Real World Technical References of Macross Variable Aircraft

[Valkyrie Driver]

SU-37 seems to have inspired some of the VF-11.

As well the YF-23 may have provided some too

[charger69]

YF-21/VF-22 Thrust Vectoring (3 Vane Design)

ATD-X (Thanks to electric indigo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X

Edited February 27, 2015 by charger69

[Mr March]

I always wondered if the thrust vectoring plates were fictional or were inspired by a real craft. Thanks for posting!

[sketchley]

The YF-21/VF-22 thrust vectoring wasn't inspired by the ATD-X - as the later was developed from 2005, whereas the former was designed in 1993.

Those thrust vectering plates come from the X-31: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31 (1990 to 1995).

[David Hingtgen]

Just gotta chime in---yeah, I see way too many "backwards" inspirations mentioned----planes from 2000+ couldn't have inspired the 1994-created M+ valks!

Also, Kawamori does seem to focus more on "main" and "famous" planes, not minor prototypes etc. The X-29 is of course an exception, but it was uber-famous when it was flying, even most 8-year-olds of the time could identify it. But he's generally much more likely to draw inspiration from an F-15 or MiG-29, than "small former Soviet-block attack-trainer" or "single-flight X-plane".

[Valkyrie Driver]

Here's another pretty obvious one:

Even though it's an enemy mech, I really like the SV-51.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Here's another, while it's not a case of macross being inspired by, it does show some interesting similarities...

The Su-47 Berkut is the only twin engine design I know of with FSW and canards. I could be wrong. I thought this one was interesting, given the overall aesthetic similarities. The berkut was a late 90's design, and introduced to the world in 2000, but it shows that Kawamori, might just be ahead of the times in terms of fighter design... Or maybe he can see into the...bum bum buuummmm... the future...

[Mr March]

How about a reference challenge?

I've recently finished a complete revision of the VF-3000 profile, including redrawing AND recoloring the Fighter and Battroid line art. While scrutinizing the art, I suddenly realized the dorsal fuselage is actually concaved. The fuselage of all other valkyries are either convex or flat. When you look at the VF-3000 front schematic, the hull peaks on the outer sides, descending as the hull flows inward to the center line of the craft where the cockpit and nose are situated. I've created a picture with the concave hull colored.

Now, this concave hull could be a completely original design element created by Kawamori. But knowing Kawamori's tendency for using real-world jet craft designs in his art I'm curious if there are other jet or fighter craft from which he may have drawn influence for this concave hull design choice.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Mr March, That is an interesting find. The F-14 is the same way.

Now on to one that might be a bit more obscure, but better comparison:

I think the have blue prototype is a bit closer to the actual VF-17 design. This would have been common knowledge by 1993, in fact I remember asking my dad about it as a kid. I remember him being terrified that I knew those words, he was relieved when I told him I head them on an episode of Discovery Channel's WINGS. I think it was around 1995-ish...

[GuardianGrey]

Okay. here is one world real technology that helps me in a debate I have AGAINST majority (all except the SV-51 & YF-29) in fighter-mode being VTOL capable.

F-14 base of the VF-0/VF-1, like most of the other fighter-mode forms can not take-off/hover.
(usual response from trolls is, "it says it is VTOL in the description, so it must be capable")

The Yak-38 (Diagram shown), Yak-141 & F-35; while vectoring down the thrust from the main engines, then use a forward fan/turbine to help lift the respected craft.

If one looks at the SV-52, I believe it can do so as well;

1. The thrust vectoring exhaust from the feet/aft of the craft. can roughly be pointed downwards.
2. The dark purple highlighted area on the ventricle side and back of the Unit sees to be the vent-protection for the discharge of the lift fan/turbines (on back as verniers for the SV-51 in battroid mode).
   
   (using Mr. Mach's Macross Mecha Manual entry "Color-Code Transformation SV-52")

Which if those fans are used like the aforementioned real world fighter-craft, that would have made the SV-51 the first 'true' VTOL VF unit.

Followed by the YF-29 for prior mentioned reasons; and excluding the VF-25 because the Armor Parts there of are not permeate part of the craft, though make it an Honorable Mention.

[Mr March]

I had always assumed VTOL was achieved by doing either one of two things (or both): transforming to GERWALK mode or simply lifting via vernier thrusters. The latter theory does have the virtue of being official, since we see the VT-1 Super Ostrich thrusters performing VTOL in the DYRL film.

[David Hingtgen]

I didn't think anyone thought the Sv-51 WASN'T VTOL, due to its big-ass lift-fans...

