 | | Re: Crimson Skies —Mark Sandlin
| | | | (...) Not really. I don't think you understand what I was trying to point out. Your plane follows the very typical composition with two large wings forward, with a standard tail design. It looks like any given forward-prop-driven plane dating from (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build.military, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Crimson Skies —Theodore Sammis II
| | | | | (...) While I like Andrews plane, and can see where you classify it as 'conventional', my question is - how unconventional is too unconventional? I know this borders on threadjacking or bumping, but I've been wondering if my (URL) latest bird> was (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build.military, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Crimson Skies —Mark Sandlin
| | | | | (...) I don't think it's the shape of your plane that makes it a stretch for CS as much as it's the high-tech looking weaponry. Exchange that stuff for some large primitive looking machine guns and I think you'd be a lot closer to the CS style... (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build.military, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Crimson Skies —Theodore Sammis II
| | | | | (...) hmmm, bulkier, more primitive guns, I think I can manage that :) thanks for the input! TRS (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.build.military, FTX)
| | | | | | |
