anybody think a Valkyrie will fly?

[buddhafabio]

i work alone and i have lots of time to think. so i was wondering if a vf-1 will fly? the reason i ask this is some day my modeling hobby is going to mature into remote control aircraft and what i want to build and fly in this order.

i did a google search for vf-1 remote control, macross remote control and i found nothing just models i have built

1. trainer (dont want to spend alot of money and time building a neat plane only to crash on take off)

2. replacement trainer (need something to learn on after crashing the first 5 min. ago)

3. ww2 bird (probably my fav war bird the corsair)

4. either a f18 blue angel or a vf-1 Valkyrie (if it will fly)

5. a b52 g bomber

Edited November 16, 2003 by buddhafabio

[NERV]

you would need ALOT of power, the vf1 has very small wings for its body size, you could modify it with longer/wider wings though, and smooth out the design on the bottom to be more aerodynamic

[buddhafabio]

humm something else to think about. i plan alot of testing but the only mock up i have right now is an arii 1/100 scale fighter. i guess can have the wings permanatly swept forward. for more lift

i may have to go vf-0 because it look like it will be more aerodynamic.

i plan on buying my first two trainers next year after christmas.

the b-52 is a 5 year goal. i was thinking 4 engines with 4 fake ones for look of 8 engines.

[NERV]

b 52 is flying fortress righT? how big r u planning on urs to be?

[Coota0]

b 52 is flying fortress righT? how big r u planning on urs to be?

B-17 is the flying fortress, B-52 is the Stratofortress

[ewilen]

To get a VF-1 to fly, you'll also have to overcome the fact that it lacks a horizontal stabilizer/elevator.

This thread has some discussion of how the VF-1 would control pitch/roll. General agreement is that you'd need to use thrust vectoring for pitch--i.e., the engines on your model would need to swivel up and down.

[Druna Skass]

I think you might be better off making a VF-11.

Will the B-52 be able to drop "bombs"?

[B-52 GUNNER]

B-52 Glider (IT'S HUGE!!!!!!

Check this guy out if you want to build an R/C B-52.

Their B.U.F. (BIG UGLY F****R) not B.U.F.F. (Big Ugly Fat Fellow like the media wants everyone to think.) Is huge but has no engines. Even though it's a D model it's beautiful.

[buddhafabio]

i better get my pop to help. he is in ex airforce mechanic and is faa cert. for maintence on airframe and powerplant.

i think that site is where i got my idea from.

the B-52 is my faviorite bird. I saw them fly aroud all the time when we were stationed at Carswell A.F.B. in Texas.

Edited November 16, 2003 by buddhafabio

[David Hingtgen]

There was a discussion about this a while ago. Basically, an *accurate scale* VF-1 will not fly. You can make something VF-1-ISH fly, but not a VF-1. Best bet might be to take an F-14 (they fly) and modify it to look like a VF-1. Or just scratch-build a VF-1 with mods needed to make it stable/controllable.

Generally, you'll need bigger wings, bigger stabs, might need to cant the stabs out more/make them all-moving, and either a really good thrust vectoring system with a very forgiving/stable center of gravity, or do the all-moving canted stabs thing for pitch control. Also, you'll need ailerons, the real thing doesn't have them. (Well, that's debatable).

A VF-11 is the most real plane, IMHO. No problem making that fly, just make the stabs big enough. (I know somebody made a YF-21, that'd work too, just not as well as an -11 IMHO)

Edited November 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen

[B-52 GUNNER]

My Father was a B-52 Tail Gunner for 12 years during the Cold War and Vietnam.

We were stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB, Kinchelo AFB, and Castle AFB before he retired.

The D Model is my all time favorite although my Dad flew in the H model mostly.

I still have my Dad's flight helmet.

[Myersjessee]

Yep...no dice on the VF1 without a horizontal stabilizer...but you could probably pull off a YF19 or 21....maybe a VF0D as well...

[unsped]

Yep...no dice on the VF1 without a horizontal stabilizer...but you could probably pull off a YF19 or 21....maybe a VF0D as well...

thats not really an informed statment. the vf-1 has more of a v-tail which acts like a horizontal and vertical stablizer. albiet the vtail is a bit small, the angle between the 2 fins controls the proportions of each.

