VF-1 Fighter Mode Aerodynamics

[David Hingtgen]

I've always believed the VF-1's wing is very similar to an F-14's. Leading-edge slats, trailing edge Fowler flaps, and spoilers for roll. (technically the F-14 doesn't have Fowler flaps, but that's the closest term I know of for its presumably-unique flap design)

In fact, I think nearly all swing-wing planes have a very similar wing layout. (F-111, B-1B, Tornado, etc) However, all of them primarily use the tailplanes for roll, with the spoilers being only supplemental, and usually (if not always) using spoilers for low-speed low-sweep flight only. VF-1 has no tailplanes. But then again---none of them have thrust vectoring. Still, vectoring as a primary means of control goes against most design policies/wisdom for 1:1 jets, even the F-22 doesn't allow vectoring to expand the flight envelope---merely make certain moves happen faster and to recover with more energy than aerodynamics alone would provide.

[hobbes221]

Anyone have any thoughts on the feet/nozzles themselves having an effect on flight control as they seem to have a fairly large amount of surface area? If that is the case then maybe the upper and lower parts could move independently as well, that would allow for some of the thrust to remain moving aft as to having the full line of thrust moving. Assuming that the large increase of area of the nozzle opening may cause a drop of airspeed as one petal moves, the flight control system may automatically increase engine output to compensate. Well just a idea that came up, what do you guys think?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Anyone have any thoughts on the feet/nozzles themselves having an effect on flight control as they seem to have a fairly large amount of surface area? If that is the case then maybe the upper and lower parts could move independently as well, that would allow for some of the thrust to remain moving aft as to having the full line of thrust moving. Assuming that the large increase of area of the nozzle opening may cause a drop of airspeed as one petal moves, the flight control system may automatically increase engine output to compensate. Well just a idea that came up, what do you guys think?

This is one idea I've kinda kept to myself. My thinking is the paddles don't have enough surface area to aerodynamically stabilize the plane, anyway. And that thinking is why I haven't brought it up. Besides, if they are used, it would make more sense to make slight adjustments in thrust and position to keep the plane "stable", similar to a FBW plane adjusting its control surfaces ever so slightly, many times a second to achieve the same effect.

[David Hingtgen]

Opening a nozzle asymmetrically would totally screw with the pressure and coherence of the exhaust.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Opening a nozzle asymmetrically would totally screw with the pressure and coherence of the exhaust.

Continued:

And you'd find yourself, likely, in a worse flat spin than an F-14A with one of its engines stalled.

[hobbes221]

Opening a nozzle asymmetrically would totally screw with the pressure and coherence of the exhaust.

Okay I kinda thought as much as well but tossed it out there for feed back. What do you think about them moving together as we have seen, enough area to give some movement on their own?

[David Hingtgen]

I imagine that as simply being asymmetrical drag, which pretty much only induces yaw. Plenty of other/better ways to do that. (unless you're a B-2, and that's the only way you've got)

[Desty_Nova]

Do I have to build a lineart-accurate 1/12 scale RC VF-1 to demonstrate?

~Luke

YES YOU DO! well, maybe not BUT DO IT ANYWAY

[red2alpha]

The two weeks ago at Mather Airfield ( the former Mather AFB) I watched the F-22 Raptor do things in the air I had never seen before. It flipped when it should have not, it's nose pointed in in the oppisite direction the the tail was going... That aircraft simply did things it was not supposed to do. All right in front of my eyes. That aircraft should not have done what it did but it did it.

After seeing that, even before that, I know, not believe, but I know a VF could fly and fight. It could not, as for now, transform, even to GERWALK, but a basic airfram based on the VF-1 could fly. It would have to be fly by wire and with thrust vectoring but it could exist in the real world.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The two weeks ago at Mather Airfield ( the former Mather AFB) I watched the F-22 Raptor do things in the air I had never seen before. It flipped when it should have not, it's nose pointed in in the oppisite direction the the tail was going... That aircraft simply did things it was not supposed to do. All right in front of my eyes. That aircraft should not have done what it did but it did it.

After seeing that, even before that, I know, not believe, but I know a VF could fly and fight. It could not, as for now, transform, even to GERWALK, but a basic airfram based on the VF-1 could fly. It would have to be fly by wire and with thrust vectoring but it could exist in the real world.

