Are Variable Fighters Aeronautically Feasible?

[Hereticpoo]

Are Valkyries, in particular the VF-1's aeronautically feasible? (Mods, please move if this topic is in the wrong area.)

I ask because I was admiring my new 1/48 Stealth with Strike parts and thought, "There's no way with all that weight those tiny wings would produce enough lift to actually fly."

So I wanted to put the thought to my fellow Macross fans. In a hypothetical world, would a Valkyrie actually fly? And would it fly with super and strike parts?

[Graham]

The Super & Strike parts (AKA FAST Packs), were only designed to be used on the VF-1 for use in space, where lift is not an issue. They were not designed for use in an atmosphere.

Anyway, as long as there is sufficient thrust, I'd imagine that drag would be more of a problem than lift as the VF-1's FAST packs were not exactly aerodynamic.

Later VFs, such as the VF-11C, VF-19F/S and VF-17D/S had more aerodynamic FAST packs which could be used in an atmosphere (see M7 ep # 44 Operation Stargazer).

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Anything can fly, some things are just better than others. A barn door produces pretty good lift with the right alpha--it just has very high drag. (and most drag problems can be solved with thrust)

If you've got more lift than weight, and more thrust than drag, anything can fly well enough.

And there's always "semi-lifting" surfaces. Notably the B-1 and F-14, where half their lift can be derived from their gloves and surrounding fuselage, which do not have "recognized" aerodynamic/lifting cross-sections.

[Slammer]

hah, FAST packs would be the least of your worries I`d say... try rerouting the fuel from say the wings to the legs in battroid mode, that`ll be a HELL of a fluidline mess, if at all possible. let`s face it gang, the fancy engines of the VF-1 are still fictional powerplants and a conventional jetengine would guzzle jetfuel by the gallons keeping it airborne, let alone provide the energy needed to undergo mechamorphosis....and let`s not even begin on the airframe stress from rapid deceleration in mechamorphosis. going from nigh the speed of sound to practicly nothing(hover) in less then a minute would probably tear an airframe apart at the seams I`d wager.

[jackdaniels]

I believe Roy told Hikaru maybe in the first episode that they had thermonuclear reactors for powerplants. So they technically don't run on any fluid for fuel which was the big limitation of the VF-0 since it ate up gas so quickly and they always had to retreat.

And as for could they fly in space, if you give anything enough thrust to overcome its own mass since there no drag, it will move. You could stick a rocket on a cube shaped ship and it will still fly. The only reason our space shuttles are shaped like aeroplanes is that they have to fly in and out of the atmosphere. This is one of the big reasons they are building the space station so that they can build atmosphere-free ships.

[Sumdumgai]

If you check the model section (or was it fan works?), someone made a remote control fighter mode SV-51 that flies. It's pretty badass. So at least the SV-51 fighter mode is aeronautically feasible.

[Chronocidal]

I'm pretty sure I've seen flying radio controlled VF-1s, so yes the design can fly under the right conditions. But I'm not betting anything beyond fighter mode would be possible with our current technology, and the planes would never be as durable as they are in the anime. For instance, no way you're going to crash the thing through several buildings like Hikaru, and come up with anything resembling a working machine (much less your life I would guess). While they put up with large forces, aircraft aren't meant to sustain physical collisions.

Now, in the battroid's case.. it walks, runs, jumps, tumbles, and rolls. Without some sort of star trek style structural integrity system, nothing's gonna hold that together. We just simply don't have the mechanical ability to make something that will move anything like an anime mech, and be strong in any sense of the word. The force on the joints would be massive for the types of motions mechs go through.

The closest we have to anything like a VF-1 right now is the F-35 VTOL version. Yes, the engine on it bends and moves around almost like the VF-1's legs in gerwalk. But notice, they're not landing on that nozzle, the only part of the engine bending is the exhaust pipe, and that whole structure is no where near as heavy as the entire engine (like the VF-1's lower leg has in it). Given enough time, I don't doubt that a twin engined version could achieve something like gerwalk mode with enough computer control, but I don't think there's any way we could make it land on the "feet."

Edited September 18, 2008 by Chronocidal

[myk]

Even if the fighter mode was feasible, which it isn't (tailerons anyone?), what would be the point if you couldn't have a viable gerwalk and battroid mode? Variable anything is strictly fantasy.

Oh btw, if the new guy gets to have an avatar featuring nudity then I'm putting up something; Mai Shiranui-tentacle-violation-style...

