RAH-66 Untextured model up for grabs.

[max power 21]

Looks more like you were making a request for addons than info to me and others.

Well, this is why I like to ask questions if I'm not sure about all of the facts- so I'm not like the multitudes that make assumptions and end up wrong. In casual conversation it's not a big deal, but I treat the forum like information sharing so I try to be informative and correct, and I try to glean all I can from other people.

You do seem to have a "need" to seek clarification of every point don't you.

Everyone needs to seek clarification. Some people choose not to.

Regarding the point your friends at the other forum which you seemed to 'need' to seek validation from: I searched online for documents for differences and I compared different photos to the models and models to the photos. Obvious differences like the tail fins and the rotor hub are child's play to find, but I was wondering about things that are not so obvious. Like, you say 'slab sided' fuselage- I'm not quite sure what that means. There also bits of detail missing from your model given its resolution, so I can't use it as a measure to identify subtle differences. On the starboard side of the tail, for instance, there is an extra contour on the exhaust fairing not present on your model. I don't know when they added that or if they deleted that.

More incorrect assumptions. I did actually do quite a bit of comparison, actually.

edit:

Listen, it's obvious that we're not going to stop throwing barbs at each other. I was and am still interested in the RAH-66 and its development history, and I considered you an authority, so I thought I would ask. Let's pack the attitude in for now and next time I ask a question you feel is superfluous you can fly off your chair with another 250 word essay about how you don't want to answer it. Regarding the LHX thing I don't know what fucking happened there, but I was assuming a) you knew what LHX was and b) you had information that made your claim that LHX => DKM made sense. I wasn't trying to point out some kind of error.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Max Power

[rksl-rock 1301]

Well, this is why I like to ask questions if I'm not sure about all of the facts- so I'm not like the multitudes that make assumptions and end up wrong. In casual conversation it's not a big deal, but I treat the forum like information sharing so I try to be informative and correct, and I try to glean all I can from other people.

Everyone needs to seek clarification. Some people choose not to.

LMFAO You are the most literal and pedantic person I've ever come across. you really are!

Regarding the point your friends at the other forum which you seemed to 'need' to seek validation from: I searched online for documents for differences and I compared different photos to the models and models to the photos. Obvious differences like the tail fins and the rotor hub are child's play to find, but I was wondering about things that are not so obvious. Like, you say 'slab sided' fuselage- I'm not quite sure what that means. There also bits of detail missing from your model given its resolution, so I can't use it as a measure to identify subtle differences. On the starboard side of the tail, for instance, there is an extra contour on the exhaust fairing not present on your model. I don't know when they added that or if they deleted that.

More incorrect assumptions. I did actually do quite a bit of comparison, actually.

Did you also compare the DKM model and the real aircraft? Or did you just compare my model to the real airframe and look for things to pick at. As usual you've gone out of your way to make a huge deal out of what is really just an offhand comment. Not an attempt to claim bragging rights nor an attempt at ego stroking as you seem to imply.

At the time DKM released their model there were few real reference sources they could have used. There were several games based on the LHX programme and quite frankly I could not be arsed to spend a few hours going through them to find out which exact one it was. The DKM model used a later but still very much pre-prototype configuration as a reference. The large fenstrom, the small sensors and the single angle slab sides giving it a "too wide" fuselage are all indicators it was inspired by the early 90's concept art used to help gain funding. While the DKM's model general config is close its just "not quite right" to be considered accurate. Without the book I used to have (which I am now trying to get a scan of just for you! Because I know you will never give up on this) without which I certain you will never accept anything I have said. Should you ever see the pics you will immediately see what I mean.

edit:

Listen, it's obvious that we're not going to stop throwing barbs at each other.

LMAO Yet you still keep doing it in my thread!

I was and am still interested in the RAH-66 and its development history, and I considered you an authority, so I thought I would ask. Let's pack the attitude in for now and next time I ask a question you feel is superfluous you can fly off your chair with another 250 word essay about how you don't want to answer it.

Translation: "Here's an olive branch, excuse me while i poke you in the eye again..." Dear god lad, pack it in already. Have you ever thought that people feel it necessary to reply to you in such detail because they know of your habit for debating every single tiny detail to death? You always try to pick apart everything people say every time. What do you get out of it?

Incidentally where have ever claimed to be an authority on the LHX or Comanche?

Regarding the LHX thing I don't know what fucking happened there, but I was assuming a) you knew what LHX was and b) you had information that made your claim that LHX => DKM made sense. I wasn't trying to point out some kind of error.

a) I do know what the LHX was. But unlike you my usual frame of reference isn't a computer game. Its the actual programme itself.

The LHX programme and the RAH-66 is even now held up in the Aerospace community as an almost perfect example of what happens when the defence industry lobbyists succeed in paying off senators and congressmen. And its a perfect example of "Stealth mania" overwhelming common sense and the race for "Star Wars technology" when the other side is still using metaphorical bows and arrows.

b) Oh I do have information, its just seems that you wont accept it. I've repeatedly described the differences but it just not good enough for you. So I'm going out of my way to get the info you so desperately need to clear up your "confusion". If/when i get the scans I'll PM you.

How about that then? Good enough?

Everyone else I've spoken to so far about this model just accepted that statement for what it was. Some even politely asked, "Did you mean Comanche instead of LHX?" And then gone on to look at the real aircraft and said, "Yeah I can see what you mean about the differences" and moved on, no fuss, no foul. Yet, as is your usual forum habit, with your obvious desperate need to prove someone wrong. You latched onto what really is small inconsequential comment and make it all about that totally ignoring the actual issue.

Anyway, its obvious you don't like me. Its obvious I don't like you. Lets agree to that and I'll ask you not derail my threads with inconsequential tripe next time.

PS See what I mean about having to write essays to answer your posts.

Edited March 4, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[Pathy 0]

Oh, it's Plaintiff1. And here I thought he'd gone off to the place where old internet warriors go to die. Just....give it a rest.....a nice model is given out freely, who cares about anything else?

Edited March 4, 2010 by Pathy

[bad benson 1733]

just because something is annoying doesn't mean it has no value.:p

[max power 21]

Oh, it's Plaintiff1. And here I thought he'd gone off to the place where old internet warriors go to die. Just....give it a rest.....a nice model is given out freely, who cares about anything else?

I've been on the forums pretty consistently for quite a while. Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.