AVF Upgrade Candidates

[Seto Kaiba]

FF-2100 TN reaction burst turbine? Any idea how that's supposed to work? I know you've said the thermonuclear turbine works like star trek's impulse drive in space, but is this more true to that moniker?

I'm not aware of anything that describes how exactly a thermonuclear reaction burst turbine is different from a regular one, just that the burst turbines were used on the VF-16, VF-17 from the D variant on, and the first AVF generation, and that their key advantages were significant gains in fuel efficiency, improved heat exchange systems, and nearly double the thrust. Combined, that's apparently responsible for the ability to reach orbit unassisted.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I see. I'm curious, since the VF-17 series is rapidly becoming a favorite (My VF-171 is quickly becoming the Favorite among my collection), There has to be a reason why it's hung around so long (aside from the fact that it was cheaper or could be flown by a greater number of pilots), despite being eclipsed by higher performance fighters. Is there something about the design? In M7 Gamlin continues to fly his VF-17 even though (I'm sure he had the opportunity to upgrade) better fighter were becoming available to aces.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Also another thought, every variable fighter (with a few exceptions) has some sort of add on super parts, even if it is just additional armor or vernier thrusters. I don't see any reference material to the VF-171 having any until the VF-171EX. Were none developed until there was a need to boost the fighter's capability? The VF-171 boasted improvements over the VF-17, in that it incorporated advancements from the VF-19 program, and some subsequent AVF programs, so was it deemed good enough for deployment without equipment packs for mission optimization?

[GuardianGrey]

I do not understand what seems to be the aversion of a VF-11 being upgraded to/with AVF technology.

I think it's more the mentality of "it doesn't exist until it is part of the official setting (aka canon universe)" mentality.

The Macross RPG playing community has used AVF technology upgraded VF-11's in their games since before 2000 (real world time). Most of those stats have disappeared, but you may have better luck than I did by searching for the VF-11E, VF-11F, and VF-11G variants.

I know of the units you speak of sketchley, though most were seemingly wrote up for use of Fuzion system(1)

The Macross 2050 Technical Book (pdf) I believe still has said units statistics for the Mekton Z+ RPG system(2).

Though, some of those units were more "outrageous" in their upgrades than what I propose here.

As far as my views go, it's principally because what little official information exists on the practice of upgrading older designs to use AVF-level hardware suggests the end result for all but the most minimal changes is usually an unstable and/or unreliable plane the likes of which would potentially be beyond even the skills of an ace pilot to manage... and are thus unsuitable for mass production.

I can understand that sentiment, Seto Kaiba, and that makes you at times the best "Devil's Advocate" in these sort of discussions.

I was also looking at it like Boeing did with the F-15 and F/A-18 designs, or General Galaxy Guld Works reaction to being given a copy of the VF-19 schematics. Either group wouldn't want to put a product out that was less than on par with the original (if anything, striving to make one better).

If there was a cannon start point for an AVF upgrade of the VF-11, I feel it would be the D-Kai Jamming Bird unit.

What I would call Project: Thunderbird (YF-11E), would start of with the Project M Special Technologies Group's VF-11D-Kai schematics, since this sub-variant had the longest consecutive run of any dissimilar modifications. Starting with the removal of all sound energy equipment, returning of the head style of the B/C series and the cockpit area to that of a single operator. With all other alterations remaining, including the FF-2025S turbines, the proposed craft could have a projected thrust/weight ratio of up to 7.04. With the addition of Aerospace Super parts, it should be able to easily obtain orbital status.

<<<=========>>>

The first shortcoming of the VF-11 Thunderbolt series in the 2030-40's was that it could not reach orbital operation ceiling without a booster.

The VF-17 Nightmare could do this, though it was regarded as a special operations craft & the AVF craft are years before there are enough to displace the VF-11 as the UN Spacy's mainline fighter.

It's not just a matter of raw thrust... but a matter of fuel efficiency. The thing that pushed the VF-17 Nightmare to the level of being able to launch into satellite orbit unassisted was the adoption of a new version of thermonuclear reaction engine technology. It got the FF-2100 thermonuclear reaction burst turbine, which had greatly improved output and, more importantly, fuel efficiency.

