A question of VF Aero Dynamics

[nugundamII]

Since it sounds a lot of you here can afford more than the regular line mecha out there you must have engineering jobs.

I have been wondering about the realistic features of a transforming plane. Mainly. Its wings. The wings need to be light to reduce the overall weight of the plane. And they do bend upwards when in flight and I have noticed when traveling the wings do have a lot of give in flight. My point is that the wings on the plane are the most sensitive thing on a plane without them its not a plane. So when the Vfs are dogfighting in air and transform this must put a lot of strain on the wings themselves and would either snap or totally destroy the airfoils which control lift. If they made them extra strong it would make the fighter to heavy to fly. I think it would have had more sense to fight the sentradi using static mech modes with flight packs

ie Strike

Dragonar etc

Do you agree?

[Master Dex]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the fiction they have energy converting armor that strengthens everything on the valkyrie so it can probably handle the stresses of transformation.

Another possibility is that although we have seen high speed transformations in the shows, a more realistic possibility is if they switched to Gerwalk to slow their velocity and then to battroid, the stress on the wings would be reduced (this type of transformation is also often seen on the shows).

Also in the end of the day Valkyries are just cooler than static mechs... which really just sounds like gundams to me.

Also for the record I am an engineering student (Aerospace too) but not an engineer yet, so my knowledge may not be as reliable as an actual engineer's. Also being only a student I am poor and hence only have one Yamato valkyrie (looking toward a second), lol.

[kanedaestes]

I am a broke film student, but my GI Bill helps me get my valks currently

[Ghost Train]

Anime..... Magic....

[ErikElvis]

Dont think to hard about the mechanics or build of a valk. It will boggle your mind like thinking about the end of the universe. I just try and chalk it up to advanced technologies we havent figured out yet.

[kanedaestes]

Funny one thing everyone forgets about Macross.....They used ALIEN technology to help make these new valks and other vehicles. None of it matter as we obviously do not have the resources to recreate this stuff in any form based on our current tech.

[regult]

Well, just how realistic is to have a giant robot (read Gundam) jumping around on Earth and in climactic fights, even flying around with no wings whatsoever (Turn A)...one word: "anime magic" (oh wait, that's two words ))

[REbirth]

Well, just how realistic is to have a giant robot (read Gundam) jumping around on Earth and in climactic fights, even flying around with no wings whatsoever (Turn A)...one word: "anime magic" (oh wait, that's two words ))

I thought the Turn A does have wings? I mean the Moonlight Butterfly?

But of course, the whole Turn A Gundam thing can be explained due to HIGHLY ADVANCED NANOMACHINES.

[David Hingtgen]

Valks tend to have small wings---a sign of high loading and a better bombing platform. (look at planes that are designed for low-level strike missions)

Of course, since valks have impossibly low weights due to OT construction, the loading may be quite low. (depending on which one, a valk weighs 1/2 or 1/3 of what a modern fighter of the same size weighs)

Also---fighter jet wings don't bend nearly as much as an airliner's. Airliners are designed to be smooth and comfy, even in turbulence---fighters are supposed to respond and take heavy loads. Bendy wings means they don't respond as much nor as quickly. (you'll note airliners tend to rely heavily on spoilers for roll control for anything more than the slightest turn--because moving an aileron tends to bend the wing more than roll the plane)

[Repiv_Onex]

I think it would have had more sense to fight the sentradi using static mech modes with flight packs

Macross is a Sci-Fi, not a real Sci programme or whatever the opposite of Sci-Fi (my Eng sux).

Saw quite a number of similar thread about this in other forums. The conclusion is if u want it to be practical, the best form of weapon for space-fight is not a Humanoid Robot form(large surface area for enemy to target and hard controls against the hands legs weaponry and visions is purely silly[but I love it]), not a plane form(arguable in space wings isn't necessary, it only extend its surface area for enemy), but a Sphere form with thrusters and weaponary all around itself(most practical[but it would be stupid]).

Ifthere's a anime with Mecha which looks like a ball, I won't watch it even it's practical. It's just like suggesting movies/anime in space should be made with no sound since we can't heard it in space.

