 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hey Jon,
I’m not sure if you meant to be funny or serious but I think the Berserker is
absolutely hilarious! It borders on looking like one of those crackpot flying
contraptions from old movie reels of the early days of aviation. This airplane
is definitely a departure from reality and alternate reality, to the point that
it actually steps backward and ignores the advances and conventional wisdom in
warplane designs of the WWII era.
For example, the bi-wing in the front creates a tremendous blind spot for both
crewmen (I assume one is a pilot and the other is a navigator or bombardier?).
Perhaps the top wing is for extra lift because of the huge gat in front? If so,
it may be pointless since the top wing limits crucial visibility in air-to-air
combat. I believe that’s one reason why bi-plane fighters were replaced by
mono-planes in WWII.
Speaking of visibility problems, that big central engine creates a HUGE lateral
blind spot for the pilot (whichever side he or she is on). The poor pilot has
absolutely no clue what’s happening on the other side of that big ass engine. I
guess the guy or gal on the opposite side must be there as a lookout? Or do they
trade off piloting the plane in combat, depending on which side the bad guy is
on? Or was the Kenworth design team just drunk when they designed this thing?
Another design flaw is situating the crew on the wings. This is a very risky
move because both crewmen are totally exposed to gunfire. There doesn’t seem to
be much cockpit armor to protect them from direct hits or even ricochets off the
other surfaces around them. And the poor saps could get shot clean off the
fuselage along with the wing. Also, if the engine gets hit directly, both
crewmen are totally screwed if it explodes. Since most of the engine is in the
rear of the plane, the odds of a direct hit are much, much greater. With the
added drag from those huge pontoons, this airplane is guaranteed to spend most
of its combat time with it’s tail in the gun sights of the enemy, eventually
lighting up the sky with a spectacular fireball.
So I think the Berserker sucks as a warplane and I’m hoping that was your
intent. Otherwise, I’m sorry to rag on your MOC and your effort. On the positive
side, it certainly is a very masterfully built Lego model. The SNOT building is
superb! I also dig the color scheme and the way you used the pieces to
accomplish it. This MOC offers lots of cool details and building ideas and your
presentation is excellent, as always.
--Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Daniel Jassim wrote:
| |
So I think the Berserker sucks as a warplane and I’m hoping that was your
intent. Otherwise, I’m sorry to rag on your MOC and your effort. On the
positive side, it certainly is a very masterfully built Lego model. The SNOT
building is superb! I also dig the color scheme and the way you used the
pieces to accomplish it. This MOC offers lots of cool details and building
ideas and your presentation is excellent, as always.
|
Dan, you have completely failed to consider the important things:
1) How well does this MOC whoosh?
2) Big honkin’ gun!
3) Looks cool.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.military, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
Dan, you have completely failed to consider the important things:
1) How well does this MOC whoosh?
2) Big honkin’ gun!
3) Looks cool.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
Hmmmm.
Airforce.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
Dan, you have completely failed to consider the important things:
1) How well does this MOC whoosh?
2) Big honkin’ gun!
3) Looks cool.
|
Nah, I dig it as a Lego MOC. Jon did a great job all around, as always. Don’t
get me wrong. The criticism is really against Kenworth Industires for designing
a “flying deathtrap-for-two.” They need to stick to trucks.
--Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Daniel Jassim wrote:
| |
Hey Jon,
I’m not sure if you meant to be funny or serious but I think the Berserker is
absolutely hilarious! It borders on looking like one of those crackpot flying
contraptions from old movie reels of the early days of aviation. This
airplane is definitely a departure from reality and alternate reality, to the
point that it actually steps backward and ignores the advances and
conventional wisdom in warplane designs of the WWII era.
|
Jassim with the smack! Sounds good to me.
