Chronocidal

Quick and easy (read ghetto) way to fix a loose speedbrake: double up a piece of scotch tape, and stick it inside. Worked for me. I may remove it later though for something better. I'm wondering, is there any way to tighten the black piece the head is attached to? The head rotates fine on the panel, but when in fighter mode, the head rattles around quite a bit. The mount inside the nose seems a bit loose. Btw, is the VF-1J's heatshield painted, or solid plastic?? I'm not too worried about the painted stripe, but I'm wondering if they used clear plastic and just painted it, meaning it will eventually be transparent if the paint comes off.

Just got mine in the mail the other day, appears to be in very good shape (kinda got a surprise when the box came... it was shipped in a Yamato packing box labeled "CONTENTS: 1/48 VF-1S HIKARU 4 PCS" ). I have noticed a couple of things, but they're not anything serious. My speedbrake is a little floppy, and pops open about 1/16th of an inch in battroid (I may just put some double sided tape inside to keep it closed), and the head's a little loose, and rattles around a little in fighter mode, but that's it for the actual fighter. I did notice some scuffing though, not on the fighter, but on the back boosters. Most noticeably, there's a pretty big gouge out of the bottom of one of the boosters. Fortunately, it's toward the inside, and on the bottom, so it'll never be seen anyway. Aside from that, and a tiny bit of overspray on one intake, this thing is absolutely beautiful. I love the TV hands.. Personally, I think they look much better than the normal ones, and they're all I use. It's funny... I'm so afraid to put any stress on this thing... I must've taken an hour to transform it the first time.

Here's some rear details.. the doors aren't visible in this part, but they're not too hard to figure out.

*Screwed up post, see below*

Here's some landing gear details.... I would've sent these by email, but my email doesn't like attachments sometimes.

K, here's a couple of shots that may help... I should'a known those were placeholders.. no way you'd leave them on a plane that beautiful.

Agreed.. that thing looks beautiful.... Personally, I'd add more detail to the landing gear though. Right now, they look kinda like donuts on pipes. It looks like the rest of the model is based off the 1/60th, so I'm guessing that's where that comes from. For detailed landing gear your best bet is to look at the Hasegawa kit, if you have one. They look about as true to life as you can get. If you need scans of instructions, I'd be glad to help out.

Hehe.. well, there ya go. I thought about getting the Angel Birds version at a hobby shop since it was the only one there, but I held out and got the VF-1J later online.

LOLOLOL.... Imagine the pranks you could pull with that material... I've got a couple of Matrix-fan friends.. just think.. you go in one day, and wallpaper their room with this stuff. :D:D:D Be a great candid camera type of joke. Too bad they didn't have this for making the Movie TRON.. would've saved em a ton in special effects costs.

Also, I think Guld knew it was a suicide mission... it makes sense that he felt guilty for all that had happened. When he finally realized what had happened all those years ago, it seemed to me like he wanted to atone for it, and make sure that Isamu and Myung would both make it out alive. One other thing... Considering that Guld was entirely linked into the YF-21's computers, I doubt he would have had any chance to defeat Sharon. Where Isamu could shatter his viewscreen, and fly by his own sight, Guld depended on the flight computers for EVERYTHING, including vision.. She could have changed what he saw without even bothering to hypnotize him, because all the visual systems were electronic. All she had to do was make the computer think the plane was pointing a different direction than it was, and steer Guld right into the ground. >_<

Here's an idea for you.. Try an Angelbirds VF-1D. No, seriously.... Today, the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds both have a number 7 aircraft, and possibly more. They're used when one of the aircraft is in for repairs, I imagine, cause they can easily repaint the tail numbers to replace another aircraft. But they also serve another purpose: publicity. I have oodles of beautiful photos of both the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds in flight, some from within the cockpit. Now, trust me, you're not going to have a free hand to snap photos when your canopy is a few inches away from smacking into someone's wingtip. That's where the two-seaters come in. The back seater can be there to take photos of the group in flight. They don't usually perform with the group unless another aircraft breaks down, but they probably hang around quite a bit at practices and photo-shoots, taking up-close and personal shots of the planes. I actually have a photo of the Blue Angels from a distance, showing the main group in formation, planes 1-4.. however, in this shot, number 4 is actually a two-seater Hornet! You also often see the extra planes at airshows. Sometimes, they'll leave one aircraft parked as a display for the crowd to look at up close, or it may be parked off in the distance as a flyable backup in case of a problem. At one airshow I've been to, they actually switched aircraft mid-show when one plane had a hydraulic problem. He landed, then a few minutes later, took off in a two seater F-18, and they continued the show. It was actually a better show than usual, cause the soloists did some extra stuff to stall for time while the planes were switched. So, it really makes sense that any flight demonstration team would probably have one or two two-seater planes. Besides, you've gotta have that extra seat to pull the obligatory publicity stunt, and give some contest-winner, or VIP a ride.