One of the key design features of the VF-11MAXL was its delta wing, which offered more room for fuel storage... that probably was as much a factor in its orbital capabilities as the new engines. One also has to wonder if the stock VF-11 could meet the cooling requirements of a more potent engine... because even AVFs are struggling with that on their own.

On fuel economy, I will admit I had not given though to that due to the usual range and capabilities associated with the VF craft in general. This is also the first time turbine temperatures has really been brought up in a discussion.

I don't know if there is any hard data in the trivia about this matter, though I have noticed almost all thermonuclear engines are manufactured by Shinsei Industry/P&W/Roice, and majority of vernier motors produced via P&W.

I had assumed that unless there was a direct and specific mention of an issue dealing with said (like a reinforcement of the frame needed for the FF-2099A), the matter was of a moot/trivial concern level for that piece of equipment in other dissimilar craft.

Also, other than any obvious fuselage changes for (apparent externally, or noted about the structure), all equipment listed in variants can somehow get "shoehorned" into (within a set level of logic/reason).

In reality; yes, temperature of equipment and fuel economy play as much a part of a aircrafts performance as does raw thrust.

While I don't know what the operating temperatures are of the General Electric J79-GE-17A (used in the USAF F-4E) and the Rolls-Royce Spey202/204 (RAF F-4M), the data has the Rolls-Royce engines having more thrust and better fuel efficiency than that of the General Electric turbines.

I had not read anything of the VF-11MAXL's delta-wing assisting with fuel supply, though it is referenced in strengthening the fuselage. Also, delta-wing designs usually acquire a lifting-body effect on aerodynamics that usually assets in fuel efficiency of the craft.

---------------

Now, if the Project: Thunderbird craft's structure was strong enough to handle the FF-2099A turbines, the potential thrust/weight ratio could climb to 9.22. This would also allow it to reach Mach 15+ at 30,000+ m.

If fuel consumption is a issue, then the Super part's conformal propellant tanks could be used (in a similar fashion to those used by Roy Fokker on the VF-0S). It could also be argued (for operational costs) that using the FF-2099A with drop tanks would be cheaper than (the cost of fuel & manufacturing for) using boosters to achieve orbital status.

<<<=========>>>

While reading up on what I could on the VF-11MAXL, I noticed something. It is vague on how the overall frame was strengthened to tolerate the FF-2099A thermonuclear turbines.

They're vague on that subject in general... another instance of it being mentioned but not described in any detail would be on the VF-19EF Caliburn, which had to be reinforced to use the GU-17.

Which is why I often reference the tale of Mr. Douglas & his company's product, the DC-3.

The story goes that Mr. Douglas did not believe in the hype that the newest aluminum alloy was as strong as the technical sheets were saying without additional weight. So, he had his designers/engineers make the specifications/tolerances for the DC-3 with a grade lower aluminum. Though for the manufacturing, Mr. Douglas had the new alloy used in the construction of the DC-3.

Performance of the structure was greater than anticipated, and not a single DC-3 has had an accident/crash associated with main fuselage fatigue/failure, even with stronger engines used in the nearly 80 years of service.

Many designers/engineers have tried to facilitate this level of over-engineering, though management usually does not approve and has the items made with lesser materials (sometimes with fatal results).

I have assumed that their are different/stronger space-metal alloys in Macross, and the easiest way I feel to reinforcement/strengthened a structure is to use a better grade of that suits the needs.

We know that the VF-11MAXL needed reinforcements of the structure to facilitate for the FF-2099A turbines.

We also know the VF-171 EX utilizes engines that produce nearly fifty percent more thrust, though only 20% improvement in armor strength is mentioned.

<<<=========>>>

With regards to the FCS, navigation & sensor equipment, those usually are apart of Block updates for any series.

On electrical based systems, the Advanced Activate Stealth (since electronic-countermeasures is the closest equivalent we have in reality for understanding) updating/upgrading should be as simple as the Block modifications of the arrays.

Minor upgrades are... you don't usually drop a next-generation avionics package into the fighter and call it a block upgrade. That takes a lot of adaptation. Whether next-generation sensor systems would even fit is a whole other kettle of fish... the VF-19 radar, for instance, is QUITE large and the VF-25's is actually dependent on the shape and composition of the nosecone.

