Winnipeg Jets - Page 159

jmt18325 · #**3161** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 6:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Where are the Leading Edge Root Extensions? Where are the outlines of the vertical stabilizers sticking out over the edges of the airframe (between the wings and horizontal stabilizers is where they should be)? etc. I know it's just a rough outline, but these aren't exactly small features of the hornet, especially when compared to the F-16.

It's a very basic jet shape, but it's quite easy to see what they meant it to be. It's a fighter jet, and as a shout out to the Canadian Forces, it most certainly isn't an F-16. The tail stabilizers look nothing like on an F-16, and if you look from above, the F-18 and F-16 have very similar overall shapes, being wider in the centre of the aircraft.

Bdog · #**3162** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 7:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It's a very basic jet shape, but it's quite easy to see what they meant it to be. It's a fighter jet, and as a shout out to the Canadian Forces, it most certainly isn't an F-16. The tail stabilizers look nothing like on an F-16, and if you look from above, the F-18 and F-16 have very similar overall shapes, being wider in the centre of the aircraft.

While you guys are at it, can someone please tell me what kind of plane was used on the 90s Jets' logo? I can't for the life of me figure it out!

At first I thought, maybe it's a Boeing 747 - but then realized that there is no identifable double-decker qualities to the drawing. Then I thought, maybe an Airbus A380? Nope, can't be - they don't have any models in red. Can't be a Cessna - the wing configuration is all wrong, not to mention that there are no propellers to be found anywere. I'm stumped!

Methinks it's time to start a new thread. Perhaps "Intricate Details Flawed on Stylized Fighter Jet Logo"?

jmt18325 · #**3163** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 11:34 AM**

I think it looks somewhat like a Boeing 767 from underneath and to the left.

roccerfeller · #**3164** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 4:17 PM**

lmfao @ BDog.... that is too funny

jmt18325 · #**3165** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 4:18 PM**

I actually didn't take it as being funny lol.

roccerfeller · #**3166** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 4:25 PM**

lol i was gonna say jmt I realized you didn't, but that post back-to-back from BDog's, just makes BDogs post even more epic

jmt18325 · #**3167** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 4:31 PM**

Seriously though, I think it's a 767.

Bdog · #**3168** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

lol i was gonna say jmt I realized you didn't, but that post back-to-back from BDog's, just makes BDogs post even more epic

Hahaha, thanks

StNorberter · #**3169** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 7:50 PM**

From a top view it most closely resembles an Avro Vulcan nuclear bomber.

From a side view - either a mig-23 or a us air force X-plane ( can't remember the desigination though)

freeweed · #**3170** Posted **Aug 3, 2011, 9:31 PM**

So River City Sports opened a branch in Calgary - about time, our local sports stores are pathetic by comparison. We've already been down 3 times and bought stuff every time. They're the only place that puts jerseys on sale here. They managed to get a very small selection of Jets merch in - some hats and t-shirts. Got a t-shirt - dark blue with just the round logo. Absolutely beautiful. When I tried it on at home, there was only one problem - the logo is obviously placed to the side, almost a full inch off centre.

I think I may keep it. I'll always remember that TNSE held off on releasing the logo and colours to the public due to concerns of "poor quality Chinese knock-offs"... only to have their first batch of merch be completely lacking in QA.

I've also heard stories of very poor stitching on the hats, so I don't think this is a one-off. They must have really rushed production on this stuff.

Riverman · #**3171** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The horizontal stabilizers are the same shape as the F-18s...and the general busy shape is the same as the F-18. The F-16 and the F-18 have very similar general body shape. That said, it's clearly an F-18.

Wrong. The F-18 has two tailcones, the F-16 has one. The image on the logo has one. Case closed.

jmt18325 · #**3172** Posted **Aug 4, 2011, 11:48 PM**

The image on the logo doesn't actually have any. I'm not sure why anyone would so readily assume the jet is one that isn't eve used in Canada

vid · #**3173** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 12:22 AM**

I love that we're all bitching about which specific model of jet is featured in the logo.

Riverman · #**3174** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt18325

The image on the logo doesn't actually have any. I'm not sure why anyone would so readily assume the jet is one that isn't eve used in Canada

The image on the logo has a single tailcone a la F-16. Look again.

North of 49 · #**3175** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 4:32 AM**

Apparently the new Jets Jersey & logo have are been sold in the black market in asia....

leave it to the Asians to get the first look at the Jersey's even though TNSE says that it is totally the wrong concept(jersey)

photo courtesy of: http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=winnip...429,r:15,s:120

North of 49 · #**3176** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 4:34 AM**

RBK actually manufactures the NHL Jersey's in Canada and So does CCM. funny thing is it's likely in Winnipeg.

Anyone know a garment worker in Winnipeg. You may want to ask them.

freeweed · #**3177** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by North of 49

Apparently the new Jets Jersey & logo have are been sold in the black market in asia....

leave it to the Asians to get the first look at the Jersey's even though TNSE says that it is totally the wrong concept(jersey)

photo courtesy of: http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=winnip...429,r:15,s:120

FYI these are jersey mockups made by someone who frequents hfboards. Those are NOT what TNSE will be using unless some massive coincidence happens. If knockoffs come out looking like that, while they're nice... people are going to look pretty stupid.

Edit: the page you link to specifically mentions this as well. Same with the supposed EA link. I like both, personally.

trueviking · #**3178** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 5:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdog

While you guys are at it, can someone please tell me what kind of plane was used on the 90s Jets' logo? I can't for the life of me figure it out!

i always thought that was the top of a grain elevator.....that was such a terrible logo.

i like the new logo but i kind of wish it just had a red airplane n the blue circle and they just got rid of the maple leaf completely....i think the RCAF connection would still be apparent and it would have been much cleaner.

i also wish they would have used the arrow.

and while we are at it i wish the bombers would go back to the plain W logo....that lightning bolt is so lame...it makes no sense and accomplishes nothing but watering down a simple graphic.

jmt18325 · #**3179** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

The image on the logo has a single tailcone a la F-16. Look again.

No actually, it doesn't. It's simply two lines that join in each end, loosely following the lines of a fighter jet like the F-18, used by the Canadian Forces. The rear stabilizers definitely show that they were trying to show an F-18, but without putting the actual jet there, since it would look stupid.

North of 49 · #**3180** Posted **Aug 5, 2011, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

i always thought that was the top of a grain elevator.....that was such a terrible logo.

i like the new logo but i kind of wish it just had a red airplane n the blue circle and they just got rid of the maple leaf completely....i think the RCAF connection would still be apparent and it would have been much cleaner.

i also wish they would have used the arrow.

and while we are at it i wish the bombers would go back to the plain W logo....that lightning bolt is so lame...it makes no sense and accomplishes nothing but watering down a simple graphic.

Yep, totally agree lightning bolt is lame. Plain W would suffice...