VF-1 Fighter Mode Aerodynamics

[Thom]

Just to toss in the benefits of a lifting body... Keeping in mind that it was never intended that way!

http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/f15wing.asp

I think we can agree that with a large enough wing surface, the benefit of a lifting body, thrust vectoring that can make a Mig dance on a pin and the FBW that all high tech aircraft now - or will - employ, that the VF-1 would be able to fly.

[Master Dex]

The wingless F-15 story is legendary among engineers and pilots, but that was more a testament to how incredibly powerful the F-15s engines are than it's fuselage making any decent lift.

The axiom says, put a powerful enough engine on it, it will fly. I think twin reaction engines will do the trick just fine.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The wingless F-15 story is legendary among engineers and pilots, but that was more a testament to how incredibly powerful the F-15s engines are than it's fuselage making any decent lift.

The axiom says, put a powerful enough engine on it, it will fly. I think twin reaction engines will do the trick just fine.

Sh*t yeah, man.

@Knight: My Great Book of Modern Warplanes is currently at a bookbinder's, since after 27 years of repeated handling, between my father and I, don't do well for a book. A website I had seen backing up the data has disappeared from the internet, but discussed how the first fly-by-wire plane was a modified F-8 or F-4, I can't remember which, but that the F-14 was first mass-produced.

Now, perhaps I was misreading all of this, but I don't know.

Nied, we've all been over this: The VF-1 DOES require FBW. It uses FBL, actually, now that I think of it.

Also, looking at some schematic lineart, most of the upper fuselage, the lifting body I describe, is outside of the center of the plane, dominated by the engine nacelles and a good bit of space outside of that, where it is actually very much wing-shaped. This addition of lifting space, plus the amount of lift the rest of the upper fuselage would give, due to the Coandă effect, would create a good amount of lift. Maybe not 30-40% of the total lift, but at least 10. That would be enough to move the aerodynamic center further towards the back of the plane, seeing as the quarter chord would be moved slightly backwards, I assume. Moving this point back compensates somewhat for the lack of horizontal stabilizers, the rest made up for by constant adjustment of the thrust vector paddles by the flight computer.

Dex, from an aerospace engineer's standpoint, does that sound about right?

[Master Dex]

Doesn't sound wrong Schizo, but I haven't had much education in structures or materials yet so I can't back up a lot of it.

Way I see it though, the lifting capability of the VF-1 fuselage is moot since it does have large angle thrust vectoring (the angles those exhaust vents move is far larger than any modern thrust vectoring engines, mostly due to the fact they become feet when the VF-1 transformers), and the nuclear fusion powered reaction engine could put out more thrust than any modern conventional turbine engine. To make it an effective fighter in the atmosphere they couldn't ignore making it with an acceptable airframe (as opposed to just letting it be a brick with big engines... like the space shuttle) but my point is it doesn't have to be perfect. Those engines can handle keeping the plane up and still be graceful in flight.

It's like a gooney bird, looks completely ungraceful on the ground, but flies very well.

[David Hingtgen]

Coanda effect of where? The VF-1's upper surface is dead-flat between the tailfins. And unlike the F-14, there is almost no glove outboard of the intakes.

Also--the first FBW was indeed a modified F-8. Flew in 1972. Note that 1972 is 2 years after the F-14 first flew.

[Mr March]

I can't offer much in the way of the aerodynamic discussion, but we know for certain the VF-1 can fly on thrust alone, like many have suggested is likely. Any craft with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1 can fly in Earth's atmosphere; the VF-1 Valkyrie (in standard take-off weight) has a T-W ratio of 2.49. But could the VF-1 Valkyrie fly if it had a T-W of less than 1, like the F-14 Tomcat? I don't think there's a way to make that determination, at least as I understand it.

[Master Dex]

That pretty much settles it in my book. I could probably figure out if it could fly with a T-W ratio of less than one... but again I think I need another years worth of education for that (and I'm lazy enough not to look up the information to figure it out now, unlike Schizo who seems to have a good grasp on more of this at a younger age, lol).

[Mr March]

Well, get cracking. Show me some coefficient of lift figures. I wouldn't understand it all anyway

[ntsan]

Heck even lawnmowers can fly too!