I’ll address your points and knock them down like the thrift-store mega bloks
they are.
| |
For example, the bi-wing in the front creates a tremendous blind spot for
both crewmen (I assume one is a pilot and the other is a navigator or
bombardier?). Perhaps the top wing is for extra lift because of the huge gat
in front? If so, it may be pointless since the top wing limits crucial
visibility in air-to-air combat. I believe that’s one reason why bi-plane
fighters were replaced by mono-planes in WWII.
|
The canard was inspired by the one on the Wright Flyer. When I was building this
I actually made sure the cockpits were placed in just the right spot so they
could see through the wings fine. And the red supports up front don’t really
block the view either. And also, it looks cool.
| |
Speaking of visibility problems, that big central engine creates a HUGE
lateral blind spot for the pilot (whichever side he or she is on). The poor
pilot has absolutely no clue what’s happening on the other side of that big
ass engine. I guess the guy or gal on the opposite side must be there as a
lookout? Or do they trade off piloting the plane in combat, depending on
which side the bad guy is on? Or was the Kenworth design team just drunk when
they designed this thing?
|
I dunno man. Maybe it’s like my H-wing. Working together the 2 pilots can form a
good picture of the world around them like a left and right eye. Of course these
pilots aren’t Jedi...they just rawk.
And Kenworth wasn’t drunk *but* there was a fairly good supply of cheap beer in
*my* fridge.
| |
Another design flaw is situating the crew on the wings. This is a very risky
move because both crewmen are totally exposed to gunfire. There doesn’t seem
to be much cockpit armor to protect them from direct hits or even ricochets
off the other surfaces around them. And the poor saps could get shot clean
off the fuselage along with the wing. Also, if the engine gets hit directly,
both crewmen are totally screwed if it explodes. Since most of the engine is
in the rear of the plane, the odds of a direct hit are much, much greater.
With the added drag from those huge pontoons, this airplane is guaranteed to
spend most of its combat time with it’s tail in the gun sights of the enemy,
eventually lighting up the sky with a spectacular fireball.
|
Ok now you’re just talkin’ crazy. How can minifigs even shoot at each other?
They don’t even have fingers!
Obviously you did not think of this, and therefore acted like an idiot, and
therefore I humiliate you.[1]
I’m definitely thinking this is revenge for when I picked apart the Dragonstar.
All’s fair though.
| |
So I think the Berserker sucks as a warplane and I’m hoping that was your
intent. Otherwise, I’m sorry to rag on your MOC and your effort. On the
positive side, it certainly is a very masterfully built Lego model. The SNOT
building is superb! I also dig the color scheme and the way you used the
pieces to accomplish it. This MOC offers lots of cool details and building
ideas and your presentation is excellent, as always.
|
Thanks for the smack and the complements. Good times.
[1] Thems more jokes, kids.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.military, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Obviously you did not think of this, and therefore acted like an idiot, and
therefore I humiliate you.[1]
I’m definitely thinking this is revenge for when I picked apart the
Dragonstar. All’s fair though.
| |
So I think the Berserker sucks as a warplane and I’m hoping that was your
intent. Otherwise, I’m sorry to rag on your MOC and your effort. On the
positive side, it certainly is a very masterfully built Lego model. The SNOT
building is superb! I also dig the color scheme and the way you used the
pieces to accomplish it. This MOC offers lots of cool details and building
ideas and your presentation is excellent, as always.
|
Thanks for the smack and the complements. Good times.
[1] Thems more jokes, kids.
|
almost forgot the punchline...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.military, Jon Palmer wrote:
| |
Thanks for the smack and the complements. Good times.
[1] Thems more jokes, kids.
|
almost forgot the punchline...
|
NICE... how do you find things like that? :)
-JHK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, John Henry Kruer wrote:
| |
NICE... how do you find things like that? :)
|
Careful. People who ask Jon that question tend to get dragged off by the nice
men in black suits.
Soren
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer wrote:
Jassim with the smack! Sounds good to me.
