Question For All Of Us Tech Junkies Of Macross

[Lightning]

I was just discussing with Vinnie the effects of if a VF's transformation and pilotability would be affected if a valk lost a arm.

with the later VF's, with the exception of the YF-21 and VF-22, the arms sometimes play a huge aspect of aerodynamics for the valk. We all have seen that the YF-21 losing it's arms didn't really affect it's flyability at all, but how would this affect other valks as well?

For Example: the VF-4's arms play a big aspect in it's aerodynamics, as the cannon nacelles form the front-top part of the whole engine nacelle area. So if it (the arm) got blown off at the "bicep" area, would it prevent the valkyrie from transforming back to fighter mode?

another question as well, do the earlier valks (pre -19 and -21) have the ability to eject the arms from the valkyrie?

I'd love to hear opinions from everybody.

[Noyhauser]

VF-1 flies fine without arms, See Love drifts away

VF-4 Probably could go to the elbow, any further would be a question mark.

VF-11 Looks to be similar to the VF-1, so it should be fine.

VF/A-14 similar to the VF-4... probably could.

VF-17 they are recessed above the wing assembly, so it should be fine

VF-19 - Similar to the VF-1, should be fine

VF-21/22 - blow off limbs.

VF-5000 - it might have problems, haven't seen it.

[Seto Kaiba]

Hmm... had to take a look at the transformation sketches before I could come up with a reasonable answer for this one. I'd say that pretty much any standard fighter that follows the same transformation pattern as the old VF-1, where the arms are stored center on the underside should probably be fine, since the VF-1 didn't fall out of the sky after losing an arm. That includes pretty much the VF-0, VF-1, VF-11, VF-2SS, VF-2JA and VF-1MS.

The VF-4 is sketchy because both the arms and legs are close to/part of the engines, so losing a significant part of the arm might result in loss of engine components, and losing an engine does significantly reduce anything's air capabilities.

The transformation of the VF/A-14 isn't well enough diagramed to tell. The VF-17 shouldn't have any problems since the wings and body are independent of the arms, so it wouldnt' affect any lifting surfaces, but it would probably still cause a fair amount of drag. The VF-19's up in the air, because the arms are on the underside, but the transformation's kind of odd. Losing both arms and legs didn't stop the VF-22, so that's a safe bet on it being able to fly. VF-3000 and VF-5000 look enough like the VF-1 to state safely that it'd fly with a missing arm. The VF-9 is a complete mystery since I'm not sure where the heck it's keeping it's arms.

[jenius]

wouldn't there be a gaping hole right in the middle of VF-11 and VF-19 if they lost an arm? Especially if they lost the arm that is connected to the shield. I'm just going off the toys though. The VF-1 didn't have a gaping hole in the middle when it loses an arm. In fact, you can't even tell my jetfire doesn't have any arms at all

[Noyhauser]

Yes there would be, but in both cases the engine/leg assembly and the wings are completely separate, which would seem to indicate that it would have minimal effect on their operations.

I suspect the VF-4 would be able to fly too and not too badly, since the arms sit in front of its shoulders. In essense it would be similar to its gerwalk mode. The legs only recess below the shoulder/arm assembly, but are actually connected to the body via the "thighs" which are actually a separate assembly to the shoulder/inner wing.

[Mr March]

This is a very good question and I hope the aeronautical tech heads come by this thread soon to answer. For my part, I can already imagine several problems/solutions.

IMO, any of the Valkyries (VF-4, YF-19, and YF-21 included) that lose limbs are going to be affected both in atmospheric and space flight. The degree to which the Valkyrie's flight is affected is the important factor and just because a compromised valkyrie can still fly, doesn't mean it can do so well.

The biggest thing that comes to my mind is the effect of weight distribution. As a flying vehicle, the Valkyrie is designed to operate within certain weight limits/balance. Naturally the vehicle itself is designed soundly for weight distribution, but also fuel and armament come into play. The fighter is designed to fly fully loaded and continue to do so when fuel and armament are expended. But blast a chunk off its hull and the fighter becomes fore/rear/flank heavy due to loss of mass, reducing speed, worsening manuverability, and all kinds of other problems. Even on a fighter like the VF-1, loosing an arm may not seem like such a big deal since the craft still has engines and wings, but now the mass is not evenly distributed across the craft.