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, maybe at 15 with no aeronautical background, I'm misinterpreting this, but the Coanda Effect is the tendency of a fluid jet to be attracted to convex surfaces. The VF-1's main fuselage is somewhat convex. Combine that with Lift, created by the flow of air being faster over a convex surface than a flat surface, creating lower pressure above the plane. So, I'm assuming that what lift you get moves the quarter chord of the plane slightly behind the center of mass, creating a stabilizing effect.

Not entirely sure.

The argument isn't so much the VF-1 can fly in a straight line, at this point, but whether or not it can resist flipping about its quarter chord. That's what I was answering. And, again, I'm not so sure about this, because I've not received any formal training at all in engineering or aeronautics.

T-W is not an issue, here, I guess. I mean, that's a lot of thrust. It will stay in the air, and it will resist such effects, but at low speed, the issue arrises. That's a valid concern with the VF-1, I guess. I wish I had a scale mockup and a wind tunnel for some testing.

And, Dave, the F-14 PROTOTYPE flew in 1970. The PRODUCTION craft flew in '72. YF-22s and F-22s aren't exactly the same bird, are they?

That said, I did look it up, and the article was flawed, hence it being removed from the webs. The F-14 does not have FBW, but it does not use, save one instance, hydromechanical systems, favoring normal servo control.

[ChronoReverse]

Heck even lawnmowers can fly too!

Keep in mind that isn't really a lawnmower. The front and back is missing to allow air to flow past the top which is shaped like an airfoil to provide lift. As a sidenote, it's a stable design as well since the handles are flat and provide the function of tailplanes. I want one =D

Edited September 9, 2009 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

Heh... Foamies fly even without airfoils.

Explain that, engineers!

[Master Dex]

The argument isn't so much the VF-1 can fly in a straight line, at this point, but whether or not it can resist flipping about its quarter chord. That's what I was answering. And, again, I'm not so sure about this, because I've not received any formal training at all in engineering or aeronautics.

T-W is not an issue, here, I guess. I mean, that's a lot of thrust. It will stay in the air, and it will resist such effects, but at low speed, the issue arrises. That's a valid concern with the VF-1, I guess. I wish I had a scale mockup and a wind tunnel for some testing.

I actually have wind tunnels at my disposal.. I'm not supposed to use them for random things though, as they are expensive. So I can't do much about that. I probably won't even use the wind tunnels much. My major is Astronautical Engineering, a focus of space craft design. Though in truth that makes me fully capable to design an aircraft, both Aeronautical and Astronautical teach you all you need for either, there are just some minor differences.

Heh... Foamies fly even without airfoils.

Explain that, engineers!

They're made of foam... I could go into detail about that, but I am uninterested and don't really want to think about it at the moment, lol.

[anime52k8]

I can't offer much in the way of the aerodynamic discussion, but we know for certain the VF-1 can fly on thrust alone, like many have suggested is likely. Any craft with a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1 can fly in Earth's atmosphere; the VF-1 Valkyrie (in standard take-off weight) has a T-W ratio of 2.49. But could the VF-1 Valkyrie fly if it had a T-W of less than 1, like the F-14 Tomcat? I don't think there's a way to make that determination, at least as I understand it.

I've always believed that the reason VF-1 has such a high (by real world standards) T-W ratio in the first place is to counteract all the parasitic drag.

[IAD]

It has enough wing area, in the grand scheme of things, even aside from any lifting body effects. Since lift = 1/2 Coeff. of lift * Atm density * wing area * Vel^2, airspeed offsets lack of wing area very easily, given the vel^2 factor*. Granted, your stall speed might be high, but that's why it has flaps and GERWALK. With the squared-off arms, bleed-air intakes, etc, you have lots of drag at high speed, but fortunately, thrust offsets drag, and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

It's FBW/FBL, and there are plenty of control surfaces to work with. It would be controllable.

Thus, it'll fly just fine. Not efficiently, but in an aircraft with thermonuclear engines, does it really matter?

~Luke

*If this has enough lift (with a relatively lousy T/W ratio, to boot) then the VF-1 can't go wrong; more wing, higher aspect ratio, and more thrust for the win.

http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/f104_1_3v.jpg

Edited September 9, 2009 by IAD

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, I'm not saying the wings don't produce enough lift, I'm saying that the lifting body moves the quarter chord behind the center of gravity, reducing the possibility of wild pitching during transonic and supersonic flight, somewhat. Add the FBL and T-W, and you have a solid plane.

