Valk Designs

[anime52k8]

It's simple: Resistance on the sensor plate. It takes effor to move the pedal for thrust vectoring, but easy to move for yaw. Sit down, move your right foot forward. Now, make both level at a comfortable position in front of the chair. Elevate your feet to about 45 degrees. Move your feet in a simple ankle movement. That's how the control system is based.

still that's really similar movements (both going in the same direction). it seems all too easy to accidentally apply too much pressure or pressure in the wrong spot or the wrong way in a high stress situation like combat.

in a dog fight it would make much more seance to have the foot peddles doing Just yaw, and just the stick for doing role/pitch.

what I'm trying to say is that it leaves room for dangerous mistakes happening, and it has no benefit. why would you need pitch/role control on the foot pedals when you already have the stick for pitch/role control, a pilots going to end up using one all the time and never actually using the other.

[hobbes221]

I will say that I liked the scene in episode 2 of Frontier that show how you can control the precise movement of the feet in gerwalk with the pedals. If the legs of the EX-gear had a little movement in them as well then the legs would respond in the same manner, much like the system from Full Metal Panic as myself and others have said before.

And on a sidenote IIRC the RAH-66 Comanche prototypes did away with the anti-torque pedals and added a left and right twisting movement to the cyclic stick so maybe something like that could be done with the VF's controls and there by leaving the foot pedals open to control just the thrust vectoring. While it would seem odd to have two different sets of controls (stick and pedals) that both control the pitch and yaw, it should allow for things like being able to climb and descend with the nose still on the horizon.

[edwin3060]

... While it would seem odd to have two different sets of controls (stick and pedals) that both control the pitch and yaw, it should allow for things like being able to climb and descend with the nose still on the horizon.

How so? Ultimately the aircraft still has the same setup (TVC, Flaperons, etc)

[hobbes221]

How so? Ultimately the aircraft still has the same setup (TVC, Flaperons, etc)

Yes it's the same setup but done with different controls, on the ground the closest think I can think of would be the tiller ladder trucks use by fire fighters. they have a guy in the back driving the rear wheels this helps them to get those big trucks around because in turns as a tail would normally swing out (you have seem how the big tractor-trailer rig have to take wide turns?) the guy in back keeps in under control so you have two parts of the same truck doing different things in order to work.

It's called cross controlling, flying cross controlled in aircraft could be one wing slightly low and compensating with opposite rudder, to a fully fledged cross controlled turn where the aircraft is steeply banked in a descending turn with full opposite rudder applied.

Something like what I'm trying to say was showed in the first 'All That VF' where Alto's -25 did that climbing flat spin move. If that was done with just the TVC then he could have used the wing mounted control surfaces to keep the nose down, and some like that (without the spin, but maybe with a little turning) could be useful when trying to bring your guns around on target or in the case of having someone on your tail ether at the same level or below you descending without lowering your nose might allow you to give the rear firing lasers a clear shot and at the same time you would be moving in way that they might not be thinking about.

and hey if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Seriously, Anime, you haven't tried flying a plane. It's hard to mess those two controls up. I know, because I pilot a little when I can. The rudder pedals have hinges, so your feet can stay in a comfortable position. It's hard to mix them up. Besides that, adding the thrust vectoring to normal controls could overwhelm the pilot. It adds a lot of maneuverability. By mapping the controls like that, it lessens the chance of pilot error. Also, it helps the computer systems compensate for all of the different controls between modes. Since the vectoring nozzles are also the feet, the controls can be mapped so they move the same in Fighter and GERWALK modes. This way, only 2 sets of controls are set to the pedals, lessening computer strain.

By the way, it's roll. As in "Do a Barrel Roll!" Roll, pitch, and yaw are the 3 axes of flight.

Well, it's hard to ascend with your nose horizontal. In fact, unless you've got VTOL capability, it's impossible. It's not an effective way of climbing. Rudder Pedalling with the nose raised slightly will lift you, but it's a bit... Gradual. Also, it exposes more of your plane to the enemy. Also, flipping a plane like that has a tendency to stall the engines with thrust coming into the nozzle. Not a good thing. Also, I've never seen the head laser of the VF-25 fire before. Fighter or Battroid, actually...

[ChronoReverse]

Eh? Alto has used the beams on the head quite a few times

Here's the two that stick out in my mind the most

Episode 25 @ 5:51 - Alto fires them in battroid (they actually look like lasers)

Episode 13 @ 18:55 - Alto fires them in fighter (they look like the pulses that the head laser has been shown to fire in fighter mode)

Incidentally, the idea that you don't focus on the fighter behind you is ridiculous. How else would you shake him if you're not focusing on him? Also, you're not trying so much to line up a shot but to spray (hence the pulse mode that's usually used in fighter mode) and throw the other guy off his track and thus help you escape. For that kind of thing, the aiming can easily be done by a computer and it's more a matter of pushing the trigger to do the firing.