On the flip side, many modern fighter aircraft are designed with inherent instability, as a compromise for achieving faster velocity or greater manuverability. Advanced digital fly-by-wire systems are used to actually fly an unstable aircraft which would be impossible to control manually. Assuming these systems enjoy even more advancement in the Macross eras, it may be possible for the Valkyries to suffer damage/loss to the hull and still remain in flight, damage that would crash any conventional fighter. There are some fringe technologies in use right now, like IFCS (Intelligent Flight Control System) that can compensate for serious failures on an aircraft and still keep it flying. Given the advancement of computers and artificial intelligence in the Macross Plus era, a very advanced form of this technology is certainly within reach.

Of course, if flight in the Valkyrie's fighter mode is hampered to such a degree that the danger of a crash is imminent, a Valkyrie can always fly in Gerwalk mode. I see no reason why the VF-4 shouldn't be able to fly in gerwalk with one or both arms missing. Sure it isn't mach, but it's faster than walking

Edited March 14, 2006 by Mr March

[David Hingtgen]

But most modern instability is SLIGHT. In the F-16, it's a matter of moving the wings 8 inches. They designed an alternate wing mounting location as a backup in case they couldn't get the FBW to work right and needed to make the plane stable. Wings in the forward mount=unstable, wings in the aft mount=stable.

Or conversely, it's the matter of a few hundred pounds. Want a stable F-16? Fill the nosecone with lead. Or find a really fat pilot.

However, blowing off a YF-19's arms is going to affect the balance far more than any modern plane can likely deal with. That's probably thousands of pounds. (of course, the official weights for valks have always been impossibly low, so we presume they use advanced materials that are super lightweight--so maybe the arms only weigh a few hundred pounds)

[Lightning]

well, when I posed the question to Vinnie I was kinda meaning if the battroid took a hit and had to lose an arm (or two) would it affect everything else badly; that sorta thing.

[Nied]

In the VF-4's case losing an arm would also affect it's engine performance. The bottom of the arm block forms the upper part of the intake in fighter mode, without the arm the intake takes on a completely new shape. At the very least it would be confined to subsonic speeds.

[Nied]

Oh yeah and of all the VFs I think the VF-17 would be most screwed if it lost an arm. It's tail surfaces are built into the tops of the arms and unlike the YF-21 and VF-22, it doesn't have 3-D thrust vectoring to compensate for the loss of control surfaces.

[Noyhauser]

Oh yeah and of all the VFs I think the VF-17 would be most screwed if it lost an arm.  It's tail surfaces are built into the tops of the arms and unlike the YF-21 and VF-22, it doesn't have 3-D thrust vectoring to compensate for the loss of control surfaces.

380252[/snapback]

Are those even functioning tail surfaces? It doesn't look like it to me.

[Mr March]

But most modern instability is SLIGHT.  In the F-16, it's a matter of moving the wings 8 inches.  They designed an alternate wing mounting location as a backup in case they couldn't get the FBW to work right and needed to make the plane stable. Wings in the forward mount=unstable, wings in the aft mount=stable. 

Or conversely, it's the matter of a few hundred pounds.  Want a stable F-16?  Fill the nosecone with lead.  Or find a really fat pilot.   

However, blowing off a YF-19's arms is going to affect the balance far more than any modern plane can likely deal with.  That's probably thousands of pounds.  (of course, the official weights for valks have always been impossibly low, so we presume they use advanced materials that are super lightweight--so maybe the arms only weigh a few hundred pounds)

380144[/snapback]

Very true and mostly it's a factor at low speeds. Given the VTOL of ability of the Valkyries, this might not even be an issue.

As for the weight of valkyries, it actually gets worse as they advance. The original VF-1 was 13 tons empty, the YF-19 - a much larger aircraft - is 8 tons bone dry

[Mr March]

well, when I posed the question to Vinnie I was kinda meaning if the battroid took a hit and had to lose an arm (or two) would it affect everything else badly; that sorta thing.

380241[/snapback]

oh...

