Knight26

Thank DH, he brought my attention to the thread and asked me to wade in.

Definite improvement over the original design, and while it may share a similar fuselage design the Viper is a much different craft then the X-Wing.

AH good, made another head explode, reminds of my days teaching this stuff.

That thing is beauty man, one comment, in the animation it showed the nose as being banged up too, and the airframe looked sag around the cockpit a little, indicating structural failure. Maybe the next person who tries something similar will add those details.

Ok about time someone with an aerospace degree waded in on this one. First off a V-tail configuration is know as Ruddervator (rudder/elevator), it's not a very common design, but an interesting and good concept none the less. Elevons are combination Elevators and Ailerons, hence the name, ELEVator ailerONS. They are used primarily on swing wing aircraft and more and more on fighters, like the F/A-18. They provide for enhanced manueverability on fixed wing aircraft and control on Variable geometry winged aircraft, otherwise an F-14/F-111 with its wings swept would be unable to roll. The VF-1's vertical stabilizers (not stabilators which are combination elevator/horizontal stabilizer, all moving) are pretty much strictly rudders, the engines and oblique angle of the tails makes them produce little or no lift force. A VF-1 based design would only be able to fly using thrust vectoring to control pitch and roll. The small ventral fins on the engine outboard would help somewhat, if designed with proper camber, in the pitch stabilization role, but would be of much use in control. The biggest hinderance to a VF-1's aerodynamics are the arms, if one designs along the lines of the toys, which always have the arms hanging so low. If I remember correctly Hasagawa kits have the arms fairly recessed elliminating much of that problem, so draw help from there. Even so the arms will create a signicant amount of blunt end drag, the drag that results from air flowing off the back end of blocky object. A clever reshaping of the arms would create a better lifting body shape, similar to the F-14. As for control problems related to the VG wing, Kawamori has stated that the inlets above the main intakes are intended to assist in the VG transition, much like the glove vanes on an F-14. Software reconfiguration on the F-14 and a slight intake reconfigure alleviated the need for glove vanes in the F-14. If you are serious about making a VF-1 RC model I would suggest making something more along the lines of the VF-1/F-14 hybrid design, at least to start. The forward fuselage is a sound design on the VF-1, no real need to change it. To be honest the major part to change will the arms as I stated before, either chop them out entirely or reshape them into a better lifting body shape. At first I would say just build it without the arms, then add new arm designs as you go, from aerodynamic shells to the full up arm, study what happens along the way and let us know. The vertical stabilizers should be used strictly a rudders, don't try and ruddervate them. As a preliminary design make it fixed winged at the minimum sweep angle, that will give you usable surface for ailerons and the flaps, don't mess with VG too soon, control issues will abound. As for elevator control I have three suggestions: 1) thrust vectoring, either a) put a simple vane in the engine exhaust to control it that way, or b) get the nozzle to move like they should. option (a) would be the easist solution. 2) use the flap at the back of the backpack. If you shape the fuselage correctly you might be able to use that flap as an elevator, strange I know but it might just work. 3) go with the clear plastic stabilator that somone suggested, mount it at the ankle joint would be my suggestion. This option would probably give you the best controlability. Now, if you decide to go VG. You'll want a light mechanism to accomplish this or one that is speed dependant, as simple as a spirng loaded system that forces the wings back as speed increases. This will require the use of a set of Elevons though or thrust vectoring in order to keep control over the plane. In order to compensate for the CG and lift center changes that the wing sweeping will create you might want to consider one of two options: 1) a simple mass slider in the fuselage, this is the easist way to go but will still require some good math to get to work correctly. 2) do Kawamori proud and find a way to use those inlets to compensate. THis one would be very neat but would require some heavy design work. There are two options I can think of off the top of my head to make this work. 1) Just ahve them open into a duct over the main intake, have to run the math on this but having the doors open might make this duct make create another airfoil right above the intakes, combined with a good lifting body design this could solve the VG problem, likely want them to open as the wing sweeps back. The biggest problem here would be finding the space for the duct. Option 2): Install blowers in behind those vents and blow air out and up from the vents. I realize this sounds crazy but if you can put a swirling mass of air right there it should serve to create an other airfoil around the intake/fuselage area. This one is a little strange I admit but so is the fact that swirling masses of air, spinning cylinders, and spinning spheres creat lift. It's so crazy it might just work. I would take the project in baby steps though, and keep us updated. Also, one last thing, you'll likely want to work on a large scale, possible 1:12 or 1:6 scale, the more complex the design gets the larger the plane will have to get. Have to run the numbers but just so you know 1:18 scale VF-1 would be aboout 2.6 feet long, so a 1:12 about 3.4 feet and a 1:6 about 7.8 feet long, hope you have a lot of room.

Well if Graham suggests it and we all support it I think Yamato might come out with the accessory set he is proposing. Yamato has always seemed to listen to Graham and the demands of the fans so I say Graham should bring it up at his next dinner with the Yamato President.

Funny story to go along with the kitbash, dude must have been on crack when he made that though.

MMM, nice backgrounds, I agreee that green eyed red heads are my weakness too, glad I'm dating one now, have to see if she'll dress up like that for me. Now that would be one hell of an anime-expo costume.