As for the controls, I'm not going to speculate too much on how it could work except that it would seem that there's almost certainly a great deal of computer assistance. This is probably why the YF-19 prototypes were so difficult to fly; because the dynamics of the fighter weren't understood well enough yet (especially considering the really advanced inherently unstable designs one would presume these futuristic fighters would have), the computer probably over- or under-compensated in various situations. It would take a tremendous pilot to be able to stop short of or to recover from such situations.

Edited November 11, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

I apparently forgot to mention that I don't pay much attention.

I'm tellin' ya, it's essentially blind flak. The laser fires blindly at a high ROF, and if you hit anything hostile, good for you! If you hit anything friendly, good luck at the court martial!

Also, you're focusing on the guy behind you, not the screen that says where behind you he is.

Moving on, where the hell did all of the 171EXes come from, and how did the Quarter hide all of those (The following is an oxymoron!) cannon fodder 25Fs?

[ChronoReverse]

Ever since the wrap-around imaging debut, it immediately implied a sort of high tech head-tracking system one level above the previous eye-tracking system must have been implemented. Otherwise there would be huge parallax issues with the screens.

Because of this and also because of the way the zooming and sensors worked in the second episode, I believe that as long as your attention is on the fighter on your tail, the computer will pick up on this and thus target the rear turret for you (the pilot just has to pull the trigger). This neatly explains why the rear turret never hits anyone elite (see Guld and Brera) and also how it aims in one fell swoop. Friendly fire would then be reduced to the same level as usual.

Edited November 11, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, of course there'd be a crazy cross between RaDAR, IFF Tracking, Video Feed, and manual fire control. Only real problem I see is the VFs have crazy missile compatibility and loadouts. You'd have to flip through a million weapon selections before reaching the rear laser. Only way around this is to have it automated. Possibly with a toggle between autonomous and manual, in case it's using to much energy from the weapons capacitor. If that happens, the gunpod and forward pulse cannons would be disabled so the weapon with precedence (Whichever is fired first, or if the head laser is defending, the head laser.) can fire. Hm... IFF... So, if there's enemy IFF jamming, would it still work? Or is it failsafed against that, being able to pick up said jamming and disable the IFF safety mechanisms. I will have to ponder this...

[ChronoReverse]

Well, Macross Plus shows that it only took a small thumb movement to activate the trigger for the rear turret. So that's the way it worked. (As a sidenote, this was easily dodged by Guld but allowed Isamu to shake him thus nicely demonstrating my assertion about the gun).

As for IFF, the trigger is still held by the pilot and the targeting is by whatever the pilot focuses on (in the way the zooming worked). By this, even IFF jamming wouldn't matter.

Edited November 11, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Mr March]

I think the rear-firing head turrets we see in both Macross Plus and Macross Frontier are simply "activated" by the pilot, but not "aimed" by the pilot. We don't really see any action on behalf of the pilot other than pressing the button to fire (or in the case of Isamu in the YF-19, simply moving his thumb over the motion sensor to activate the head turret). I think at most, there may be some eye motion tracking, but nothing much beyond that. Focker seemed to track incoming missiles in his VF-0 via the eye tracking system but the aiming itself appeared automated.

[hobbes221]

I think the rear-firing head turrets we see in both Macross Plus and Macross Frontier are simply "activated" by the pilot, but not "aimed" by the pilot. We don't really see any action on behalf of the pilot other than pressing the button to fire

I said something along that line on the last page... no listens to me ...

[anime52k8]

Seriously, Anime, you haven't tried flying a plane. It's hard to mess those two controls up. I know, because I pilot a little when I can. The rudder pedals have hinges, so your feet can stay in a comfortable position. It's hard to mix them up. Besides that, adding the thrust vectoring to normal controls could overwhelm the pilot. It adds a lot of maneuverability. By mapping the controls like that, it lessens the chance of pilot error. Also, it helps the computer systems compensate for all of the different controls between modes. Since the vectoring nozzles are also the feet, the controls can be mapped so they move the same in Fighter and GERWALK modes. This way, only 2 sets of controls are set to the pedals, lessening computer strain.

By the way, it's roll. As in "Do a Barrel Roll!" Roll, pitch, and yaw are the 3 axes of flight.

