Time to Procure a Valkyrie
Posted by MikeD
Slightly smaller.
EDIT:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2010 06:06PM by Hellequin.
EDIT:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2010 06:06PM by Hellequin.
Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm too lazy to look this up, but didn't someone
> design add-on parts to fill in the gaps in the
> shoulder areas on the newer 1:60 Yamato Valks?
> Were they any good?
I found the parts I was thinking of. I guess they came with the VF-1J missile-armor thing.
Did Yamato start including these with all the Valks? Can you get them separately?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm too lazy to look this up, but didn't someone
> design add-on parts to fill in the gaps in the
> shoulder areas on the newer 1:60 Yamato Valks?
> Were they any good?
I found the parts I was thinking of. I guess they came with the VF-1J missile-armor thing.
Did Yamato start including these with all the Valks? Can you get them separately?
Warrhead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. Tactical before practical.
Uh, at what point would we consider a valk's paint scheme a tactical decision? When they were picking what primary color they wanted for accent marks and pin-striping, or when they decided that a color like white would be a good "low-contrast" choice against the backdrop of outer space?
Yeah, metal needs to be protected against corrosion. But you can't prime and paint a surface where there's metal-on metal action in a joint. Those areas need to be lubricated. Your superhornet compartment doors can be white on the inside, but the engine itself won't be.
If anything, valks should have a lot more exposed metal on them. Like, at pretty much every one of their joints.
Then again, in a universe where transforming a plane into a humanoid robot is both a) possible and b) desirable, I guess they have the technology to manufacture metal in whatever color they want. So, yeah, valks should be all white. Even in their guts.
Still, you'd think that in a world with giant laser guns, transforming outer-space aircraft carriers, and protocultured yogurt they'd base their transforming white skinned robots on something other than cutting edge 1960s American aerospace engineering...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 08:27AM by Gcrush.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. Tactical before practical.
Uh, at what point would we consider a valk's paint scheme a tactical decision? When they were picking what primary color they wanted for accent marks and pin-striping, or when they decided that a color like white would be a good "low-contrast" choice against the backdrop of outer space?
Yeah, metal needs to be protected against corrosion. But you can't prime and paint a surface where there's metal-on metal action in a joint. Those areas need to be lubricated. Your superhornet compartment doors can be white on the inside, but the engine itself won't be.
If anything, valks should have a lot more exposed metal on them. Like, at pretty much every one of their joints.
Then again, in a universe where transforming a plane into a humanoid robot is both a) possible and b) desirable, I guess they have the technology to manufacture metal in whatever color they want. So, yeah, valks should be all white. Even in their guts.
Still, you'd think that in a world with giant laser guns, transforming outer-space aircraft carriers, and protocultured yogurt they'd base their transforming white skinned robots on something other than cutting edge 1960s American aerospace engineering...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 08:27AM by Gcrush.
Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warrhead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. Tactical before practical.
>
>
> Uh, at what point would we consider a valk's paint
> scheme a tactical decision? When they were
> picking what primary color they wanted for accent
> marks and pin-striping, or when they decided that
> a color like white would be a good "low-contrast"
> choice against the backdrop of outer space?
I agree, white and red pinstripes isn't the best color scheme, but then something that was built to fight in space where there is little light could probably be painted white without too much visibility. The heat signature out there would probably be spotted long before a white spot in a sea of white spots. Closer up, it would still be better to keep the whole thing white. Big glaring grey guts against a white background kind of tell the shooter "aim for these parts!" A homogeenous color scheme still breaks up a vessel's details better than parts of varying colors.
But then there is also command pride. Our show bird number 100 was painted with more contrasting colors than Hikaru's VF-1J, so there are still reasons to paint a fighter in impractical colors. The rest of the birds are painted haze grey though. Tactically painted or not, the show bird still flew in-country and engaged enemy targets.
> Yeah, metal needs to be protected against
> corrosion. But you can't prime and paint a
> surface where there's metal-on metal action in a
> joint. Those areas need to be lubricated. Your
> superhornet compartment doors can be white on the
> inside, but the engine itself won't be.
>
> [toyboxdx.com]
You would be surprised how many moving parts in a superhornet are still painted. The picture you added is a jet engine, and of course you wouldn't paint that. You weren't talking about an engine though, which is always concealed, you were talking about big flat panels that sit under the arms. Those absolutely would be painted. Landing gear struts, actuators, panels, just about everything that can be painted is. Yeah, the push rods for control surfaces and metal on metal parts are not painted, but they are in housings that are painted, and are rarely visible.
> If anything, valks should have a lot more exposed
> metal on them. Like, at pretty much every one of
> their joints.
If you ever get a chance, look at a landing gear actuator assembly on a fighter (perhaps an air show) and you will see that it is almost completely painted. I keep using that as an example because these parts are the closest thing to legs, or any other part that moves in the way that I think you are describing. They move regularly and bear the vessel's entire weight. Lots of moving parts that all appear to be painted, but internally, they are metal on metal. Anywhere there isn't paint, there is lube. You see very little of the metal.
If anything, valks would probably be made of a lot more composite materials.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 02:39PM by Warrhead.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warrhead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. Tactical before practical.
>
>
> Uh, at what point would we consider a valk's paint
> scheme a tactical decision? When they were
> picking what primary color they wanted for accent
> marks and pin-striping, or when they decided that
> a color like white would be a good "low-contrast"
> choice against the backdrop of outer space?
I agree, white and red pinstripes isn't the best color scheme, but then something that was built to fight in space where there is little light could probably be painted white without too much visibility. The heat signature out there would probably be spotted long before a white spot in a sea of white spots. Closer up, it would still be better to keep the whole thing white. Big glaring grey guts against a white background kind of tell the shooter "aim for these parts!" A homogeenous color scheme still breaks up a vessel's details better than parts of varying colors.
But then there is also command pride. Our show bird number 100 was painted with more contrasting colors than Hikaru's VF-1J, so there are still reasons to paint a fighter in impractical colors. The rest of the birds are painted haze grey though. Tactically painted or not, the show bird still flew in-country and engaged enemy targets.
> Yeah, metal needs to be protected against
> corrosion. But you can't prime and paint a
> surface where there's metal-on metal action in a
> joint. Those areas need to be lubricated. Your
> superhornet compartment doors can be white on the
> inside, but the engine itself won't be.
>
> [toyboxdx.com]
You would be surprised how many moving parts in a superhornet are still painted. The picture you added is a jet engine, and of course you wouldn't paint that. You weren't talking about an engine though, which is always concealed, you were talking about big flat panels that sit under the arms. Those absolutely would be painted. Landing gear struts, actuators, panels, just about everything that can be painted is. Yeah, the push rods for control surfaces and metal on metal parts are not painted, but they are in housings that are painted, and are rarely visible.
> If anything, valks should have a lot more exposed
> metal on them. Like, at pretty much every one of
> their joints.
If you ever get a chance, look at a landing gear actuator assembly on a fighter (perhaps an air show) and you will see that it is almost completely painted. I keep using that as an example because these parts are the closest thing to legs, or any other part that moves in the way that I think you are describing. They move regularly and bear the vessel's entire weight. Lots of moving parts that all appear to be painted, but internally, they are metal on metal. Anywhere there isn't paint, there is lube. You see very little of the metal.
If anything, valks would probably be made of a lot more composite materials.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2010 02:39PM by Warrhead.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