Edited November 17, 2003 by unsped

[NERV]

but the vf 1 tails are more like: \_/

[Grayson72]

I don't get the "no vertical stabalizer" thing, it's basically got the same as the f-14.

[pfunk]

I don't get the "no vertical stabalizer" thing, it's basically got the same as the f-14.

Nope, it doesnt have tail fins (horizontal stabalizers) like the tomcat does, do a side by side comparison, youll see what I mean

[Myersjessee]

Yep...no dice on the VF1 without a horizontal stabilizer...but you could probably pull off a YF19 or 21....maybe a VF0D as well...

thats not really an informed statment. the vf-1 has more of a v-tail which acts like a horizontal and vertical stablizer. albiet the vtail is a bit small, the angle between the 2 fins controls the proportions of each.

Dude, I have a 4 year degree in aeronautical engineering. What your referring to are commonly called elevons, but they imply being able to provide ample vertical and horizontal stability, thus the wider angle.

If you chaged their size and angle they might work, if you added a canard and swept the wings back, with enough thrust you might have a proper CG and that might work...but the VF1 as is,....no way...sorry...the CG is way off. For proof, look at the F-14. Check the size of it horizontal and vertical stabs compared to a VF1....if the designers could have done without the horizontal stabs they would have (why, less drag, less cost) but they are necessary. In fact, up until the YF23 not many people had tried a high power production tailess aircraft. Flying wing designs abounded in the 50's and 60's but none caught on. The X-19 was the next one, but thats not really tailess, as it has a canard.

Nope...VF1 would plummet without major mods. By major I am guessing chaning the angle of the vertical stabs to about 40 degrees and doubling their lift (lift therom eludes me,but it has to do with the airfoil, cord (basically wing width) and wing length It would be more akin to the YF23 at this point. Also, the wings are to small unless you have tons of thrust and lots of runway. Making them variable would only increase the complexity of the model and flight controls (as this is a major CG change) so I would think you would end up increasing the size of the wings, and locking them out.

Edited November 17, 2003 by Myersjessee

[Opus]

Perhaps you could make some vertical stableizers out of clear plastic to help preserve the VF-1's unique appearence?

[unsped]

ummm ...

"What your referring to are commonly called elevons" elevon itself does not imply the surfaces being angled, vtail is a tail arrangement using elevon mixing. you do NOT need angled control surfaces to have elevons. in fact the MAJORITY of elevon's do not use angled stablizers.

" if you added a canard " only if you are worried about low speed stall characteristics, which is what the delta wing is for.

the reason the f14 doesnt look like vf1 is because the vf1 is far from ideal, we are asking "could it fly" not "is this the best design"

"with enough thrust you might have a proper CG and that might work" huh... thrust has NOTHING to do with CG. the shape of a plane has little to do with the CG, you can easily move around components, use channeled thrust etc.. to move the CG.

"Flying wing designs abounded in the 50's and 60's but none caught on" soo the B2 doesn't exist?

everyone also is forgetting something important, vectored thrust, and advanced control systems. with an advanced enough control system you can get anything to fly. and yes you can make advanced controll systems for RC planes, multi axis gyro and IR stablized control surfaces would not be difficult to build, in fact off the shelf designs are already available.

i agree, its less likely to fly than most things, but dont just say "no" because it isn't the whole truth.

Edited November 17, 2003 by unsped

[unsped]

Perhaps you could make some vertical stableizers out of clear plastic to help preserve the VF-1's unique appearence?

a very good and feasible idea, something that would be required for alot of designs.

[007-vf1]

About whether aerodinamics can make a VF-1 lift off the ground or not I can only say this...:

- A rocket doesn't have big wings just a lot of extra mighty trusting power and it can fly quite fast and evade other objets in the air.

-Although the VF-1 doesn't have vertical stabilizers the "V" stabilizers are variable and may be it uses it vertically for take offs but once in the air with help of the trusters it regains "balance" (or whatever)

-Besides since it uses anime magic it may be morphs a bit and becomes smaller after take off..

Just my non-aeronautical-lack-of-engineering-knowledge 2 centipedes...