Well, it's hard to ascend with your nose horizontal. In fact, unless you've got VTOL capability, it's impossible. It's not an effective way of climbing. Rudder Pedalling with the nose raised slightly will lift you, but it's a bit... Gradual. Also, it exposes more of your plane to the enemy. Also, flipping a plane like that has a tendency to stall the engines with thrust coming into the nozzle. Not a good thing. Also, I've never seen the head laser of the VF-25 fire before. Fighter or Battroid, actually...

true I've never flown a plane, but let me ask you this: have you ever been in a dogfight before? have you ever flown a plane with thrust vectoring engines? and do any panes actually use the foot pedals to control both both yaw and pitch/role (if the foot pedals effected the movement of the feet, then you would be able to control role by actuating the foot pedals in opposite directions, and control pitch by actuating the pedals in the same direction)

now, rather than running around in circles arguing the same points with you. I'm going to differ to the animation.

ok, so I'm looking at the dogfight between nora and shin in the final episode of Mac0, when he pulls performs a Pugachev's Cobra (technically more like a modified cobra turn, but whatever)

when he does this, he pulls the stick back AND simultaneously pushes both foot pedals forward.

now in this shot at 12:25 we get what is about as clear a view of the foot pedals as we're ever going to get. in this shot the foot pedals look connected to each other by a bar, and that par looks connected to the seat by another perpendicular bar. the foot pedals only apear to be able to rotate, and not be pushed forward or back in fighter mode.

when he rolled his plane under nora's he pushed the stick to his left, and operated the foot pedals in oposite directions, causing his plane to perform a quarter role, while yawing and pitching down slightly.

again the foot pedals don't apear to have any way of moving other than rotating.

now, back in the first episode when Roy's VF-0 transforms for the first time, you also see the foot pedals for a split second. (this is when he's shooting the missiles with his head lasers)

now for some reason, the design of the foot pedals changes between this shot in episode 1 and the other shots in episode 2. now the two foot pedals are separated and he is able to push them forward (or in this case down) now in this situation though he pushes both pedals down at the same time, which appears to result in an increase in thrust.

so what does this all mean? I'm inclined to believe that we're both wrong. it looks like Valk do not in fact use the same style controls as real world aircraft. looking at the footage form Mac0 I think controls work in the following manner:

in fighter mode:

the foot pedals only have one axis of movement (rotating back and forth around the shaft they're mounted on), the foot pedals control pitch and role, and the stick controls pitch/role as well. it seems to me that the stick functions in a traditional manner (back and forth controls pitch, left and right controls role) and operates the conventional control surfaces of the valk (operating the stick causes the wing flaps to move).

the foot pedals are tied exclusively to the thrust vectoring nozzles (i.e. the feet) of the valk, with the left pedal controlling the left foot, and the right controlling the right foot. by pushing forward on the foot pedal, the feet angle up, and pulling the pedal back angles the foot down. by operating the pedals in the same direction they control pitch, and by moving them in opposite directions you control role.

now for yaw, since they never actually show the control movment that goes with yaw I can only speculate, but I have a feeling that you twist the stick left or right to yaw (sort of like the flight stick for ace combat). as for the throttle, it works the same as a normal throttle (forward to accelerate, backwards to decelerate) except that it also controls the transformation, and that you can't control the thrust for each engine independently (real throttles on multi-engine craft are split for each engine, oddly enough the TV VF-1 got this part right)

now, in batroid mode, the throttle becomes a second stick, either being used to aperate the arms, or a arm, or for maneuvering, or whatever. basically, the throttle is no longer a throttle, so to control thrust you push down on the pedals, which are separated and control thrust from each leg independently. the foot angle is still controlled by the foot pedals (the reason the pedals are down to pitch up and back to pitch down is so that when in batroid mode the pedals match the feet while still keeping the movement the same).

I've also noticed that there are two sections on each foot pedal that connect to the main shaft by little rods. I have a feeling that the overall movement of the pedal controls the angle of the foot, and the movement of the separate sections control the shape of the foot sections(which is two pieces)

[Morpheus]

Err...maybe there's a computer program that runs how the pedals work, like do down down up, head laser shooting, up up down, cobra maneuver etc . Somehow the 50 stick/pedals from SDF:M starting to make sense.

In other news, catgirls are being slaughtered by used airplane foot pedals....

[Valkyrie Driver]

Eh? Alto has used the beams on the head quite a few times

Here's the two that stick out in my mind the most

Episode 25 @ 5:51 - Alto fires them in battroid (they actually look like lasers)

Episode 13 @ 18:55 - Alto fires them in fighter (they look like the pulses that the head laser has been shown to fire in fighter mode)

Incidentally, the idea that you don't focus on the fighter behind you is ridiculous. How else would you shake him if you're not focusing on him? Also, you're not trying so much to line up a shot but to spray (hence the pulse mode that's usually used in fighter mode) and throw the other guy off his track and thus help you escape. For that kind of thing, the aiming can easily be done by a computer and it's more a matter of pushing the trigger to do the firing.