I’ll address your points and knock them down like the thrift-store mega bloks
they are.
|
I’m Rick James, b*%#h. What did the five fingers say to the face? *slap!*
| |
The canard was inspired by the one on the Wright Flyer. When I was building
this I actually made sure the cockpits were placed in just the right spot so
they could see through the wings fine. And the red supports up front don’t
really block the view either. And also, it looks cool.
|
Werd.
| |
I dunno man. Maybe it’s like my H-wing. Working together the 2 pilots can
form a good picture of the world around them like a left and right eye. Of
course these pilots aren’t Jedi...they just rawk.
|
Better yet, just say it was an experimental airplane with telepathic mutant
pilots.
| |
And Kenworth wasn’t drunk *but* there was a fairly good supply of cheap beer
in *my* fridge.
|
I knew it!
| |
Ok now you’re just talkin’ crazy. How can minifigs even shoot at each other?
They don’t even have fingers!
Obviously you did not think of this, and therefore acted like an idiot, and
therefore I humiliate you.[1]
|
LOL!
| |
I’m definitely thinking this is revenge for when I picked apart the
Dragonstar. All’s fair though.
|
Revenge? Me?! (quickly hides tattered picture of Jon on dartboard) Whatchya
talkin’ about, buddy? I would never uh, ummm... Me???
| |
Thanks for the smack and the complements. Good times.
|
Sorry again if I picked it apart too much. You really did an excellent job of
building and presentation. Maybe my humor detector sucks because when I first
saw it I couldn’t tell if you deliberately made this design ambigious and were
spoofing Kenworth switching from making semi-trucks to warplanes (even calling
it the Berserker). I thought it was a gag but I guess the joke is on me.
But the “smack” is strictly about the realism, not Lego building skillz. Yeah, I
know the Crimson Skies shizzle is supposed to be fictional anyway but the idea
is to take artistic design liberties within the technological limitations of the
WWII era. That said, I just think this design is too odd and impractical and is
technologically inferior compared to most of the other CS MOC’s presented thus
far. So I shared my observations because I know how you value constructive
criticism.
--Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Gotta agree with Dan, he hit the nail right on the head with that post.
Despite employing SNOT techniques beautifully, this airplane seems to scrunched
up. Maybe if you lengthened it a bit it would look better. I can see what you
were trying to achieve, but I think you went a bit overboard.
The front multi-barrelled machine gun doesn’t add much to the plane either. Not
because a gatling gun on a plane isn’t cool, heck that’s what most modern
military jets use (20mm to be exact) but because it looks so flimsy. I think you
should have stuck with a four barrel design instead.
Still a nicely built MOC. The colours are good too.
Mladen Pejic
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I dunno, I think you’re missing the point. This Crimson Skies stuff is purely
fictional, and as a fictional plane straight out of Jon’s imagination, this
thing is damn cool. I don’t like it when insanely whacky but intensly cool stuff
like this gets slagged for being unrealistic. If he were trying to sell this
design to lockheed, then I’d laugh too. But he’s not. He’s building it to make
flying noises out of the right side of his mouth, and shooting noses out of the
left as he makes a pass on his cat.
-Geordan
In lugnet.space, Daniel Jassim wrote:
| |
Hey Jon,
I’m not sure if you meant to be funny or serious but I think the Berserker is
absolutely hilarious! It borders on looking like one of those crackpot flying
contraptions from old movie reels of the early days of aviation. This
airplane is definitely a departure from reality and alternate reality, to the
point that it actually steps backward and ignores the advances and
conventional wisdom in warplane designs of the WWII era.
For example, the bi-wing in the front creates a tremendous blind spot for
both crewmen (I assume one is a pilot and the other is a navigator or
bombardier?). Perhaps the top wing is for extra lift because of the huge gat
in front? If so, it may be pointless since the top wing limits crucial
visibility in air-to-air combat. I believe that’s one reason why bi-plane
fighters were replaced by mono-planes in WWII.
Speaking of visibility problems, that big central engine creates a HUGE
lateral blind spot for the pilot (whichever side he or she is on). The poor
pilot has absolutely no clue what’s happening on the other side of that big
ass engine. I guess the guy or gal on the opposite side must be there as a
lookout? Or do they trade off piloting the plane in combat, depending on
which side the bad guy is on? Or was the Kenworth design team just drunk when
they designed this thing?
