anime52k8 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Did you mention that?, damn, that's nice to know. Kinda figured it was a panel line but was just looking to confirm it. That and I'm working out a swinging FSW design of my own. actually that gives me an awsome idea for how to store an FSW (although I don't have a valk to use it on yet.) Quote
anime52k8 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) double post WTH?!? Edited March 13, 2009 by anime52k8 Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) double post WTH?!? Oh shoot!... Sorry guys my apologies. EDIT: correct placement for posting. Kinda figured it was a panel line but was just looking to confirm it. That and I'm working out a swinging FSW design of my own. That sounds cool, I wouldn't be surprised that anime52k8's design could fold the FSW section backwards to make a more backward swept/delta wing shape to facilitate better stability in super sonic flight as the wing tips generate no lift flying faster then the speed of sound. Here is some fun trivia for all of you fighter buffs and prop heads alike, the speed of sound at sea level is 661kts at 15°c, about 30,000 feet MSL it is 589kts at -44.4°c, and at 60,000 feet MSL it is 573kts at -56.6°c. As the altitude increases and the air density and temperature decreases the speed of sound decreases till zero in a vacuum. Oddly the boiling temperature of water decreases as well at altitude. In the vacuum the boiling temperature of water is extremely low. Don't ask me why I added the boiling point of water to this paragraph, I just added it for fun and reference. Second Edit: Anime52k8, I'm going to use the WTF-25 as the prototype designation, just because that is what you called it first. Fluff wise it is the designation the designer gave its configuration (Wing Tactical Forward type 25) Here are the Watermarked images to be displayed on my site Ok, Latst EDIT (promise): Because hobbes221 gave me the idea, we now have variable geometry wings for super sonic flight. (Sorry for the long post) Edited March 13, 2009 by Macross GURU Quote
anime52k8 Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Oh shoot!... Sorry guys my apologies. EDIT: correct placement for posting. I somehow submitted the same post twice, no need to apologize. Quote
Zinjo Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Agreed the whole purpose for the narrow wings are for super sonic flight, all military aircraft designed for trans-sonic/super-sonic have that. The wing root is where the lift is generated at super sonic speeds you learn that first day in aerospace engineering, ok so maybe not first day generally you get the syllabus on first day, but it is a very basic concept for super sonic fight. The flat frame of the F-14 is a super-sonic lifting body that is stable utilizing the fact that the wing roots generate the lift (meaning it is all delta wing). The forward swept wing of the fighter I call the VF-26 Kestrel or Anime calls the WTF-25 has forward swept wings. Forward swept wings generate lift on the wing tips at lower speeds and at super-sonic speeds on the wing roots. This is more advantageous then the delta wing which performs better at super sonic speeds yet is dangerous to maneuver at landing speeds and sometimes require a longer faster takeoff or landing roll. The F-14 has a variable geometry wing which allows it to extend to generate lift at lower takeoff and landing speeds and retract to a delta wing for super-sonic speeds. The wing of the F-22 is a redesigned delta as the variable geometry wing is too expensive to construct and too heavy to install that and even with the special composite materials used today to lighten the airframe the VG wing is maintenance heavy. So the newer fighters and attack craft use a specially designed delta and a super-sonic lifting body. Variable fighters have arms and stuff disallowing lift in the middle (looking at my 1/48 VF-1A Max Type), yup, big honking arms. Out of Kawamorri's designs, I find the SV-51, YF/VF-19, YF-21/VF-22, and VF-25 most airworthy designs. The VF-0, VF-1, VF-4, VF-9, VF-11, VF14, VF-17, and VF-27 have too much parasitic drag and possibly weight and balance issues, and depending the model portraying the fighter it becomes debatable. Take it from me I have a Federal Aviation Administration certification. I specialize in airframe and coffins with propellers (helicopters). Edit: Oh did I not mention I have a degree in Aviation Maintenance and Technology, for my school it was a minor engineering degree. I always thought the early generations of VF's simply relied on the thrust of the nuke engines to gain & maintain flight. However, that is not the most efficient way to utilize the engines... Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I somehow submitted the same post twice, no need to apologize. Oh, I miss understood, oops Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 I always thought the early generations of VF's simply relied on the thrust of the nuke engines to gain & maintain flight. However, that is not the most efficient way to utilize the engines... Uses them like any plane: Push it forward so air flows over the wings, generating lift. They're just not fuel efficient enough to reach LEO. Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 Uses them like any plane: Push it forward so air flows over the wings, generating lift. They're just not fuel efficient enough to reach LEO. Oddly Major Roy Focker's VF-1S made LEO in SDFM episode 3(?). Now, is that because of the different reaction turbine have better Volumetric Efficacy? Really I never use VME for turbines because they are all VME but I suppose the better term for reaction engines would be power to thrust output per the weight ratio... I guess then it would be thrust to weight ratio. Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 Oddly Major Roy Focker's VF-1S made LEO in SDFM episode 3(?). Now, is that because of the different reaction turbine have better Volumetric Efficacy? Really I never use VME for turbines because they are all VME but I suppose the better term for reaction engines would be power to thrust output per the weight ratio... I guess then it would be thrust to weight ratio. My guess is the 1S had turbines tuned to be able to Air-Ram at higher altitudes before having to switch to reaction thrust. What's LEO? Low Earth Orbit Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) My guess is the 1S had turbines tuned to be able to Air-Ram at higher altitudes before having to switch to reaction thrust. -snip- I always thought the reaction turbines used the atmosphere as a propellant for thrust, at high altitude used the upper ram intakes, and then switched to internal wing/body propellant tanks for space flight. Maybe all Valkyries can make LEO just not very quickly since the fighter would need to make the transition to each layer of atmosphere till it can reach LEO. I figure if that were the case it just would be undesirable to make the long transition as that would leave the VF-1 at a tactical disadvantage. More powerful fighters make LEO faster and thus have the tactical advantage to make space faster. Edit: grammatical error. Edited March 15, 2009 by Macross GURU Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 15, 2009 Posted March 15, 2009 I always thought the reaction turbines used the atmosphere as a propellant for thrust, at high altitude used the upper ram intakes, and then switched to internal wing/body propellant tanks for space flight. Maybe all Valkyries can make LEO just not very quickly since the fighter would need to make the transition to each layer of atmosphere till it can reach LEO. I figure if that were the case it just would be undesirable to make the long transition as that would leave the VF-1 at a tactical disadvantage. More powerful fighters make LEO faster and thus have the tactical advantage to make space faster. Edit: grammatical error. In an atmosphere, the TRTs can use an Air-Ram mode, which draws air through it, superheating it, and ejects it out the nozzles. Like a Jet. However, unlike a jet, fuel isn't expended. Instead, it remains in the reactor, realizing its full reactability. When there's not enough, they switch to Thermonuclear Thrust, where the superheated plasma from the reactor is expended (This is the fuel that isn't fully used up. Like an A/B). You can fly for HOURS without refueling in Air-Ram, but only for short periods on TT. The tanks don't carry enough fuel to reach LEO. Like I said, it's my guess that the 1S has specially tuned engines that can air-ram at higher altitudes. BACK ON TOPIC, NOW! Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 RIGHT! I wish I had a GERWALK of the WTF-25/VF-26 Kestrel. I could take a shot at it but my art style varies considerably from anime52k8's style. Even though it is a throwaway design that is an amalgamation of various fighters, it really looks good. In the real world engineers tend to 'steal' styles and components of already existing designs or if not styles from the natural world. In an atmosphere, the TRTs can use an Air-Ram mode, which draws air through it, superheating it, and ejects it out the nozzles. Like a Jet. However, unlike a jet, fuel isn't expended. Instead, it remains in the reactor, realizing its full reactability. When there's not enough, they switch to Thermonuclear Thrust, where the superheated plasma from the reactor is expended (This is the fuel that isn't fully used up. Like an A/B). You can fly for HOURS without refueling in Air-Ram, but only for short periods on TT. The tanks don't carry enough fuel to reach LEO. Like I said, it's my guess that the 1S has specially tuned engines that can air-ram at higher altitudes. BACK ON TOPIC, NOW! Quote
anime52k8 Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) UGH... all attempts at drawing anything related to transforming aircraft have failed miserably lately, so I took a break to draw something a fun. so here's some kimono for you to enjoy (this is actually a way less non sequitur image than it appears.) Edited March 17, 2009 by anime52k8 Quote
SchizophrenicMC Posted March 16, 2009 Posted March 16, 2009 UGH... all attempts at drawing anything related to transforming aircraft have failed miserably lately, so I took a break to draw something a fun. so here's some kimono for you to enjoy (this is actually a way less non sequitur image that in appears.) /Nosebleed Quote
Macross GURU Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 (edited) Ah... Very lovely Mike! I must say that is a very refreshing sight. Thank you again for blessing us with your exceptional illustrations. Kudos! UGH... all attempts at drawing anything related to transforming aircraft have failed miserably lately, so I took a break to draw something a fun. so here's some kimono for you to enjoy (this is actually a way less non sequitur image that in appears.) Edit: grammar (again) I've got to stop doing that... Edited March 17, 2009 by Macross GURU Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.