As for the controls, I'm not going to speculate too much on how it could work except that it would seem that there's almost certainly a great deal of computer assistance. This is probably why the YF-19 prototypes were so difficult to fly; because the dynamics of the fighter weren't understood well enough yet (especially considering the really advanced inherently unstable designs one would presume these futuristic fighters would have), the computer probably over- or under-compensated in various situations. It would take a tremendous pilot to be able to stop short of or to recover from such situations.

You Focus on the guy behind you, so as someone suggested maybe the head lasers are sensor aimed and fired, (As per B-52 Tailgun, I just remembered that little system) but trying to shoot at him while he's behind you would be rather difficult. That's all I'm saying. Besides, the goal of air combat is to kill the enemy, and you will always be able to do that better if he's in front of you. The guidelines are easily available, Just look up the Dicta Boelka. You never want him behind you, ever.

[anime52k8]

I think the rear-firing head turrets we see in both Macross Plus and Macross Frontier are simply "activated" by the pilot, but not "aimed" by the pilot. We don't really see any action on behalf of the pilot other than pressing the button to fire (or in the case of Isamu in the YF-19, simply moving his thumb over the motion sensor to activate the head turret). I think at most, there may be some eye motion tracking, but nothing much beyond that. Focker seemed to track incoming missiles in his VF-0 via the eye tracking system but the aiming itself appeared automated.

most likely the VF-0 was already tracking the incoming missiles via radar. the eye tracking served the function of indicating what to target and lock on to. once locked the lasers would be targeted by the valk's sensors.

I said something along that line on the last page... no listens to me ...

they don't listen because you're a stuffed animal.

Err...maybe there's a computer program that runs how the pedals work, like do down down up, head laser shooting, up up down, cobra maneuver etc . Somehow the 50 stick/pedals from SDF:M starting to make sense.

In other news, catgirls are being slaughtered by used airplane foot pedals....

you mean flight control button combos? that would be even more confusing. also, WTF catgirls?

also, this is for SchizophrenicMC:

[ChronoReverse]

You Focus on the guy behind you, so as someone suggested maybe the head lasers are sensor aimed and fired, (As per B-52 Tailgun, I just remembered that little system) but trying to shoot at him while he's behind you would be rather difficult. That's all I'm saying. Besides, the goal of air combat is to kill the enemy, and you will always be able to do that better if he's in front of you. The guidelines are easily available, Just look up the Dicta Boelka. You never want him behind you, ever.

You don't get it do you? There will be times when someone will get on your tail. A deterrent is nice. No one is saying you get people on your tail to kill things as that would be a ridiculous idea. So don't bring it up when nobody is suggesting it. You're right about concentrating on shooting but that's never happened in the anime and it's always been something to help get someone off your tail.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Hobbes I apreciate the welcome. And I just gotta say, Y'all are a great help. I have so much stuff rattling around up in my brain, so I misplace my info. It occurred to me that since the F-14 most mdern aricraft use a fly by wire system. In the 5th gen fighters the Su-35, F-22, F-35 and others, the thrust vectoring isn't controlled by the pilot, but by the flight computer. The computer adjusts the thrust vectoring based on the input provided by the pilot. I can't imagine it would be hugely different in a valk. Now granted we do see the foot pedals working the thrust vectoring in the anime.

I have to agree with anime that having two control systems on one HMI seems wonky. I've flown before, and I'll tell you, there is a lot going on in the cockpit just trying to keep the bird in the air.

Hey, do valks have afterburners? I mean I would imagine they could, though with the TN Turbines you'd already have an insane amount of thrust available to you.

As for the internal weapons bays being a reality. I know they are, The last thing I want is to be dogfighting with a hung door and half spent ordinance. Besides, the only reason they began mounting internal bays is to decrease the radar cross section. If all your weapons osre inside the enemy can't bounce radar waves off your missiles. The only fighters I can think of that used internal bays for resons other than stealth are three from the USAF century series. The F-102, F-105, and F-106. They used internal bays to reduce drag, allowing them to travel at high mach. Hung doors suck. Hung ordinance sucks more. Oh yeah, the F-86D used an internal rocket launcher. Let's see how did that verse go...

"Oh don't give me an 86 D,

with rockets radar and av,

she fast I don't care,

she blows up in mid air,

Oh don't give me an 86 D"

My dad knew an 86D pilot who shot the nose off his ship, and landed the sucker so he could prove it. Yeah, you might be able to see my slight issues with internal weapons bays. Dunno about y'all but shooting the nose off of my bird sounds bad to me.