The SWASTIKA predates the Nazi regime by a few thousand years, cultures all around the world have used it to symbolize various things, the sun, life, etc... THe Nazis just perverted it for their own use, and unfortunately since then most people still assosciate it solely with the Nazis. I will stop now, as this discussion has gotten me in trouble many times before, though it can be a fun debate.

I remember Beyond 2000, not a bad show, made down in Austraila if I remember correctly. WHy bring it up?

I'm considering going onto this list. EXO have you looked into how to modify it into a seat position for cockpit seating? I know I know I'm crazy, but some clever limb breaking and repositioning should be able to do it, though you will likely have to cut off the feet like I did with my original.

Key word there is on the ground, if you look at the area it is a training grounds, probably for a small backwater colonies militia. More then likely that one FAST Pack equiped valk was just there for maintenance training demonstrations and work. It would be after all much cheaper to train the ground crew planetside then send them into space to work on the real thing.

Accident type 1: The aerodynamic fairing that originally covered the intake of the drone was pyrotechnically jettisioned, damaging both drone and mothership, mothership RTBed with drone still attached. Several attempts were made that fit this profile in order to try and solve the problem. Accident 2: -1G seperation technique, seperation successful, but control issues caused drone to collide with mothership, drone destroyed, mothership severally damaged, forced to RTB. Several launchs were actaully made this way, but determined to be unusable outside of a testing situation. Accident 3: Aerodynamic faring removed, no way found to overcome the problem. Standard 1G acceleration, drone seperation failed, drone crashed into mothership destroying both craft. The M-21/D-21 project was closed shortly there after. The D-21 continued life as a recon dron launched from B-52s, using a rocket motor get it up to speed for the Ramjet to work. There was also the problem that with the Drone attached the extra weight and drag required to get the ship up to speed enough for the ramjet to work required a run up from New Mexico to the california coast.

Actually an accident occured with each seperation test, but only one resulted in the destruction of the aircraft.

WHo is Rob Van Dam?

The M-21 was the mothership, a modified SR-71, the D-21 was the drone. It was designed to do the actual overflight, at speeds aproaching the hypersonic threshhold and then parachute to safety in a friendly country. I should have stated that better sorry. I don't waht you were talking about with the designations.

*Sees Super Armored VF-19 walking down street, after leaving pilot's girlfriends apartment.* *AFter gawking in wonder, runs like Sheol to get out of its way, hoping the pilot didn't see him.* Dang man, that thing is super armed allright, especially once you consider how many more missiles are hiding in the backpacks.

Ok, I used to give a weekly instructional briefing on the SR-71/A-12/YF-12/M-21+D-21, etc... I will quickly explain the A-12 designation. The "A" Stands for Archangel, which was the code name Lockheed used for the top secret CIA project. Archangel 12, A-12, was the twelfth and final design considered for the series and is the one that was built. The YF-12 was designed as an anti-nuclear bomber interceptor, it carried 3 tactical nuclear missiles in internal bays that it would launch at formations of Russian bombers. The missile is the direct precursour to the AIM-54 Phoenix and much of its technology went into that weapon. THe YF-12 concept was scrapped becuase launch at high speed caused seperation damage to the aircraft, the aircraft could not turn on a dime at high speed, and the resulting EMP would have klnocked out all of its avionics, mind you all the Black Bird Varients were pretty much flown strictly on instruments. The M-21/D-21 was developed about the same time, and so was the SR-71, the A-12 was the daddy to all of them. The M-21 was intended to be able to carry the D-21 drone to the border of russian airspace, release the drone, let it over fly and then ditch itself someplace safe for pick up. However, several disasterous test launchs ended that program, leaving only the SR-71 and the handful of A-12s left.

The reason you don't see FAST PACKS in use on earth missions is not just due to weight but aerodynamics. The FAST PACKs are designed strictly for space use, therefore are not aerodynamically sound. A modifed version of the leg packs migth be able to be used, but not the backpacks.

We had this discussion back on the old boards. In WW2 the Japanesse did use 3 man formations, just not too effectively, requires great communication. In a modern air warfare environment a two man formation is preferable because in general you will only expect attack from above or below, depending on altitude, and not both. Whereas in space it would be better to fly in a three fighter formation because you can expect attack from any direction. In a strike formation this would be essential so the two wingmen could cover the striker while he goes in for the target.

Ok, it's off to the publishers, went over the page count a little but no big deal. I don't know why but after I sent it off this time I felt more nervous then after the initial send off. Infact after the initial send off I felt great, like a big weight was lifted off my shoulders. This time I got butterflies afterwards. Well, I guess it's back to waiting have to see what they think of the next pages and wait to hear back from the others. Wish me luck.

Very Interesting.

What plane has reversable controls? Last I checked all fighters are laid out the same, throttle on the left (thinking hand), stick in the mid or right side (action hand). I have never known any southpaw pilot to have that much difficulty using the right handed control scheme. However, when flying a plane like a Cessna right handed people, like me, have a hard time transitioning to having the throttle on the right. It is something you get past though, and after a few flights are fine with it. I've actually known a few southpaws who had the same problem I did transitioning to the Cessna, it's just a backwards scheme to waht you are used to.

Well, it wasn't scotch but SuperO and I had a couple hefeweizens last night to celebrate, and some fresh brewed off the tap root beer, good night.

It's Sara, what do I win?