Edit: Added a simley

Edited May 7, 2009 by Repiv_Onex

[edwin3060]

Valks tend to have small wings---a sign of high loading and a better bombing platform. (look at planes that are designed for low-level strike missions)

Of course, since valks have impossibly low weights due to OT construction, the loading may be quite low. (depending on which one, a valk weighs 1/2 or 1/3 of what a modern fighter of the same size weighs)

Also---fighter jet wings don't bend nearly as much as an airliner's. Airliners are designed to be smooth and comfy, even in turbulence---fighters are supposed to respond and take heavy loads. Bendy wings means they don't respond as much nor as quickly. (you'll note airliners tend to rely heavily on spoilers for roll control for anything more than the slightest turn--because moving an aileron tends to bend the wing more than roll the plane)

I actually think that Valks would have pretty low wing loadings, given that they have low weights, like you said, and also because almost all of them incorporate a lifting body design ala F-14.

Also, thanks for answering a question of mine! I wondered why the 777 i flew on used its inner wing flaperons for roll control rather than the ailerons when the ailerons would seem to be the more efficient choice. I wonder why they even have ailerons on the wings then... surely deleting the ailerons would yield more space for fuel etc.

Edited May 7, 2009 by edwin3060

[nugundamII]

I actually think that Valks would have pretty low wing loadings, given that they have low weights, like you said, and also because almost all of them incorporate a lifting body design ala F-14.

Also, thanks for answering a question of mine! I wondered why the 777 i flew on used its inner wing flaperons for roll control rather than the ailerons when the ailerons would seem to be the more efficient choice. I wonder why they even have ailerons on the wings then... surely deleting the ailerons would yield more space for fuel etc.

Thanks for answering that

Would nt it make sense to instead have a static mech with a flight pack

IE the Strike Gundam, Dragonar. To me its more efficient to make a highly mobile mech with more weaponary than your conventional VF that if you damage any part of the wing you would have to fight in the Battroid mode anyway. Plus although they may have more thrust to compensate for the heavier weight, the over all battroid design is a litte thin on armor to be very effective with the heavily armored and very mobile zentradi mechs.

That is why they dont use variable fighters. Even the Zeta makes more economical sense than a VF.

Dont get me wrong just a big macross fan arguing the rational facts about using a VF in a war where the most battle ready mech would survive

[RedWolf]

Well to me VFs are better because it is more suited for fleet and carrier groups.

An XX size mobile suit to me is a waste of space for a carrier vessel.

Plus there are the optional packs and armor. Even the electronic warfare type.

[Mr March]

To my mind, why care about damage? For that matter, why be concerned with comparing a static robot vs. a transforming robot/jet? The greatest defense in warfare has been and always will be "avoid being shot." To my mind, the valkyries of Macross are the very best at that philosophy in almost any mecha show I've ever seen. They are among the lightest of the large mecha in most anime shows and some of the fastest. In a weight vs. firepower comparison, the valkyries always appear to offer the most punch per ton of weight. There are stronger and more powerful mecha, but few of them as efficient or as scalable and versatile as a variable fighter. A valkyrie can be armor, fighter and attack helicopter in equally competent measure and can embrace almost any role from ELINT, to strike, to anti-warship. The valkyrie is a military commander's wet dream

And if you need a heavy mecha with heavy armor and heavy weaponry in Macross, that's what the armored valkyries are for. Or just rely on a heavily armed fire support unit, like the VB-6 Konig or the VF-25G Sniper variant.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Mr March

[Duke Togo]

Its a cartoon.

[Garou Kuroryuu]

Also, thanks for answering a question of mine! I wondered why the 777 i flew on used its inner wing flaperons for roll control rather than the ailerons when the ailerons would seem to be the more efficient choice. I wonder why they even have ailerons on the wings then... surely deleting the ailerons would yield more space for fuel etc.

Unless I make some terrible and stupid mistake (and David would take care of it no doubt), airliners do use ailerons but only at low speeds (right after taking off and on landing approach). Perhaps because spoilers don't generate enough drag at low speeds to create the desired roll? Ailerons would have more momentum, since they're farther from the airplane's center line, thus being more efficient levers at low speeds.

[akt_m]

The fact an airplane can transform into a robot is already unrealistic regardless it's aerodynamics.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The wings do deflect, probably, but so slightly, it's comparable to a combatting F-14.

SWAG ECA is one of the reasons for this. The other major reason is weight.

They don't weigh much, so they don't produce as much weight on themselves in high-g situations, like them being swung out quickly during transformation.

Also, the ECA strengthens the light aircraft skin to the strength or tank armor, roughly, if Macross Zero is anything to go by.

Now, I'll say a few things about Gundams.