[Mr March]

I'm not seeing any nudity in his avatar. His avatar is no more risque than the bikini-clad porn star avatar trend that ripped through the MW forums a year or two back

[Graham]

Now, in the battroid's case.. it walks, runs, jumps, tumbles, and rolls. Without some sort of star trek style structural integrity system, nothing's gonna hold that together. We just simply don't have the mechanical ability to make something that will move anything like an anime mech, and be strong in any sense of the word.

We don't have the technology now, but then again we don't have the benefit of Over Technology and advanced materials gleaned from the crashed ASS-1.

Graham

[akt_m]

Why wouldn't fly? It has wings. Just don't know if it would fly stable without computer assistance.

[DeeBot]

We have variable fighters now. One of them is called the F-14... (Yes, yes, it's not a "Variable Fighter." )

The idea of variable geometry has a long history in aeronautics, dating back to mankind's attempts to mimic the flight of birds, who already use variable geometry (flapping wings, anyone?). Heck, birds even have GERWALK. So physically, yes, it's certainly possible, perhaps even efficient.

The problem, of course, is our technology. The F-14 and B-1 swing wings carried a huge weight penalty, in the form of robust joints capable of swinging the entire wing assemblies. Even mimicking the capabilities of, say, a housefly is beyond our current technology. (It's interesting to note that research has been done in the last decade or so into true variable wings, however, that can transform the entire wing to different airfoil shapes, just like a bird does. That's even more radical than the sort of transformations you see in Macross, which are relatively simple mechanically. They can make fully transformable toys, after all. )

Throw in a healthy infusion of OverTechnology, though, and the leap isn't really so great from what we have now to what you see in Macross. As David Hingtgen noted, anything will fly if you apply enough thrust. That's essentially what rockets do, after all. A lightweight nuclear powerplant ought to do the job handily.

Maintaining flight control during transformation is a trickier question, of course. Current aircraft are already aerodynamically unstable, though, so I think it's just a matter of throwing enough computing power at the problem. If you could solve all the other problems, I think transformation into battroid in midair wouldn't be impossible, though of questionable usefulness.

By the way, Hereticpoo initially wondered how, say, the VF-1's wings could possibly support all the weight. First off, the VF-1 is generally modeled on the F-14, so it's not outlandish. Second, if you've seen a profile of a modern supersonic fighter wing, it looks essentially flat, with hardly any airfoil at all. At the speeds they're usually going, they don't need a lot of lifting surface to generate sufficient lift. (Nevertheless, something like the F-15, which is almost all lifting surface, makes a better air superiority fighter.) In fact, the physics of hypersonic aircraft has more in common with flat plates than with traditional curved airfoils.

[d3v]

Even if the fighter mode was feasible, which it isn't (tailerons anyone?).

Tailerons wouldn't be an issue, the function of the missing elevators would be taken care of by vectored thrust. Actually, since it has twin rudders, the plane wouldn't be as hard to keep stable in a straight line then a B-2 bomber.

Actually, if you think about it, the more unstable a plane is, the better it is at being a dogfighter (hence most modern fighter designs are inherently unstable, relying on computers and fly-by wire to keep the plane stable).

Edited September 18, 2008 by d3v

[Hereticpoo]

Why wouldn't fly? It has wings. Just don't know if it would fly stable without computer assistance.

LOL! Why wouldn't a penguin fly? They have wings!

Sorry dude not trying to offend just couldn't resist!

[badboy00z]

LOL! Why wouldn't a penguin fly? They have wings!

Sorry dude not trying to offend just couldn't resist!

Penguins doesn't have the necessary thrust to weight ratio to fly. Lol.

[JB0]

I believe Roy told Hikaru maybe in the first episode that they had thermonuclear reactors for powerplants. So they technically don't run on any fluid for fuel

*sigh*

Not this again...

What do you think a thermonuclear reactor runs on?

A. Happy thoughts?

B. Fairy dust?

C. A steady supply of light elements, typically hydrogen or helium, transported as a cryogenic liquid due to volume concerns?

If you guessed C, you're right!

Fusion reactions have consumables that are "burned." And they transport them in a liquid form because it's the most effective way to carry and supply them.

And while space is not relevant to a discussion of aeronautics, a VF in space ALSO has to carry a tank of reaction mass that it can heat and expel out it's engines to generate velocity changes.

So it has not one, but TWO liquid fuels!

And not only that, one set of fuel lines are CRYOGENIC fuel lines! The thermal wear is going to make maintainence even WORSE.

In an atmosphere, of course, it uses air for the propellant, just like a conventional jet engine does, so the only fuel is the nuclear reactant.

The only reason our space shuttles are shaped like aeroplanes is that they have to fly in and out of the atmosphere.