Another design flaw is situating the crew on the wings. This is a very risky
move because both crewmen are totally exposed to gunfire. There doesn’t seem
to be much cockpit armor to protect them from direct hits or even ricochets
off the other surfaces around them. And the poor saps could get shot clean
off the fuselage along with the wing. Also, if the engine gets hit directly,
both crewmen are totally screwed if it explodes. Since most of the engine is
in the rear of the plane, the odds of a direct hit are much, much greater.
With the added drag from those huge pontoons, this airplane is guaranteed to
spend most of its combat time with it’s tail in the gun sights of the enemy,
eventually lighting up the sky with a spectacular fireball.
So I think the Berserker sucks as a warplane and I’m hoping that was your
intent. Otherwise, I’m sorry to rag on your MOC and your effort. On the
positive side, it certainly is a very masterfully built Lego model. The SNOT
building is superb! I also dig the color scheme and the way you used the
pieces to accomplish it. This MOC offers lots of cool details and building
ideas and your presentation is excellent, as always.
--Dan
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
he makes a pass on his cat.
|
this can be taken so wrong.
on-the-other-hand, i do agree with the general point of your post. i mean,
really, i read that book where stephen hawking discusses different theoretical
attempts at interstellar travel - none of them were at all possible now or ever.
so the very fact that we have Space travel anything is 10x more unrealistic than
jons plane ever was.
-lenny
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
In lugnet.space, Geordan Hankinson wrote:
I dunno, I think you’re missing the point. This Crimson Skies stuff is purely
fictional, and as a fictional plane straight out of Jon’s imagination, this
thing is damn cool. I don’t like it when insanely whacky but intensly cool
stuff like this gets slagged for being unrealistic. If he were trying to sell
this design to lockheed, then I’d laugh too. But he’s not. He’s building it
to make flying noises out of the right side of his mouth, and shooting noses
out of the left as he makes a pass on his cat.
-Geordan
|
Yes, Crimson Skies IS fictional, but it operates on the premise of an alternate
earth reality and the level of technology is supposedly that of the WWII era. So
even an alternate reality has to have physical and technological realism. That’s
the paramount limitation that forces the designer to come up with something that
kicks ass in both form and function. So I think Jon’s MOC is cool in form but
not in function. It’s more comical than practical when compared to other CS
airplanes I’ve seen. But, hey, my opinions are as good as farts in the wind.
--Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
But, hey, my opinions are as good
as farts in the wind.
|
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha beats chaff doesn’t it.
I read your other reply to Jon and I see where you were coming from. No hard
feelings, it just seemed like you were jumping on him or something, which you
weren’t.
Sorry bout my jackalizing.
-Geordan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Geordan Hankinson wrote:
| |
If he were trying to sell
this design to lockheed, then I’d laugh too. But he’s not. He’s building it
to make flying noises out of the right side of his mouth, and shooting noses
out of the left as he makes a pass on his cat.
-Geordan
|
Shooting noses
:)
--Ryan W.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hahahaha nice catch.
-Geordan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Daniel Jassim wrote:
| |
For example, the bi-wing in the front creates a tremendous blind spot for
both crewmen (I assume one is a pilot and the other is a navigator or
bombardier?). Perhaps the top wing is for extra lift because of the huge gat
in front? If so, it may be pointless since the top wing limits crucial
visibility in air-to-air combat. I believe that’s one reason why bi-plane
fighters were replaced by mono-planes in WWII.
|
I remember reading once that the tri-wing+ concept was scrapped when it was
realized that it didn’t really provide any more lift potential than a bi-wing,
but I suspect the switch from WWI bi-wings to WWII mono-wings had more to do
with advances in wing-construction. The bi-wing wings were just frames with
cloth strapped over the top, and no solid undersides. Mono-wing wings were
fully-skinned with metal plating over a highly sculpted inner frame (and the
advent of the jet engine made wing shape so much less important than it was in
prop-driven planes that jet planes can fly upside-down for extended periods),
and the advanced wing design simply rendered the bi-wing concept just as
pointless as the tri-wing.
| | | | | | |
