Blip wrote:
And can a company really copyright "un-areodynimic aircraft" or "flying brick" ?? Would they want to ?
No but they can make life annoying for Ben and can be a PitA until as Todd puts it, "his lawyers shiv Grandma Wendy", legally speaking that is. I can totally understand the reasoning.
There's a couple of things that can be modified or appended that could handle both look and IP issues at the same time:
A. Ditch inverse gull-wing and straight up do grim-darked version of an A10. This is nice as that plane is Teh Sexay of all things ground attack related and no one can claim a likeness. (see shiv above)
B. Append a design change with real-life inspiration. This would visually distance it from any claims of likeness from a particular 28mm scale ground attack flyer from a well known miniatures company. In this suggestion I'd go with the inspiration of the twin booms found on the P38 Lightning which turned out to be one of the most effective ground attack fighters of all time (IIRC the Germans referred to it as "the twin devil" and the Japanese as "two planes, one pilot" both for the shape and the difficulty in shooting them down). Take the awesome gull wings and engines but ditch the tail and use the twin boom. You're channeling the the futureized b@stard offspring of the P38 and F4 then and anyone that takes issue can F-off.
Blip wrote:
the cockpit looks too big. Can't workout why it looks ok on the bomber...?
Probably because we're used to seeing those iconic WW2 bombers with the glass canopies. I personally think it is less the shape of the canopy vs the size relative to the fuselage. I think if it was shrunk lengthwise it'd look better.
_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!
-
I HAVE NO POINT-
Penal Legion-Fan list-
Help me make Whitescars not suck!
)