*feels silly*

[Nied]

Oh yeah and of all the VFs I think the VF-17 would be most screwed if it lost an arm.  It's tail surfaces are built into the tops of the arms and unlike the YF-21 and VF-22, it doesn't have 3-D thrust vectoring to compensate for the loss of control surfaces.

380252[/snapback]

Are those even functioning tail surfaces? It doesn't look like it to me.

380254[/snapback]

They look pretty signifigant in the line art, and they're the only vertical surfaces on the entire plane

[Zentrandude]

wouldn't there be a gaping hole right in the middle of VF-11 and VF-19 if they lost an arm?  Especially if they lost the arm that is connected to the shield.  I'm just going off the toys though.  The VF-1 didn't have a gaping hole in the middle when it loses an arm.  In fact, you can't even tell my jetfire doesn't have any arms at all

380074[/snapback]

Plus on the -19 the shoulder sat above the legs which would help keep it together.

[bryan_f_davis@yahoo.com]

The VF-4 is an amazing piece of technology and design, but I don't think it would be very functional without the arm...

Although I read that the 17 would be the most acceptable to damage if it lost and arm, and I would have to agree. I think the 4 would be effected, but not as much as the 17.

Damn I love the 17. And the 4. I wish Yamato would come out with a perfect varible VF-4. That would be the coolest toy next to the 1:48 1 series.

*sigh*

[Sundown]

However, blowing off a YF-19's arms is going to affect the balance far more than any modern plane can likely deal with.  That's probably thousands of pounds.  (of course, the official weights for valks have always been impossibly low, so we presume they use advanced materials that are super lightweight--so maybe the arms only weigh a few hundred pounds)

380144[/snapback]

Haven't there been cases where planes like the A-10 and F-15 have flown home and landed without most of their wing? I know we're talking about weight here, but would a FBW system capable of keeping these examples airloft also be able to account for significant weight imbalances?

[mechaninac]

Haven't there been cases where planes like the A-10 and F-15 have flown home and landed without most of their wing?  I know we're talking about weight here, but would a FBW system capable of keeping these examples airloft also be able to account for significant weight imbalances?

380677[/snapback]

I remember seeing a program on the History channel about the F-15 where they recounted an incident with an Israeli F-15 that suffered an air collision and lost most, if not all, of one of its wings. The plane was able to recover, fly back to base and successfully land using not much more than differential thrust and sheer speed (it basically flew like a missile with no aerodynamic lift coming from the damaged side), and the pilot wasn't even aware of how severe the damage was until he did a walk-around of the plane... a testament to the survivability of the F-15 and the skill of the IAF pilot.

Given the over-technology used in variable fighters in the Macross universe, the resiliency and lightness of the construction material that would have to be used in order to make such machines able to cope with the enormous forces that would come to bear during transformation in atmospheres, the sophistication and redundancy that would need to be built into the avionics of such machines, and the sheer thrust capabilities of the power plants mated to the VFs, I would have to say that most damage that does not affect trust, minimal vectoring of same, and leaves a few control surfaces operable, and does not kill the pilot, could still leave the machine at least able to limp back to base.

Edited March 15, 2006 by mechaninac

[David Hingtgen]

Instability generally refers to pitch---an F-15 or A-10 losing a large piece of wing will affect lateral stability and total lift, not pitch. Most aircraft can deal with a lot of lateral imbalance, but have problems with pitch imbalances. (There are of course limits--see the Chicago AA DC-10 crash for an example of lateral imbalance a plane can't handle--though that was combined with an asymmetric stall)

As for the F-15: A big of the reason that one survived is the fact that it has very large wings with a low wing loading. If a Legacy Hornet lost a wing, it'd have no chance. (Nor would an F-14, F-111, or F-117). F-16--maybe, I don't know if the blended part contributes to lift. A quick way to estimate "survivability based on loss of a large part of the wing" is to check the stall/landing speed. The lower it is, the better the plane could cope. F-4's and F-8's would do great. (Since they can fly with their wings folded).

A-10 is similar---that type of wing produces incredible amounts of lift.

F-15 and A-10 don't have FBW, it's all manual. The A-10 is basically designed to have twice what it needs for everything as backup, while the F-15 has a huge wing. (I am a fan of big wings and low wing loading--it's good for everything, though drag/weight is an issue--but not much, especially considering the increased fuel fraction gained). High-speed low-alt bombing is the only thing a big wing is really undesirable---see the F-111 and Tornado---small wings.

