|
Post by aeromar2000 on Feb 13, 2009 14:28:03 GMT
Hi Dan K. Hansen. You Are right. a bad modelled ATR, Don't Have Landing Lights and Light nosewhele Lights In the Version ATR 42, and Never Adding Beacon light Tail. Only In the Version 72-200, 212 and 500. This Models Propeller Have Lights, Landing lights, Nosewhele lights and Beacon light Tail. and Dreamwings Never Annunced The Version ATR. Bart Oziembala. it will never annunced it in released. Dreamwings don't Have Homepage Only Forum
|
|
|
Post by tisac on Feb 27, 2009 8:22:26 GMT
the silhouette is definitively that of a DC-9- Look at the shadow of the wing flaps
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Feb 28, 2009 1:42:57 GMT
Fokker 100 perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by gus on Feb 28, 2009 3:40:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by skyking on Feb 28, 2009 11:56:36 GMT
I would rather it be a DOUGLAS DC-9 series. More "Historic". You know.....HJG!
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Feb 28, 2009 14:27:49 GMT
I was under the impression that they shot down the guess of DC-9 family, MD-80 family and 717?
Looking at the photo, it would appear from the bump below (to the left actually) that is the nose gear. The flaps are extended with the left main appearing below the left flap. It would appear to have two engines mounted on the aft portion of the fuselage. I don't really see a tail in that shot, but I presume it's a T-tail.
That being said, it also sorta resembles a B-1, but I don't think HJG would toy with one of those.
Is this an American aircraft, or was it built in Europe?
If it's European, I'd guess a BAC 1-11. Perhaps a collaboration with David Maltby?
|
|
|
Post by skyking on Feb 28, 2009 14:59:31 GMT
A B-1??!!
Remind me not to hire you as an aircraft spotter! ;D
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Feb 28, 2009 20:00:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rpjkw11 on Feb 28, 2009 23:57:25 GMT
It IS a lot of fun, Marc. Especially when the 'alarm' was raised on other sites that a G-II was under development. There were a lot of broken hearts with that one.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 1, 2009 1:41:08 GMT
That's why I very quickly prompted a retraction regarding the G-11 .... before the idea got too firmly entrenched.
And I believe Dan & Tony both did something similar on that other website too.
Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by expat on Mar 1, 2009 17:48:33 GMT
Well, that's a shame as classic corporate aircraft are cool too, e..g the Jetstar which HJG once did sponsor and one which I still today enjoy flying. As a payware Gulfstream is not possible to to IP law issues, a freeware one of high calibre from the HJG modellers had many people very excited and now very disappointed.
Hey, there's an idea! Why not do a G-II as well?
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 1, 2009 18:54:12 GMT
The new/current HJG consciously resolved to dispense with its small corporate and "puddle-hopper" flightline way back in April 2006 .... to concentrate on exclusively "Historic Jetliners" .... which is what the "H" in HJG is all about and precisely what we've become reknown for. There are no plans to diverge from this theme. That only happened because "somebody" (well intentioned though I know they were) suddenly jumped to the conclusion that we were doing a G-II .... and announced that on another public forum without prior consultation with us .... which .... again .... is why a retraction was published recently. So .... whether or not folks are elated or disappointed is something for which we bear no responsibility whatsoever. Hopefully this'll now put the any suggestions regarding G-II subject to bed .... in so far as HJG's association with it is concerned ! Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by expat on Mar 1, 2009 19:48:22 GMT
It does, noted, but I think "vintage jet" flying a G-IIB across the pond as much as my beloved HJG C990 or 707-138B!
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Mar 1, 2009 19:59:36 GMT
And .... on with contributions we shall then go regarding what the new HJG mystery jetliner may well be ! ;D Mark C AKL/NZ
|
|
|
Post by speedbird9 on Mar 19, 2009 17:46:10 GMT
I hope its an BAC 1-11
|
|