(plus it is very Yak-38-ish in lift-fan placement. Kawamori wouldn't copy the world's 2nd-most-famous VTOL's fans for a non-VTOL design!)

[anime52k8]

How about a reference challenge?

I've recently finished a complete revision of the VF-3000 profile, including redrawing AND recoloring the Fighter and Battroid line art. While scrutinizing the art, I suddenly realized the dorsal fuselage is actually concaved. The fuselage of all other valkyries are either convex or flat. When you look at the VF-3000 front schematic, the hull peaks on the outer sides, descending as the hull flows inward to the center line of the craft where the cockpit and nose are situated. I've created a picture with the concave hull colored.

Now, this concave hull could be a completely original design element created by Kawamori. But knowing Kawamori's tendency for using real-world jet craft designs in his art I'm curious if there are other jet or fighter craft from which he may have drawn influence for this concave hull design choice.

the VF-3000 looks more like the F-14 from the front than the VF-1 does.

[David Hingtgen]

....VF-3000...

Now, this concave hull could be a completely original design element created by Kawamori. But knowing Kawamori's tendency for using real-world jet craft designs in his art I'm curious if there are other jet or fighter craft from which he may have drawn influence for this concave hull design choice.

I believe its primary purpose on the F-14 would be area-rule, which had almost fallen out of favor at that time.

[GuardianGrey]

I think I came off that wrong then, Mr. Mach & David Hingtgen, so I will clarify on this.

It's also a Rules lawyering issue I have had in many general Mecha settings, that the VTOL only needs to be taken if the Fighter mode can do it.

An overall, VF in most cases can perform VTOL maneuvers as a whole unit (mostly in GERWALK), although the fighter-mode can not.

For to be true VTOL (Vertical Take-Off & Landing) I feel the craft (in this case, a VF in Fighter-mode alone) has to be able to vertically ascend and transition into horizontal flight and land vertically without issue.

As Mr. Mach pointed out we do see the VT-1 in the movie use its veniers to get enough altitude (could class as a vertical take-off) to deploy the legs and main thrusters. The moment the legs came down, it was no longer in Fighter-mode but GREWALK. Also, the Ostrich can not land vertically in fighter-mode.
Well, it could, though it is usually classed as a stall & crash. I also do not think the landing gear could handle the unit being dropped onto them from GERWALK leg height, even if the veniers were firing to attempt in slowing it down.

So it seems as design of the VF units, only the SV-51, YF-29 and with its Armor-Parts attached the VF-25 can do this feat, while others would (likely & literally) crash & burn.

[Mr March]

It's March, though Mach would be kind of a kickass name

I understand what you're saying and agree VTOL should only matter if the fighter mode can perform it. But the fighter mode can perform it, at least in the VF-1 Valkyrie's case. It doesn't matter if it transforms (partial-GERWALK) afterward or not; the verniers propelled the VT-1 into the air in place of aerodynamic lift. That's VTOL.

anime52k8

Looks like the F-14 Tomcat is the winner. Makes perfect sense too, since Kawamori is such a huge fan of the F-14. Thanks dude.

David Hingtgen

Ah, a new aeronautical term. I read about it after reading your post. Makes sense. Thanks!

[Valkyrie Driver]

When you look at the VF-0, VF-1, VF-3000, and the F-14 you'll notice that, in the line art (the VF-0 toy is the only one that properly replicates it), there is a high spot between the engine nacelles. This is so that the fuselage itself produces lift, meaning that the wings don't do all the work, thus decreasing wing loading. Area rule comes into effect when you look at the fences along the dorsal fuselage, which trick the airflow.

Prime example of the area rule body:

Ghost inspired by the Boeing Bird of Prey:

Because it wasn't mentioned.

[sketchley]

I think I came off that wrong then, Mr. Mach & David Hingtgen, so I will clarify on this.

It's also a Rules lawyering issue I have had in many general Mecha settings, that the VTOL only needs to be taken if the Fighter mode can do it.

There are some big, glaring questions not being addressed with this: what is the environment? What are the gravity conditions?

For example, the VF-11 are routinely seen in M7 making vertical takeoffs in outer space off a low gravity carrier deck, and the aforementioned VE-1 is seen making a vertical take off inside a Zentraadi spaceship in space - which may or may not have a much lower gravity and less dense atmosphere than Earth does.

Now, assuming that the official stats that say that the VF-1 is VTOL capable are written from the perspective that it is occurring in conditions like those on the surface of the Earth, than in that specific instance, it can only be done using vernier thrusters. It's not very efficient, probably consumes a large volume of the manoeuvring fuel load, but it is highly probable.

