Vf-5

[Lestat]

Here's my take on it. According to the little information available on it. I tried to keep in mind that it must have a single engine, be a light space fighter, with a water landing gear.

Note, it still needs some cleaning up, I'll post another shot when I get around to it.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Lestat

[Lightning]

Basing it off the Sea Dart are you?

[Knight26]

Nice, I definitely see the Sea-Dart in it. A coupel of suggestions, fold the main wings under the engine like the VF-22, and either split or just fold the vertical stab, otherwise the pilot may break it off when they lean up against something. Also, is it transatmospheric, if so will it have intakes, or are those split intakes in fighter and a single intake on the back during battroid?

[Lestat]

Nice, I definitely see the Sea-Dart in it.  A coupel of suggestions, fold the main wings under the engine like the VF-22, and either split or just fold the vertical stab, otherwise the pilot may break it off when they lean up against something.  Also, is it transatmospheric, if so will it have intakes, or are those split intakes in fighter and a single intake on the back during battroid?

394649[/snapback]

As with all battroids, closed intakes.

The reason the fighter's structure is the way it is because it's meant to be cheap, something that can be easily manufactured at the colony level. As such, folding wings cost more. lol.

The sea dart is definately in it.

[Kurisama]

So judging from the pic, does it have 3 engines? On the back, and one in each leg?

[Lestat]

So judging from the pic, does it have 3 engines? On the back, and one in each leg?

394766[/snapback]

No, it has one engine, as is described in the VF-5 entry of Egan Loo's Macross Compendium.

As it is primarily a space fighter, it may have boosters under the feet, but not engines.

[wolframbane]

Here is my old RPG adaptation of the VF-5 I made years ago. I based my version off the F-5 Tiger II. It has the single engine and water capability too.

http://www.geocities.com/macross2090/tiger.html

[Lestat]

An update. A redraw on the fighter mode. Hopefully this one is clearer. I've also added some rudders to the engine.

[Knight26]

Much cleaner, nice addition of the thrust vectoring vanes on the engine. I still don't see how the intakes can possibly route air into the engine though, unless it is used in pure rocket form at all times, even in atmosphere. The design is really coming along nicely though.

[nanashino]

Awesome Lestat!

Looks just right. : )

The Nameless Advisor

www.macrossmecha.info

[hellohikaru]

Awesome work !!

That nose screams F-35

It says mission specifications based on F-5E. I wonder what weapons it carry, SRMs and beam guns sound light enough.

[Seto Kaiba]

An interesting design to say the least. I always liked the Sea Dart, and this seems like a nice testament to it's design. I also rather like the placement of the head unit during fighter mode, especially in the re-draw. Having the head mounted topside, ala VF-11, but with the cannons facing forward definately looks good. Ideally the barrels might want to be a little farther from the canopy. That aside, a very nice design. Kind of also reminds me of this...

[Vinnie]

An update. A redraw on the fighter mode. Hopefully this one is clearer. I've also added some rudders to the engine.

394899[/snapback]

Damn! I'm not a fan of fan-fighters but this is alright! The real question becomes: you being a 3D modeller guy, are you going to turn this concept art into a 3D model?

Now on the subject of the VF-5 itself. Why does a primarily space based fighter need water landing gear? Was it the original plan was for a space based fighter, but then it became a low-cost fighter for colony worlds?

[Lestat]

Damn!  I'm not a fan of fan-fighters but this is alright!  The real question becomes: you being a 3D modeller guy, are you going to turn this concept art into a 3D model?

Now on the subject of the VF-5 itself.  Why does a primarily space based fighter need water landing gear?  Was it the original plan was for a space based fighter, but then it became a low-cost fighter for colony worlds?

394979[/snapback]

I'm thinking that the idea is for easy landing without an airport/runway strip.

As for modelling, maybe one day. Right now though I'm conducting a serious overhaull of my meltohlauendy models on the mod. They're looking kickass. Check out the thread sometime.

[Boxer]

Is the VF-5 going into the mod?

[Lestat]

Is the VF-5 going into the mod?

396780[/snapback]

Nope.

VF-5 came out around 2015 or something. We probably shouldn't even have the VF-4, but it was in one of the DYRL based games... so...

[F-ZeroOne]

Nice! I think Kawamori should hire you - seriously!

[Lestat]

Nice! I think Kawamori should hire you - seriously!

397086[/snapback]

Thanks for the vote of confidence

[Lestat]

Ok, new update, some colour. Just a rough for now, but sea blue for the top and sky grey for the bottom. Ideal for a sea landing craft.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Lestat

[Lightning]

nice! too bad you couldn't do the rudder with the red and white stripes like the Sea Dart! that would be too cool!

[IAD]

Looks good!

Where are the intakes for atmospheric, though? Seems like with an exhaust duct that large, you'd need pretty big intakes?

~Luke

[Lestat]

Well, I've been meaning to post these for a while now, I've been refining the design quite a bit, redesigning battroid mode and working out how the VF-5 would carry it's gunpod.

I present two alternate battroid modes (I prefer Design B myself), and a modified fighter mode with its custom gunpod and missile pod.

The VF-5 is supposed to be a light space fighter with water landing capabilities. As such, I thought a twin RÖV-20 armament on the A model would be appropriate since there would be a lack of other armaments for it.

As it is a space fighter, FAST packs are unnecessary, as they have already been incorporated into the design. The legs have a booster rocket each, like on the shoulders of the VF-4, and carry the fuel for those. Obviously, they have a limited supply.

Because the hull must be watertight for landing, a standard GU-11 could not be mounted on the bottom of the fighter. Therefore, an alternative 'float' casing was designed for the GU-11 that allowed it to be carried on the underwing in such a way that it acted as a bouyant float.

However, in an atmosphere, carrying a single gunpod offbalanced the fighter, causing additional drag. A second pod was added, a micro-missile launcher which allowed the additional armament for short range combat.

If it is unclear, the two openings on the chest plate are air intakes, but due to its main role as a space fighter, they were never needed to be large. Just like the VF-1 series, the intakes are closed in space operations.

Here's the pics:

[sketchley]

Can I make some suggestions?

- In jet mode, move the arms from above the wings to under the wings. The reason is two-fold: a) by making the entire top fuselage and wing into one large, roughly flat area, it'll have greater lift. b) A la the VA-3M, the arms could be lowered into the water and act as the skids/skies. This would save "space" elsewhere.

- After the VF-1, basically all of the VF head lasers on standard fighters are aimed towards the rear and there is only one of them. (Yeah, I know of the VF-17 and VF-19 squadron leader exceptions.)

- ventral (top) air intake for the engine. It's on the sea dart, and if the arms are moved to below the wings, there should be plenty of space there for them. (Design reason for moving the intakes: to prevent seawater from being sucked into the engine and mangling it.)

- a single rear vertical tail is... well, redundant, with the thrust vectoring. For coolness, I suggest copying the tails of the VF-0D.

- have you though of including conformally mounted missiles, like those on the VF-4?

- I don't think it needs a gun pod. The VA-3M (the only other known VF to have 'good relations' with water) doesn't have a gun pod, and it still performs on par with the other VFs in VF-X2. The only other option I can see it is to do something like the VF-17 and carry it internally. Given that the legs of this design don't have engines, there's plenty of space in them for a gun pod or other special weapon.

I personally like the A version of the battroid - because it looks closer to the direction that Shouji Kawamori is taking VFs (SV-51 style - more spindally.)

I also really like the missile pod pontoons. It is both unique and remeniscent of the pontoons on the VA-3M as well as the rough design of wing pods for the VF-11 (that never went anywhere but the roughs.)

Kudos for the work that you've done so far on this design.

[sketchley]

To put my money where my mouth is, I've sketched up a take on it.

Notes:

- 3 conformal missiles over the engine/on the back (the back is like the VF-22 - with the wings folding underneath it.)

- cockpit goes under the fuselage, forcing the head up, nose cone goes down and becomes the hip joints. (like on the VF-4)

- the upper legs retract into the lower legs and the feet are like the ones on the VF-22 (when transformed, they are in the lower leg.)

- the shoulders are a bit of an upside-down variation of the VF-14's shoulders. Therefore, laser cannons or missile lanchers could be added. (I've included the original layout sketch, as I think the potential of the shoulders comes across more clearly in them. the layout sketch also has canards there too... I don't think they'd get in the way during a water landing...)

- the landing gear is probably in the arms. That would allow for the water-landing skids to extend out of the legs. It shouldn't be too hard to fit in a gunpod into the legs as well.

EDIT: the artwork can be seen here: http://studiootaking.deviantart.com/art/VF-5-Rough-62766623

Edited August 20, 2007 by sketchley

[Ido]

Nice work, but the fuselage in fighter mode its just wrong, it should be more clean with realistic aerodinamical look just like the others VF, It also have a forced Vf-1 look alike feel in the front part. Overall a little too squared and rough, it can use more curvy doby.

IMO

[kensei]

Dude, I reckon that fighter mode is awesome.

[Lestat]

Sketchly, I like that you've put your money where your mouth is to some degree, but why not develop your idea further? We could host our own Project Supernova here in the fan works board and see what's selected.

Although all your suggestions are interesting, I disagree about turning the VF-5 into something more futuristic looking.

Design-wise, the VF-5 would sit between the VF-4 and the VF-9, both fighters designed in the eighties. I deliberately added more curves and original macross feel because I thought it was appropriate. After all, the VF-5 was meant to be cheap as chips so it could be manufactured on the colonies.

You may be right about the arms, but that would require a complete redesign. The tail fin might be defunct, but I've left flaps in also, so consider it a failsafe, as it is more difficult to vector thrust when you have only one engine.

Ido, the VF-1 likeness in the chest plate was deliberate. It was first test flighted in 2013 and in 2015 it was first mass produced, the same year as the VF-1 ended. Still, there's a good chance it borrowed some components from the VF-1 anyway.

As for your comments about the fuselage, sorry, but I disagree. I implore you to perhaps submit your own graphical design variation, as Sketchly has at least partially done.