[David Hingtgen]

While a VF-1's CG may be whack, r/c modelers use this magical stuff called "lead" to make any plane have whatever CG they want.

Anyways, there ARE r/c VF-1's. And they have either (or both):

Extremely canted and modified v.stabs, or thrust vectoring. Sure it's only 1D vectoring, but a ducted fan and a flap is good enough for a little model, provided it's fairly stable on the pitch axis. Bigger wings (or greater camber) are a given for most any r/c plane based on a fighter. (You sure won't get an perfectly scale F-16 to fly as-is, but you can make a lot of tweaks that won't affect the appearance that make it a rather docile plane).

[Knight26]

Ok about time someone with an aerospace degree waded in on this one. First off a V-tail configuration is know as Ruddervator (rudder/elevator), it's not a very common design, but an interesting and good concept none the less. Elevons are combination Elevators and Ailerons, hence the name, ELEVator ailerONS. They are used primarily on swing wing aircraft and more and more on fighters, like the F/A-18. They provide for enhanced manueverability on fixed wing aircraft and control on Variable geometry winged aircraft, otherwise an F-14/F-111 with its wings swept would be unable to roll. The VF-1's vertical stabilizers (not stabilators which are combination elevator/horizontal stabilizer, all moving) are pretty much strictly rudders, the engines and oblique angle of the tails makes them produce little or no lift force. A VF-1 based design would only be able to fly using thrust vectoring to control pitch and roll. The small ventral fins on the engine outboard would help somewhat, if designed with proper camber, in the pitch stabilization role, but would be of much use in control.

The biggest hinderance to a VF-1's aerodynamics are the arms, if one designs along the lines of the toys, which always have the arms hanging so low. If I remember correctly Hasagawa kits have the arms fairly recessed elliminating much of that problem, so draw help from there. Even so the arms will create a signicant amount of blunt end drag, the drag that results from air flowing off the back end of blocky object. A clever reshaping of the arms would create a better lifting body shape, similar to the F-14. As for control problems related to the VG wing, Kawamori has stated that the inlets above the main intakes are intended to assist in the VG transition, much like the glove vanes on an F-14. Software reconfiguration on the F-14 and a slight intake reconfigure alleviated the need for glove vanes in the F-14.

If you are serious about making a VF-1 RC model I would suggest making something more along the lines of the VF-1/F-14 hybrid design, at least to start. The forward fuselage is a sound design on the VF-1, no real need to change it. To be honest the major part to change will the arms as I stated before, either chop them out entirely or reshape them into a better lifting body shape. At first I would say just build it without the arms, then add new arm designs as you go, from aerodynamic shells to the full up arm, study what happens along the way and let us know. The vertical stabilizers should be used strictly a rudders, don't try and ruddervate them. As a preliminary design make it fixed winged at the minimum sweep angle, that will give you usable surface for ailerons and the flaps, don't mess with VG too soon, control issues will abound. As for elevator control I have three suggestions: 1) thrust vectoring, either a) put a simple vane in the engine exhaust to control it that way, or b) get the nozzle to move like they should. option (a) would be the easist solution. 2) use the flap at the back of the backpack. If you shape the fuselage correctly you might be able to use that flap as an elevator, strange I know but it might just work. 3) go with the clear plastic stabilator that somone suggested, mount it at the ankle joint would be my suggestion. This option would probably give you the best controlability.

Now, if you decide to go VG. You'll want a light mechanism to accomplish this or one that is speed dependant, as simple as a spirng loaded system that forces the wings back as speed increases. This will require the use of a set of Elevons though or thrust vectoring in order to keep control over the plane. In order to compensate for the CG and lift center changes that the wing sweeping will create you might want to consider one of two options: 1) a simple mass slider in the fuselage, this is the easist way to go but will still require some good math to get to work correctly. 2) do Kawamori proud and find a way to use those inlets to compensate. THis one would be very neat but would require some heavy design work. There are two options I can think of off the top of my head to make this work. 1) Just ahve them open into a duct over the main intake, have to run the math on this but having the doors open might make this duct make create another airfoil right above the intakes, combined with a good lifting body design this could solve the VG problem, likely want them to open as the wing sweeps back. The biggest problem here would be finding the space for the duct. Option 2): Install blowers in behind those vents and blow air out and up from the vents. I realize this sounds crazy but if you can put a swirling mass of air right there it should serve to create an other airfoil around the intake/fuselage area. This one is a little strange I admit but so is the fact that swirling masses of air, spinning cylinders, and spinning spheres creat lift. It's so crazy it might just work.

