Nied

You aren't running RM literally "through" the engine though in the sense of it mixing together. The plasma of the turbine is kept apart from the RM itself. Othewise I think you'd radiate the atmosphere and that would be unacceptable.

The transference of heat from the reactor to the RM (air / water whichever) is what produces your thrust.

Indeed that is exactly what I've been saying. Air is moved through the core of the engine where it is superheated by the heat exchanger. The compendium mentions MHD is involved somehow as well, my guess is there's an MHD section after the heat exchanger to accelerate the superheated exhaust further.

You have two options...

1) Heat a smaller volume of air to a higher total temp to increase the velocity of the exhuast gas to a very high level.

2) Heat a larger volume of air to a lower (but hotter) total temp and increase the velocity of the exhasut gas to a (relatively) moderate speed.

If you choose to do the former you are going to accelerate very slowly.

Or you can heat a large volume of Air/reaction mass to a very high level simply by throttling the engine higher. Though the fusion reactor might be producing more heat, that heat is also being transferred to the Air/RM at a higher rate as well.

The Valkyrie flits about the sky like a mosquito. I don't see how it does so without some chemical / combustible / RM Afterburner to heat the bypass air as well as to provide a "rocket" effect.

Nonsense! You've got the equivalent of a miniature star to produce heat, a chemical reaction is almost wasteful in that kind of environment. Just push the throttles further and dump more air into the heat exchanger so that it can be superheated. "Afterheating" as you call it is redundant, you'd get the same effect by heating the core exhaust to a higher temperature and having that mix with bypass air, and that's in the atmosphere. In space there'd be no bypass air in the first place. There's just no need to do anything close to an afterburner in a thermonuclear turbine, and there's quite a few good reasons not to do it.

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.

Actually running more reaction mass through the engine would cool it not heat it. Remember while similar a thurmonuclear turbine (at leat as it's explained in Macross) is not a jet engine. Heat from the fusion reacion is transfered to the reaction mass instead of igniting a fuel air mixture, the more heat transfered to the mass shooting out the back, the less there is in the reactor, it's basic thermodynamics. If anything the danger would be in cooling the reactor down to a point where it can no longer sustain a fusion reaction.

Dumping anything into the exhaust afterburner style would be extrememly ineffeicaent. The exhaust from the core is rapidly expanding and thus cooling (again thermodynamics) so dumping reaction mass into the exhaust stream would if anything it help cool it further thus reducing its energy. Bypas air is reletively diffuse (and judging from the cut aways of the engine there isn't very much of it) compared to the higly compressed air moving through the core so dumping plasma into it wouldn't give you more than a miniscule kick.

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.")

Actually overboost is distinct from afterburner and exists in modern jet engines (I've only heard of it in military fighters though). Overboost just consits of running an engine past 100% for short periods of time with a consequently lower TBO. IIRC the Su-33 has 133% overboost setting that is only to be used in conjuncton with afterburners during carrier takeoffs.

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.

There's only one fusion toroid visible in the cutaways of the engine, and it's impossible to get a slef sustaining fusion reaction to start in the aft end of the engine is close to impossible. And if it were I'd hate to be anywhere within 100 miles of the rear end of a Valkyrie when it lit off as it would be spweing gamma readiation.

I doubt magnets would make a roaring sound.

We certainly hear thrust noise akin to *combustion* when (among other instances) Hikaru tries to stop his VF-1D from plowing into a Zentraedi Soldier around Episode Three.

The 'combustion' sound of a modern jet engine is merely the result of the high speed superheated air from the engine interacting with the slower cooler air outside. It really wouldn't matter if the heat is provided by a fusion reactor and the high speed from a magneto hydrodynamic element youd still hear pretty much the same roar.

Yes but like I said, dumping extra reaction mass into the exhaust would create less thrust than dumping that same reaction mass into the the normal intermix chamer. Thermonuclear turbines work by using a fusion reaction to superheat a reaction mass instead of combusting flamables, dumping fusion plasma into the exhaust stream wouldn't heat the reaction mass as much as keeping it in the intermix stage, and dumping raw reaction mass into the exhaust would actually cool it giving you less thrust. I'm at work at the moment but there is line art of the Valkyrie's throttle quadrant clearly showing that it has no Afterburner detents only overboost (up to IIRC 130%).