That is true, Seto Kaiba, although you overshot the point. Though, the fan-based units sketchley referenced do just that. If I recall correctly; the VF-11G was to utilizes a FCS, PPBS & virtual-screen cockpit-style equipment of the VF-19, while also using the FF-2100 turbines of the VF-17. Even back then, I considered that "outrageous."

Though back to subject, not all AVF-grade equipment comes from the VF-19 (though said craft set the bar high). In size comparison, it does seem that the arrangement of sensor equipment in the VF-19 is larger than the nose-cone of the VF-11. Although, who said that the exact same arrangement was going to be used? The VF-17 Nightmare equipments a dissimilar array in a smaller area, as an example.

The avionics systems are more for the flight controls, which would need a newer processor/software upgrade due to the change in turbines &/or vernier motors anyways.

On the FCS, other than needing the structure to handle the recoil from the gun-pod(3), it is needed to fire the latest missile ordnance, hence at least a software update.

WRT the active stealth system, that's probably more a case of sufficient generator output than anything else... you need to throw more power behind the active cancellation to defeat more powerful radars.

That is the conventional thinking, though not necessarily correct.

Ionizing the atmospheric molecules around the airframe can cause interference of radar waves before & after reflection from the craft, effectively negating a returning signal (several DARPA projects & patents on this technology). Though this would not work well (at all) in thinner atmosphere or in space.

Another developing active cancelation technology uses broadcast waves in an opposing oscillation to weaken/cancel the signal. This method does not need long-distance transmission capacity, or need to fully cancel the signal (overly weak radar waves are filtered out as 'noise' by the receiving a system).

DARPA also is developing a system that coordinates several smaller systems for a wider range of ECM coverage for a unit.

<<<=========>>>

In an earlier post on this thread, I believe Seto Kaiba stated that the PPBS used in the YF-19 consumes 60% of the two FF-2200B thermonuclear turbines output;

Electrical output... it's not at all clear what the exact relationship between a reaction engine's generator output and thrust output is. It's not helping that we only have generator outputs for two VF's... the VF-1 Valkyrie and VF-2SS Valkyrie II. For those, the output power to engine thrust relationship seems to be a linear progression, and if we knew the efficiency of the MHD systems in the engines it'd be possible to backtrack from maximum instantaneous output in space to a ballpark figure for generator output for the others if it's still linear for VF's in the main timeline.

We're still talking enormous amounts of power here... gigawatts, easily.

That's true, we don't know, so we are left with what we have. I had also noted the linear output ratio, though left it as thrust for lower numbers to crunch.

Of the Nightmare-line; I noticed that the VF-171's FF-2110A turbines have roughly 20% less output than the VF-17's FF-2100X, though they added both Active Stealth & PPBS to the Plus series & didn't mention any need for an energy storage system.

____________________________

1. http://unspacy.com/m2051_old/mecha/

2. http://macrosshare.blogspot.com/2013/03/games-rpg-macross-2050.html?m=1

3. I don't know the recoil stress difference between a 56mm (GU-17) & a 55mm (GU-11). If they are close enough, would that mean a VF-1 or VF-3000 with a FCS upgrade could use the GU-17?

Edited June 19, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Seto Kaiba]

I see. I'm curious, since the VF-17 series is rapidly becoming a favorite (My VF-171 is quickly becoming the Favorite among my collection), There has to be a reason why it's hung around so long (aside from the fact that it was cheaper or could be flown by a greater number of pilots), despite being eclipsed by higher performance fighters.

Well... the obvious, non-story reason for it is that Kawamori wanted something less main character-y for the Macross Frontier fleet's grunts than the VF-19 Excalibur, and settled on a simplified VF-17.

The in-story reason is vague and nebulous to say the least.

I suppose if you wanted to point to a distinct advantage of the VF-17 in-setting, it'd have to be that General Galaxy's VF-17 is on the low end of the AVF performance "band" without actually being an AVF itself. Its performance pushes the limit of human endurance without actually exceeding what a well-trained pilot can take... whereas the VF-19 and VF-22 both went so far that their excessively high performance caused the pilots to lose control of the aircraft. It also had respectable defensive capability without a barrier, and respectable stealth capability without the 3rd Generation active stealth of the first AVF generation.