[sketchley]

I was thinking of the idea further, and the wall that I keep running headlong into is the delta wings.

IMHO, they are just too big and get in the way of the legs and thrust-vectoring of engine. They also prevent the thing from squatting down...

So, I was thinking of making the wings smaller - and that is leading me to something visually like the Eurofighter Typhoon - with the belly airvents and lower fuselage bulge being the legs/water landing keel.

It'll take a bit more time to provide a more finessed design. I am going to steal your missile pod pontoon idea.

EDIT: I think the easiest way to incorporate top air intakes into your existing design is to include the top intakes that are on the Su-27 (I believe.) The jet is designed to close its main intakes when landing on farmers' fields, and use the top intakes to prevent anything from being sucked into the engines.

It shouldn't be too much work to add that to your existing design.

Edited May 31, 2006 by sketchley

[IAD]

In re: the intakes... Gotcha, forgot this was primarily a space fighter. Nevertheless, slightly larger over-wing intakes could make the design somewhat more 'convincing', in my opinion. Generally, the intake and exhaust cross-section areas should be about equal, as I recall.

I might sketch something up... When the Compendium says "Specification inspiration: Convair XF2Y Sea Dart" does this mean the design was directly inspired by the XF2Y, or more "the spec. for water landing capability is similar to the Sea Dart"?

(I ask because other entries say "design inspiration: XYZ")

~Luke

Edited June 1, 2006 by IAD

[Lestat]

Well, if you consider that the Valkyrie is inspired by the VF-14 and derives its name from the X-73 (I think that's the model) Valkyrie, it could be pretty broad.

I think it just means that its design is inspired by the sea dart, as it says. In other words, uses a similar shape and landing gear, but otherwise is different. Comparitvely, the VF-14 is inspired by the SR-71 backbird, whilst the VF-17 is inspired by the F-117.

[IAD]

Gotcha, thanks!

I'll see what I can come up with.

~Luke

[sketchley]

It's actually waaay to broad for me.

(Specificiation = specs of finished Sea Dart? Military spec. requirements for the programme that resulted in the Sea Dart?)

What I'd really like to see is the Japanese language source - the kanji specifically; because their meaning is almost always very concise and specific.

[hellohikaru]

Nice work guys. I really like what i am seeing. What is the VF-5 going to be named ? Sea Valkyrie maybe

[briscojr84]

Nice work guys. I really like what i am seeing. What is the VF-5 going to be named ? Sea Valkyrie maybe

404826[/snapback]

Siren, Tsunami, Typhoon?

[sketchley]

Although all your suggestions are interesting, I disagree about turning the VF-5 into something more futuristic looking.

Design-wise, the VF-5 would sit between the VF-4 and the VF-9, both fighters designed in the eighties. I deliberately added more curves and original macross feel because I thought it was appropriate. After all, the VF-5 was meant to be cheap as chips so it could be manufactured on the colonies.

404084[/snapback]

I've been doing a lot of thought on this (specifically: turning the VF-5 into something futuristic looking), and the conclusion I have is:

Agreed that the VF-5 sits between the VF-4 and VF-9.

Facts (all from the Macross Compendium):

VF-4: mass production from 2012; development began before SWI/end of the Macross TV series.

VF-5 development from 2009, first flight 2013.

VF-5000: development from 2011. First flight 2018.

I mention them because of the following:

SV-51: gun pod forms part of the rear fuselage (between the engines). VF has active stealth. Thrust vectored engines and VTOL in jet mode capable.

VF-0: thrust vectored engines. Has (or were in the process of being developed) FAST packs.

VF-1: thrust vectored engines. All ordinance carried externally on hardpoints and/or in FAST packs.

VA-3: All ordinance carried externally on hardpoints. Has FAST packs.

VF-4: some ordinance conformally mounted, some ordinance carried externally on hardpoints. Presumably has thrust vectored engines. One Macross video game gave it FAST packs.

VF-5000: ordinance carried internally.

Therefore, it is possible for the VF-5 to have everything up to the VF-4, and possibly the internal carried missiles like the VF-5000. (Given that they are present on the FAST packs of the VF-0, the problem is probably more due to internal space of the VF than anything else.) Reason being is that all the items mentioned have seen extensive manufacturing (thus serious cost reductions) except for the active stealth of the SV-51.

Therefore, IMHO, limiting the design to something that would’ve come out of the 1980’s is, well, not reflective of the Macross technological reality.

I hope that I have presented a reasonable argument for the inclusion of some of the features listed herein, and why they shouldn’t be considered expensive.

The other quick thought I’d like to add (late, getting very sleepy) is that for mass produced automobiles, options are the way things have gone. An automobile with 0 options is far cheaper than one loaded with all the options. Perhaps the VF-5 should be considered like that too – your optionizable K-car.

In Macross terms, I believe the options are mostly hardpoint loadouts and FAST packs (yes, the VF-5 will have FAST packs in the design I’m working on. ) Though there is the possibility of some of the ‘standard features’ that I’ve listed in this post as being options as well.