Strike can fly without the Aile. You know this. Also, the Aile's wings are too damned small to provide enough lift to carry it. The Strike's official weight is 64.8 Metric Tons, roughly 3 times that of the VF-1, despite the fact that it's only 5.4 meters taller, and not much wider. Aile's wings are smaller than a VF-1's. Thus, all of its "lift" must actually be thrust from the two large thrusters on the bottom of the pack. Further, the machine is not very aerodynamic. It's full of sharp curves, and FOR GOD'S SAKE, IT'S HUMANOID! Humans are not meant to fly. Our bodies are not streamlined well. A boxy human is only going to fly worse.

Gundam=SEVERE anime magic

Macross=Some anime magic

[geepogi]

looking at the yamato toys that i have, namely the vf-1

and the sv-51, they seem to have disproportionately

small wings which will not develop enough lift to get

them off the ground. no problem in space off course,

but wouldn't they need an awful lot of thrust and energy

to get these planes off the ground, that is, if it can get

off the ground with those small wings?

[SchizophrenicMC]

looking at the yamato toys that i have, namely the vf-1

and the sv-51, they seem to have disproportionately

small wings which will not develop enough lift to get

them off the ground. no problem in space off course,

but wouldn't they need an awful lot of thrust and energy

to get these planes off the ground, that is, if it can get

off the ground with those small wings?

SV-51s launch vertically. They were designed that way. From there, they have enough thrust to fly on smaller wings. Beyond that, they have VTOL fans and TVC paddles. Also, it probably employs body lift.

VF-1 wings aren't small. In fact, I daresay they're as big as an F-14's wings, even though the VF-1 is 4 meters shorter. Also, again, bodylift. It comes with the pancake design.

[Beltane70]

Add the fact that someone actually made a radio-controlled SV-51 that actually flies should be enough to prove that the wings are big enough to provide ample lift.

[geepogi]

yup, i think i saw that on youtube.

but maybe the wings were modded

to enable it to fly.

[edwin3060]

Unless I make some terrible and stupid mistake (and David would take care of it no doubt), airliners do use ailerons but only at low speeds (right after taking off and on landing approach). Perhaps because spoilers don't generate enough drag at low speeds to create the desired roll? Ailerons would have more momentum, since they're farther from the airplane's center line, thus being more efficient levers at low speeds.

Hmm interesting. I observed most use of the spoilers/flaperons on the 777 when we were stuck in a stacking pattern outside heathrow. Thanks anyway!

[big F]

Remember a building can fly if you give it a big enough engine with enough thrust.

If you bludgeon your way through the air and gravity the laws of physics, bend a little. The old way of thinking said the Bumble Bee cannot fly, now obviously it can, or at least nobody has told them they cant. So make it light strong and give it a powerful propulsion system and it will fly. How well is then down to computers to help it stay in the air.

[David Hingtgen]

All airliners have and use ailerons, it's just that what they use in addition to or primarily instead of, depends on speed/load.

Keeping with the 777:

777s have outboard ailerons, inboard flaperons (really more of a drooping aileron), and spoilers. Remember, spoilers can only drop a wing, never raise it. Rapid response, but you WILL lose altitude---try to avoid that on final approach.

Outboard ailerons are only used at low speeds, as they actually have too great of a stress/moment at high speeds (and airliners never need to roll much when cruising). When going slow, load/alpha is higher, so the wings are already "pre-bent" due to load, so the outboard ailerons start becoming effective because the wing is effectively stiffer and more responsive. (take a look at an airliner that's near the ground--the wings will be at max upwards deflection)

Also, since the ailerons are aft of the spar, fuel capacity isn't affected in the least. Now, eliminating them would reduce weight, and a few planes do that. (A300-600 for example---the -600 version removed the outboard ailerons and added a spoiler)

The A330/A340 have split ailerons---a single large one outboard, but it only uses the inboard half at high speeds with the outer half locking in place and effectively becoming part of the wingtip.

Generally, outboard ailerons are locked/unlocked with the flaps---if the flaps are up, the outboard ailerons won't move. As soon as the flaps deploy even a little, the outboard ailerons start responding to commands.

[IAD]

yup, i think i saw that on youtube.

but maybe the wings were modded

to enable it to fly.

As the guy who built the RC SVs, I can attest that the wings are lineart accurate, traced directly from the Hasegawa model 2-views.

The wings on the SV are pretty decent; proportionately they are not that much different from an F/A-18 or an SU-37.

Keep in mind that with the thrust/weight ratios VFs are supposed to have, combined with 2D/3D thrust-vectoring, wing size becomes somewhat irrelevant, except for conventional (horizontal) takeoff and landing... The way VFs fly in air combat, the wing would be stalled out most of the time anyway.

~Luke

[Graham]

looking at the yamato toys that i have, namely the vf-1

and the sv-51, they seem to have disproportionately

small wings which will not develop enough lift to get

them off the ground.

