Valkyrie Driver
-
Posts
1920 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by Valkyrie Driver
-
This is simply extraordinary.
-
I actually meant you. It's a military thing, we shorten long names to something that sounds cooler. Kirtsendorfer became K13, Arincoryan became A10, Hoppensteadt became Hopp. Therefore Sketchley became Sketch. I didn't know there was another user by that name, so I apologize for the confusion, and if I offended you. I'll be more careful about that in the future. -
VTOL is a pretty niche thing. Only the Royal Navy/Marines and USMC really care about it. When you have a transforming fighter, it pretty much makes it a VSTOL aircraft. That said It as much as doesn't matter, since there are any number of ways you could explain a fighter managing to do that. I'm not an expert, but I always imagined (and will continue because it makes sense) that the actual maneuvering thrusters are like those on the harrier, F-35 and X-32, where the thrust is created by bleeding off from the engine while in space, and using the control surfaces in atmo. The two systems would be slaved and the thrusters would fire in atmo, and the control surfaces would move in space. Now, you could look at some VF designs and say, that would be a convenient place for a thrust nozzle to shunt output. in atmo you could shunt bleed off from the compressor through the "knees" it wouldn't be hard to imagine that happening (at least to me). This coupled with a bleed thruster at the nose could keep it going. That way you aren't sacrificing you small attitude control in space for the ability to take off vertically. In addition you'd have the vectoring nozzels at the rear to help lift the back end up. As for the YF-21/VF-22 gerwalk, I have no idea how it hovers in GERWALK. Maybe those expansion joints Sketcley was talking about actually double as vents. It would be easy to imagine that they do, unless it's explicitly stated in cannon. But as far as I know, I've not seen any reference as to how a VF achieves vertical thrust. I'd say use your imagination, until a cannon source comes along. I'm fully anticipating that Sketch, Seto, or Mr March will do so within three posts of this one...
-
Look what just came in the mail: I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't the VF-171 that I was waiting for, but I'm still glad this arrived. I hope to be seeing the VF171 here soon, seeing as it shipped around the same time.
-
From the album: My Collection
-
From the album: My Collection
-
From the album: My Collection
-
From the album: My Collection
-
Well, I'd say don't push, just encourage. Last thing any one wants is to feel pressured into doing something they enjoy, then it ceases to be fun. I was that way with airsoft for a bit, it got to be a second job, and then it stopped being fun. So let it stay fun. A few words of encouragement go a long way. BTW how old is your son? That kinda makes a difference.
-
Talking about this VTOL thing made me think about it just transforming to gerwalk on the tarmac (obviously silly). Which then put a Michael Bay Transformers sequence in my mind (ridiculously awesome). No need to demolish this post, I just thought I'd share the image of a VF-1 pulling a ROTF Jetfire sequence, of arms propping the body up while it gets legs under it before blasting straight up while the arms swing out...
-
Oh, in reference to a single engine VF, the X-32 could also make a decent basis.
-
So I had to cancel one of my orders, because it's not what I thought it was. Apparently it was just the super parts for the alto custom, but not the actual alto custom. The price was insane for just the super parts. Which is a bit upsetting...
-
We've seen it throughout history, that we develop technologies, and then we develop countermeasures, and then we improve the original tech, developing countermeasures to the countermeasures. Radar will get better and so will the guidance systems. Dogfighting isn't dead, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, and Kosovo have taught us that we need to keep that skill. We have many enemies with air forces, and we'd have a bit of a challenge. Drones will never be able to replace a manned fighter. The situational awareness required is unattainable. No fighter pilot is going to accept that a drone can do it better. I heard it said that drones are for the 3 D missions: Dangerous - Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses or Air Interdiction in SAM saturated areas, or other potential one way trips. Dirty - High radiation zones, of particular interest to the ground drones, and low flying dronecopters. Dull - Missions that require long dwell times, recon or patrols. In these instances crews would be in great discomfort or peril. These situations are the ones I agree with in using drones. I do not believe that drones will replace manned aircraft at all. We will see more and more drones but it's not a viable military strategy. I'll acknowledge that, the key to any fight is to make space when it gets too close. Sustained supersonic maneuvers would be hard on the body, even with the ICS. So I think it's safe to assume that in atmo it wouldn't be happening a lot.
-
When you look at the VF-0, VF-1, VF-3000, and the F-14 you'll notice that, in the line art (the VF-0 toy is the only one that properly replicates it), there is a high spot between the engine nacelles. This is so that the fuselage itself produces lift, meaning that the wings don't do all the work, thus decreasing wing loading. Area rule comes into effect when you look at the fences along the dorsal fuselage, which trick the airflow. Prime example of the area rule body: Ghost inspired by the Boeing Bird of Prey: Because it wasn't mentioned.
-
Mr March, That is an interesting find. The F-14 is the same way. Now on to one that might be a bit more obscure, but better comparison: I think the have blue prototype is a bit closer to the actual VF-17 design. This would have been common knowledge by 1993, in fact I remember asking my dad about it as a kid. I remember him being terrified that I knew those words, he was relieved when I told him I head them on an episode of Discovery Channel's WINGS. I think it was around 1995-ish...
