Valk wing-sweep speeds?

[David Hingtgen]

Well we haven't had any new "valks vs real planes" threads on the new board, so I figured I'd bring one up. Anyways---anyone know the rate of wing sweep change for any of the valks? There's lots of issues to be addressed:

1. What affects wing sweep angle for a valk? Speed alone? AOA?

2. Is it affected by transformation? (As in, could a VF-1 sweep its wings back VERY quickly while in fighter mode, since it can do so to transform to battroid)

3. G's. Real planes sweep their wings slower as the G-forces increase, as the mechanism simply can't handle the strain. Any evidence of this happening in Macross? (As in, a hard-manuevering valk having a visibly slow wing movement)

4. We've already discussed the FSW aspects of valks, but that may become an issue here. Hey--should we archive that thread? I put a LOT of effort into it, and a lot of people commented how helpful it was.

[twich]

David,

Check the first episode when Hikaru is flying the VF-1D through the clouds to join Roy battling the baddies!

I think he sweeps the wings while he is climbing and just before he gets shot the first time and Roy comes to rescue him(his wings sweep too!)

Hope this helps you

Larry

[David Hingtgen]

Will go check it out, thanks.

PS--anyone have the official numbers for the wing sweep angle for any of the valks? I'd rather not have to go get a protracter and line drawings...

[Graham]

The Macross Compendium has some figures for the VF-1: -

Fully extended 20°

swept backward 42°

overswept backward 72°

in stowage position at 122°

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn. Overswept and stowage as two different settings. Normally, that's the same thing.

Technical question--to have its (VF-1) wings fully back (like in battroid mode, touching each other)---if it's in fighter mode, can it do it? Or does it have to flip the backpack up for them to fit? Otherwise, I can't think of a reason to have an "oversweep" position, since it already has the "ultimate oversweep" of having them straight back touching each other.

[Graham]

In fighter mode, I'm pretty sure it would have to flip the backpack up to have the wings all the way back and touching.

Graham

[Commander McBride]

Hmmn. Overswept and stowage as two different settings. Normally, that's the same thing.

Technical question--to have its (VF-1) wings fully back (like in battroid mode, touching each other)---if it's in fighter mode, can it do it? Or does it have to flip the backpack up for them to fit? Otherwise, I can't think of a reason to have an "oversweep" position, since it already has the "ultimate oversweep" of having them straight back touching each other.

If every toy ive ever seen is any indication, it needs to flip up the pack to foold the wings to storage position.

[imode]

In fighter mode, I'm pretty sure it would have to flip the backpack up to have the wings all the way back and touching.

Graham

Sounds right. I think it was in episode 26 (right before the big battle) where we see a whole mess of VF-1's in hangar with backpacks up and wings fully swept.

[mikeszekely]

I guess stowage involves flipping the backpack up and "closing" the wings like Battroid mode. Oversweep could be a position that has some other use, like in Gerwalk mode.

[Abombz!!]

Hmmn. Overswept and stowage as two different settings. Normally, that's the same thing.

Technical question--to have its (VF-1) wings fully back (like in battroid mode, touching each other)---if it's in fighter mode, can it do it? Or does it have to flip the backpack up for them to fit? Otherwise, I can't think of a reason to have an "oversweep" position, since it already has the "ultimate oversweep" of having them straight back touching each other.

Nope. Everytime we have VF1 "stored" the back pack is set up like in Gerwalk mode, and the wings are fully closed.

The other VF that can do that is the VF19.... but it does that in full speed, and theres no folding anything (other then the wings)

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, we'll go with "must have backpack up to *fully* sweep wings". Thus "oversweep" would be "furthest sweep possible without moving backpack".

Though it still seems not to have much point---if you're trying to fit into as small a space as possible, why not flip the backpack up to swing the wings back to reduce wingspan? Maybe it's just there for informative purposes, and isn't really ever used.

[Lightning]

maybe they're still wanting to fly but cant have the backpack up and the wings in the all the way back positon...

[Abombz!!]

Maybe they did test the valk with the wings fully sweeped back and the back pack up. Wouldn't that give it more thrust? Wings aren't really much of an issue in space.... and the backpack verniers would give it a bit more thrust wouldn't they?

[Lightning]

yes and no, it needs the wings in position is space in order to roll itself because there are verniers on the wingtips and without the wings out, it's kinda hard to turn and burn. but for the yes part, if you need a burst of speed without regard to manuvering, then the backpack up is the better idea, then again, that's why they made the FP's.