And if the VF-1 can do it, presumably all subsequent VFs are capable of doing it.

I get the sense that this is for some type of RPG or gaming. In that case, I recommend letting the players get away with it, but penalizing them later with the vernier thrusters that they used to do the VTOL running out of fuel (and no, fuel from other vernier thrusters cannot be moved internally to the other ones in other parts of the fuselage.)

Edited March 9, 2015 by sketchley

[Valkyrie Driver]

Talking about this VTOL thing made me think about it just transforming to gerwalk on the tarmac (obviously silly). Which then put a Michael Bay Transformers sequence in my mind (ridiculously awesome). No need to demolish this post, I just thought I'd share the image of a VF-1 pulling a ROTF Jetfire sequence, of arms propping the body up while it gets legs under it before blasting straight up while the arms swing out...

[GuardianGrey]

I do apologize for the typo of your name, Mr. March, though I still disagree with you on the VF Fighter-mode capable of VTOL thing.

Even though it does seem silly, Valkyrie Driver, that is what I see in the sequence out of the Macross movie that we ended up debating over.

My view is that the (pure) fighter-form of majority of VF units are not VTOL capable, though the veniers were used to do just as you stated; transforming to GERWALK.

And sketchley is right that gravity does play a part into what a VF can and can not do. mostly on the decks. Though I have not seen Macross 7 (other than clips off YouTube), the VT-1 scene is what the debate point is centered around. Due to the Zentrai walking, the Ostrich staying on the floor until the veniers are fired & even Roy's bleeding seem to indicate that there is Gravity (at least 0.6 Earth) within the ship by the simplest observations. Of course, it could all just be ANIME*.

The games were Palladium Books' Robotech RPG, GURPS Mecha & RTG Mekton+ that this debate had been wrestled over that I know of, sketchley.

Ichijo did transform the VT-1 Ostrich from fighter to GERWALK in the Zentradi Ship using the veniers. since he was not flying to facilitate said actions. This use of the veniers I feel that does not constitute as VTOL, although it did allow the transformation in that situation.

The VF units, as a whole can do VTOL maneuvers (majority are done in GERWALK-mode), though true VTOL cannot be done while in fighter-mode. That is my opinion of VF units in most situations.

I have also yet to see a VF unit LAND vertically in fighter-mode, which is something I have not seen animation of even the VF units believed capable of said maneuver.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I know this is an after Macross came out for referencing, though kinda still ties in with the whole VTOL thing...

The YF-21/VF-22 has no thrusters (only veniers) in its legs, so my question was how does it fly/hover in GERWALK?

The line-art answers that it has ducts that vent from the engines downward behind the legs,

We do have a real world variant of that in the YX-32 VTOL configuration, when it opens the side ports and deploys the vents for thrust.

I also looked at the F-203 Dragon II line-art from the original series and see that it also has these vents, though the descripted texts have them be separate engine units.

So, do these vents make the F-203 a VF**?

(* = ANIME; Any Noticeable Inconsistencies May Exist)

(** = VF; as in VTOL Fighter, meant as a 'bad' joke due to the debate; although there are supposedly non-transforming VF units)

[sketchley]

The YF-21/VF-22 has no thrusters (only veniers) in its legs, so my question was how does it fly/hover in GERWALK?

The line-art answers that it has ducts that vent from the engines downward behind the legs,

Those aren't ducts. They are nothing more than an expansion joint that collapses when it transforms into Battroid (like Venetian blinds).

See here for further details: http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/yf-21/yf-21-transformation1.gif (note how far forward the engine nacelle slides in the open position).

Edited March 9, 2015 by sketchley

[Valkyrie Driver]

VTOL is a pretty niche thing. Only the Royal Navy/Marines and USMC really care about it. When you have a transforming fighter, it pretty much makes it a VSTOL aircraft. That said It as much as doesn't matter, since there are any number of ways you could explain a fighter managing to do that.

I'm not an expert, but I always imagined (and will continue because it makes sense) that the actual maneuvering thrusters are like those on the harrier, F-35 and X-32, where the thrust is created by bleeding off from the engine while in space, and using the control surfaces in atmo. The two systems would be slaved and the thrusters would fire in atmo, and the control surfaces would move in space.

Now, you could look at some VF designs and say, that would be a convenient place for a thrust nozzle to shunt output. in atmo you could shunt bleed off from the compressor through the "knees" it wouldn't be hard to imagine that happening (at least to me). This coupled with a bleed thruster at the nose could keep it going. That way you aren't sacrificing you small attitude control in space for the ability to take off vertically. In addition you'd have the vectoring nozzels at the rear to help lift the back end up.