I would take the project in baby steps though, and keep us updated. Also, one last thing, you'll likely want to work on a large scale, possible 1:12 or 1:6 scale, the more complex the design gets the larger the plane will have to get. Have to run the numbers but just so you know 1:18 scale VF-1 would be aboout 2.6 feet long, so a 1:12 about 3.4 feet and a 1:6 about 7.8 feet long, hope you have a lot of room.

[Grayson72]

My Brain, it hurts IT HURTS!!!!! AAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

[NERV]

Anyways, there ARE r/c VF-1's. And they have either (or both):

pics?

[Knight26]

AH good, made another head explode, reminds of my days teaching this stuff.

[007-vf1]

Bow to the master....bow to the master; thanks Knight dude...

(...while I put my brain back in my head...)

[Knight26]

Thank DH, he brought my attention to the thread and asked me to wade in.

[Valkyrie Nut]

that was a lot of info to take in knight but it made a lot of sense

[Myersjessee]

"What your referring to are commonly called elevons" elevon itself does not imply the surfaces being angled, vtail is a tail arrangement using elevon mixing. you do NOT need angled control surfaces to have elevons. in fact the MAJORITY of elevon's do not use angled stablizers.

Yep....true....but the control surfaces on a combination vertical horizontal stab would be an elevon no? Otherwise what would you call a cantered vertical and horizontal stabilizer control? What would your control surface do? The only one I have flown is the V-Tail Bonzanza. (Yes, flown, about 800 hours logged) It has Elevons, and about a 40 degree angle.

" if you added a canard " only if you are worried about low speed stall characteristics, which is what the delta wing is for.

A Canard is a vertical stabilizer. Plain and simple. A canard does bring with it great low stall (or no stall) speed characteristics. No stall you say? Yep...if you angle a canard to stall earlier then the wing, then the nose will drop not allowing a standard convential stall..the plane will "mush" or fly at a high angle of attack and dexcent, but not actually break into a stall or spin. This can be not desireable in a fighter plane as you want them to be more unstable and allow more violent changes.

Delta wings allow for a radical change in the center of lift, and the drag and lift coeficients. They have nothing to do with vertical stabilizers. Swinging the wings out will allow for much better low speed flight characteristics, but the basic control and trim elements of the airplane have to be completely reconfifgured. One of the big problems with the F111 and the F14 initially, was mastering these changes in the computers so it was not appearent to the pilot. I know RC craft have been made of the F14....but I have not seen or flown one with variable wings. If they exist, I would love to know how the flight characteristics of a wing symmetry change effect the flight. Based on what I know I expect the change to be challanging to an RC pilot. (which is why I suggested fixed geometry)

the reason the f14 doesnt look like vf1 is because the vf1 is far from ideal, we are asking "could it fly" not "is this the best design"

I thought I understood that...and was trying to carefully respond...NO...I don't think it would fly without changing some prime elements. No hostillity was intended...simply, based on what I know..no. Want to prove me wrong? Build a small glider model and try it out.

"with enough thrust you might have a proper CG and that might work" huh... thrust has NOTHING to do with CG. the shape of a plane has little to do with the CG, you can easily move around components, use channeled thrust etc.. to move the CG.

Your correct....Thrust may have nothing to do with CG, but it has everything to do with lift. I was trying to get more at the center of lift, and it's distance from the center of gravity, which directly effects stability of an aircraft. My point (and badley made it was) is that extra thrust can make up for some lack of stability. I built a Desperado (flying wing RC) which was very overpowered. Despite a pour CG/COL arrangement the extra thrust did make it very flyable, though capable of very violent gyrations. badley expressed...sorry.

Also, while the CG is easily moved, an aircraft with such small wings would be harder to balance (IMO) without making it to heavy...which gets back to extra thrust to compensate for the extra weight.

"Flying wing designs abounded in the 50's and 60's but none caught on" soo the B2 doesn't exist?

