VF-1 Design question?

[Coota0]

Does the VF-1 have two Tailhooks? It just doesn't seem right to me (if it does have dual hooks) the possiblety of only one catching just seems that it would be a problem.

[Skypoet]

Hi!

Yes it does! There has already been a thread on this matter, so maybe you can find it with the "search" function... good luck! At least one drawing was posted.

[Hurin]

Apparently it does have two according to the post above. However, I think I'd just land it in gerwalk!

[Graham]

The 1/72 scale Bandai Hi-Complete Model VF-1A/J/S toys from the mid-80s have two tail hooks (one in each rear landing gear well). I'm not sure if this is canon or not though.

One of our more knowledgable aviation buff members did point out that having a tail hook on each leg would be an absolute no-go in real life though, as if only one hook snagged the wire when landing and the other hook missed, the Valk would just go spinning off to one side when landing, with probably disasterous results.

Graham

[Graham]

OK, just checked the Macross Compendium and yes, having two hooks appears to be canon.

The Compendium has the following to say: -

LANDING GEAR: Retractable tricycle undercarriage. Two steerable nosewheels retract rearward into nose and twin coupled mainwheels inward into fuselage. Two arresting hooks mounted underfuselage on engine nacelles.

Graham

[Opus]

since the VF-1 is designed for space it has retro thrusters so would it even need a tailhook? I would think it could stop itself.

[Graham]

since the VF-1 is designed for space it has retro thrusters so would it even need a tailhook? I would think it could stop itself.

I would think that the small retro-thrusters located on the sides of the intakes would not be powerful enough to stop the VF-1 in a carrier landing in fighter mode.

Of course as others have said, why not just land in Gerwalk mode?

Graham

[Opus]

since the VF-1 is designed for space it has retro thrusters so would it even need a tailhook? I would think it could stop itself.

I would think that the small retro-thrusters located on the sides of the intakes would not be powerful enough to stop the VF-1 in a carrier landing in fighter mode.

Of course as others have said, why not just land in Gerwalk mode?

Graham

Come to think of it they do land in gerwalk mode in one of the early eps before the carriers were attached. I don't think any landings are show after that though.

[Ido]

since the VF-1 is designed for space it has retro thrusters so would it even need a tailhook? I would think it could stop itself.

I would think that the small retro-thrusters located on the sides of the intakes would not be powerful enough to stop the VF-1 in a carrier landing in fighter mode.

Of course as others have said, why not just land in Gerwalk mode?

Graham

They land in Gerwalk mode on Macross in the early episodes, if the transformation was a secret is not very smart make the valks land in gerwalk mode on the carriers.

Armd launching arms = the best.

[Hurin]

Well, even though I originally said it, I think most of the infrastructure on the Macross and elsewhere is designed to maintain/arm/disarm/fuel valkryies while in fighter mode. So, landing in Gerwalk is probably discouraged. Going from gerwalk to fighter mode while not in-flight seems difficult.

Though, I used to think a valkyrie couldn't transform from figher to gerwalk while on the ground. But I was enlightened by those more knowledgable (or who watched DYRL more closely). So I could be wrong here too.

H

[Graham]

Armd launching arms = the best.

A launching arm is fine for space and looks the coolest visually, but a catapault assisted launch would still be prefered even in space as it gives the Valk some free starting velocity and saves valuable reaction mass (fuel), which is limited in space.

Remember it's only in an atmosphere that a Valk can extract fuel (hydrogen?) from the air, thus allowing virtually unlimited range. In space the Valk's fuel supply is limited to what it can carry in internal tanks, FAST Packs or drop tanks.

Of course Lanch Arms are absolutely no use for atmospheric launches, so overall the catapault is the way to go for both space and atmosphere.

Graham

[nanashino]

Does the VF-1 have two Tailhooks? It just doesn't seem right to me (if it does have dual hooks) the possiblety of only one catching just seems that it would be a problem.

(If and when the server comes back up....)

[wwwmwww]

Though, I used to think a valkyrie couldn't transform from figher to gerwalk while on the ground. But I was enlightened by those more knowledgable (or who watched DYRL more closely). So I could be wrong here too.

Any screen captures from this sequence floating around? I'm curious how the VF-1 could transform from or to fighter mode while on the ground myself.

Carl

[Hurin]

Any screen captures from this sequence floating around? I'm curious how the VF-1 could transform from or to fighter mode while on the ground myself.

Here you go. . .

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

the MPC toys also have tailhooks. This is not mentioned in the manual, but they are there, thin strips of styrene they are

[JB0]

Armd launching arms = the best.

A launching arm is fine for space and looks the coolest visually, but a catapault assisted launch would still be prefered even in space as it gives the Valk some free starting velocity and saves valuable reaction mass (fuel), which is limited in space.

Remember it's only in an atmosphere that a Valk can extract fuel (hydrogen?) from the air, thus allowing virtually unlimited range. In space the Valk's fuel supply is limited to what it can carry in internal tanks, FAST Packs or drop tanks.

Hydrogen would go into the fusion reactor. It's not used directly in the propulsion of the plane.

It's A fuel, but not the important one for this discussion, which is confused by the fact that in space, a Valk has two "fuels, " both of which have "react" in the name.

What's used as "reaction mass" in an atmosphere is heated and compressed air sucked in from the intakes, just like a more conventional jet.