Granted we've come a very long way, but still, shat happens.

[Valkyrie Driver]

You don't get it do you? There will be times when someone will get on your tail. A deterrent is nice. No one is saying you get people on your tail to kill things as that would be a ridiculous idea. So don't bring it up when nobody is suggesting it. You're right about concentrating on shooting but that's never happened in the anime and it's always been something to help get someone off your tail.

I guess I am a bit hung up on that, sorry. Anyway we could argue in circles all day, but frankly I don't have that kind of time, and I wouldn't want to waste yours. I guess what I'm driving at is that it seems like poor design to me. For some reason Kawamori-Sama made it that way, and the birds still look cool. Design efficiency and superior tactics are my guiding stars. Besides, why not just have an HMD? Put your eyeball on him and shoot a missile up his arse, ala MiG29/F22/F35? That'd satisfy both of us. I get my guns facing foreward, and you get your deterrent. And nothing says get off my arse like a missile crammed up yer nose...

[anime52k8]

Hobbes I apreciate the welcome. And I just gotta say, Y'all are a great help. I have so much stuff rattling around up in my brain, so I misplace my info. It occurred to me that since the F-14 most mdern aricraft use a fly by wire system. In the 5th gen fighters the Su-35, F-22, F-35 and others, the thrust vectoring isn't controlled by the pilot, but by the flight computer. The computer adjusts the thrust vectoring based on the input provided by the pilot. I can't imagine it would be hugely different in a valk. Now granted we do see the foot pedals working the thrust vectoring in the anime.

you would think that, but I guess valks are more dissimilar to real aircraft then we original thought.

I have to agree with anime that having two control systems on one HMI seems wonky. I've flown before, and I'll tell you, there is a lot going on in the cockpit just trying to keep the bird in the air.

than you

Hey, do valks have afterburners? I mean I would imagine they could, though with the TN Turbines you'd already have an insane amount of thrust available to you.

yes they do, also have something called "overboost". afterburners on valks produce 120% power, and overboost produces 200% power

As for the internal weapons bays being a reality. I know they are, The last thing I want is to be dogfighting with a hung door and half spent ordinance. Besides, the only reason they began mounting internal bays is to decrease the radar cross section. If all your weapons osre inside the enemy can't bounce radar waves off your missiles. The only fighters I can think of that used internal bays for resons other than stealth are three from the USAF century series. The F-102, F-105, and F-106. They used internal bays to reduce drag, allowing them to travel at high mach. Hung doors suck. Hung ordinance sucks more. Oh yeah, the F-86D used an internal rocket launcher. Let's see how did that verse go...

My dad knew an 86D pilot who shot the nose off his ship, and landed the sucker so he could prove it. Yeah, you might be able to see my slight issues with internal weapons bays. Dunno about y'all but shooting the nose off of my bird sounds bad to me.

Granted we've come a very long way, but still, shat happens.

yeah, internal bays can pose problems, but then again having the plane fold in half on purpose can also leave room for problems so it's kind of par for the coarse. and there are practical reasons for having internal bays on valks. first there's the obvious stealth and drag benefits. (some valks were designed with passive stealth in mind, also I have a feeling that having missiles hanging off your wings while entering a planets atmosphere might pose a problem).

another benefit (which I think is the main reason for going to internal weapons pallets) is that by internalizing the weapons, they are no longer in the way when the valk transforms.

if you're carrying missiles on the VF-1 or VF-0 and you want to transform form fighter to batroid mode, you either have to jettison all your missiles first, or you have to leave the wings extended while in batroid mode. neither option is great, as you either have to waste all your missiles, or you have to keep the wings out which makes the valk very wide and hard to maneuver in tight quarters (like urban areas) also the wing's get in the way of the arm movement.

now on say the YF-19 which has internal bays in each leg, you can transform freely form one mode to another while retaining a full weapon load and no sacrifice to mobility/range of motion.

in the end it's a trade off, improved close range combat capability in batroid mode, or improved reliability in fighter mode.