Seems like a retorical question...yes the B2 exists. Many many more designs were tried in the 50's and 60's. Whats your point? I am sensing you to be extremly hostile towards me, which I don't get. You asked a question. If you don't want an answer don't ask the question. Im not trying to show anyone up, or make anyone look stupid. I happen to feel I know a lot about aircraft, and I am happy to discuss aeronautics all day long. If this is going to be about you picking things apart to look smarter...then so be it...your smarter...I could care less.

If you care where I am coming from, well I have 5000+ hours flying, (mostly flight instruction) a four year degree in aeronautical engineering, (TSTI and LTech) and I have built 10+ RC aircraft. Thats my background. I have not been actively working in the flight industry for nearly 10 years.

everyone also is forgetting something important, vectored thrust, and advanced control systems. with an advanced enough control system you can get anything to fly. and yes you can make advanced controll systems for RC planes, multi axis gyro and IR stablized control surfaces would not be difficult to build, in fact off the shelf designs are already available.

i agree, its less likely to fly than most things, but dont just say "no" because it isn't the whole truth.

I have never seen or flown an RC plane with vectored thrust or any kind of built in stabilization system. I don't doubt they exist, I just don't know about them. I don't think vectoring thrust components would help a lot in making a VF1 fly, but certainly advanced control/stabilization systems would. They say the F117 is a model in what should not fly. It is completely dynamically unstable in all axis's of flight, yet flys based on advanced control systems that keep it aloft. (which gets back to enough thrust...strap a rocket on anything...blah blah blah) If you could build an RC craft with controls for all axis of flight that were augmented by a gyro stabilization type system...well...then I can't see why that would not do it. Even without a vertical stab at all, and not changing the angle of the vertical stab...if you build elevons into the wings and moves the CG far enough forward so that the center of lift could effectivly control pitch (I think thats right) then it would seem possible.

If thats the answer to your question...then yes...with very advanced stability controls built into the model I would think it would fly...if the F117 can fly why coudn't it?

(PROLOGUE) This is not meant as an attack, to make anyone look or feel stupid, or to make me seem or feel superior. I have tried to address your question as best I can with the knowledge that I remember. Best wishes in your endevour...I hope you share the pictures)

[Myersjessee]

AH good, made another head explode, reminds of my days teaching this stuff.

LOL Knight...where did you teach? Your thread brings back the good ole' days of trying to learn this stuff. My teacher used to insist on now electronic calculators...E6B or by hand.... I miss it!

[Myersjessee]

Ooops....ewilen pointed out

I *think* you're getting your terminology mixed up. An elevon functions as an elevator (controls pitch) and aileron (controls roll). Doesn't a Bonanza still have conventional ailerons on its wings, with the V-tail functioning as a combo elevator/rudder? Even if it doesn't, the V-tail would be a special case, not a typical elevon.

A horizontal stabilizer is a horizontal plane which provides pitch stability and can have control surfaces (elevators) to control pitch. A vertical stabilizer is a vertical plane which provides yaw stability and can have a control surface (rudder) which controls yaw.

I'm sure David or Knight26 can speak more authoritively on this, but your terminology already seems to contradict some of their comments.

He's spot on (must be the cold meds)...Elevon (as pointed out by Knight and others is Aileron and Elevator...Im not sure what they call what a VTail bonanza has...but it would not be an Elevon....(Elevudder sounds stupid...! ) But...I guess the same basic ontrol function would be what was described earlier by widening the angle on the vertical stabs...

[Knight26]

I explained what a combination rudder/elevator is called: Ruddervator. Oh and I used to teach at a place called aviation challenge, taught teenagers all about aviation, aerospace, aerodynamics and aeronautics, as well as land and water survival.

[Myersjessee]

I explained what a combination rudder/elevator is called: Ruddervator.  Oh and I used to teach at a place called aviation challenge, taught teenagers all about aviation, aerospace, aerodynamics and aeronautics, as well as land and water survival.

Cool! I went to college to be a pilot, and flew for 4 years commercially (flight instruction and small charter) I miss it!

Ruddervator.....almost as silly as Elevon...but I guess it makes sense...

Edited November 19, 2003 by Myersjessee