What David said. Because thermonuclear turbines work by heating reaction mass (air in the atmosphere or something else in space) instead of burning fuel, just dumping reaction mass into the exhaust stream afterburner style would create less thrust than simply dumping more fuel into the primary reaction chamber.

Yes. SDFM = Slits. DYRL = no slits. Yammies are based off the DYRL designs. Very simple.

Actually you can see the slits clearly in several scenes in DYRL too. I've loaned my copy of DYRL to a freind so I can't pull a screen grab, but if you freeze frame the shot of Hikaru swiching to GERWALK at the begining of the movie (right after Skull team fires thier first salvo of misiles) you can see them pretty clearly. I'm not sure why most 3-d representations now feature the afturburner rings (which is just damn odd since the VF-1 doesn't have afterburners).

Is this official TV lineart? It shows turbines.

IIRC that's from TIAS Macross Plus, and might be the first time we see the slits replaced with afterburner cans.

I always figured the slits were there to difuse the exhaust somewhat to prevent ground erosion. Without them a VF-1 would make a great tool for digging holes for telephone poles.

1) Is the VT-1 COMPLETELY unarmed? IOW, is it completely incapable of carrying a GU-11 and does anyone think it makes sense to have a completely unarmed trainer? In that light, why does the VT-1 have the same forearm package as the Super Valk? (Again a question for my custom as perhaps I should modify the missle ports as thrusters or something instead.)

Like most trainers it probably has the capability to carry weapons on hardpoints, though I doubt it's ever used in actual combat (inaccurate docu-dramas aside). Looking at my copy of the Macross design works the VT-1 carries no arm armor at all.

2) Does the VT-1 have any inherent advantages over the VF-1D? More fuel? More maneuverability? Anything? (Is this why the boosters are so fat? And am I required to mount them at an angle on the backpack or do they swivel in the animation?)

Better seating arrangement for the instructor pilot, more fuel, simplified design (AFAIK the VT-1's tail fins are incapable of folding), and lower power engines (might make for more forgiving performance). This is speculation but I'm willing to bet the VT-1s FCS is programmed to be much more forgiving than the VF-1's. The VF-1D having nearly identical performance to the VF-1A/J would be more of a conversion trainer in the mold of the F-16D F-15D F/A-18D etc. etc. while the VT-1 would be more of a basic/lead in fighter trainer like the BAE Hawk.

3) Where is the VT-1 actually based/operated? Non-combat areas? SDF-1? Earth orbit-only? Did SDF-1 ever actually deploy them or were they deployed on the ARMD platforms? (I need this info for decals.)

Wherever the Spacy trains their pilots. I don't know if the VT-1 was in production when the Macross made her voyage (in the official timeline that is, obviously in they were on board the Macross in the DYRL docu-drama). Being trainers they'd probably fly missions far away from any possibility of enemy contact which would mean in and around the neighborhood of Earth or similarly safe colony world. I could see there being a "training ARMD" where VT's could perform carrier qualifications, but I doubt you'd see any on vessels destined for combat aside from deep space colony missions.

5) Are VT-1s *ONLY* painted Orange/Tan? (Do any sources in the animation show any other scheme but orange/tan?)

Others have already answered this but I seem to remember an overall grey color scheme being featured in one of the modeling magazines, I'll see if I can dig it up.

6) Do we see them in the Macross TV series even in the background? I only remember seeing VF-1Ds. I only recall the VT-1 in DYRL.

The VT-1 only ever appears in DYRL and MD7. It's not clear if the VT-1 was even in service during SW1.

I don't get why everyone rags on the F-35 it’s not like there trying to replace EVERY plane with it. There replacing things like F-16's, F-18's and AV-8B's (harriers). those plans already do the Swiss army knife, do every job you throw at them thing, the F-35 can just do it better with newer tech. were still going to have specialty planes to handle the air superiority role (F-22's) things are going to be exactly the same as they are now except with stealth.