That is incorrect.

The space shuttle is vaguely plane-shaped because it was designed to land on a runway, and thus needs control surfaces. It has atrocious aerodynamics, and falls like a rock. It lands hard, it lands fast, and it CANNOT stay in the air for any real length of time during re-entry.

A "needle" rocket is FAR more aerodynamic from a launch perspective.

And the classic capsule design is better for re-entry since it allows for a protected heatshield until you actually prepare for re-entry. That's one reason the next-generation CEV is going to be an Apollo-style capsule.

But really, mass is a bigger concern than aerodynamics for a rocket launch, as long as you keep it reasonable.

This is one of the big reasons they are building the space station so that they can build atmosphere-free ships.

Again, wrong. The ISS isn't equipped for construction or launch of anything, nor is it planned to be.

Besides which, any fuel on the ISS has to be lifted from Earth. Which means you've ALREADY paid the cost of lifting it up there whether it goes to a hypothetical ISS storage tank or to a rocket engine to move your payload on to it's goal.

May as well put it in a rocket engine so your payload gets the benefit of the momenteum from launch.

There IS talk of using the proposed LUNAR base for rocket launches, but that's got less to do with atmosphere than it does gravity.

And they have to be able to make rocket fuel on the moon for it to be a viable option. Otherwise a launch directly from Earth is cheaper.

[d3v]

Besides which, any fuel on the ISS has to be lifted from Earth. Which means you've ALREADY paid the cost of lifting it up there whether it goes to a hypothetical ISS storage tank or to a rocket engine to move your payload on to it's goal.

May as well put it in a rocket engine so your payload gets the benefit of the momenteum from launch.

There IS talk of using the proposed LUNAR base for rocket launches, but that's got less to do with atmosphere than it does gravity.

And they have to be able to make rocket fuel on the moon for it to be a viable option. Otherwise a launch directly from Earth is cheaper.

Don't worry, in a couple of years time most of us will be aboard a space cruiser somewhere in the solar system, unless off course, they stayed behind and died when the planet gets glassed by a large fleet of giants. Now about those immigration papers to South Ataria (not to mention blue hair dye job and name change).

Edited September 18, 2008 by d3v

[Bri]

What do you think a thermonuclear reactor runs on?

A. Happy thoughts?

B. Fairy dust?

C. A steady supply of light elements, typically hydrogen or helium, transported as a cryogenic liquid due to volume concerns?

If you guessed C, you're right!

Fusion reactions have consumables that are "burned." And they transport them in a liquid form because it's the most effective way to carry and supply them.

And while space is not relevant to a discussion of aeronautics, a VF in space ALSO has to carry a tank of reaction mass that it can heat and expel out it's engines to generate velocity changes.

So it has not one, but TWO liquid fuels!

And not only that, one set of fuel lines are CRYOGENIC fuel lines! The thermal wear is going to make maintainence even WORSE.

Hydrogen can be stored in metal composites. In theory you can store more hydrogen in a gallon of composite then in a gallon of pure liquid hydrogen. The priciple revolves around removing the electron from the hydrogen atom and saturating the composite. It removes the need for elaborate crogenic storage facilities. The technology is still in it's infancy but we about talking future tech here anyway.

[DarkReaper]

Now, in the battroid's case.. it walks, runs, jumps, tumbles, and rolls. Without some sort of star trek style structural integrity system, nothing's gonna hold that together. We just simply don't have the mechanical ability to make something that will move anything like an anime mech, and be strong in any sense of the word. The force on the joints would be massive for the types of motions mechs go through.

Not to mention that any metal bending that will occur will likely just jam the bird shut when it tries to transform

[VF-25S Full Armour]

Speaking of aero, for maximum maneuverability, the VF-1's design is in fact very ideal. It has all the control surfaces it'll ever need: 2 big variable swept wings and 2 big tailplanes.

The key factor to its extreme maneuverability is its vectored thrust, which makes tailplanes absolutely unnecessary. I just checked my VF-1S 1/48 scale model and frankly, wing area isn't lacking.

Yes, I am very aware of the weight penalty argument of variable swept wings and it has been abused to death for the F-14. Yes, the F-111 (the POS the F-14 replaced) had the whole swing wing mechanism built out of STEEL, a material of significantly inferior strength to weight ratio the titanium used in the F-14. For reference, the F-14, Su-35 and F-15E are of similar size, and their empty masses aren't THAT different:

F-14: 19.838 metric tons

Su-35: 17.5 metric tons

F-15E: 14.3 metric tons

Their maximum takeoff weights are all impressive:

F-14: 33.732 metric tons

Su-35: 34.5 metric tons

F-15E: 36.7 metric tons

Imagine a new plane based of the basic design of the F-14D but with the F-22's engines and canards (yes, canards were actually considered when Grumman was trying was trying to sell the new generation of F-14s). And last time I checked, the F-14 did NOT have the benefit of modern composites with insane S/W ratio that planes such as the F-22 uses extensively. The sad thing is that despite of the huge untapped potential of the F-14 performance wise, it is now forever gone.