[badboy00z]

true I've never flown a plane, but let me ask you this: have you ever been in a dogfight before? have you ever flown a plane with thrust vectoring engines? and do any panes actually use the foot pedals to control both both yaw and pitch/role (if the foot pedals effected the movement of the feet, then you would be able to control role by actuating the foot pedals in opposite directions, and control pitch by actuating the pedals in the same direction)

now, rather than running around in circles arguing the same points with you. I'm going to differ to the animation.

ok, so I'm looking at the dogfight between nora and shin in the final episode of Mac0, when he pulls performs a Pugachev's Cobra (technically more like a modified cobra turn, but whatever)

when he does this, he pulls the stick back AND simultaneously pushes both foot pedals forward.

now in this shot at 12:25 we get what is about as clear a view of the foot pedals as we're ever going to get. in this shot the foot pedals look connected to each other by a bar, and that par looks connected to the seat by another perpendicular bar. the foot pedals only apear to be able to rotate, and not be pushed forward or back in fighter mode.

when he rolled his plane under nora's he pushed the stick to his left, and operated the foot pedals in oposite directions, causing his plane to perform a quarter role, while yawing and pitching down slightly.

again the foot pedals don't apear to have any way of moving other than rotating.

now, back in the first episode when Roy's VF-0 transforms for the first time, you also see the foot pedals for a split second. (this is when he's shooting the missiles with his head lasers)

now for some reason, the design of the foot pedals changes between this shot in episode 1 and the other shots in episode 2. now the two foot pedals are separated and he is able to push them forward (or in this case down) now in this situation though he pushes both pedals down at the same time, which appears to result in an increase in thrust.

so what does this all mean? I'm inclined to believe that we're both wrong. it looks like Valk do not in fact use the same style controls as real world aircraft. looking at the footage form Mac0 I think controls work in the following manner:

in fighter mode:

the foot pedals only have one axis of movement (rotating back and forth around the shaft they're mounted on), the foot pedals control pitch and role, and the stick controls pitch/role as well. it seems to me that the stick functions in a traditional manner (back and forth controls pitch, left and right controls role) and operates the conventional control surfaces of the valk (operating the stick causes the wing flaps to move).

the foot pedals are tied exclusively to the thrust vectoring nozzles (i.e. the feet) of the valk, with the left pedal controlling the left foot, and the right controlling the right foot. by pushing forward on the foot pedal, the feet angle up, and pulling the pedal back angles the foot down. by operating the pedals in the same direction they control pitch, and by moving them in opposite directions you control role.

now for yaw, since they never actually show the control movment that goes with yaw I can only speculate, but I have a feeling that you twist the stick left or right to yaw (sort of like the flight stick for ace combat). as for the throttle, it works the same as a normal throttle (forward to accelerate, backwards to decelerate) except that it also controls the transformation, and that you can't control the thrust for each engine independently (real throttles on multi-engine craft are split for each engine, oddly enough the TV VF-1 got this part right)

now, in batroid mode, the throttle becomes a second stick, either being used to aperate the arms, or a arm, or for maneuvering, or whatever. basically, the throttle is no longer a throttle, so to control thrust you push down on the pedals, which are separated and control thrust from each leg independently. the foot angle is still controlled by the foot pedals (the reason the pedals are down to pitch up and back to pitch down is so that when in batroid mode the pedals match the feet while still keeping the movement the same).

I've also noticed that there are two sections on each foot pedal that connect to the main shaft by little rods. I have a feeling that the overall movement of the pedal controls the angle of the foot, and the movement of the separate sections control the shape of the foot sections(which is two pieces)

I believe that pitch and roll movements have different characteristics depending on which method you use. Using the stick/control surfaces, the point of movement of the plane is centered more whereas using thrust vectoring, the point of movement is at the rear.

[Mr March]

I think some of us are getting a bit hung up on current conventional technology as it applies to Macross. Perhaps it's natural to pick apart the Macross technology from the mindset of current technology. Critical analysis may even become more common over time as Macross is now 25 year-old fiction, some parts of which are no doubt outdated by real advances in technology.

But we can all come up with a thousand reasons why the Macross technology DOESN'T work. That's not the challenge. We're supposed to assume the Macross technology is practical and then we attempt to determine "why" it works.

Wouldn't we say malfunctioning internal weapon bays are a rather superfluous concern given we are talking about fictional machines that actually transform their entire structure with a wide array of mechanisms? Obviously the potential unreliability of a single hinge is not as great a concern with OverTechnology as it is from our own real world perspective. In Macross, the "fictional status quo" is a military force that has been operating "field reliable" transforming fighters for nearly 60 years now. If the variable fighters were so unreliable as to fail on the fault of a single hinge, the UN Spacy/New UN Spacy wouldn't be using them now would they?

I said something along that line on the last page... no listens to me ...

I don't remember reading the examples I provided. I apologize if I did.

most likely the VF-0 was already tracking the incoming missiles via radar. the eye tracking served the function of indicating what to target and lock on to. once locked the lasers would be targeted by the valk's sensors.