The big diffrence between a Valk and a modern jet while operating in an atmosphere(aside from the laser cannons and transformation...) is that they use a heat exchanger from the reactor to heat the "combustion chamber" instead of burning jet fuel.

It's only in space that a valk needs signifigant reaction mass onboard.

But it needs reactor fuel onboard in all situations, as I would be very surprised if it can extract any signifigant amount of hydrogen from the atmosphere.

[grss1982]

Any screen captures from this sequence floating around?  I'm curious how the VF-1 could transform from or to fighter mode while on the ground myself.

Here you go. . .

nice sequence, but one quick question, what the heck are those things under the cockpit? are those the so called "vernier thrusters?

[azrael]

but one quick question, what the heck are those things under the cockpit? are those the so called "vernier thrusters?

Yep.

[JB0]

Some of them, anyways.

There should be ones up top and on the sides too, since they're the only way to change orientation in space.

[Ido]

More vernier thrusters under the cockpit.

In the Ps2 game the vf-1 has two little vernier thrusters at the tips of the wings for space movements.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Ido

[Zentrandude]

also in the bandai arcade game.

[nathan]

Valks cannot go from Fighter to GERWALK mode while on the ground. The pictured prove it. It was not on the ground but hovering. The Valk had to lift off first before transforming.

[Doctor Paragon]

the MPC toys also have tailhooks. This is not mentioned in the manual, but they are there, thin strips of styrene they are

I don't remember those on mine.

Do the swing out?

[Hurin]

Valks cannot go from Fighter to GERWALK mode while on the ground. The pictured prove it. It was not on the ground but hovering. The Valk had to lift off first before transforming.

Nathan,

I would be more careful saying such things so matter of factly when you . . . well. . . wrong. The valkyrie is in fighter mode while sitting on the ground. I took the screen capture. . . so I know this.

And, were you even correct that the valkyrie began the scene hovering (which you're not), by your own logic: If it can hover, you'd think it could exert just 1% more thrust and actually gain enough altitude to put it's legs out and transform to gerwalk.

Which, of course, is exactly what it does. . .

Now, if you want to be a total anal weenie about it, you could say that it's technically not on the ground when it tranforms to gerwalk. But, I think the argument here is whether a valkyrie can transform to gerwalk from fighter without first taking off in a traditional way (runway, carrier/catapult launch), etc.

Best Regards,

H

[Coota0]

In the screencap is it changing to Gerwalk or just putting the legs down so that it can get more boost? (I know semantics, but I'm curious)

[Hurin]

In the screencap is it changing to Gerwalk or just putting the legs down so that it can get more boost? (I know semantics, but I'm curious)

For the rest of the scene, the arms are out. So I think it's safe to assume that those screencaps represent the beginnings of the process of transforming to full gerwalk.

H

[CoryHolmes]

Another problem with going to GERWALK mode for landing is you have to deal with all that engine thrust going out the engines. It IS superheated air/fuel exhaust, so you have you to be careful about what exactly you point it at.

There's a reason why Harrier jets don't hover over concrete and urban areas. They'd melt the concrete in no time flat (for the Harrier scene in True Lies, they had to rebuild the entire parking lot because the exhaust melted it).

[VF-19]

Another problem with going to GERWALK mode for landing is you have to deal with all that engine thrust going out the engines. It IS superheated air/fuel exhaust, so you have you to be careful about what exactly you point it at.

There's a reason why Harrier jets don't hover over concrete and urban areas. They'd melt the concrete in no time flat (for the Harrier scene in True Lies, they had to rebuild the entire parking lot because the exhaust melted it).

Harriers can also only hover for about 90 seconds, before the engine would become overheated. While it's hovering, an on-board watertank is used to help cool the engine. Is a VF-1 restricted in this fashion also, or can it hover for much longer periods?

[newca]

since the VF-1 is designed for space it has retro thrusters so would it even need a tailhook? I would think it could stop itself.

I would think that the small retro-thrusters located on the sides of the intakes would not be powerful enough to stop the VF-1 in a carrier landing in fighter mode.

Of course as others have said, why not just land in Gerwalk mode?

Graham

I strongly think a traditional ONE centered tail hook is the final solution for landing on deck(in atmosphere). At least VF-1 doesn't maneuver like a Yukikaze Mave (ep4 especially), right?

Two hooks system will tear off one leg while one of the hook missing the stop wire.

[CoryHolmes]

Another problem with going to GERWALK mode for landing is you have to deal with all that engine thrust going out the engines.  It IS superheated air/fuel exhaust, so you have you to be careful about what exactly you point it at.

There's a reason why Harrier jets don't hover over concrete and urban areas.  They'd melt the concrete in no time flat (for the Harrier scene in True Lies, they had to rebuild the entire parking lot because the exhaust melted it).

Harriers can also only hover for about 90 seconds, before the engine would become overheated. While it's hovering, an on-board watertank is used to help cool the engine. Is a VF-1 restricted in this fashion also, or can it hover for much longer periods?

According to the Compedium, the VF-1x was was limited to 120 seconds, whereupon the VF-1X updates could hover for 70 seconds.

But that still doesn't deal with the problem of all that superheated gas spewing out the end of the engine. That'd cause real troubles for any landing pad if it was used very often.

[Coota0]

But that still doesn't deal with the problem of all that superheated gas spewing out the end of the engine. That'd cause real troubles for any landing pad if it was used very often.

AV-8s put down on the same spot on LHA/LHDs all the time.