--edited for can't spell.

Because the F-35 is only as good as the F-16 or F/A-18 in a dogfight. Never mind that both planes rarely if ever perform air to air missions. Also its only stealthy if it carries a warload similar to an F-16, if it carries more it's not stealthy anymore. Those are the big arguments I hear against it. I think people hear "multi-service" and just check their logic at the door.

None taken. We can read a map like everyone else.

All that hardware and deathware and training, are really to bleed any invaders white and to buy time. The real defense of Singapore lies in the political arena.

Anyway, to get back to the thread. RSAF is buying F-15s; I've always wondered why. The F-15 isn't exactly cutting edge and might in fact suffer from a technological gap from the more recent European offerings. I'm sure the logistics of supporting an F-15 arm is a consideration, but how does the F-15 stack up against its competitors?

IIRC Singapore went with the F-15E over some of the other eurocanards because it's cheaper, and it can do what the RSAF wants right now. The Eurocanards (Rafale and Typhoon) could only promise that their offerings would have the capabilities that the RSAF wanted by the time they got the planes (I believe neither plane has AG capability in service at the moment). Given the delays that have plagued both the Typhoon and Rafale it appears Singapore went for a less capable sure thing rather than gamble on more capability that might or might not appear.

Guess thats why Singapore went for the F-15. The Hornet wasn't even in the running.

Since Australia doesn't have carriers, would their Shornets be carrying unecessary weight meant for carrier ops?

BTW, beside from presumably 'more-stealth', would the Shornet have any other performance advantage over the F-15E/K/T? I suppose easier maintenance?

The RAAF mainly uses thier Aardvarks in a maritime strike and recon role. The F/A-18F was designed to do that from the begining, while only the newer (and more expensive) Strike Eagle versions have clearance to carry the Harpoon. The F-15K/SG/FX might have slightly better range and more payload options, but the Aussies aren't really going to use those. At roughly $40 million a pop cheaper, the Rhino is a better deal, and it lets them buddy tank their Baby Hornets to boot.

It flies.

Here's something a little more official from Lockheed on the F-35's first flight.

Good lord 6 years!? Wow. Like JsARCLIGHT I lurked for a month or two before finally joining in late January. It's hard to believe that when I started on this forum I was a sophomore in college and now here I am almost six years later a married man living on the other side of the country...

I feel old.

Interesting to see Flankers in a new Air Force. The grey and white camo scheme is pretty sharp. Looks like the FAV opted for the wet tail fins but not the canards (IIRC no TVC either). I wonder what kind of avionics fit they have.

Ok, here's a quick rendition of the VFX-2 scheme. Now, a "real" VFX-2 VF-11 I think would incorporate all the normal VF-11 markings, like the stripes on the legs and ventral fins, which every other VF-11 has, but doesn't seem to be in the VFX version. So if you added black and yellow to the legs and ventral fins, you'd have a very cool VF-11---maybe continue the striping pattern on the rudder. Also, the wingtips are black and yellow, but it's hard to see.

Finally---I used my "modified tailfin" version of the VF-11---the "official" sideview just does NOT fit Kawamori's drawings nor the anime', and the tailfin pattern from VFX won't fit at all---the VFX model is also similar to how I drew it.

IIRC they just re-used a scheme that originally appeared in TIAS: M+

The VF-11 is roughly the same size as the VF-1. If they made 1/60 version it'd be midget next to the new YF-19. They should make it a 1/48.

oh joy, the US/UK JSF "Operational sovereignty" row rears it's head again: link to BBC story

I thought the matter had finally been sorted out a while ago, but I guess not.

I would hope that the "plan B" mentioned in the article had already been thought of.

It has. Most reports from when this dust up first started state the "plan B" is either a navalised Typhoon (Sea-Typhoon?) or Rafale M's purchased from the French(!). That of course would require a slight re-design of the Invincible class to giver them proper catapults instead of ski ramps, there's a good chance that might lead to delays since the UK is keen on using EM cats instead of steam and those systems aren't fully developed yet. Interestingly enough there's a very good chance that the Invincible class will be fitted with arresting gear no matter what so that it can accommodate Hawkeyes for AEW (tests are reportedly under way launching E-2s off of Ski ramps).