Yes, I am aware of the modern obsession with passive stealth. But if meta-materials that allow refractive indexes to go negative at radar EM bands or even the visible band, all current stealth technology will be instantly rendered obsolete. And no, there is no way you're going to detect an airplane that bends radar around itself with conventional radar.

IIRC, I've found people who have proved via wing tunnel and and simulation that if the VF-1 would work brilliantly as an airplane if it was real and followed its designated parameters (thrust, thrust vectoring range, mass, etc.). Unfortunately, I forgot to bookmark and download a copy of the sites.

The VF-1 certainly does NOT violate the laws of physics. The real reason they aren't real yet is because modern technology is still quite there yet.

[lososaurus]

You better believe it!

Someone built an Sv-51, all the flight control surfaces works and it flies.

Thread of him building:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403195

Thrust vectoring and control surface testing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=86...28584&hl=en

Flying:

[MechTech]

I believe a VF-1 could fly (fighter mode). Gerwalk mode would be fun to see work. The wing loading is the issue. As everyone else said; thrust to weight ratio. If the wing will take the the load, it will work. It might land at 200MPH, but it would fly!

The VF-1 is made in a flying profile model, no special "Extra" flying surfaces - with tail-o-vators.

Besides, a lawn mower can fly!!! (it was the best argument I could think of next to the whole bumble bee thang).

Oh, and then there's that whole possibility of transformation thang too...

- MT Edited September 18, 2008 by MechTech

[Avngr]

That school bus "flies" because of it's engine, you can see it is hanging on it

About Gerwalk flying, I don't see why it wouldn't. 2 big engines, fully movable to compesate for drops, with the assist of a computer... Look what they've done without computer assist in the 50's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-13_Vertijet

[VF-25S Full Armour]

That school bus "flies" because of it's engine, you can see it is hanging on it

About Gerwalk flying, I don't see why it wouldn't. 2 big engines, fully movable to compesate for drops, with the assist of a computer... Look what they've done without computer assist in the 50's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-13_Vertijet

Speaking of which, I also see absolutely no physical laws that would stop the battroid mode from working as well as it did in Macross as long as there is sufficient thrust coming from all the right places and pointed at the right directions on the VF-1's body.

For crying out loud, we've already had fully functional jet packs for decades, and they happen to be fully controllable devices. Just check a classic James Bond Movie (unfortunately I can't remember which one now) and you could see an actual jet pack in action.

The only real limitation of those devices was their short range. With Overtechnology enhanced versions of working fusion generators (ITER is already a working progress), power and range will no longer be an issue.

Incidentally, the success of nuclear fusion isn't just a prerequisite to making machines as amazing as the VFs possible, but also the only long term solution for long term energy production in general. And any greeny asshats that will do anything to destroy anything nuclear, well, just remember that if it weren't for the biggest and most powerful fusion generator in our solar system, life on the earth's surface would never be half as plentiful as it is now.

Note: I am an environmentalist myself and I genuinely care about the environment, which includes everything INCLUDING people. I simply can't stand hypocrites that are good for nothing more than whining and standing in the way of hope for a better future for all human kind .

Edited September 18, 2008 by VF-25S Full Armour

[DarkReaper]

As far as I know a fusion reactor is more mass efficient as it extracts 17.56MeV/He4 but a fission reactor is more volume efficient as it extracts 211MeV/mole. A mole of U235 is far denser than a mole of Deuterium and Tritium so an U235 store should occupy less volume than a Water tank for any given Energy amount.

So in a VF where the volume available for tanks is at a premium, maybe fission would have been the better way to go, except the radiation issue of course.

Damn, I should really get back to studying for the electrodynamics exam tomorrow instead of posting random pseudo-science bullcrap on a forum.

Edited September 18, 2008 by DarkReaper

[Max Jenius]

Short answer - no.

[VF5SS]

That school bus "flies" because of it's engine, you can see it is hanging on it

About Gerwalk flying, I don't see why it wouldn't. 2 big engines, fully movable to compesate for drops, with the assist of a computer... Look what they've done without computer assist in the 50's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-13_Vertijet

flew pretty well for a 1950's VTOL. Out of all of the transforming flying robots out there, Valkyries do offer a most plausible flight form. As opposed to say The Zeta Plus which is probably Gundam's best offer in the area of transforming flying robots.