I've no doubt the sophisticated computers of the Valkyries (like the YF-19's Super AI avionics) can track literally hundreds of targets simultaneously. I just meant that someone has to tell the automated targeting systems to activate and that would be the pilot. The eye tracking system would also enable the pilot to quickly prioritize which incoming missiles he would like to target. Once targets are selected or prioritized, the automated systems would take care of the rest. At least,

that's my going theory, but who really knows.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Mr March

[SchizophrenicMC]

*Takes an extremely deep breath*

Ok, first off, are you insulting me with the Barrel Roll/Aileron Roll poster? I was quoting Peppy! "Do a Barrel Roll! To do a barrel roll, press 'Z' or 'R' twice!"

Second, who knows how the pedals split?

Third, with that comment, you proved my point. The TVC is in the pedals. The flaperons are controlled by the stick. When he cobra'd, he pushed the pedals and pulled the stick, therefore shifting his flaperons and TV nozzles into a position to snap the plane up. You see how the pedals have 2 control axes? One is the Yaw Axis, controlled by how far from the seat the pedals are. Then, the TVC Axis, controlled by the angle on the pedals. It simplifies rookie pilot flight, since they're not stressed by a hyper-maneuverable fighter overwhelming their flight capabilities. This is essential, since so many pilots were lost in the Anti-unification War. However, it retains the ability to be hyper-maneuverable without modification, therefore cheaper.

Moving right along, I'm saying that if it's your buddy behind you, it won't fire. If it's an enemy, BOOM! And if there's IFF jamming, "Well... OK!"

On the note of anti-missile fire, it seems to be similar to the rear-facing head turret. It fires at the target, aimed by itself, with your trigger input. My only problem with it is Focker's gunpod firing as well in Zero. Most likely, the system wouldn't waste the ammo, as lasers are more effective. But whatever.

Stealth. It was one of the main purposes of the YF/VF-19. Look at the F-22, our currently most advanced fighter. INTERNAL BAYS. It's a stealth fighter. Missiles mounted outside create a surface for a RaDAR Return Signal. With the design of the F-22, RaDAR Waves are bounced away from the plane that sent them. Adding missiles outside creates that surface, but having them inside adds no area for RaDAR to bounce back, and it reduces drag and weight. An empty space is lighter than one filled with avionics you don't need, since the ones you have are small enough to fit around that space.

Given, there are disadvantages, and it can mount them outside, you get my point, right?

I'm gonna get back to Thrust Vectoring for a moment. It could possibly be that in the shots, the pedals are together in Shin's VF-0A. However, they're separate in Roy's VF-0S. That could have importance later. You can't deny, though, that the pedals have some control over the TVC. You don't yaw when you Cobra. I'll tell you this much.

[badboy00z]

I don't think you can control yaw with the TVC unless its the YF-21/VF-22 and the SV-51. Even then it's not a regular horizontal left and right yaw since there are only 3 paddles set in a triangle. The only way to achieve yaw is if you can control each engine independently or if you have 90 degree tail fins.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Perhaps Mr March is correct in saying that we're a little too hung up on the tech from today's perspective. I tend to agree. However, our circumstances and level of technology is our only real meter.

And I can't seem to find out, so if anyone knows, tell me. Which was the first valk to acieve escape velocity with it's own engines?

The apparent lack of independent engine control on the throttle is a source of much musing to me. In the event of a flame out or compressor stall (I dunno if that's even possible with a TN Turbine) would the flight computer compensate? Granted there is already alot of automation in a valk, but trusting a computer to keep me alive (outside the aforementioned circumstances, automated guns and anti missile systems), seems risky.

I gotta know, how does a valk even stand up? It must have a gyro located somewhere, or else utilize some system to maintain the machine's balance.

NOOO!! Macross was so much more fun when I didn't ask questions...

J/K, LOL

[hobbes221]

The apparent lack of independent engine control on the throttle is a source of much musing to me.

It does seem odd but the Rafale has a single all-electric throttle for both engines and a single start switch, so it is done in today's word as well. I would think that there would be a small set of controls near by the throttle to control each engine. And while it seems odd, even if you had two throttle controls as in something like an F-14, F-15 or F-4 you would still need something else if you wanted a control for each engine as many VFs have another engine or engines for when they are in geralk and battroid modes, as in the VF-1's 'backpack'. And we haven't even gotten into how they control the extra engines from the FAST packs, so I think that we have to have a single main thrust control lever and let the computers work out the rest much like today's Fly-By-Wire and Full Authority Digital Engine Control systems.

[Mr March]

I suppose, but some of the questions don't really have answers and like many have said on these boards before, not even Shoji Kawamori himself put that much thought into all the various aspects of Macross. Such can be said of all fiction, so there is no satisfactory answer to a lot of these questions. Personally, I've always felt it more constructive to rationalize how a technology "would work" rather than why a technology "doesn't work." After all, the act of making Macross was creation, not deconstruction.

As far as I know, the VF-17 was the first production variable fighter able to achieve orbit unassisted.