I agree with you.

Love and music?

transforming combat jets?

How over done are those things in Macross we need something new.

Absolutely. The next Macross series shouldn't have any of that stuff, it's over played. As is this whole "animation" thing. The next Macross series should be a live action show about a plucky band of orphans who solve mysteries in 1920s Chicago.

there's been talk of export F-22s in the older thread. Japan was supposed to have been approached. I suspect that the UK might have been as well. personally I can;t see it happening for a good few years, I don't think the US political climate would allow it. it;s been bad enough sorting out the operational sovereignty thing on JSF which was a co-funded project almost from the start. to gain congress approval, Lockheed would effectively only be able to sell F-22s so downgraded that countries may as well buy F-15s, Superhornets, Typhoons or Rafales, and get a lot more of them.

Anyway, from a purely functional POV what country other than america (that are friendly with america) can afford to field such an expensive plane that's so specialised in role? countries that aren't super-powers need multi-role aircraft, and I don't think the F-22 is sufficently multi-role to do the job.

Both Japan and Australia have need for an extremely good air dominance fighter to defend against threats from neighboring air forces equipped with advanced Flanker variants, and a secondary requirement to replace Vietnam era fighter-bombers in the Sea control role (F-111F in the RAAF, and F-4EJ Kai in the JASDF). The Raptor is easily the best choice for the air dominance role, and could actually perform the sea control role pretty well right now. A F-22A at super cruising at 50,000ft would be able to attack a ship with JDAM or JDAM-ERs from about the same effective range as the current Harpoons and ASM-2s in RAAF and JASDF service, but using a much bigger warhead (1000 lbs vs 488 lbs). Since it would be cruising at 50,000ft it would be able to survey a much larger area than either services current fighters which have to make sea skimming attacks.

Over in op4_delta's Asuka thread Egan Loo made this enigmatic comment:

This split is also related to Shoji Kawamori's personal opinion of the VF-4, but that's another discussion.

So what is Kawamori's opinion on the VF-4? Does he love hate, thinks he could have done better? Inquiring minds (and the cult of Lightning) want to know!

Nanashi (or whatever he's calling himself now) occasionally posts stuff like this, but then he'll put up his new "coming soon" banner on Macrossmecha (or whatever he's calling it now) and it all disapears. I love that he goes through the trouble (both in time and money) to translate the stuff but it's frustrating how he doesn't leave it up.

On a related note, I seem to remember a project from a while back to translate some of the text accompanying the various Valkyrie color schemes in TIA:M+. Whatever happened to that?

And already people are saying it wouldn't have happened to a Tomcat!

Call signs for pilots started among American pilots as a way of quickly identifying pilots over radio in the heat of combat, they aren't generally used in the air arms of other countries. The UN Spacy uses two way video in its communications making the actual reason for using call signs redundant, that and the fact that there was no tradition of using call signs (except among the American pilots inducted into Spacy service) would explain why we don't see them in Macross.

They had them employed in the manufacturing sector. You kinda NEED tools to do manufacturing work.

Besides, they wanted to teach them to be people, not to make them slave warriors for a neo-protoculture empire.

Not only that but most of Earth's defense fleet was made up of Zentradi vessels. While it's likely that a lot of equipment was made to be serviced by micron (or micronian in Robotech) personnel, humans weren't in good supply after the war and it's likely Zentradi personnel in the UN Spacy were issued repair kits. Those same kits could have easily made it into Kamjin's possession either through theft or defection of personnel (likely both).

But we have visual and audio cues, at least in Robotech, that say otherwise.

Also just because they can fix a fusion reactor does not mean they could design a whole new system that wasn't based on their own nor could they necessarily refine whatever fuels were necessary (deuterium perhaps?) if they ran out of stocks. The reactor officers on a nuke sub may know a great deal about their systems, but that does not translate into them being nuclear physicists.

All of those examples are from after SW1 and all of them are likely examples of Zentradi trained in repair by humanity before joining Kamjin's insurgency.