And this brings me an issue. If it has such a high T-W, what kinda g-loads are we putting on our pilots here? For that matter, at its maximum speed, what kind of g-loads are we getting? 0_0

[anime52k8]

And this brings me an issue. If it has such a high T-W, what kinda g-loads are we putting on our pilots here? For that matter, at its maximum speed, what kind of g-loads are we getting? 0_0

Well first at maximum speed the pilot would still be experiencing 1G in the cockpit. you only experience G's when you accelerate remember.

Now if were talking strait line acceleration... well, the VF-1 has a T-W ratio of 2.49 with standard takeoff weight, the space shuttle at take off has a T-W ratio of 3.39. It would need a ridiculously high T-W ratio before you have to worry about fatal G-loads during strait line acceleration (i.e. the VF-25 with it's 39.09 T-W ratio)

And if we're talking about G-loads during a turn, modern aircraft are already capable of executing maneuvers that exceed the G-loads that the average person can handle. A variable fighter would do the same thing modern fighters do, have the flight computer prevent the plane from performing any maneuvers that would kill the pilot.

[Gokurakumaru]

Well first at maximum speed the pilot would still be experiencing 1G in the cockpit. you only experience G's when you accelerate remember.

Now if were talking strait line acceleration... well, the VF-1 has a T-W ratio of 2.49 with standard takeoff weight, the space shuttle at take off has a T-W ratio of 3.39. It would need a ridiculously high T-W ratio before you have to worry about fatal G-loads during strait line acceleration (i.e. the VF-25 with it's 39.09 T-W ratio)

And if we're talking about G-loads during a turn, modern aircraft are already capable of executing maneuvers that exceed the G-loads that the average person can handle. A variable fighter would do the same thing modern fighters do, have the flight computer prevent the plane from performing any maneuvers that would kill the pilot.

Not knowing anything about aerospace engineering, why is the VF-1's thrust to weight ratio so low in the first place? Obviously it's a function of how much air the plane can heat and move, but why is it so low versus a VF-25 which logically should have been designed with one of the lowest given it needs to store reaction mass internally since it's primarily a space fighter. Could the VF-1 be upgraded to put it more in line with the VFs circa 2050 era? I'm not getting the science behind what makes a plane with a nuclear reactor in each leg such a wet fish power-wise.

[Mr March]

I've always believed that the reason VF-1 has such a high (by real world standards) T-W ratio in the first place is to counteract all the parasitic drag.

That could be another reason, but I'm sure the primary reason for creating the VF-1 Valkyrie with such a high T-W ratio is to describe how superior the variable fighter is over conventional Earth-based technology.

I actually have wind tunnels at my disposal.. I'm not supposed to use them for random things though, as they are expensive.

Ya gotta sneak a Hasegawa in there. That would be so cool it see actual figures. Though it kinda makes one wonder, in all this time, has Kawamori done a wind tunnel test on one of his designs?

It has enough wing area, in the grand scheme of things, even aside from any lifting body effects. Since lift = 1/2 Coeff. of lift * Atm density * wing area * Vel^2, airspeed offsets lack of wing area very easily, given the vel^2 factor*. Granted, your stall speed might be high, but that's why it has flaps and GERWALK. With the squared-off arms, bleed-air intakes, etc, you have lots of drag at high speed, but fortunately, thrust offsets drag, and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

It's FBW/FBL, and there are plenty of control surfaces to work with. It would be controllable.

Thus, it'll fly just fine. Not efficiently, but in an aircraft with thermonuclear engines, does it really matter?

~Luke

I was just thinking of stall speed in fighter mode and figured that might explain why GERWALK mode is still universally employed in all variable fighters. But then again, nearly all the later variable fighters are far more aerodynamically efficient than the VF-1 Valkyrie, so the GERWALK likely wouldn't be needed.

Anyway, I agree that once OverTechnology came into play, it solved the thrust, power and fuel efficiency to such a large degree that the VF-1 Valkyrie could be the least efficient OverTechnology vehicle ever made and it was still a least a century ahead of the best Earth-built fighters.

[Mr March]

Not knowing anything about aerospace engineering, why is the VF-1's thrust to weight ratio so low in the first place? Obviously it's a function of how much air the plane can heat and move, but why is it so low versus a VF-25 which logically should have been designed with one of the lowest given it needs to store reaction mass internally since it's primarily a space fighter. Could the VF-1 be upgraded to put it more in line with the VFs circa 2050 era? I'm not getting the science behind what makes a plane with a nuclear reactor in each leg such a wet fish power-wise.