Edited March 16, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Graham]

Whether a VF can continue in controlled flight in fighter mode in either atmosphere or space with the loss of one or both arms is going to vary greatly depending on individual VF design, whether one arm is lost or both and whether losing the arms contributes to the loss of either critical atmospheric contol surfaces or verniers for maneuvering in space.

For the VF-1, VF-0, VF-11 and YF/VF-19, the arms are tucked out of the way between the legs in fighter mode and do not contribute at all to the ability to maneuver in atmosphere or space, so lossing one or both arms shouldn't affect things too greatly, assuming the VF can cope with any change to it's center of gravity.

However, for VFs like the SV-51, VF-4, VF-5000, VF-17, YF-21 & VF-22, that feature vertical tail surfaces and/or verniers on the forearms or sholders, loss of an arm or arms could have a much more negative affect on flight.

Although as mentioned above, we do know that the YF-21 and presumably the VF-22 as well, has the ability to eject damaged arms (and legs) and rely soley on it's thrust vectoring paddles.

Graham

[Sundown]

F-15 and A-10 don't have FBW, it's all manual.  The A-10 is basically designed to have twice what it needs for everything as backup, while the F-15 has a huge wing.

Ah right, oops. I don't know what I was thinking. I think in the instance of the A-10, the pilot trimmed all the way and held her steady, and the F-15 has an FCS, not a FBW system, which while it assists controllability (in ways I don't fully understand) isn't the same thing as FBW.

[Lightning]

Whether a VF can continue in controlled flight in fighter mode in either atmosphere or space with the loss of one or both arms is going to vary greatly depending on individual VF design, whether one arm is lost or both and whether losing the arms contributes to the loss of either critical atmospheric contol surfaces or verniers for maneuvering in space.

For the VF-1, VF-0, VF-11 and YF/VF-19, the arms are tucked out of the way between the legs in fighter mode and do not contribute at all to the ability to maneuver in atmosphere or space, so lossing one or both arms shouldn't affect things too greatly, assuming the VF can cope with any change to it's center of gravity.

However, for VFs like the  SV-51, VF-4, VF-5000, VF-17, YF-21 & VF-22, that feature vertical tail surfaces and/or verniers on the forearms or sholders, loss of an arm  or arms could have a much more negative affect on flight.

Although as mentioned above, we do know that the YF-21 and presumably the VF-22 as well, has the ability to eject damaged arms (and legs) and rely soley on it's thrust vectoring paddles.

Graham

380783[/snapback]

well, after seeing the YF-21 eject the damaged limbs it got me wondering if the others could do it as well.

[Sumdumgai]

lol yeah practically any valkyrie ejects its limbs and it falls like a rock!

VF-1 = engines in legs

VF-4 = engines in legs

VF-3000 = engines in legs

VF-5000 = engines in legs

VF-9 = engines in legs

VF-11 = engines in legs

VF-14 = engines in legs

VF-17 = engines in legs

YF/VF-19 = engines in legs

YF-21 = IT CAN FLY WITHOUT LIMBS!

VF-22 = I CAN ONLY ASSUME THE SAME SINCE ITS BASICALLY THE 21

VA-3 = wings attached to arms, engines on shoulders

VB-6 = engines in legs

Nope the only one that would be able to stay in the air without limbs is the 21/22.

[Lightning]

......smartass....

(by limbs I meant the arms in the other valks)

Edited March 17, 2006 by Lightning 06

[Sumdumgai]

......smartass....

(by limbs I meant the arms in the other valks)

381211[/snapback]

lol oooooooh, okay!

Now that that's cleared up, I shall go cry in a corner for being called a smartass.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Hikaru actually lost his arms in SDF: Macross in the episode when the earth gets scorched. He managed ok without the arms as we see him come to earth. I imagine that gerwalk mode would be a good way to land safe as this is what it is used for when rescuing people on the ground with no landing strip. (ie all those times he had to rescue minmay and misa)

If that fails, just transform into battroid like in ep1. (I always found it funny he didn't just eject and chose to crash)

If all else fails and the armor of the robot mode doesn't protect you from a fall or a crash landing, (and you have lost legs on say the vf22 and the landing gear is gone) do what they did in macross plus and get a vf11 to piggyback you for a slow descent.

