Skull-1

Bypass air is needed because a fan is more efficient at lower altitudes than a pure jet would be. You have a faster reaction time to acceleration with a fan as opposed to a pure jet. The fan helps propel the aircraft. An "afterheater" would simply add velocity to the bypass air as needed to increase thrust. As for additional thrust in space, again, propellant can increase thrust. The mass of the propellant or RM expended will affect thrust. Just as heavier jet fuels provide more thrust per volume so too does RM. IMHO an afterburner ("afterheater") on a Valkyrie is probably just that--an additional fusion stage of one kind or another or an area to vent additional RM. Regardless, heating the bypass air will not decrease thrust by any means. This engine appears to have three "N1" fan sections, two "N1" fan sections with a single "N2", or two "N2" fan sections with a single "N1". There are three large fans there from my viewing of the line art.

Ditto.

I know what you are trying to say. What I am saying is that metal (or whatever the reactor is composed of) can only take so much. I assure you that the inside of an intermix stage in a fusion turbine is going to be hot enough to reduce everything in there to slag. Your only hope in the atmosphere is to then superheat bypass air downstream of that intermix turbine. You can do that through numerous means. You call it overboost I call it an afterburner the Brits call it a reheat. The principle is the same. The air is heated just prior to exiting the tailfeathers using fuel (or fusion, raw plasma, whatever anime magic you want to name). It may not be a true "afterburner" if a non-combustible heating element is used, but it is an "AFTERHEATER." And yes I recall the throttle quadrant. (But pilots speak of what they know and I can assure you they will still say "burner" even if it is truly a "booster.")

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.