ewilen

Fatalist, you're forgetting the Max 1A (TV style). And there are two Kakizakis that haven't been done: TV and DYRL. That's aside from the obscure Valks that people have mentioned earlier in the thread. Not to mention the clown VF-1's from M7.

I've only seen a tiny bit of Gundam...anyway, I really like Keith's explanation. And just to throw something in that's slightly relevant... I've read that in 1939, Polish cavalry used lances against the panzers...but when I double-checked the story just now, it seems the story is apocryphal. Bummer. I've also read that the Russian tanks at Prokhorovka (a part of the battle of Kursk in 1943) resorted to ramming the German panzers when they ran out of ammo or had their guns disabled...but recent research apparently has debunked much of that story. And so another great military story bites the dust...damn.

from maporama decimal deg-min-sec latitude 37.8634 37° 51' 48" longitude -122.2647 -122° 15' 52" from travelgis decimal deg-min-sec latitude 37.8634371168162 37° 51' 48.3736205383" longitude -122.264716483162 -122° 15' 52.9793393832"

Jets use air for three (sometimes four or five) things: 1) The oxygen is needed to burn the fuel, thus releasing heat energy. 2) The heat expands compressed air in the engine, causing it to shoot out the back in a jet. 3) In addition to pushing the aircraft forward, the jet of hot air drives a turbine, which is connected to a compressor at the front of the engine. The compressor compresses the air for use in (2). 4) Sometimes, additional fuel is sprayed into the hot air as it exits the turbine. This combusts and makes the air hotter, so it expands and shoots out the back even faster. This pushes the aircraft faster. 5) Sometimes, part of the turbine mechanism is used to drive a fan in front of the compressor. This fan pushes air through ducts in the engine that bypass the combustion chamber. Said air then exits the engine at the back and provides additional thrust. In general, jets use air both as an oxydizer for the fuel, and as reaction mass to provide thrust. The reaction mass is dumped out the back of the engines, with total thrust being determined by the total reaction mass and its velocity. (The jet fuel is also a component of the reaction mass, but a relatively minor one.) Rockets use air for, well, nothing. Chemical rockets carry their fuel and oxydizer internally, and the chemical reaction product (e.g., water produced by mixing and burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) is the reaction mass. Other types of rockets might separate the source of energy from the reaction mass, and require no oxydizer. For example, a nuclear rocket would use a nuclear reaction (fission or fusion) to produce heat energy which is then applied to an internally-carried reaction mass (such as water or pure hydrogen), causing it to expand and exit the rear of the rocket at high velocity, producing thrust. Another example is a toy water rocket--the energy is provided by compressed air, while the bulk of the reaction mass comes from water.

Haven't found any pictures of 161867 yet but I did find a few good sources for 157986. This particular aircraft is now in a museum in New York! http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/museums/ny/isasm/157986.htm Numerous pictures of it on this Japanese page: http://www.afwing.com/gallery/f14b.htm Here it is in flight: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-grumman-14.htm (Are the engines different in that picture from the museum display? Another in-flight pictures, toward the middle of this Spanish page: http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/super...omcat/historia/ Still wondering though if 161867 might be (or have been at one time) pretty close to Shin's also. From what I can glean on the web, it seems like may have had F110's at one point but still had an A-style cockpit.

Cyanoacrylate glue (Krazy Glue) applied to a gap which has had baking soda or talcum powder stuffed into it to provide a matrix for the glue.

For the record, the next time I do any modelling, I plan on giving one of the putties mentioned in this thread a try instead of using CA (or the crappy Testor's tube putty I started with). But I'll mention one last advantage of the CA/powder approach--it doesn't shrink at all.