In short, it's because the VF-17 might as well be sold as "I can't believe it's not AVF!".

Is there something about the design? In M7 Gamlin continues to fly his VF-17 even though (I'm sure he had the opportunity to upgrade) better fighter were becoming available to aces.

During the Macross 7 series' second half, Gamlin was still leading Diamond Force... and the trial lot of AVF's built by Three Star for the Macross-7 fleet was three VF-19's (Emerald Force) and two VF-22's (Max and Milia's). Not enough free planes to upgrade the entirety of Diamond Force, so they got to keep their VF-17's until a year or so later in Dynamite 7, when Gamlin finally got his VF-22S.

(Diamond Force was probably low-priority for upgrades after being seconded to the City-7 defenses.)

Also another thought, every variable fighter (with a few exceptions) has some sort of add on super parts, even if it is just additional armor or vernier thrusters. I don't see any reference material to the VF-171 having any until the VF-171EX. Were none developed until there was a need to boost the fighter's capability?

The Nightmare Plus had the Aegis Pack for the RVF-171, but yes... the VF-171 doesn't seem to have actually had a Super Pack of its own until the decision was made to enhance them for anti-Vajra use.

With both internalized armaments AND wing-mounted ordinance, the VF-171 probably shouldn't have needed a Super Pack in the normal course of affairs. It's already got the more efficient FF-2110A engines, so its need for additional propellant is minimal. It's also probably scaled back a bit because, at the time, the AIF-7S/QF-4000 Ghost was gradually taking over for manned fighters.

The VF-171 boasted improvements over the VF-17, in that it incorporated advancements from the VF-19 program, and some subsequent AVF programs, so was it deemed good enough for deployment without equipment packs for mission optimization?

By all accounts, the VF-171 was a highly versatile design that could easily be adapted to different operational roles with little in the way of modification... and that probably played a role in the absence of FAST packs.

[Seto Kaiba]

On fuel economy, I will admit I had not given though to that due to the usual range and capabilities associated with the VF craft in general. This is also the first time turbine temperatures has really been brought up in a discussion.

It's one of the acknowledged advantages of the delta wing configuration used on the VF-0C/D, VF-11MAXL, etc... you have more internal capacity for fuel and, if what's said about cooling on other models holds true, room for a larger coolant loop to dissipate heat from engine components that isn't being used to produce power.

I don't know if there is any hard data in the trivia about this matter, though I have noticed almost all thermonuclear engines are manufactured by Shinsei Industry/P&W/Roice, and majority of vernier motors produced via P&W.

There are a couple examples of engines made by Daimler and RR, or LAI, but yeah... Shinnakasu Heavy Industry seems to have a lock on the military's thermonuclear reaction engine contracts.

If fuel consumption is a issue, then the Super part's conformal propellant tanks could be used (in a similar fashion to those used by Roy Fokker on the VF-0S). It could also be argued (for operational costs) that using the FF-2099A with drop tanks would be cheaper than (the cost of fuel & manufacturing for) using boosters to achieve orbital status.

Conformal tanks on their own would probably be cheaper, yes... though the simplest way to go about it would be just enlarge the airframe for better internal tank capacity (e.g. the VF-11MAXL).

We also know the VF-171 EX utilizes engines that produce nearly fifty percent more thrust, though only 20% improvement in armor strength is mentioned.

That's because the improvements in armor strength are due to upgrades in the energy conversion armor system, not reinforcement of the airframe itself.

That is true, Seto Kaiba, although you overshot the point. Though, the fan-based units sketchley referenced do just that. If I recall correctly; the VF-11G was to utilizes a FCS, PPBS & virtual-screen cockpit-style equipment of the VF-19, while also using the FF-2100 turbines of the VF-17. Even back then, I considered that "outrageous."

I'm sure I could find worse among the stuff I've written on request for various RPGs and MUSHes.

Though back to subject, not all AVF-grade equipment comes from the VF-19 (though said craft set the bar high). In size comparison, it does seem that the arrangement of sensor equipment in the VF-19 is larger than the nose-cone of the VF-11. Although, who said that the exact same arrangement was going to be used? The VF-17 Nightmare equipments a dissimilar array in a smaller area, as an example.