Thrust-to-weight ratio is merely a ratio of thrust produced relative to the weight of the aircraft (written as a single numerical parameter since it is always understood as a ratio). Thrust-to-weight is not a function of the thermonuclear turbine itself nor how efficient a given engine is compared to another. Comparing the VF-1 Valkyrie to the VF-25 Messiah, keep in mind the VF-1 Valkyrie's 2.49 T-W ratio is when it is fully loaded in standard configuration (18.5 tons, with full fuel & weapons). The VF-25 Messiah's 39.09 T-W ratio is for the craft when empty. If the VF-25 Messiah were fully loaded with an extra 5+ tons of fuel and weapons, it's T-W ratio would be significantly less. We merely lack the necessary statistics to calculate the standard take-off ratio for the VF-25 Messiah...so far (here's hoping the Macross Chronicle fills us in).

Also, keep in mind the VF-25 Messiah is 50 years more advanced than the VF-1 Valkyrie AND the VF-1 Valkyrie was the first OverTechnology craft humanity had ever made (and all the trial and error that goes with that). The VF-25 is also just as much atmospheric fighter as space fighter, like the VF-1 Valkyrie.

[anime52k8]

Not knowing anything about aerospace engineering, why is the VF-1's thrust to weight ratio so low in the first place?

because the VF-25 was introduced over 50 years after the VF-1. it's along the lines of comparing an F-86 to an F-22 (Although considering the rate of technological development appears to be much faster in Macross than in the real world it's probably more like comparing an F-22 to a Sopwith Camel)

but why is it so low versus a VF-25 which logically should have been designed with one of the lowest given it needs to store reaction mass internally since it's primarily a space fighter.

why would you design the top of the line variable fighter with less power than it's predecessors? The point of making new generations of fighters is to improve over the previous generation.

and I don't see the VF-25 as being primarily a space fighter. Sure it's used mostly in space during the show but just going by the design's appearance it's much more of an atmospheric fighter (The naked VF-25 is easily one of the cleanest design aerodynamically of all the Valks) that can be optimized for space via adding extra bits. And with those extra bit's you take care of the Fuel issue (conformal fuel tanks etc.), and in space Variable fighters tend to use the majority of there available power for only short periods of time relatively close to the carriers they deploy from.

Could the VF-1 be upgraded to put it more in line with the VFs circa 2050 era? I'm not getting the science behind what makes a plane with a nuclear reactor in each leg such a wet fish power-wise.

probably not. Every valk after the VF-1 has been larger, so first they'd need new engines from the ground up that can actually fit in the VF-1's tiny legs. But you couldn't just slap super powerful engines into a 50 year old design, the airframe probably wouldn't be able to handle that kind of thrust and would break up during acceleration. you'd need to redesign the airframe from the ground up to handle the power. then you'd need to upgrade the all the avionics and cockpit system so that the pilot could effectively pilot the plane.

they could probably build a plane that looks like a VF-1 that has near VF-25 performance, but why would they want to? for all the effort they'd have to go through they'd be better off just designing a new plane from the ground up.

(as an aside, in the VF-X video game they had an upgraded VF-1X, and it had a T-W ratio of 3.14)

Edited September 10, 2009 by anime52k8

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well first at maximum speed the pilot would still be experiencing 1G in the cockpit. you only experience G's when you accelerate remember.

Now if were talking strait line acceleration... well, the VF-1 has a T-W ratio of 2.49 with standard takeoff weight, the space shuttle at take off has a T-W ratio of 3.39. It would need a ridiculously high T-W ratio before you have to worry about fatal G-loads during strait line acceleration (i.e. the VF-25 with it's 39.09 T-W ratio)

And if we're talking about G-loads during a turn, modern aircraft are already capable of executing maneuvers that exceed the G-loads that the average person can handle. A variable fighter would do the same thing modern fighters do, have the flight computer prevent the plane from performing any maneuvers that would kill the pilot.

Sorry, I forgot to clarify. I meant at maximum speed in a high-g turn.

And I know the flightcom would and I know the planes do, but I was just asking what kind of g-limit we have on the plane, and what its maximum pull is.

Ya gotta sneak a Hasegawa in there. That would be so cool it see actual figures. Though it kinda makes one wonder, in all this time, has Kawamori done a wind tunnel test on one of his designs?