[SchizophrenicMC]

It's disputed between the 17 and the 19.

I never said there was Yaw TVC. I merely pointed out that they use the same device, in different ways, as the control medium. Similar to the Left analog stick on an Xbox clicking down.

I would definitely assume that flameouts and compressor stalls are detected and corrected automatically. I know even the F-14A detected its own, frequent TF-30 stalls. Correction is present on many European fighters. The Typhoon, Rafale B and up, I believe the Panavia Tornado Gr. 4 does... I don't know about the last one.

Finally, it's a fighter, right? It has a digital control scheme? Ok, good. We know this much. Since it has that, a gyroscopic sensor is necessary to detect roll and pitch for display on the HUD. I would assume its readings are interpreted differently, depending on the mode. Again, automation is necessary.

[sketchley]

You mean satellite orbit, right? At the beginning of SDF:M the VF-1 is seen flying up to meet the SDF-1 at a low orbit (but what defines orbit? In this case it was after the blue of the sky fades and the stars are visible.)

(...)

As far as I know, the VF-17 was the first production variable fighter able to achieve orbit unassisted.

[SchizophrenicMC]

They couldn't hit orbit. They could reach extremely high atmospheric altitude unasissted, but doing so drains the fuel tanks. In SDFM, I'd assume we're seeing... 120, 150 thousand ASL. That's in the extreme upper atmosphere, and by that point, the valks were probably screaming for fuel.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So I think that we (and by we, I mean everyone who contributed to that discussion) have maybe figured out the control scheme for the HMI (that's Human Machine Interface, for those just joing us). This truly is a fascinating discussion, and I'll admit, the mechanincs of a Variable fighter, might even interest my father. (Ret. LtCol, USAF. fighter pilot, all that cool stuff, he used to poke fun at my fascination with giant humanoid war machines). A few things I wonder about in the service life of a VF.

What happens to old VF's? I have seen mention of civilian sales (only the VF-1), Relegation to reserve unit service (Much like fighters were rotated to the air guard, up until the mid 1970's). Backwater colonial militias. But does that happen on a regular basis? I'd hate to think of Valks getting chopped up in boneyards. *shivers*

That's probably to in depth, and emotionally attached but I don't care.

Do old VF's become tesbeds for new technologies (ala NASA)?

And honestly, ( I know this much about Macross 7) the VF-19 became a main use variable fighter. So why didn't it appear in Macross Frontier? Why an upgraded VF-17? Possible parralels to be drawn with predictions about the F22/F35? Too expensive, it's cheaper to upgrade an existing air frame?

I want to know.

[Mr March]

An in-universe reason for the absence of the VF-19 Excalibur hasn't been provided. Production wise, Kawamori stated the VF-19 was too similar to the VF-25 Messiah and was substituted with the much more distinct VF-171 to avoid audience confusion.

[Morpheus]

Hmm, talking about fuel I wonder how long a valk could operate without refueling. Now let see:

- DYRL: VF-1T, used by Hikaru and Minmay for joyriding, initially equipped with trainer pack, later was used by Hikaru and Misa to escape to Earth where they spent weeks (probably) without refueling (Trainer pack jettisoned when entering atmosphere).

- M:Plus : YF-19/YF-21, used by their test pilot, fold to Earth, and dogfight all around the Earth until the end of the movie.

- M:Frontier : VF-25 used by Alto to escort Sheryl, folded to Galia IV, used in a brief time for fighting the rogue zentran, escaping Dimension Eater blast, fold back to Frontier, briefly engaged the Vajra drone before landing in Quarter and re-armed (probably re-fuel as well). Super pack jettisoned when entering atmosphere and re-equipped in orbit during trip back to Frontier.

The advance valk (YF-19/21, VF-25) are using much more powerful engine compare to VF-1T so it could be the fuel consumption are larger (or is it more efficient?), but I think they also need to power the fold drive (which is not small IMO).

Can someone put some light on this matter?

[badboy00z]

Third, with that comment, you proved my point. The TVC is in the pedals. The flaperons are controlled by the stick. When he cobra'd, he pushed the pedals and pulled the stick, therefore shifting his flaperons and TV nozzles into a position to snap the plane up. You see how the pedals have 2 control axes? One is the Yaw Axis, controlled by how far from the seat the pedals are. Then, the TVC Axis, controlled by the angle on the pedals. It simplifies rookie pilot flight, since they're not stressed by a hyper-maneuverable fighter overwhelming their flight capabilities.

Just how many Valks have yaw control anyway?

Edited November 12, 2008 by badboy00z

[badboy00z]

I thought they only used fuel in space and can run indefinitely in atmosphere?