Subject:
|
Re: F-2 Bat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:04:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
I disagree with Mark that it needs landing gear. With the way you built it,
with those 8 studs on it’s belly, I can just see a small squadron of these
haning upside down (i.e. their namesake) afixed to a capital ship’s
underbelly in deep space, ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice.
|
Well, aside from the well-known fact that I have a thing for landing gear, the
“realistic” rationalization is that it would be far cheaper to build landing
gear into fighters than it would to engineer a hanging rack system for fighters
with individual airlocks.
Remember, in the military, your weapon was built by the cheapest bidder. :D
-Grand Admiral and Keeper of Fleebnorks
“Adopt a fleebnork. They’re DYING!” -Sally Struthers
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Again, I'm going to have to disagree, if we're going to dive into a 'realistic' rationalization here. For you see, from my perspective, normal landing gear in a zero gravity environment are totally useless. After all, landing gear serve only (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) That looks so very very cool. I'm not a space fan, but I am certainly drawn to swooshable things. And I gotta agree with you, swoosh factor of 10, man. I disagree with Mark that it needs landing gear. With the way you built it, with those 8 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