I was just thinking of stall speed in fighter mode and figured that might explain why GERWALK mode is still universally employed in all variable fighters. But then again, nearly all the later variable fighters are far more aerodynamically efficient than the VF-1 Valkyrie, so the GERWALK likely wouldn't be needed.

Anyway, I agree that once OverTechnology came into play, it solved the thrust, power and fuel efficiency to such a large degree that the VF-1 Valkyrie could be the least efficient OverTechnology vehicle ever made and it was still a least a century ahead of the best Earth-built fighters.

Sh*t yeah, man! Sneak a hase in there! It's close enough! C'mon, Dex!

GERWALK: The only real use: VTOL!

because the VF-25 was introduced over 50 years after the VF-1. it's along the lines of comparing an F-86 to an F-22 (Although considering the rate of technological development appears to be much faster in Macross than in the real world it's probably more like comparing an F-22 to a Sopwith Camel)

why would you design the top of the line variable fighter with less power than it's predecessors? The point of making new generations of fighters is to improve over the previous generation.

and I don't see the VF-25 as being primarily a space fighter. Sure it's used mostly in space during the show but just going by the design's appearance it's much more of an atmospheric fighter (The naked VF-25 is easily one of the cleanest design aerodynamically of all the Valks) that can be optimized for space via adding extra bits. And with those extra bit's you take care of the Fuel issue (conformal fuel tanks etc.), and in space Variable fighters tend to use the majority of there available power for only short periods of time relatively close to the carriers they deploy from.

probably not. esentually ever valk after the VF-1 has been larger, so first they'd need new engines from the ground up that can actually fit in the VF-1's tiny legs. But you couldn't just slap super powerful engines into a 50 year old design, the airframe probably wouldn't be able to handle that kind of thrust and would break up during acceleration. you'd need to redesign the airframe from the ground up to handle the power. then you'd need to upgrade the all the avionics and cockpit system so that the pilot could effectively pilot the plane.

they could probably build a plane that looks like a VF-1 that has near VF-25 performance, but why would they want to? for all the effort you'd have to go through they could just build a new plane from the ground up that's more effective.

(as an aside, in the VF-X video game they had an upgraded VF-1X, and it had a T-W ratio of 3.14)

50 years is a long time. In the last 50 years, we've gone from F-86 Sabres (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we had them in '59) to F-22 Raptors. Raptors are much faster, much more powerful, much more maneuverable, etcetera.

As a response to your side note, the F-15A had a T-W of .9 at Military Thrust and the F-15C had a T-W of 1.2 at Military. So, variants often raise the bar.

[Gokurakumaru]

Also, keep in mind the VF-25 Messiah is 50 years more advanced than the VF-1 Valkyrie AND the VF-1 Valkyrie was the first OverTechnology craft humanity had ever made (and all the trial and error that goes with that). The VF-25 is also just as much atmospheric fighter as space fighter, like the VF-1 Valkyrie.

I didn't realise people weren't comparing apples with apples with the VF-25 unloaded versus VF-1 fully loaded. The experimental nature of the VF-1 can account for it happily I guess.

because the VF-25 was introduced over 50 years after the VF-1. it's along the lines of comparing an F-86 to an F-22 (Although considering the rate of technological development appears to be much faster in Macross than in the real world it's probably more like comparing an F-22 to a Sopwith Camel)

I don't really see these as being even remotely the same ballparks. Propellor fighter at the dawn of winged flight compared to a modern jet versus a for all intents and purposes infinite amount of power output from a reactor being used to drive a turbine and super-heat fuel. Wouldn't all the science have to go into chemical science in the second scenario versus the radical evolution of auroneutical engineering and modelling you get in the first?

Oh and while I don't doubt the VF-25 is designed as an atmospheric fighter as one of its benchmarks, there's just no atmosphere for it to be used in an exploration fleet. Isn't one of the Frontier premises that the fleets are building their own tech? I assumed it and the Galaxy VFs were engineered on premise and would naturally be optimised for in-space flight. Resource conservation seemed to be a premium concern in Frontier. Although I guess we know VFs are easily capped with limiters so maybe that's a non-argument.

[Mr March]

I didn't realise people weren't comparing apples with apples with the VF-25 unloaded versus VF-1 fully loaded. The experimental nature of the VF-1 can account for it happily I guess.