As for the YF-21/VF-22 gerwalk, I have no idea how it hovers in GERWALK. Maybe those expansion joints Sketcley was talking about actually double as vents. It would be easy to imagine that they do, unless it's explicitly stated in cannon. But as far as I know, I've not seen any reference as to how a VF achieves vertical thrust. I'd say use your imagination, until a cannon source comes along.

I'm fully anticipating that Sketch, Seto, or Mr March will do so within three posts of this one...

[sketchley]

I'm fully anticipating that Sketch, Seto, or Mr March will do so within three posts of this one...

Sketch hasn't been active since 2013: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showuser=1441

[Valkyrie Driver]

I actually meant you. It's a military thing, we shorten long names to something that sounds cooler. Kirtsendorfer became K13, Arincoryan became A10, Hoppensteadt became Hopp. Therefore Sketchley became Sketch. I didn't know there was another user by that name, so I apologize for the confusion, and if I offended you.

I'll be more careful about that in the future.

[Gubaba]

It's a military thing, we shorten long names to something that sounds cooler.

I'm pretty sure civilians do that, too. We call them "nicknames."

[Valkyrie Driver]

I meant more in the fashion that I described. However you are correct.

[Mr March]

I'm fully anticipating that Sketch, Seto, or Mr March will do so within three posts of this one...

No, I think for my part the VTOL capability is sufficiently established. Though I admit, I think this is the first time I've heard the VTOL capability of a VF called into question. If nothing else, it's an interesting thought.

I would imagine those RPG players arguing with GuardianGrey are perhaps a rather disagreeable crowd. I'm uncertain if folks realize the outrageous power/thrust/engineering performance Valkyries display in the anime productions. In my opinion, VTOL would be the least contentious point we could debate given the absurd magical prowess of the Variable Fighters

Edited March 9, 2015 by Mr March

[Valkyrie Driver]

I don't know how exactly a VF does VTOL, but I seem to be wrong a lot, so please explain. I just put my two cents out there because it's what makes sense to me.

[Mr March]

It's there in my post above. Ventral vernier thrusters propel the craft into the air. Truly, VTOL is a very minor maneuver for a bridge-smashing, flying karate-kicking, nation-powering, transformable aerospace robot that can be piloted with a guitar

EDIT: Pretty pictures

Edited March 9, 2015 by Mr March

[Valkyrie Driver]

Good point.

[GuardianGrey]

I see your point, sketchley, & even though I may have not described/represented it in the best way, I can see that we are on the same subject of the vents.

I see you position with the pictures, Mr. March, and the veniers there are providing lift. though I do not see how it can reverse/land with those thrust-ports (the Landing part of VTOL) without potentially damaging the craft. I also can not see those same veniers used in place of the main engine (that are repositioned beneath the unit in GERWALK-mode) to allow the 'hovering' that many VTOL craft (like the A/V-8 & F-35) can do. That is why I have repeatedly said that most VF unit, as a whole, is capable of VTOL maneuvers, though are incapable of doing so in fighter-mode.

In space/low-gravity (like sketchley commented may be lower aboard the Zentradi ship) using said veniers to get distance from the surface before engaging the main engines make sense, or as Ichijo did to transform into GREWALK mode.

And, yes, Mr. March, some gamers are rather disagreeable in the same regard as a rabid otaku of an anime series.

(A pin I got at a convention; "Half of all Gamers argue about the Rules. Half of all Gamers never read the Rules. Most times, it's the same Half.")

---------- Now back to forwarding this Forum's Topic ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though old, I think this one aircraft needs to be brought up. For it (in my opinion) may have influenced the Macross franchise at least three times.

And that plane is the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, which just the name is synonymous to any VF program/project.

Then, the VF units of VF-0C/D & VF-11 MAXL (Regular & Kai) look more like the XB-70 than they do their series sibling as the YF-30 also continues the detla-wing and canard combination.

Finally the feature that made the original Valkyrie a Genius Book Record holder for the Largest moving wing surface is stylized in the YF-21/VF-22 High speed configuration.

All to me is obvious, though I also felt it was needed to be said, for the past should be remembered for good or ill.