Guess your've never heard of the F104 Starfighter then?

Graham

[edwin3060]

All airliners have and use ailerons, it's just that what they use in addition to or primarily instead of, depends on speed/load.

Keeping with the 777:

777s have outboard ailerons, inboard flaperons (really more of a drooping aileron), and spoilers. Remember, spoilers can only drop a wing, never raise it. Rapid response, but you WILL lose altitude---try to avoid that on final approach.

Outboard ailerons are only used at low speeds, as they actually have too great of a stress/moment at high speeds (and airliners never need to roll much when cruising). When going slow, load/alpha is higher, so the wings are already "pre-bent" due to load, so the outboard ailerons start becoming effective because the wing is effectively stiffer and more responsive. (take a look at an airliner that's near the ground--the wings will be at max upwards deflection)

Also, since the ailerons are aft of the spar, fuel capacity isn't affected in the least. Now, eliminating them would reduce weight, and a few planes do that. (A300-600 for example---the -600 version removed the outboard ailerons and added a spoiler)

The A330/A340 have split ailerons---a single large one outboard, but it only uses the inboard half at high speeds with the outer half locking in place and effectively becoming part of the wingtip.

Generally, outboard ailerons are locked/unlocked with the flaps---if the flaps are up, the outboard ailerons won't move. As soon as the flaps deploy even a little, the outboard ailerons start responding to commands.

Nice.. thanks for the explanation!

[ErikElvis]

Dont need much lift if you have thrust.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Dont need much lift if you have thrust.

True, to an extent, and you don't need large lifting surfaces if you have thrust.

Best example I can think of are the X-1 through X-15, all of which had small wings,

[ErikElvis]

True, to an extent, and you don't need large lifting surfaces if you have thrust.

Best example I can think of are the X-1 through X-15, all of which had small wings,

Rockets, missles, the space shuttle launching into space all do it with no lift. All thrust baby.

[anime52k8]

Rockets, missles, the space shuttle launching into space all do it with no lift. All thrust baby.

the consistent pattern that I've noticed about such things is that they all tend to have REALLY crappy low speed performance.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Rockets, missles, the space shuttle launching into space all do it with no lift. All thrust baby.

the consistent pattern that I've noticed about such things is that they all tend to have REALLY crappy low speed performance.

Exactly right, Mike.

And rockets and missiles have a common design feature: guidance fins. These fins generate enough lift at high speed to maintain a missile's airworthtiness. However, as soon as speeds drop below the specific speed/lift point, they lose effectiveness.

Space Shuttle launches vertically, where "lift" is an improper term. It does generate lift, in the form of the whole aparatus being pulled backwards, in relation to the shuttle. However, thrust is the equal and opposite reaction to the gases being ejected from the nozzles. Thus, one cannot use vertical flight as an example of lift-less flight. The point stands that there are 2 types of flight: Lighter-than-air and lift-based. In either situation, flight can be maintained indefinitely if certain conditions are met (Constant air density being higher than that of the LTA or Constant airflow over lifting surface of the LB). A bullet, which flies on inertia, cannot maintain its inertia indefinitely; this is physics. Gravity and Drag will eventually stop Inertial Flight.

Let's pull this to a compromise design: The Variable Geometry Wing. It is a lift-based flight design that uses large wings for high-drag, low-speed flight. At high speeds, the drag on the wings causes performance to suffer. Thus, the wings move into a position where their drag profile is smaller, and can operate at high speeds efficiently. However, low-speed performance in this configuration suffers. So, the compromise is a good one, since it can perform both low-speed and high-speed roles.

Notice how Variable Fighters, for the most part, have this in one way, shape or form.

[geepogi]

As the guy who built the RC SVs, I can attest that the wings are lineart accurate, traced directly from the Hasegawa model 2-views.

The wings on the SV are pretty decent; proportionately they are not that much different from an F/A-18 or an SU-37.

Keep in mind that with the thrust/weight ratios VFs are supposed to have, combined with 2D/3D thrust-vectoring, wing size becomes somewhat irrelevant, except for conventional (horizontal) takeoff and landing... The way VFs fly in air combat, the wing would be stalled out most of the time anyway.

~Luke

thanks man!

what do you use for propulsion?

i was thinking that only a propeller

can be used to make a model plane fly?

maybe you can make one which

transforms to gerwalk when landing.

[geepogi]

Guess your've never heard of the F104 Starfighter then?

Graham

just read about it in wikipedia.

of course that thing can fly.

its a missile with a pilot.