Yeah, even small changes in thrust or weight can significantly impact the T-W ratio. The VF-1 Valkyrie weighs only 13.25 tons when empty; an extra 5.25 tons of fuel/ammo/weapon weight adds up to the standard take-off weight of 18.5 tons. Just for fun, if we were to add that same 5.25 tons to the VF-25 Messiah's 8.45 ton EMPTY weight, the T-W ratio of the VF-25F Messiah would drop from 39.09 down to 23.75 when loaded with fuel/ammo/weapons. Almost half. Although compare to the VF-1, the VF-25 Messiah with 5+ extra tons is still outclassing the original Valkyrie by a factor of ten. But really, 50 years of researching the secrets of OverTechnology is bound to bear plenty of impressive advancements.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I don't really see these as being even remotely the same ballparks. Propellor fighter at the dawn of winged flight compared to a modern jet versus a for all intents and purposes infinite amount of power output from a reactor being used to drive a turbine and super-heat fuel. Wouldn't all the science have to go into chemical science in the second scenario versus the radical evolution of auroneutical engineering and modelling you get in the first?

Oh and while I don't doubt the VF-25 is designed as an atmospheric fighter as one of its benchmarks, there's just no atmosphere for it to be used in an exploration fleet. Isn't one of the Frontier premises that the fleets are building their own tech? I assumed it and the Galaxy VFs were engineered on premise and would naturally be optimised for in-space flight. Resource conservation seemed to be a premium concern in Frontier. Although I guess we know VFs are easily capped with limiters so maybe that's a non-argument.

It's a comparison of advancement. The amount of change between the Sopwith Camel and the F-22 is the same amount of change we see between VF-1 and VF-25, he was saying.

You're overthinking this.

Yeah, even small changes in thrust or weight can significantly impact the T-W ratio. The VF-1 Valkyrie weighs only 13.25 tons when empty; an extra 5.25 tons of fuel/ammo/weapon weight adds up to the standard take-off weight of 18.5 tons. Just for fun, if we were to add that same 5.25 tons to the VF-25 Messiah's 8.45 ton EMPTY weight, the T-W ratio of the VF-25F Messiah would drop from 39.09 down to 23.75 when loaded with fuel/ammo/weapons. Almost half. Although compare to the VF-1, the VF-25 Messiah with 5+ extra tons is still outclassing the original Valkyrie by a factor of ten. But really, 50 years of researching the secrets of OverTechnology is bound to bear plenty of impressive advancements.

It still gets me that the moose of the group is the lightest.

Oh, hey, while we're on the subject of T-W, what's the VF-1's with Super Pack?

[eugimon]

edit:: man, I can't read... nevermind what I wrote in this space previously.

Edited September 10, 2009 by eugimon

[Mr March]

It still gets me that the moose of the group is the lightest.

Oh, hey, while we're on the subject of T-W, what's the VF-1's with Super Pack?

It's there in the VF-1S Super Valkyrie profile on my website. The T-W ratio is 6.36 with FAST Packs. Next update, I'll add a handy list of all the T-W ratios in a Macrpsspedia entry, so that it's around when needed for quick reference. For now, here's the list:

VF-0A (empty) = 1.87

VF-0A Angel (empty) = 2.81

VF-0D (empty) = 1.80

SV-51 (empty) = 2.34

VF-1A Valkyrie (empty) = 3.47

VF-1A Valkyrie (Standard T-O Mass) = 2.49

VF-1A Valkyrie (Max T-O Mass) = 1.24

VF-1S Super Valkyrie (Standard T-O Mass) = 6.36

VF-1S Super Valkyrie (Max T-O Mass) = 3.97

VT-1C Commercial Valkyrie (empty) = 2.91

VF-1X Valkyrie Plus (empty) = 4.33

VF-1X Valkyrie Plus (Standard T-O Mass) = 3.14

VF-1X Super Valkyrie Plus (Standard T-O Mass) = 6.58

VF-1A Valkyrie Atmosphere Escape Booster = 6.45

VF-4 Lightning III (empty) = 2.01

VF-4G Lightning III (empty) = 2.37

VA-3 Invader (empty) = 3.43

VA-3M Invader (empty) = 3.31

VF-5000B Star Mirage (empty) = 3.01

VF-11B Thunderbolt (empty) = 6.33

YF-19 (empty) = 15.43 (atmosphere limitation = 9.26)

YF-21 (empty) = 13.65 (atmosphere limitation = 8.19)