[Mr March]

GuardianGrey

Well, it's not as if examples of VTOL fighters in Macross are numerous and perhaps more detailed official explanations are needed, so having a different impression is understandable. Mostly I ask questions only to ensure my own understanding of the official trivia is accurate since it's rather important that I confirm that VTOL fighters are official for my website. Just remember, we don't know everything about the Valkyries as yet. Even after 30 years, there is still new information being published about the Valkyries (official and unofficial), as found in the Macross Chronicle and Variable FIghter Master File series.

Though your recent post made me realize that I have misunderstood it was yourself that had a problem with VTOL on the Valkyries; the way your earlier posts were written made me think it was the RPG players that were arguing with you against VTOL, not vice versa. And yes, I know well of disagreeable rabid otaku. As absurd as it sounds, there are trolls on this very board that have attacked me as not being a Macross fan and not being an anime fan. Such is the nonsense of the internet

The XB-70 Valkyrie could very well be an influence on many Macross VFs. It's mentioned in official trivia as an influence for the name of the VF-1 Valkyrie and also found pictured in the This Is Animation Special: Macross Plus book.

Be careful though, I believe that blue-in-blue VF-11MAXL picture in your post is unofficial fan art, built by Grebo Guru (I think his profile/artwork is still on DeviantArt)

Edited March 10, 2015 by Mr March

[Valkyrie Driver]

Internet Hipster trolls are ***holes, and you can't hate one for spewing crap, because they're ***holes and it's what they do.

Nice find on the XB-70.

[GuardianGrey]

Understood, Mr. March, though I had a remembrance from a game convention of a dissimilar argument with the same scene From the Marcoss movie.

A GM/Referee of an open Robotech RPG session was stating that a Veritech in fighter-mode can not ground transform, and the (assumed) new player was trying to argue that it was possible (using said clip as point), The GM's final response was, "That is not Robotech."

With me working in a book bindery that prints for Palladium Books (which has the license from Harmony Gold for said product), I have taken a copy out of our scrap bin and read it (they allow all the Oops of the outsourced animation that was aired in the series as cannon in the game). That set of rules do state clearly what the GM said, though he also forgot the first rule of any RPG, which is to have fun.

Remembering that and how this debate was going made me feel stupid (& laughing at myself) especially, as you stated, Studio Nue has not told us everything (I am not a 100% sure they know themselves!).

On the blue VF-11MAXL, it is an earlier version of Grebo-Guru's VF-11MAXL that he does have up on DeviantArt (Yes, his account is still active though I do not know if he uses it anymore). I had found it on a PBEM Macross RPG site call Macross: New Horizons, and his comments were, "They used it for themselves without my knowledge, but I don't mind one bit. It's not like I own Macross."

He also liked my fan-art VF-19s that I have there as HaiiroMamoru.

Thanks, Valkyrie Driver. With the Internet, getting pictures is easy, though finding the one you want might be harder.

----- Now back to the Thread's Topic ------------------------

After the XB-70 post, I was thinking if there was any more multiple Real World Technical References of Macross Variable Aircraft in one unit, and the answer seems to be yes.

The General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark was the USAF/USN TFX (Tactical Fighter eXperimental) that had a lot of new tech at that time, though was too heavy/large to make an undercarriage that could handle Carrier landings.

Many of its body-lines seem more inline with the VF-1 than the gleaned from the F-14 Tomcat (which was the USN solution to the Carrier issue), though that is my opinion.

The pivoting hard-point pylons also were a feature of the F-111 that was not apart of the F-14 design.

The last feature of the Aardvark that the Tomcat does not have, an escape-pod cockpit (though that came latter in the Macross Continuum).

Edited March 11, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Mr March]

GuardianGrey

Yes, I can definitely understand someone interpreting the anime shows in that way for an RPG. And Robotech fan RPG stuff could be a crazy topic unto itself, so the more left unsaid, the better

Yeah, Grebo's stuff is great. If you like Macross customs, check out the Fan Works sub-forum here on MW. DeductiblyBonkers just built a very sexy VF-19A custom, including a re-drawn head unit.

I think the AMM-1 missiles and their pylons are modelled more after weapon carriages like those on the jet fighters such as the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat (for ordnance like the AIM-9 Sidewinder) than the bombs on the F-111 Aardvark. Though I agree the swing-wing design of the VF-1 Valkyrie would require swivelling pylons in a similar fashion to those on the F-111 wings.

As a curious aside talking bombs and missiles, recent fan translation of the M.A.T. Sky Angels Volume #3: Extra Journal: VF-1 Valkyrie (1984) book has revealed the AMM-1 has firepower equivalent to a bomb despite being a missile. Page 31-37 cites a 20 kg warhead equivalent to 200 kg of TNT! OverTechnology indeed