EDIT: added a letter.

Edited August 26, 2003 by Lightning 06

[Abombz!!]

yes and no, it needs the wings in position is space in order to roll itself because there are verniers on the wingtips and without the wings out, it's kinda hard to turn and burn. but for the yes part, if you need a burst of speed without regard to manuvering, then the backpack up is the better idea, then again, that's why they made the FP's.

EDIT: added a letter.

But then again... they could install verniers on the legs, and if I'm not mistaken.... the canopy has its own set of vernier thrusters too.

[David Hingtgen]

"Oversweep" means you can't fly like that. Maximum sweep is just that--the maximum (useable) sweep angle. Oversweep is beyond that--so far swept it physically interferes with the aircraft, and can only be used on the ground. It's the same as when carrier planes fold their wingtips up 90 degrees vertically--you can't fly like that, it's just a feature to take up less space on deck. An F-14 cannot move its stabs when the wings are overswept. (Well, it can, just not very far, and they bang into the wings if they do). The stabs must be in the neutral position to move the wings into oversweep--I've never heard of any sort of lockout feature, but there must be one, as a powered-down stab wouldn't be in the correct position, and you'd probably crush the stabs if you tried to. (F-14 pivot mechanism is rated for over a million pounds of force)

AFAIK, oversweep is unique to the F-14, no other variable-sweep plane has this feature.

[Commander McBride]

Maybe oversweep is only used on surface vessels, where there isn't room to fold and unfold the backpack (ceiling clearance), and the full back is only used in space carriers.

[David Hingtgen]

I considered that (insufficient height to flip the backpack, thus an oversweep position for low-ceiling places)---but I mean, the vertical stabs are pretty tall. Not much shorter than a vertical backpack I'd guess. (Anyone got the stats for that? Or a VF-1 vs F-14 sideview?) Because F-14's are pretty tall,(though not REAL tall, due to having two fins) and have enough hangar clearance.

[JELEINEN]

But then again... they could install verniers on the legs, and if I'm not mistaken.... the canopy has its own set of vernier thrusters too.

I believe verniers on the wingtips would give more maneuverability.

[Commander McBride]

Hey, I went and watched some SDF this morning, and I noticed that the valks are repeatedly shown coming out of the hangar deck in dtorage wing position, but with the backpacks unfolded. (but the fins folded down) So I guess the wings can close all the way without being obstructed by the backpack.

[Commander McBride]

I considered that (insufficient height to flip the backpack, thus an oversweep position for low-ceiling places)---but I mean, the vertical stabs are pretty tall. Not much shorter than a vertical backpack I'd guess. (Anyone got the stats for that? Or a VF-1 vs F-14 sideview?) Because F-14's are pretty tall,(though not REAL tall, due to having two fins) and have enough hangar clearance.

My theory actually could make sense, now that I think of it. It's hard to tell if the wings are in oversweep or full storage, but we can tell that the valk has to fold the stabilizers to fit inside the hangar. So it does appear that there isn't room to flip the tail. And it is possible that the footage is misleading and the wings only go all the way back, with the folded tail, when stored in the ARMDs, in the 3D storage method.

[Abombz!!]

But then again... they could install verniers on the legs, and if I'm not mistaken.... the canopy has its own set of vernier thrusters too.

I believe verniers on the wingtips would give more maneuverability.

I agree. But what i meant was in a isolated test not during scramble. Thw wing thrusters are necessary to give the fighter balance in space. If you notice all sci fi space fighters have wings of some kind. Even the Lancer that was pretty much a suicide fighter has wings in proportion to the fighter itself.

[Commander McBride]

It's true, though, that manouvering thrusters (verniers are low power thrusters for tiny corrections and adjustments) on the fuselage would be quite ineffective. The wings just give suchbetter leverage. And also, I think, compared to the leg thrusters, the backpack ones would provide such miniscule force as to make the added thrust pointless.

[Nied]

Being one of the other Aviation nuts around here I thought I'd take a stab at this.

Judging from my Yamato, a VF-1 wouldn't have much wing area available at it's maximum sweep (that is with the back pack in the unfolded postion) I'm guessing that's the oversweep position that the compendium is talking about. From the looks of it there wouldn't be any real advantage to folding up the backpack and folding the wings all the way back. Just point every other plane in the oposite direction (like they do with Tomcats now) and you'd get them to take up the just about same amount of space (give or take a few feet).