VF-11C Thunderbolt (empty) = 6.33

VF-17D Nightmare (empty) = 9.28

VF-17S Nightmare (empty) = 10.04

VF-19A Excalibur (empty) = 12.91

VF-19F Excalibur (empty) = 16.96

VF-19S Excalibur (empty) = 18.32

VF-22 Sturmvogel II (empty) = 13.61 (atmosphere limitation = 8.17)

VF-22S Sturmvogel II (empty) = 13.96 (atmosphere limitation = 8.38)

VF-11MAXL Thunderbolt Custom (empty) = 10.51

VF-17T Nightmare Custom (empty) = 9.75

VF-19 Excalibur Custom (empty) = 13.45

VF-19P Excalibur (empty) = 13.45

VF-25F Messiah (empty) = 39.09

VF-27 Lucifer (empty) = 46.48

[SchizophrenicMC]

I would not want to sit in a VF-27, afterburning. That would, uh, suck?

SPLAT!

[Master Dex]

That is why the VF-27 is designed for cyborg use only, .

[SchizophrenicMC]

That is why the VF-27 is designed for cyborg use only, .

Meh. I mean, really, I'm not so much worried about it, but I don't necessarily trust the g-damper (Inertia Store Whatever)

On that note, and I wanna keep this limited to this post, the acceleration of ships in Star Wars, even sans hyperdrive, is insane! Over 5000-G acceleration on the Eta-2. It's almost ridiculous. Only not, because it's SciFi.

[Steve68]

I think it would be highly unlikely that it (the VF-1) could fly. The main reason being poor pitch control. Since the center of lift and center of gravity aren't at the same point then there will be a tendency for the plane to either pitch up or down (depending on where those two points are relative to one another). Now the center of lift changes as the wings sweep as well as when the plane goes super sonic. Yes I know that it could use the engine exhaust for thrust vectoring to control pitch, but the question becomes "did it?" I can't recall seeing a single scene with a VF-1 in fighter mode where there was any movement by the nozzles indicating that thrust vectoring was being used. I think if it were modified just slightly it would stand a much better chance of actually flying without a need for thrust vectoring. Just angle the tails out away from each other ala the YF-23.

[anime52k8]

I think it would be highly unlikely that it (the VF-1) could fly. The main reason being poor pitch control. Since the center of lift and center of gravity aren't at the same point then there will be a tendency for the plane to either pitch up or down (depending on where those two points are relative to one another). Now the center of lift changes as the wings sweep as well as when the plane goes super sonic. Yes I know that it could use the engine exhaust for thrust vectoring to control pitch, but the question becomes "did it?" I can't recall seeing a single scene with a VF-1 in fighter mode where there was any movement by the nozzles indicating that thrust vectoring was being used. I think if it were modified just slightly it would stand a much better chance of actually flying without a need for thrust vectoring. Just angle the tails out away from each other ala the YF-23.

The show was animated in the 80's on a shoestring budget, Just because they didn't show the engine nozzles moving doesn't mean they don't. all it means is that they had a low animation budget and they didn't bother animating all the control surfaces moving correctly.

Anyways,

notice how the nozzles move before takeoff. also the Nozzles are shown being used for maneuvering in Mac+, Mac0 and I think MacF; subsequent shows with better quality animation than the original series.

Of course, when it comes to keeping the plane stable during level flight, it's really not worth animating anyways. On a modern plane, the control surfaces are constantly making adjustments of maybe 1 degree at a time in order to keep the plane stable, it would be a pain in the ass to animate this, and it's not like anyone would notice anyways.

Edited September 11, 2009 by anime52k8

[VF5SS]

In the Macross PS2 game the VF-1s feet clearly move up and down for pitch and roll control. Its pretty neat actually.

[Mr March]

The official literature states the VF-1 Valkyrie has two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles and these have been shown in subsequent animations. The predecessor craft to the VF-1, such as the VF-0 Phoenix, also have thrust vectoring. It's also a very likely conclusion that any variable fighter in which the engine nozzles are also the feet would also feature thrust vectoring by design.

[David Hingtgen]

I would not presume to guess where a VF-1's center of gravity is----it's clear from the published weights/dimensions that their density/mass is WAY off from a modern aluminum fighter jet---and a huge part of a fighter's weight and center of gravity is its engines----and I'd say we have no idea what an OT turbine weighs---much more, much less than a jet?