Edited March 19, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[KingNor]

most valks can hover on their engines in gerwalk mode right?

iirc woudlnt' that kind of power give them the ability to fly pretty much no matter what?

i always though anything would fly as long as its power/weight ratio was good enough.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I think it is only for a limited time?

Like we see Roy hovering in battroid mode in macross zero while looking for nora. But I don't think you can 'fly' in that mode at a decent speed. Just sort of float. Just seems like a waste of energy (especially for the vf0 which needs fuel and given that it is heavier compared to a vf1)

I still want to know how the VB6 is supposed to take off with no landing gear? Is it launched similar to how the VF1 is launched into space using that truck and an extra booster atached to its rear end? (I can see it landing in gerwalk but what about take off? It just hovers and then transforms while in midair like the vf1 right?)

Edited March 19, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Lightning]

I think it is only for a limited time?

Like we see Roy hovering in battroid mode in macross zero while looking for nora. But I don't think you can 'fly' in that mode at a decent speed. Just sort of float. Just seems like a waste of energy (especially for the vf0 which needs fuel and given that it is heavier compared to a vf1)

I still want to know how the VB6 is supposed to take off with no landing gear? Is it launched similar to how the VF1 is launched into space using that truck and an extra booster atached to its rear end? (I can see it landing in gerwalk but what about take off? It just hovers and then transforms while in midair like the vf1 right?)

381860[/snapback]

I can see it now.....a huge truck piggybacking a VB6 with a giant rocket attached to it, lol.

[Mr March]

The Macross Compendium states Gerwalk flying speed is 500 km/h maximum and that it can only hover for a few minutes at most.

I assume flight speed and hover time in battroid mode must be something less than Gerwalk mode, however officially undefined.

[Vinnie]

The Macross Compendium states Gerwalk flying speed is 500 km/h maximum and that it can only hover for a few minutes at most.

I assume flight speed and hover time in battroid mode must be something less than Gerwalk mode, however officially undefined.

382316[/snapback]

This is headed off topic, but while we're on the subject...

I would assume that hover time in GERWALK is limited due to some output temperature limitations. I imagine the VF-1 is hitting the top part of its temperature range pulling hover power. In the UH-60A we can only sustain a TGT of 775-850 C for 30 minutes before we need to reduce power, and we usually only hit that doing OGE hover with a heavy load or flying max Vh.

I'm not sure if starch-winged fast movers have the same sort of limitations on their engines, but it's one theory. For my jet experts, what limits you from flying full throttle for a full flight? Is it fuel or do you hit some tempurature/compressor limits?

The Battroid hover time I'm guessing would be far less as you've just lost all compressor for cooling and are just relying on some sort of magnetic containment at that point.

I would think later model engines would run hotter, produce more thrust, and be on lighter aircraft which would limit when the Valk would hit its upper temp & compressor limits and increase the amount of time it could hover.

[F-ZeroOne]

A couple problems with current VTOL aircraft is ground erosion and over-heating. A gerwalk VF would almost certainly have a problem with ground erosion. The Harrier jump-jet can only hover for at most a couple of minutes because the engine gets very hot while its doing that - in fact, Harriers carry a supply of water with which to cool the engine down.

[Lightning]

A couple problems with current VTOL aircraft is ground erosion and over-heating. A gerwalk VF would almost certainly have a problem with ground erosion. The Harrier jump-jet can only hover for at most a couple of minutes because the engine gets very hot while its doing that - in fact, Harriers carry a supply of water with which to cool the engine down.

382513[/snapback]

learn something new every day.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I can see it now.....a huge truck piggybacking a VB6 with a giant rocket attached to it, lol.

Or maybe it lands and take off like the outlaw star? Just slowly have your butt pointed to the ground as you descend and use just enough thrust to keep it from smashing into the ground? (landing)

Then takeoff with nose pointed in air? So say you want to land on some moon where there is no landing strip, you just descend with the butt end facing the ground? (I guess landing and taking off in gerwalk would be much more comfortable than this though)

Edited March 25, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker