Thrust vectoring on VF-1

[PC Valkyrie]

The Yamato toys clearly allow for thrust vectoring in the up and down direction on the VF-1. The opening game sequence (as seen in the 20th anniversary DVD) also shows Hikaru's VF-1A thrust nozzles going up and down as a test before taking off the Prometheus.

Other than that opening game animation sequence, do we ever see thrust vectoring occur during the actual TV series or DYRL? One may argue that Gerwalk mode itself is proof of thrust vectoring when the legs are down and the ankles are angled whatever way is needed for producing lift/acceleration. What I want to know is whether the thrust vectoring was animated in fighter mode? (like it was illustrated in Macross Plus)

[Prime]

I don't remember seeing it, but I could be wrong.

[Anubis]

I would imagine that with the animation budget of the original series, they wouldn't have bothered actually modelling the vectoring nozzles. For little details like that you usually find them in higher budget OVA's that can afford to splurge on the little details, or in new TV series that are now getting well funded. Yes, the VF-1 had thrust vectoring, just in the animation it wasn't highlighted.

[azrael]

Yep. Blame it on budgets. In M7, there isn't much thrust vectoring even though the fighters have it. TV shows can't afford to push out great animation (unless you're GitS: SAC, but that is only shown 2 episodes/month), in every episode, every week.

[Druna Skass]

Well I know you see it in the opening sequence on the DYRL side scroller, right before Hikaru launches from the Prometheus in the beggining.

[Daishi3500]

damn, have you guys seen the su-37 (not 27). I was watching discovery wings channel (only the cool cats watch this channel B) ) This model apparenltly has thrust vectoring, and has grasped the concept better than most other aircraft. This jet can actually go backwards becuase it turns so quickly while retaining its inertia. I don't know about you guys, but seeing jets do the weird ass crap in midair is cool as hell.

[Sephiroth]

damn, have you guys seen the su-37 (not 27). I was watching discovery wings channel (only the cool cats watch this channel  B) ) This model apparenltly has thrust vectoring, and has grasped the concept better than most other aircraft. This jet can actually go backwards becuase it turns so quickly while retaining its inertia. I don't know about you guys, but seeing jets do the weird ass crap in midair is cool as hell.

Unfortunately for the SU-37, all that acrobatic crap won't help it against the weapons systems employed by the F-22...they'll just take out the SU-37 before they can even visually see one another.

Edited October 10, 2003 by Sephiroth

[David Hingtgen]

1. Yup, Su-37 is the most awe-inspiring fighter there is.

2. Hey, some Flankers have rear radar, and Russia has developed a rearwards-firing missile.

3. F-22's radar doesn't have totally passive missile launch mode. It MAY sometimes allow a completely passive AMRAAM launch, but don't count on it. (You need multiple F-22's sharing data for that, or a really long, multi-pass sweep on a non-manuevering target) If it makes just one active sweep, Flankers will pick it up in a second. (AMRAAM's are not the 100% totally independent missile they are made out to be, they do rely on the mother plane's radar, just to a lesser degree and for less time than the "paint till it's dead" Sparrow)

[ewilen]

Unfortunately for the SU-37, all that acrobatic crap won't help it against the weapons systems employed by the F-22...they'll just take out the SU-37 before they can even visually see one another.

I certainly hope so, if the US ever has to fight somebody who has advanced Sukhois. (They also have the visually cued aiming system, which I don't think has been deployed in US fighters yet.)

Back in the 60's, we thought dogfighting was obsolete and we could get away with just missiles (Sparrow) and fast but heavy interceptor types (F-4), until the rules of engagement in the Vietnam war forced pilots to engage at visual range. At which point the lighter, more maneuverable, cannon-armed MiGs gave us a bloody nose and forced us to rearm and retrain.

Edited October 10, 2003 by ewilen

[Lindem Herz]

Unfortunately for the SU-37, all that acrobatic crap won't help it against the weapons systems employed by the F-22...they'll just take out the SU-37 before they can even visually see one another.

I say it could outmanouver the missile. Or missiles. After that, once on visual range, the Crane would gangbang the Raptor.

Don't ever subestimate your enemy (not mine for now, we're buying planes and guns from the russkies). That pretty much costed the man with the mini-moustache the mother of all wars. And Russia, it has some of the best fighter pilots of the world, and it's planes have the endurance of a drugged up rhino (I'd challenge a F-15 to land on an intersate highway without becoming a very expensive pile of scrap. but then again, a F-15 landed without a WING...)

Edit: Lousy grammar

Edited October 11, 2003 by Lindem Herz

[Druna Skass]

David Hingtgen...

I've always wondered how the F-15S/MDT compares to the Su-37, since both have canards and thrust vectoring.

[Druna Skass]

(I'd challenge a F-15 to land on an intersate highway without becoming a very expensive pile of scrap. but then again, a F-15 landed without a WING...)

Actualy there was a experimental version of the F-15, the F-15S/MTD that was made to operate out of bombed out runways, don't know what ever became of that though, aside from them putting thrust vectoring on it.

[Unknown Target]

Daishi: You do NOT want to pull a Kobra in mid-dogfight. You do that, your ass is grass. Any experienced fighter pilot can loop over and nail you, cause you can't maneuver at all (the Kobra has to be performed below either 450 or 250 knotts, I forget).

Also, the Su-37 can not out-maneuver a long-range missle as well as you think. Those suckers are fast. If it's launched head on, pow, you can barely maneuver, launched from the rear, pow the missle can follow you anywhere. Close range in, tho, the Su-37 does have a significant advantage with it's high and low speed maneuverablility, and it's helmet-mounted missle sight (Su-37 does have a helmet-mounted site, correct?), which can launch a missle at a target up to 45 degrees off the nose. However, using the superior balance of thrust/weight ratio and turning ability, the F-22 does have the ability to come out on top. And with the new helmet-mounted sight on the F-22, the playing field will be equal in that respect. The F-22 also has better avionics, many Russian aircraft are built to old-time USSR tactical doctrine, i.e. pilot making very little decisisions, so the equipment onboard is far less advanced.

However, I'm NOT saying that the Su-37 couldn't beat a F-22. In fact, they're quite evenly matched, it really all comes down to the skill of the pilot. I'd rather fight a really dumb-ass pilot in an F-22 than fight a really experienced pilot in, say, an "old" F-4 Phantom.

EDIT: Herz, you know that the standard engine for the Mig-29 only has 400 hours of service life? Try that for toughness, lol, compared to the 400,000 or so of the F-16s engine before it needs an overhaul.

But, yea, some Russian birds are really tough, probably tougher than many US jets.

Edited October 13, 2003 by Unknown Target

[Druna Skass]

Daishi: You do NOT want to pull a Kobra in mid-dogfight. You do that, your ass is grass. Any experienced fighter pilot can loop over and nail you, cause you can't maneuver at all (the Kobra has to be performed below either 450 or 250 knotts, I forget).

And if you screw up the timing couldn't that just make you a big target for whoever's on your tail?

[Graham]

Getting back on topic, the VF-1 is shown with thrust vectoring during gameplay in the upcoming PS2 Macross game.

Graham

[Lindem Herz]

EDIT: Herz, you know that the standard engine for the Mig-29 only has 400 hours of service life? Try that for toughness, lol, compared to the 400,000 or so of the F-16s engine before it needs an overhaul.

But, yea, some Russian birds are really tough, probably tougher than many US jets.

Hehe, with the maintenance our Mig-29A are getting here in Peru I'm amazed we get past thr 100 hours (budget? what budget? we're saving for the president to get his shiny 747, for crying out loud!! <_< ). And I know what those birds are capable of handling (a friend of mine used to fly the 29s before he retired). Poor maintenance (again), do-it-yourself repaired parts, dirty, holled out runways and taxiways(not always, but sometimes), etc. But they are still the stars of the fleet. B)

And, yes, back on topic, just how EFFECTIVE is the Thrust vectoring in the VF-1 series. In all other VFs the vectoring system is more or less a real-life like 2D two plane deflectors (except the 22 and sv-51), but in the VF-1, the vectoring system actually enboxes the whole exhaust. Wouldn't that create mor drag and a less efficient escape of the hot gases or something like that?

[Nied]

3. F-22's radar doesn't have totally passive missile launch mode. It MAY sometimes allow a completely passive AMRAAM launch, but don't count on it. (You need multiple F-22's sharing data for that, or a really long, multi-pass sweep on a non-manuevering target) If it makes just one active sweep, Flankers will pick it up in a second. (AMRAAM's are not the 100% totally independent missile they are made out to be, they do rely on the mother plane's radar, just to a lesser degree and for less time than the "paint till it's dead" Sparrow)

Ah but you forgett that the F-22 has an AESA radar. It could detect it's targett and move in for the kill in a low enough power mode to remain undetected and only really light up it's targett once the AMRAAM is off. Actually now that I think about it, isn't the AMRAAM data-linked during the early sages of flight so that it's recieving targett info from the launch plane, as opposed to having it's targett painted by radar? If so a Raptor could remain in LPI mode after popping off and not have to paint the targett till the AMRAAM is halfway there.

[ewilen]

On a related note, how do we suppose that the VF-1 manages without elevators? Delta wing planes have elevons, but that's not an option on a variable geometry aircraft, is it? I see several possibilities for the VF-1:

1) Thrust vectoring (swivelling) of the main engine nozzles.

2) Use of the vernier thrusters.

3) Coordinated use of the canted rudders. (Pushing both rudders in should push the tail down, but I don't think pushing both rudders out would push the tail up.)

4) Some combination of 1-3 above.

Here's what the Compendium says:

FLYING CONTROLS: Fly-by-light, two-section flap (with spoiler) and fowler flap occupy almost entire wing trailing-edge; leading-edge slats; conventional rudders in outward-canted vertical tail surfaces; two slits located on forward main body in Fighter mode operate in lieu of glove vanes by controlling airflow; two-dimensional vectored thrust nozzles operate in lieu of conventional elevators and horizontal stabilizers and in tandem with wing thruster roll control system; four Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters; eighteen P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles; one counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle on the side of each leg nacelle air intake; large airbrake directly rear of cockpit canopy (nozzle feet operate as airbrakes also); one ventral fin under each engine nacelle.

If I read this correctly, the VF-1 not only doesn't have conventional elevators, it doesn't even have ailerons. It uses the engine nozzles instead of elevators, and the wing thrusters for roll.

Comments?

[David Hingtgen]

Nied--I'll have to go read up on F-22/AMRAAM some more to reply. (I do love a good discussion)

ewilen--yup. Vectoring nozzles for pitch (and roll should certainly be possible). Verniers could help a bit. As for roll--there's LOTS of ways to roll. The spoilers would be a lot better than wingtip thrusters/verniers. (Unlike an airliner, a fighter's spoilers are pretty much used only for roll and are often the primary/only means of roll) (yes the F-14 is an exception)

Canted rudders: not canted enough/big enough to do much. Yes, pulling them both in will *help* pitch you up, F/A-18's do it all the time, I'm sure F-22's will too. But pushing them both out/down won't do anything to move you--it's a powerful airbrake (it is in fact how F-22's slow down--they have no spoilers, no dedicated airbrakes---they just push both rudders out). The only plane with tail surfaces canted enough to have a downwards pitch is the YF-23 (of course) and that's because they're actually more horizontal than vertical. It's not really fins canted out, it's a tailplane canted up. (it's not canted at 45 degrees out, it's 50 degrees out from vertical--thus 40 degrees up from horiztonal)

[ewilen]

Thanks, I was hoping you'd answer, David. I didn't understand what spoilers were until your reply (and some searching prompted thereby). For anyone who's curious, these two web pages are probably a good introduction to how spoilers and ailerons differ (and how they each work):

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/spoil.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/alr.html

Probably also a lot of other good stuff at that site.

[David Hingtgen]

Oh yeah--the F-15S/MTD was insanely manueverable, as was (is?) the F-15ACTIVE. Beats an F-22, I think. F-15ACTIVE is still the fastest vectoring aircraft ever, and can vector at twice the speed of most planes. (Just because you can vector, doesn't mean you can vector at high speed--the ACTIVE can though) IMHO, that's even more important--when you're slow, you're already manueverable, vectoring can't help much--but supersonic, you've got zilch agility--and vectoring is a BIG influence there---if you could remain supersonic, yet be reasonably manueverable, that's a heck of an advantage.

[Hiriyu]

Another V-Tail plane with no elevators is the old Beech Bonanza. It also doesn't have any form of thrust vectoring, as it's a single front engine prop-driven plane. In my ignorance, I'd always assumed that the VF-1 used a similar control scheme... Thanks David & Ewilen for the info!

[Lightning]

how many ACTIVE's did McDonnell-Douglas make?

[VF-19]

On a related note, how do we suppose that the VF-1 manages without elevators? Delta wing planes have elevons, but that's not an option on a variable geometry aircraft, is it? I see several possibilities for the VF-1:

1) Thrust vectoring (swivelling) of the main engine nozzles.

2) Use of the vernier thrusters.

3) Coordinated use of the canted rudders. (Pushing both rudders in should push the tail down, but I don't think pushing both rudders out would push the tail up.)

4) Some combination of 1-3 above.

Here's what the Compendium says:

FLYING CONTROLS: Fly-by-light, two-section flap (with spoiler) and fowler flap occupy almost entire wing trailing-edge; leading-edge slats; conventional rudders in outward-canted vertical tail surfaces; two slits located on forward main body in Fighter mode operate in lieu of glove vanes by controlling airflow; two-dimensional vectored thrust nozzles operate in lieu of conventional elevators and horizontal stabilizers and in tandem with wing thruster roll control system; four Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters; eighteen P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles; one counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle on the side of each leg nacelle air intake; large airbrake directly rear of cockpit canopy (nozzle feet operate as airbrakes also); one ventral fin under each engine nacelle.

If I read this correctly, the VF-1 not only doesn't have conventional elevators, it doesn't even have ailerons. It uses the engine nozzles instead of elevators, and the wing thrusters for roll.

Comments?

