering its an 'old' game, the PC required specs are quite low for today.

They made one for Xbox?

I have been playing the PC version for the past 5 yrs. AMAZING GAME.

Its not perfect but its the best WW2 flight sim so far. By the last 1946 expansion, the sheer amount of planes you could fly was staggering.

SWOTL, EAW and IL2. I think i spent the most of my PC gaming time on these 3.

This is kinda OT for this thread but considering that valks use nuclear engines, any overboost would be just revving the turbines up faster rather than 'real' afterburners. Maybe thats why the fluff states 'overboost' rather than 'afterburners'.

Of course they could dump the nuclear fuel into the exhaust and blow it up via some OT fission/fusion method and get a real huge bang but thats rather ehm, un-environmentally friendly?

Back to the thread. Where did this J-XX photochop come from? Is it based on some Ace Combat cut-scene? Love the YF-23 homage. Pretty good photochop too. Can even see the reflection on the hanger floor. Canopy looks like it came from some Airfix kit though.

jxx.bmp

Oh and Ghost Train, yeah it reminded me of that, but in Mac+ the YF-21 went to burner to accelerate away so fast, in the video the real YF-23 was still in mil power.

Do post VF-0 valks actually have afterburners? I always assumed those 'flames' were just higher power settings rather then traditional afterburners (of the injecting fuel into the exhaust variety).

Agree with the retcon idea totally.

I have been hoping for years (since the 3rd movie actually) that someone in Hollywood with the gonads would just make a movie called Alien2 or Aliens2 and get the hell back on track.

Heck, if I was the one calling the shots, I'd do both. Alien2 doing the dark gothic thriller thing and Aliens2* doing the Gatling gun dropship multi missile pulse rifle toting trash talking Colonial Marine interstellar gunboat milspec fest.

I'd support a spin off simply called 'Colonial Marines' too. Even if it had no xenomorphs in it.