Impressive observations, David. I'm wondering, though. It sounds like, of all real world F-14's, Shin's is closest to No. 161867, the sole F-14D prototype that used F110's. Could it be that this particular aircraft had other characteristics of Shin's as well, such as the A-style cockpit, and maybe, just maybe, the oddly-placed ECM bump? But as for the glove pylon weirdness, it's hard to imagine how that could have come from the prototype--IOW, I'd be surprised if it isn't a pure goof by Fujimi. Let me see if I understand what you mean by 45 degrees off, though. From this picture, it looks like the pylon comes out of the glove at a 45 degree angle, then "splits" down 45 degrees (so pointing straight down) to hold one missile and up 45 degrees (i.e. sideways) to hold the other. While the Fujimi F-14 shown here has the lower "arm" of the pylon simply continuing more or less at the same 45 degree angle instead of going straight down. Is that right? Are there any pictures of No. 161867 anywhere on the web?

If someone has experience mixing CA and powder before applying, then by all means listen to them. It's just that I've never tried it.

I've used baking soda with CA to fill gaps. It hardens quickly, which is good. But it gets harder than the surrounding plastic, which is problematic when you sand. So if you go this route, you should definitely use a sanding block (don't apply the paper directly on the surface by hand); it's also a good idea to mask the area to be sanded. I've also read that the CA/powder mix gets harder over time, so the earlier you sand after it sets, the less of a problem it will be. But I can't vouch for that last point. I did NOT mix the CA with baking soda before applying, and to me that sounds rather dangerous. Instead, I put the powder in the gap to be filled, and then added the CA. Edit: I just want to add that using baking powder sounds like a bad idea. The ingredients in baking powder are intended to react with each other when they're wetted. I don't know what they'd do in the presence of CA but I can't see how baking powder would be any better than baking soda and I can imagine that even if the mixture doesn't bubble up, it could still be a less stable material over time due to slow chemical reactions. Plus, baking powder costs a little more than baking soda.

Would it? I don't know if a laser's barrel would heat up like a gun.

All you have to do is get a complete set of Tomy Macross Diorama figures and you'll have all the parts for the Monster. There should be recent thread on these toys somewhere in the first 2-3 pages of this forum... Anyway, since complete sets go for somewhat less than $50, I don't think the Monsters will end up costing that much.

I agree that the gunpod on a Valk functions much like the Vulcan in a US fighter jet--although it has a higher caliber and lower rate of fire. Guns in modern fighters are short range weapons, though, and the way you use them is to press the trigger just as the target is moving through the space where the shells are going to be, and keep it held down for IIRC about half a second. So the target flies through the "stream" of shells and hopefully gets hit by a few of them. Whether that would work with a beam weapon depends on how long the beam can be sustained. Add to that the fact that the Strike Cannon seems to get used at longish ranges (as shown by Focker's shot). Ultimately I agree that it's probably something we're not supposed to think too much about, but if we want to get techno-geekish about it (and I think Kawamori would approve, based on M0), that's how I think a Strike would work. If the cannon is completely fixed, then I still think the trigger would be computer assisted as I described.

I think we can agree that there's isn't much evidence one way or another so let me offer some speculation... At the ranges/speeds/maneuver rates of space combat as portrayed in Macross, I think it'd be virtually impossible to hit a fighter-sized target using manual aiming (including aiming by pointing your vehicle) unless you have a weapon which fires a sustained "burst". So I'd argue that the Strike Cannon is aimed and/or triggered by computer. It would work something like this: • Pilot (or gunner) designates target. • Motors in cannon-mount aim at target, stabilize weapon; pilot gets a cue telling him the fire control system has developed a continuously updated fire control solution and cannon is ready to fire. • Pilot depresses trigger to tell fire control system to fire at optimal moment. • Fire control system actually controls the precise moment of firing to ensure beam will meet target based on relative motion of cannon (unless stabilization is perfect) and target. (If I'm not mistaken, the cannon mount can only adjust in one dimension, so stabilization can't be perfect.) So using the Strike Cannon may involve a bit of additional training, but I doubt that it requires a deadeye sniper.

Those are some nice pictures of a very nice model. Am I right that it's a 1/72 Lancer II with a 1/72 Valk in the last pic?