My assumption was that the elevators were built into the wings of the VF-1... However, I'm probably wrong on that...

Since the VF-1 can thrust vector it's safe to assume that the thrust vector unit is what's used to control its pitch...

Say, How durable are thrust vectoring systems anyways?

[ewilen]

Another V-Tail plane with no elevators is the old Beech Bonanza. It also doesn't have any form of thrust vectoring, as it's a single front engine prop-driven plane. In my ignorance, I'd always assumed that the VF-1 used a similar control scheme... Thanks David & Ewilen for the info!

Interesting. Seems that only some models with the Bonanza name have the V tail--apparently just the "35" series. (A35, K35, C35, etc.) I don't know what the angle of the tail surfaces is, but it does look like it's closer to horizontal than vertical, as with the YF-23.

The F-117 also has a V or butterfly tail, but (according to what I just found on the web) it uses elevons on the wings to control pitch.

I also turned up information on an experimental aircraft, the X-31, which has been used to test "quasi-tailless" flight, using thrust vectoring to maintain stability and to control (or at least assist) pitch and yaw.

Edited October 15, 2003 by ewilen

[hellohikaru]

Speaking of an F-15 that can take off from bombed runways....there was once a concept, in the 80s where they ride on special air cushion platforms...how they recover is unclear.

Dave Hintgen maybe you can shead some light on this ?

[Nied]

For low speed pitch controll, the VF-1 might be able to use that huge "body flap" attached to the end of the backpack. In almost every drawing and model I've seen it looks to be actuated, and it's definetly big enough to have some controll in low thrust situations. That and the feet are big enough that they might be able to deflect some airflow as well.

[JELEINEN]

Do those two whachamcallits (fins, winglets, or whatever) that stick down near the feet actually do anything?

[ewilen]

They're listed under "Flying Controls" in the Compendium as "one ventral fin under each engine nacelle" but I don't think they actually move or have hinged surfaces in any toys or models. I'd suppose they mainly assist stability, although they could assist maneuvering if the legs are moved slightly while in fighter mode.

[Nied]

Do those two whachamcallits (fins, winglets, or whatever) that stick down near the feet actually do anything?

Like the tail fins they're too vertical to provide much pitch controll. They are actuated (in episode 27 they tuck up against the legs as Hikaru is entering the atmosphere) but I don't see how they could do anything.

[David Hingtgen]

Closest thing I know for an air cushion is for Vietnam. Launch a century-series (I can't remember which) off of a truck-mounted rail-launcher. 0-300 in 5 inches. Recover was via a really big air cushion. Takeoffs worked well, unless the rocket refused to release after takeoff. Landings--well, worked, at least once. Not nearly good enough to justify further development.

Ventral fins--yeah, they folded in Ep 27, but they wouldn't do anything, and real ventral fins can't move a plane. Exception is the F-16AFTI (or ATFI? whatever) which had like, independently-controlled ventral-canard-rudders mounted at 45-degrees under the intake lip. Could do some amazing things.

Basic rule: any slightly modified F-15 or F-16 can out-manuever any "stock" anything. Those planes have incredible potential, adding canards/vectoring just makes them insanely maneuverable.

[David Hingtgen]

Missed some stuff on my last post, replies to various things:

Elevators can't be on the wings, that's like a rudder on the wing--just simply isn't. Delta-winged planes can have ELEVONS. Variable geometry isn't a factor, no plane has wing-mounted elevators.

F-15ACTIVE: just the one, modified from the F-15S/MTD, which was modified from the first F-15B, which was the original TF-15A. Quite the plane. Has worn the red/white/blue Bicentennial scheme all throughout.

F-117 is overall a delta-winged plane, thus has elevons.

V-tailed Bonanzas do have standard ruddervators on their tails. It's not all-moving like a YF-23, but works the same.

[Lightning]

i believe the F-16ATFI is actually the FSX that General Dynamics was going to make for Japan.

it would be cool to see Japan start producing their own fighter designs again.

[ewilen]

Elevators can't be on the wings, that's like a rudder on the wing--just simply isn't. Delta-winged planes can have ELEVONS. Variable geometry isn't a factor, no plane has wing-mounted elevators.

I don't know if that's referring to one of my posts, but what I was thinking was that a Valkyrie with its wings fully swept is basically a delta-winged plane, but since it's variable-geometry, it couldn't use elevons--they'd be useless when the wings weren't swept.

I think the F-7U Cutlass comes close to having rudders on its wings. And wasn't there something in the 1950's that used wingtip thrusters instead of a rudder?

[Nied]

i believe the F-16ATFI is actually the FSX that General Dynamics was going to make for Japan.

it would be cool to see Japan start producing their own fighter designs again.

The FSX was at one point going to have ATFI style ventral canards, but that was abandoned. It now looks like a large F-16, and is starting to come into service as the F-2.