Skull-1

Depends on what kind of RM you dump into the system. If it is a propellant then it will increase thrust. Dumping fuel into the primary reaction chamber may not do anything other than overtemp the turbine. This airplane appears to have three different fan sections. I am sure that dumping combustible RM into the rear stage(s) will increase thrust.

An afterburner does what an afterburner does. In this case, a fusion powered engine dumps plasma into the exhaust coupled with (potentially combustible) reaction mass to increase thrust. Afterburner. A.k.a. "reheat." Same principle. Same process. Potentially different materials used. It's still a burner. Blue flame is simply hotter than orange.

How does it *NOT* have burners?

I recall Hikaru's Gerwalk retro from the animation. I it had slits but they were coupled to the foot walls (in some shots). Thus they could potentially lie flat. That may be what we see here. Then again, perhaps early Block Valks had slits and later Block deleted them (they are probably a MX nightmare).

FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTLFMAO!!!!! See what happens after the New Year?? 1000 indeed. <S> ! LOL!

The Slits probably serve multiple purposes... 1) Diffusion of exhaust -- reduces radar, noise, and thermal signature. 2) Vectoring - Allows for rapid changes in nozzle output for assymetric thrust maneuvers. I had a few others but my mind went numb.

Yes but in your original post you said 3030s. That would be roughly 100 years off. Typos..... Grrr.

Exactly. Though I think you meant that DYRL was made in the 2030s....

If it is in M7 then it doesn't enter the timeline until well after SDFM. Thus it is probably not a dedicated trainer but a refit old fighter plugged into the training command. That would make more sense than what is seen in DYRL.

I don't think Spacy actually did so. IMHO, since DYRL is basically pure fiction... I'll toss that completely out the window. As far as SW1 is concerned the VT-1 did not exist but was just a convenient plot point some director in the TMS universe threw in to entertain people. But Nor has it nailed. COMBAT CAPABLE. There isn't much reason to gut a monumentally expensive fighter and let it fly around in hostile airspace unarmed.

Thanks Nied. Good info. Any help on the paint scheme is appreciated in advance.

That *WOULD* make a lot of sense. Especially for the GIB.

Don't be a smart alec, man. The F-22 is fully combat capable. That means they have guns that can fire and weapons systems that can shoot missiles, drop bombs, etc.. Do they carry weapons when they go practice air-to-air? No. But they are *capable* of it (unlike, at least some feel, the VT-1, which is a stupid thing to do to a fighter). During live fire exercises (which does happen) they (F-15, F-18, F-22, ad nauseum) drop real bombs, shoot real guns, fire real missiles. The airplanes are 100% combat capable even when they are not armed. They are not "TF-22s" or "TF-15s" that are incapable of carrying weapons.

Orange usually means test. Red usually means trainer. Drones (experimental and target) have orange paint in both the Navy and the Air Force, for example.

A good instructor doesn't let his student get him into an emergency. The Hornet, especially the Super Hornet, is a nose pointer / angles fighter more so than the F-16. The flight control system on the F-16 is AOA limited vs. the F-18's G-limited system. Many times a Viper driver will run out of AOA in a turn and the computer will just stop the turn for a bit. When you see one wobbling around like that you can go in and kill him. The Hornet can't sustain G for as long as a light F-16 can, but it can point its nose much more aggressively. This makes the F-18 a VERY dangerous opponent especially when it is slow.

Maybe the VE-1 is actually a VT-1 conversion.

I had to put the "bicep" on backwards--no choice and no spares--but I will fill it to look correct eventually. Will take the paint under advisement. Guess after the New Year I will find inspiration! LOL

AWESOME POST. Thanks. That is revealing.

I think that is a little over the top. I don't need to check "the facts" on this one because the numbers are borderline irrelvant to the core argument. Relax man. I'm not attacking you personally. Enjoy the discussion. I am.

Which would be a parallel to the T-33/F-80 I suppose and I could very well concede that point. Hey thanks for that at least! LOL A good two cents at that!!!!!!! <S>

No, I simply quote the debatable points. If I don't quote you it probably means we agree or that you have a valid point. But that's the problem. Yours is a hunch and so is mine. My understanding of the numbers is that the VF total production is just not that high. It certainly isn't like the number of Corsairs or Hellcats built in WWII for example.

Negative. The T-38 and F-5 were developed in parallel (N-156 Project - Northrop). The F-5 was built for the MAP. The F-5 was a purpose-built fighter. The T-38 was a purpose-built lead-in fighter trainer. The VT-1 if it followed that same path would be one thing. But I have not seen that dilineated in TMS or in the Compendium. If it is I would be happy to see the info for sure. (Good discussion people. I enjoy your inputs.)

There is no need to. The production total of the VF series was not that high at SDF-1's launch. 212 and a handful of VT-1s. Not an entire training fleet of VT-1s. VF compliments were very low at least initially. So what do we figure? 500? 1000? That's not much. VT-1s made up 20 of those at most, no? LOL.

Stealth is not an issue for a CVN. Anyone close enough to paint you with radar is dead any way. At least with current technology.