No one said they were making all of those. But we really wish they would. But first I want my damned YF-19. Me too, but if they to make those, what would be their sizes? (For the 4th time, but with specs please! Don't hate me now! ) In 1/100, their sizes in centimeters would be the same as the sizes in meters listed in the Compendium. For the DIY-impaired (as Azrael would say), here are the lengths in fighter mode: VF-4: 14.92 cm VA-3M: 15.89 cm VF-5000B: 14.03 cm VF-22S: 19.62 cm VF-19: 18.62 cm VF-17D/S: 15.63 cm VF-3000: no data, but probably a little longer than the VF-1 at 1/100 which is 14.23 cm Edit: divide by 2.54 to convert to inches.

Actually, if I only look at this thing as a toy, I rather like it. If I did buy it, I'd display it in battroid mode, as to me that is the most distinctive and intimidating form. Gerwalk is too close to the basic Monster. OTOH, there's only so much space/funds I'm willing to devote to toys, so I do limit myself to stuff that's actually in the cartoons that I know and enjoy. After all, that's where my primary interest lies. Plus, as cool as the König looks, I find it rather implausible. Yes, the "mobile artillery/dropship" concept makes sense--but why the battroid form?

Helmets. Note that the chin piece in the helmet comes off, at least in the TV version. DYRL version has a much pointier visor. Both this comparison and the suits are from Macross Perfect Memory (TV versions) and This is Animation 10 (DYRL).

Here are a couple of quick and dirty comparisons. Suits:

The answer to the canon/non-canon question can be clarified by two points: 1) The non-canon/alternate universe (MII) stuff in the mecha listing at the Compendium all seem to have notes indicating their relationship to non-canon material. Not conclusive, but suggestive. The Konig Monster just has a normal listing without special notes of that sort. 2) More important, the Chronology includes the way that the various canon works fit together. Both VF-X and VF-X 2 are listed here as part of the main chronology, while MII is mentioned at the bottom as a parallel universe. Macross M3 is also listed as part of the standard chronology (in the preceding section). But even though it's canonical, I think I'll skip the Konig Monster...just not my cup of tea.

I understand your frustration, Aegis, but it's also possible that for every person who asks an obvious question, there are several who do use the search function. You just don't see them.

Since testing was complete and the first full rate production contract had already been awarded by October, 2001, I imagine it would be difficult and expensive to pause, not to mention pointless since it would only put off a necessary expense. That is, unless you consider maintaining the land based missile force optional. http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?D...79376064&num=12

Sorry to disagree with you, David, but the opening paragraph of the report I linked says Or elsewhere See also http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/ns...tives/mmprp.htm Have we been sidetracked sufficiently? Maybe this will help us get back on track. I've only scanned it but it looks like an interesting read: UCAV – THE NEXT GENERATION AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER? By Major William K. Lewis (Thesis Presented to the faculty of the school of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell AFB; PDF, 1 megabyte)

I see. So you're saying that America's land-based nuclear deterrent should be allowed to decline into decrepitude so that we can fund the F/A-22?

As reporters go, James Dunnigan is a great game designer. Actually, I have lots of respect for the man, but he's clearly not going to let facts get in the way of a good story. Here's the environmental assessment report on the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP). PDF format, 2.8 megs. As noted in the report, the motors must be replaced if the Minuteman force is to remain viable through 2020. The environmental stuff is incidental to the replacement program, and environmental considerations went into the design of the new motors to make them "more environmentally safe in production, operation, maintenance and disposal." As one commentor at the strategypage.com site notes, operation is likely to mean test-firing. Thus the environmental protections will help safeguard the health of Americans who live downwind of the missile sites, and near the production and disposal facilities. I don't know where Dunnigan got the info that the new motors will reduce the range of the Minuteman, but since they are fixed missiles with fixed targets, I don't see how it would matter operationally even if true. Also--how is this relevant to the F/A-22?