Then there's the G-Gundam method of the "trace-suit" which basically has the person wear a weird suit that translates all their movements into mechanical motion.. still falls apart at the idea of how they walk, jump etc... see, if you jump, so does the mech.. but then, how are you jumping, if the floor rises with you? Also, I have yet to see it explained how the walking works.. eventually, you'd run into the cockpit wall... so it's got some sort of omni-directional treadmill floor?? I agree, personally, the matrix-plug style interface is probably the only thing that would give true-to-anime control. Of course, when you think about it, in games, you can control a complex mecha with only a nintento controller... all the calculations are pre-programmed, so all you have to do to walk is press "forward." Maybe, to some extent, the mech is programmed to always balance itself etc, and all you have to do is control which direction it moves in... the AI does the rest. It's pretty unbelievable, yes, but considering they have metal which can change it's own structure on command (like the YF-21's wings in Mac+) it's not too hard to imagine.

Here's a reference pic from DYRL that's from another thread about a CG Valk... DYRL Cockpit Looks like the cockpit had a side-mounted joystick, and a change-o-matic throttle control that would change configuration for different modes. No idea how that would control the thing though.

Actually, that would be rather helpful. I have an Italeri F-14B kit that's beyond strange... they actually did change the back end, and gave the kit a cockpit upgrade.. sort of (the cockpit's kinda bland). But what they did was simply chop off the back end, and added a strange kind of mounting ring that actually mounts the nozzles ahead of the back edge of the stabilizers... very weird. I've never seen an actual plane that looked like this kit.. it seems really unlikely, though, because of the way the stab is mounted.. it looks like the nozzle would be unable to open all the way without hitting it. I'll have to see if I can get a pic of this thing.. it looks like a whole section of fuselage is flat out missing.

Actually, I think the B originally used yet another engine... For a while, they tested it with two of a different type of engine, one that had a nozzle that resembled an F-15 more than an F-16C...most of this comes from model kits though, so it may not match real life.. all I know is that F-16C kits often come with a new nozzle that often is divided up into individual petals that must be glued together. The F-14 D kit came with those nozzles. The F-14B on the other hand, from all reference photos, has nozzles that resemble the nozzles of an F-15C, with the "petals" still attached... these nozzles are more streamlined to the airframe, and in my opinion, actually looked better when fully open than the other nozzles... I'm gonna check an F-14 book, it lists the actual engines used, which have slipped my mind at the moment.. I think one was GE, and the other was Pratt and Whittney...but I don't remember which was which. Edit: Ok, can't find the book.. maybe someone else knows for sure... but I know the F-14 was tested with another type of engine.. something in me wants to say they were modified engines from the B-1 bomber, but that could be my lack of sleep.

LOL.. I made that last night, just to see how it would look if I traced over the instructions. I was able to find my YF-19 instructions, and scan them in... so I figured I'd try and make some line art from them. That pic is just a tracing. I made a transparent layer over the instruction scan, and traced all the details, then saved it to a new image. It was really pretty easy to do, actually. I may do more of them if I can find more high res instruction scans. I'll send the big version to you pronto.

Hehe.. I'm gonna start saving up now... my major's aeronautical engineering, and the upper division courses actually delve into flight testing a bit.. I'm gonna have to see about getting a license before then so I can actually fly stuff when we get the chance. As for presents.. nothing jaw-droppingly amazing, but great stuff none the less. New computer speakers, flash drive, couple of dvds, fun stuff. But I honestly enjoyed buying stuff for other people more this year.. I found some things that my family was really happy to get... especially my dad. They've released the entire first season of the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons on dvd, and he's been cracking up all week watching those shows. My self-present should be coming in the mail soon.. bought myself a long promised gift, and got a 1/48 VF-1J with FAST packs.

Heheh.. the oldest (and until a few months ago the ONLY) Macross (sort of) kit I have is an old Testors kit of the VF-1J in 1/200 scale! The thing is tiny... barely two inches long, and screwed/glued together.. the head probes, missiles, landing gear, etc. are long gone, but it's still in pretty good shape.. needs to be repainted though, I tried to chrome certain parts of it when I first discovered model paint at about age 9. I think I got it some time around 1987 or so.. maybe '88, I was too young to remember. I only bought it cause I thought it looked cool, and, not having seen anything even remotely related to Macross or even Robotech, I had no idea what it actually was. I just assumed it was some kind of strange looking Tomcat (yes, at age 3, I was obsessed with airplanes, and could name who knows how many ). It was years before I happened to buy a Joke Machine VF-1J at a toy store, and noticed the resemblance between the two.