[ChronoReverse]

When you consider the extreme excess of thrust available to the variable fighters, they most certainly can fly.

And we already know that the material in them are at least as strong as tank armor but still light even as early as Macross Zero. This is why structural integrity and transformation isn't an issue.

As for GERWALK, the way it's used is always (relatively) low speed maneuvering like Alto's first stunt or it's for bleeding off speed very quickly to get behind your tail.

[akt_m]

LOL! Why wouldn't a penguin fly? They have wings!

Sorry dude not trying to offend just couldn't resist!

If you put some rockets behind the penguin i bet it can fly.

[JB0]

As far as I know a fusion reactor is more mass efficient as it extracts 17.56MeV/He4 but a fission reactor is more volume efficient as it extracts 211MeV/mole. A mole of U235 is far denser than a mole of Deuterium and Tritium so an U235 store should occupy less volume than a Water tank for any given Energy amount.

So in a VF where the volume available for tanks is at a premium, maybe fission would have been the better way to go, except the radiation issue of course.

But you can't "burn" U235. A fission reactor is a far more complex device, requiring careful spacing of the fuel rods, mediators to control the rate of the chain reaction, and a way to dissipate LOTS of heat, which is incredibly difficult in the vacuum of space.

They're also a lot less safe if something goes wrong.

That's why sci-fi focuses almost exclusively on fusion, and why we haven't tucked a nuclear reactor into anything other than submarines and aircraft carriers.

[ChronoReverse]

Eh. Most of that is true of fusion as well. It's tremendously complex, requires careful application of pressure, a way to contain the plasma, lots of heat to dissipate. It's only plus is that on such small scales, it can't "run away" but neither can most modern fission designs.

In any case, because we're told the OT engines are thermonuclear, we know it's fusion, but there's really not much reason why it can't be fission.

[anime52k8]

But you can't "burn" U235. A fission reactor is a far more complex device, requiring careful spacing of the fuel rods, mediators to control the rate of the chain reaction, and a way to dissipate LOTS of heat, which is incredibly difficult in the vacuum of space.

They're also a lot less safe if something goes wrong.

That's why sci-fi focuses almost exclusively on fusion, and why we haven't tucked a nuclear reactor into anything other than submarines and aircraft carriers.

well, we did try to put a nuclear reactor on a bomber. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion

short version is you can suck air into an engine, and superheat it with a nuclear reactor and shoot it out the back. but it didn't work because if you had proper radiation containment and shielding the plane would be to heavy to fly; and if you don't then the crew gets irradiated, and you end up turning the planes flight path into a fallout zone without ever dropping a bomb.

[big F]

I was going to post about the lawn mower there was someone local to me who had one that flew a while ago he also built a pig.

Technically Penguins do fly only under water. They employ the same method as airborne birds do such as wing shapes and tail steering etc, hydrodynamics is similar only the water is more dense.

During the Falklands war the RAF broke quite a few Harriers doing a Gerwalk style stop maneuver whist fighting the Argentinian Mirages. They would get the Mirage behind them and then pull up and give it full vectored reverse and basically come to a complete stop and then target the Mirage. My old Boss was in the RAF at the time and worked on the Harriers he said that many of them came back with torsional stress damage due to this particular maneuver.

In any case, because we're told the OT engines are thermonuclear, we know it's fusion, but there's really not much reason why it can't be fission.

I guess if it was the Zentradi forces wouldn't have had to glass the planet just kill a few Valks and let the populous die off

According to physics the Bumble bee cant fly, I guess nobody told them yet.

Edited September 18, 2008 by big F

[ChronoReverse]

Even if it were fission, it can still be quite clean. OT allows for thin light airframes to be tougher than tank armor. I don't see why thin light shielding is much of a stretch. Please note I'm not saying that the valkyries use fission. I'm just saying that given what we know about OT, building a small light fission reactor isn't any stretch at all.

Furthermore, we already have modern pebble-bed designs where the fission material is embedded in glass beads. Even if pulverized it's pretty much inert. And our coal power plants have been dumping huge, Huge, HUGE amounts of radioactive elements into the atmosphere since they occur naturally in coal. Naturally occurring radon gas is also very significant. Even granite is slightly radioactive. Destroying even a fleet of hypothetical fission valkyries really won't have much effect on Earth.

Edited September 18, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[anime52k8]

According to physics the Bumble bee cant fly, I guess nobody told them yet.