So, to conclude, at this time, the VFX-1 Valkyrie Testplane is a definite flyable design, but the VF-1 Valkyrie is currently lacking.

I'm sure the leg swing, at least, is possible to an extent, currently, though, given the plane slows down enough.

[nanashino]

While we are on the subject....

Some reference material:

Nanashi's Information Group

[David Hingtgen]

I think that should be a "droop" aileron, not drop. Actually, it should be a slotted flaperon IMHO. (you know, do we ever see them move as ailerons at all? DYRL game maybe?)

For the flaps---is that exactly how the original is written? Technically you don't have fowler flaps attached to "normal" flaps----the whole area is "fowler flaps", consisting of a primary and secondary (since these are double-slotted) flap segment.

[sketchley]

... which has a link to a handy illustrating illustration: http://www.jal.co.jp/jiten/dict/g_page/g123_3.html

(In translation: upper one is "Slotted Flap" and "slot", and lower is "Fowler Flap".

Edited October 5, 2009 by David Hingtgen

[David Hingtgen]

Aw ****, I edited your post instead of my own. (it happens with mod power---blah blah great responsibility) Sorry!

Anyways:

While that's true (I wouldn't expect JAL to be wrong) that's only because those are single-slotted flaps. Once you get to double (or more) slots, it's all fowler, all slotted. There's no other way to do it AFAIK, and they're not independently labeled. Yes, the upper part is slotted, and the lower part is fowler. But the lower part is also slotted and the upper part is also fowler. It'd be like labeling some lions as "feline" and noting others as "cats"---they're all both, and shouldn't be labeled differently.

[Max Jenius]

I'm surprised that there aren't any windtunnel programs out there that can do a rough estimate using 3d models. I mean, aren't the equations pretty standard fare these days?

[sketchley]

Aw ****, I edited your post instead of my own. (it happens with mod power---blah blah great responsibility) Sorry!.

Grumble, grumble, been there done that, grumble, grumble

Anyways:

While that's true (I wouldn't expect JAL to be wrong) that's only because those are single-slotted flaps. Once you get to double (or more) slots, it's all fowler, all slotted. There's no other way to do it AFAIK, and they're not independently labeled. Yes, the upper part is slotted, and the lower part is fowler. But the lower part is also slotted and the upper part is also fowler. It'd be like labeling some lions as "feline" and noting others as "cats"---they're all both, and shouldn't be labeled differently

There could also be one other factor at play: the intrinsic differences in words in English and Japanese. In this case, it could be perfectly correct in Japanese, if each word specifically means the parts indicated, whereas it doesn't exactly work in English because the meanings are more broad and less precise.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The VF-1 has control surfaces?

What else is new?

Though, I must say I've never seen that reference material before.

[David Hingtgen]

That's been the established VF-1 wing design for quite some time now. I believe even as of SDF:M the detail drawings showed such.

[SchizophrenicMC]

That's been the established VF-1 wing design for quite some time now. I believe even as of SDF:M the detail drawings showed such.

I know this, but I'm saying I haven't seen that particular image before. I'd seen others illustrating the wing design, but that one notsomuch.

[nanashino]

You are right. How careless of me. Corrected:

http://users.fini.net/~ed/vv/vf1/vf1-main_wing.jpg

The rest is word for word.

Nanashi's Information Group

I think that should be a "droop" aileron, not drop. Actually, it should be a slotted flaperon IMHO. (you know, do we ever see them move as ailerons at all? DYRL game maybe?)

For the flaps---is that exactly how the original is written? Technically you don't have fowler flaps attached to "normal" flaps----the whole area is "fowler flaps", consisting of a primary and secondary (since these are double-slotted) flap segment.

[nanashino]

It is from the new Variable Fighter Master - File VF-1 Valkyrie book.

- Nanashi's Information Group

I know this, but I'm saying I haven't seen that particular image before. I'd seen others illustrating the wing design, but that one notsomuch.

[SchizophrenicMC]

It is from the new Variable Fighter Master - File VF-1 Valkyrie book.

- Nanashi's Information Group

Figures as much.