LOL... actually, if you get the right kit, it's very easy to do an F-14A/D... when they started modifying the plane, Monogram started including extra parts in it's 1/48th Tomcat kit.. the kit was the same as the old one, with all the old cockpit details, old style seats, and such.. but on a separate tree, they included new engine nozzles, and a new sensor pack for under the nose. Note, just the nozzles for the engines, they left out the new exhaust cans, requiring you to make something from scratch if you want to use the newer style nozzles. The result is a weird hybrid, that I'm not sure is accurate for any time period. Monogram still sells two versions of the Tomcat, the D-Model "Super Tomcat," and the original high-vis schemed A-model. I know the D-Model comes with the complete new engines, but the cockpit may still be the old style. I'll have to check the kit. As for the A-model kit, I haven't bought the newest release of it, so I don't know what it includes anymore. Also, I agree.. the Tomcat's an absolutely beautiful aircraft.... It's gonna be a sad, sad day when they finally manage to come up with something to replace it.

Ok... looks like it's your lucky day! Looky what I found I've also got a REALLY big version that's twice this size, if you want it.... but it won't fit on the boards.

Well, you may be able to find scans of the instructions if you look real hard around modeling sites.. you might even be able to get someone with the model to scan you a copy. I'd check the Macross Model forum, I think someone recently requested a scan of those instructions. I left the model at my dorm (no way to pack it in my suitcase without crushing it) but if I manage to find the instructions while I'm home, I'll see what I can do.

The earthquake was felt for pretty long here, and we live right in the middle of the central valley, near Fresno.. shook us up kinda good, but no damage or injuries near here were reported.. it was really weird though. It must've gone on for a good minute, just a slow rolling motion. I couldn't really tell when it stopped, because I was standing, and even after it stopped, I still was swaying back and forth, just from my nerves (and the fact that I'd been awake for a grand total of 10 minutes before it came). What's amazing is the stuff in the news today.. apparently there's been another 6.5 quake, this time in Iran... the government's estimating the death toll to be near twenty thousand with another fifty thousand or so wounded.. buildings there simply crumbled. I think they only thing that kept the quake from causing more damage when it hit was it's depth... they said the quake started something like 5 miles below the surface. For once, I kind of appreciate the strict building codes in CA as well.. only one building collapsed in Paso Robles, I think.... the overhead view of the city in Iran looked like a war zone.

Question... if the valk's 1/555, how on earth did you ever read that name???

Hehe.. I've actually got a ton.. but they're all back in my dorm. None of em are actually line art though, they're all black and white scans from the Hasegawa kit instructions. They're quite a bit different from the version above though... the proportions of the kit are changed somewhat from the original design.

Judging by that comparison, I'd say that factory fresh aircraft are definitely fully painted. Also, from a modeler's perspective, if you research certain aircraft, they are painted in specific shades of colors, mostly flat shades of grey. That top Tomcat looks completely dull. Actually, they both do, but the lower one seems much darker.. I'd attribute this to a combination of things, mainly, accumulated dirt, oil, grease, etc (you can't run a Tomcat through your local Chevron auto-wash after all). The paint may also be wearing thin, and we're seeing through slightly to the metal underneath. Also, one thing about flat paint: if you rub it enough, it polishes to a dull shine. Simple friction with the air would probably be enough to polish planes to some extent, while panel lines would probably catch more air, and either shine up the paint quite a bit, or wear it off entirely. If you look closely, on those worn Tomcats, the nose cone is the shiniest part, while on the freshly painted one, the nose doesn't reflect at all (the shine on the canopy stops suddenly at the edge of the glass). Since the nose and leading edges of the wings receive the brunt of the friction during flight, it makes sense that they are glossier than the rest of the plane. Imperfections in the smoothness of the metal may also play a part... if some section of the fuselage is even a millimeter above the section behind it, that higher portion will receive much more friction in flight, and will probably wear faster. Newer aircraft may indeed use bare composite parts, but in the case of a supposedly stealthy aircraft like the F-22, they most likely have a special "stealth paint" they use that reduces radar returns, and those parts would probably be coated with that. Now, whether that coating is clear or colored, I couldn't say. Seen in that light, weathering would probably have to be done in two parts: one, in the color map, where paint is visibly darker from dirt, or visibly blotchy where paint has worn off part way, and two, in the specular map, where the specular level will be higher on high-wear surfaces like control surface edges and nose cones, blending to darker shades in the less exposed areas. Also the two types would have to interact somewhat.. ie, you're not going to find much dirt on the leading edge of a wing or tail, since these areas get blasted by the full force of the air (and any pollution, dust, etc. that's in it ). So, in the case of the Valkyrie, that means several key areas will be noticeably shinier than the rest of the plane... the nose cone and the leading edges of the wings and tails should be obvious.. but also the area around the upper intakes of the chest plate should be included (it's very exposed) as well as any other obvious thing that would cause drag: the fronts of the small pods on the sides of the nose and intakes, the leading edges of the intakes themselves, the front and top of the battroid's head, even possibly the tops of the shoulders, since they're flat and facing forward in flight. You could probably get a good idea where the air would wear down the paint with a spotlight.. just set up a spotlight directly ahead of the plane (in line with it's normal, level flight angle of attack) in an otherwise perfectly dark environment.. the places that are lit should be glossier, and as the light fades, so should the glossiness. It's a rough model, but I guess it could work to give an idea of which parts get the most wear from friction.