-
I guess I misunderstood In reality, you don't dogfight above the mach. Macross might be different. I doubt it though, G-forces are G-forces, and the human body can only take so much. I do see a lot of the blackbird in the VF-4, but I also see some P-38 (In the triple nacelle arrangement) the cockpit nacelle terminates just after the head unit, and if you look at the blackbird it has a spine that goes all the way aft, I thought that was pretty cool. The plans I had always seen for an armed blackbird were A numbered. Either way an armed blackbird would have been pretty useless. The only century series fighter I liked was the F-106. Maybe that's because my dad flew it. Of all the planes he flew, it was his favorite. I'm particularly partial to the Fourth Generation Jet fighters, those were the ones that we all knew when I was growing up.
-
Aye. And the post office has been jacking things up too. Two of my packages have been delivered to the wrong address (not the big ones, I bought some books that got put in wrong mailboxes at my apartment complex...grrr...). I'm hoping against hope they arrive before Spring break, since I'll be out of town. Either that or I hope they arrive after, since I'll be back...
-
You should encourage him. My cousins are all pretty good artists, one in particular. He can do amazing things, while I can barely draw stick figures... The one cousin I spoke of has been doing comic book illustrations for the past few years. Keep him drawing, even if it's just for fun...
-
Falcon, that's a pretty cool set up. Excellent work. Thinking about it, I could dig though my dad's bag of goodies and probably come up with something too. It wouldn't fit me (Dad is like 5'6" and I'm 6'3"). And the stuff I have from my military experience, is totally unrelated to flight, so pretty much useless. Good work though, How did you do the helmet?
-
Oh no, JB0, I completely agree. It's actually one of the reasons I have the single engine VF idea stuck in my head. Because it would look dang cool. I mean could you imagine a single engine, lightweight VF powered by just one overtuned VF-19 engine? Granted, it wouldn't have the same combat performance as the VF-19, but it would be a useful supplement. It's the same line of reasoning that got us the F-16. The F-15 was big and heavy and cost a lot of money, so the call went out for a small low cost, lightweight, multi-role fighter to supplement it, and keep our Air Force well equipped and strong (the opposite reasoning of today's USAF). The F-35 would make a better model than the F-104, IMO, because of the lower wing loading on the F-35, because the wings are slightly bigger, and the fuselage itself is designed to produce lift, meaning the wings have less work to do. The folded up fighter look would be what I'd go for, because it's a simple transformation technique. Also that T-tail would be some horrendous kibble off the back. You'd kinda have to go for a YF-21/VF-22 type transformation since you only have one engine, it should end up on the back... As for the VF-4, it would actually work pretty well in atmo. You'd need to fill some gaps around the arm cannons, but other than that I don't see any aerodynamic elements that are horrifying. Other than the relative lack of control surfaces, but, the F-106 made no flap landings all the time (the F-106 had no flaps). The landing speeds would be pretty high, and the design would generate a ton of ground effect lift, but so did the F-106. Not ideal for a carrier aircraft, but then again on a carrier you sort of just slam the thing down on the deck whilst simultaneously trying to grab a wire with a hook. Aerodynamically you can't compare the F-104 and the VF-4, the lifting surface is just not the same. A more accurate comparison would be the F-106 to the VF-4, since both are essentially tail-less delta wings.
-
Here's another, while it's not a case of macross being inspired by, it does show some interesting similarities... The Su-47 Berkut is the only twin engine design I know of with FSW and canards. I could be wrong. I thought this one was interesting, given the overall aesthetic similarities. The berkut was a late 90's design, and introduced to the world in 2000, but it shows that Kawamori, might just be ahead of the times in terms of fighter design... Or maybe he can see into the...bum bum buuummmm... the future...
-
Here's another pretty obvious one: Even though it's an enemy mech, I really like the SV-51.
-
I have three things on the way...
-
I have no Idea where exactly my packages are, since they didn't bother to include tracking information. I even requested the customs numbers as per the USPS, but no dice. So all I know is they shipped around teusday of last week...
-
I can certainly understand why. It is a sleek and sexy airplane. But it has some horrifying design flaws. 1. The T-tail. The flying t style tail has issues with causing pitch up. Which results in a loss of control. Wouldn't be as much an issue in space save for thrusters tied into the control sfc. 2. Stubby wings. Those short broad wings, while certainly providing all the lift needed, severely limited the fighter in terms of maneuverability. It could go fast, but it could not turn well. In space possibly not a big deal, but longer wings would be better for leveraging a turn (given thrusters at the wing tips). This is the same argument against the "high speed" wing configurations seen many places in Macross. 3. The stubby wings limit the amount of ordinance that could be carried. The Starfighter could carry 2 sidewinders on under the nose, 2 at the wing tips, and 2 under the wings. 4. Since VF's are intended to function in atmosphere, it's important to note, that the starfighter had high wing loading. This resulted in poor maneuverability (due to the stubby low aspect ratio wing) and also resulted in higher t/o and landing speeds. 5. Narrow landing gear. Look up f-16 langing gear on google images and you'll see what I'm talking about here. The F-104 was squirrely to land due to the narrow landing gear. I know the F-106 could generate it, but I don't know if the F-104 had enough wing area to generate ground effect. That makes a landing very difficult to do well. I do have an idea for a single engine VF, but I'll be honest, the way I picture it in my mind, is a lot more derivative of the VF-22, and F-35 than the F-104.