Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
July Cover:
Another image from the article:
"Future VTOL concepts..." I'm not taking issue with the concept itself; I think it looks awesome, even though they basically drew a 'more realistic' version of the Falcon from Reach. My issue is with the fact that PopSci uses this concept as their poster-child for "Future VTOL concepts". REALLY? How "future" is it if it's basically a redrawn V-22?
As someone who actually works in the industry, AND routinely works on VTOL projects, I honestly find it a little insulting that this concept is the best they could come up with for a future VTOL. It just feels lazy. It's like they just said, "Well, Bungie put a tiltrotor in Reach, and that's set 500+ years in the future, so that's good enough." I've seen them come up with WAY crazier things for other articles.
At least if you're going to rip off Halo and Bungie for future VTOL concepts, at least use the really cool ones like the Pelican, Hornet or Sparrowhawk!!
/technogeekrant
| Falcon in Popular Science | Mid7night | 6/19/13 12:17 pm |
| Or Hawks. Halo Wars. | kornman00 | 6/19/13 12:39 pm |
| How about flying jeeps? | rhubarb | 6/19/13 12:55 pm |
| Re: Falcon in Popular Science | Stephen L. (SoundEffect) | 6/19/13 4:36 pm |
| Nice rant. I approve. :) *NM* | Ragashingo | 6/20/13 4:04 am |