Jump to content

Valkyrie Driver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1920

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Valkyrie Driver

  1. Valkyrie Driver
    Good point. I suppose I had forgotten about the V-tail, and the concept of ruddervators. I also hadn't considered the slotted flaps, which would also contribute to BLC if I'm not mistaken.
  2. Valkyrie Driver
    It was just a thought, I wondered how exactly a VF without a horizontal stabilizer, and thus elevators, would change pitch in atmo, while maintaining the ability to roll, and being able to land at low speeds.
  3. Valkyrie Driver
    I think that Macross frontier would not be a good era to set a live action movie in. The Giant robots fighting giant monsters is a bit too Pacific Rim. Now, this is assuming the movie would be produced for western audiences, as Japanese audiences would be able to recognize Macross. Uninitiated western audiences would think it was a transformers/pacific rim mashup/ripoff. I think it would be better to show something unique to Macross (Think SDFM or M7) so that it's less prone to being labeled a ripoff.
  4. Valkyrie Driver
    So much win in those last few posts...
  5. Valkyrie Driver
    OT solves a lot of problems, you could have the wing surface rigid when you need it, yet elastic when you need it. Though most fighters seem to have enough trailing edge space for flaps and elevons.
  6. Valkyrie Driver
    The AAW (Active Aeroelastic Wing) would give you a control surface that could function like a flying tail (the whole stab moves as the control surface rather than just having trailing edge surfaces) and would work like ailerons (only full surface movement) while still allowing you to have flaps on the inboard section of the wing (the part that doesn't move). This would allow for greater maneuverability, and when coupled with boundary layer control, would serve to allow for much lower landing speeds in atmo, which would also counter the ground effect that large area wing surfaces tend to generate. I think it would be safe to assume that, given the level of technology we see in macross, this would be the case in many later generation fighters.
  7. Valkyrie Driver
    Watching all the Japanese macross shows again, and various other anime (SBS Yamato2199, Fairy Tail, etc...) and now this book, really getting me wanting to continue learning Japanese. If I can get proficient enough in reading it I might try to get my hands on some of the books...
  8. Valkyrie Driver
    In actuality, the wing spans are the same (~26 cm on the toys, I just measured them). The geometries are different though, which makes the VF-19F's wings look stubby. The 19F has more wing area than the 19A, which actually helps the 19F in atmosphere over the previous 19's, with the possible exception of the 19E (That is if the 19E looks like the custom but with an F style head) I don't have a caliburn handy, but the wings might actually be shorter, but theey also look wider, which would keep the wing area similar, while decreasing the aspect ratio, and increasing the wing loading. The caliburn might actually have more wing area than the 19A but less than the 19E/F/S. I don't really know what the purpose for the caliburn was (sketchley's stats say it was a monkey model, but I don't really know what that means...).
  9. Valkyrie Driver
    Ok, I'm not going to have this turn into a pissing contest. I was wrong about the one picture that showed canards, and I'll admit that my phrasing was abrupt and confrontational. You are correct there is a difference between being wrong and being stupid, however that doesn't necessarily apply here. I made a statement based off of what I knew, and I was wrong. My presentation of evidence to support my case could have been worded much better, however I would not call that being stupid, merely uninformed. You took offense to something that should not have been offensive to begin with, I suggest you reread my original post on the matter: Where did I explicitly state you were wrong? Granted the last line could be taken as such, but given the context of the post, It's apparent that I was speaking from what I knew, which in hindsight was based off of incomplete information. Now. This is the last I want to say on the matter. I apologize for your misinterpretation of my post as a challenge, I shall endeavor to be less confrontational and more precise in my words from this point forward. Now, If you still feel that I have offended your sensibilities, feel free to continue calling me stupid, and acting a fool. I'm done with this little spat, so now we can get back to the topic at hand.
  10. Valkyrie Driver
    Right, I get where you're coming from here. I was thinking we could maybe apply that sort of thing retroactively as sort of apocryphal info. It doesn't really affect anything we see in the show, all it does is explain things aerodynamically and maybe help us explain things so that we have an easier time suspending our disbelief. Just because it's optimized for space doesn't mean it can only be used there... they used VF-19F's in atmosphere during Operation Stargazer in the Macross 7 TV series. All told, the YF-21's active wing technology is described as being extremely difficult/complicated to control properly without using a cheat like a BDI system or implant technology, to the extent that a conventional FCS capable of controlling it is still WIP in 2058. (This is part of the description of the VF-19ACTIVE "Nothung" from Macross the Ride.) To a certain extent, they're using boundary layer control for this... and have been since the original VF-1... but the existing stabilizers (which are variable cant on many later designs) and thrust-vectoring carry a big part of this burden. 1. Good point about the optimization not being specialization. 2. The BDI would make the active wing easier to control, as it is implemented on the YF-21, but the concept is still very similar to the X-53 test craft, and using an active aeroelastic wing on a conventional variable fighter could be done in a similar fashion to the X-53, and controlled by the active flight management system, to keep it stable. 3. I'm curious to know how you get the BLC, are they shunting high pressure bleed air over the wing at slow speeds to trick the wing into "thinking" it's flying (ala the F-4) or are they using some other technique (mechanical vortex generators would be counter productive for a high speed aircraft due to the parasite drag). That might slow your takeoff and landing speeds a bit, but it doesn't take the place of flaps.
  11. Valkyrie Driver
    So, here's a question that just came up in my mind, regarding control surfaces. I know that most artwork has been shown with traditional control surfaces, but is it possible that some things were perhaps adopted along the way, like the YF-21's active wing surface? I also see no reason to believe that Aerodynamics wouldn't progress along the same lines of thought as they currently have, so something similar to the NASA X-53, might have occurred. Wing warping has worked since the early days of flight (the wright flyer and most other planes of similar design and construction used wing warping to turn), so is it possible that it made it's way into variable fighters at some point, to increase the aerodynamic efficiency of the fighters (as most, if not all, VF's lack horizontal stabs), the use of some mechanism outside of thrust vectoring to change pitch would be needed. Thrust vectoring can do amazing things but it's no substitute for aerodynamic surfaces inside a planetary atmosphere. A recent conversation also led to this one, I was discussing the benefits of drones, and the drawbacks of high altitude flight, I assume that all VF's are radiation shielded to protect the pilot from cosmic radiation (what with the stratosphere and space providing no protection against that nuclear furnace 93 million miles away from us). What say you?
  12. Valkyrie Driver
    So Sketchley, is it just the one picture with canards? Could it be as I suggested an atmospheric optimization option? Or would it be an inconsistency? Or perhaps the artist thought it would look cool both ways?
  13. Valkyrie Driver
    But what about the one in the New Episode archives book? That's clearly in atmo...
  14. Valkyrie Driver
    I stand corrected, however, the last comment was a bit unnecessary. I ain't afraid to be wrong, I'm just used to presenting things from a standpoint of certainty. Still, the pages that I have seen show a VF-19F, and identify it as such. Perhaps, this is an inaccuracy, or, There is an Atmospheric optimization option. I can't explain it. I'll work on my phrasing, and next time you decide to call someone out, don't be such a frakking shithead about it, good to go?
  15. Valkyrie Driver
    Gotta say, the Summoner was always a favorite of mine. It's the one I use most in MW2, MW3, and on the tabletop. I'd love to have some of those, one of the reasons I got my Tomahawk, is because it became one of my favorite Battlemechs...
  16. Valkyrie Driver
    I've used super glue before, and it's a difficult solution since you need to let it set before you go reassembling things. That Automotive 2K clear, is that a car polish? What might be some other alternatives to that? I've also used 2 part epoxy, though it has the same problems as super glue.
  17. Valkyrie Driver

    Hi-Metal R

    Valkyrie Driver replied to joppewo's topic in Toys

    I'd consider getting some of these, in the future, especially with the addition of things that haven't been done in 1/60 scale, simply because they're cool.
  18. Valkyrie Driver
    I agree, space is a very harsh and unforgiving environment, more so than an earth type planet's harshest zone. I was merely pointing out that from a mechanical standpoint, an atmosphere is a far more complex and difficult environment for which to design.
  19. Valkyrie Driver
    No, but there have been pictures posted here. case in point: No canards.
  20. Valkyrie Driver
    The pictures I have seen don't show canards on the NUNS white and orange VF-19. In fact the text under it on one of the pages clearly identifies it as a VF-19F, which didn't have canards. Not only that, but the artwork pretty consistently shows a VF-19F.
  21. Valkyrie Driver
    Besides, If I'm not mistaken, Kawamori himself said that the VF-4 and VF-5000 were supposed to be variable from the start, they just never had any animation done for the transformation...
  22. Valkyrie Driver
    Not to mention, a planetary environment poses it's own set of challenges that space does not. In space all you have to do to increase corner speed, is increase the output on the vernier, but in atmo, you have to look at the aerodynamic properties of the craft. You can't just put a bigger thruster on it and solve the problem. In space you also don't have to deal with aerodynamic effects. You'd need to know if there was going to be airframe flutter at low levels, and what the transsonic performance is. Is it going to suffer from localized mach effects? What's the max speed at a given altitude? What's the overspeed for the airframe? What's the Corner speed (the speed at which the turn rate is the greatest)? You have all of those challenges to contend with, that don't exist in space.
  23. Valkyrie Driver
    Thanks for clearing that up for m Seto. I think that the elimination of the canards probably had a lot to do with the increase in stability, though The wing design on the VF-19F/S would likely have the same issues as a tailless delta wing would it not? That would make it less than ideal for atmospheric operations, since it would have higher landing speeds, unless they somehow figured out how to make ele-flap-erons...
  24. Valkyrie Driver
    I wonder how much of the YF-19's maneuverability remains in the VF-19. The VF-19E/F/S all have far more available thrust that the Y/VF-19/A, coupled with the differences in the flight control computer, makes me wonder how that affects the performance.
  25. Valkyrie Driver
    So, Mr. March, the production model VF-19 can be flown by anyone, and it was just the YF-19 prototype that was nigh uncontrollable? That's the sense I get from your post anyway...
×
×
  • Create New...