As the dethroned "next main fighter", the VF-19 tends to be the go-to source for AVF upgrade parts... though we know little about what the configuration of the VF-17's radar system is. The AVF-tier radars and other composite sensor systems we know about in official or semi-official sources suggest they probably wouldn't fit inside a smaller airframe without compromises elsewhere (like an elongated nose, e.g. the VF-171, which adversely affected stealth).

Of the Nightmare-line; I noticed that the VF-171's FF-2110A turbines have roughly 20% less output than the VF-17's FF-2100X, though they added both Active Stealth & PPBS to the Plus series & didn't mention any need for an energy storage system.

Yes, the VF-171 Nightmare Plus uses a detuned version of the VF-17's burst turbine engines in its "stock" configuration for cost reduction, but as discussed earlier, that doesn't necessarily translate into reduced generator output. The engine may simply be design-limited to reserve more of its reactor output for onboard systems instead of thrust production.

Either way, it's still using the more efficient thermonuclear reaction burst turbine technology... so it's at least in the same category, power-wise, as the VF-19 or VF-22's engines.

(Also remember that, with its coolant limitations on thrust production, the FF-2450 used on the VF-22 had comparable output to a FF-2110 but more than enough power for active stealth and a pinpoint barrier as well.)

3. I don't know the recoil stress difference between a 56mm (GU-17) & a 55mm (GU-11). If they are close enough, would that mean a VF-1 or VF-3000 with a FCS upgrade could use the GU-17?

The difference should be fairly significant... the VF-19 is said to have needed structural reinforcement to use the GU-17, and it was much more robust than the VF-1 or VF-3000.

(If we look to Master File, the difference isn't just 3mm in shell diameter... 58mm vs 55mm... it's also 2km/s in muzzle velocity.)

Edited June 19, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[JB0]

That is the conventional thinking, though not necessarily correct.

Ionizing the atmospheric molecules around the airframe can cause interference of radar waves before & after reflection from the craft, effectively negating a returning signal (several DARPA projects & patents on this technology). Though this would not work well (at all) in thinner atmosphere or in space.

And since it won't work in space, it's not really viable for a Valk.

Another developing active cancelation technology uses broadcast waves in an opposing oscillation to weaken/cancel the signal. This method does not need long-distance transmission capacity, or need to fully cancel the signal (overly weak radar waves are filtered out as 'noise' by the receiving a system).

Two problems...

1. It has to be directional, so the Valk needs a lot of small antennae for the cancellation mechanism. And with a small antenna fighting a large antenna, you're gonna have to make up the difference with raw power.

2. While it's true that this works well for modern RADAR systems, the future RADAR systems of Macross are vastly more powerful, and almost certainly far better at filtering out noise while still picking up attenuated signals.

So you still need a butt-ton of power.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Another developing active cancelation technology uses broadcast waves in an opposing oscillation to weaken/cancel the signal. This method does not need long-distance transmission capacity, or need to fully cancel the signal (overly weak radar waves are filtered out as 'noise' by the receiving a system).

Two problems...

1. It has to be directional, so the Valk needs a lot of small antennae for the cancellation mechanism. And with a small antenna fighting a large antenna, you're gonna have to make up the difference with raw power.

2. While it's true that this works well for modern RADAR systems, the future RADAR systems of Macross are vastly more powerful, and almost certainly far better at filtering out noise while still picking up attenuated signals.

So you still need a butt-ton of power.

I don't know about fighter radar, but with weather radar, if the receiver picks up returning waves it attenuates the signal to appear closer than it is. It's not going to cancel it out entirely, just confuse the radar system into thinking there are more returns or that the return is closer than it actually is (I have no reason to believe that a fighter's radar is any different than a weather radar in this regard, radar theory is radar theory). This already exists, in the form of ECM pods. You're just talking about it being a built in capability.

I'm with JB0 on this one, and besides, if you did a passive scan, for it, you'd have a neon bullseye on your ship. More likely the active stealth system ionizes the material itself or a material layer, causing the ship to either absorb the radar waves, or to attenuate them and refract them. We don't really know (unless Seto has it in a master file book or other source somewhere) exactly how the Active stealth systems are supposed to work. It could be as I said, or it could generate an electromagnetic field or something.

[Seto Kaiba]

I'm with JB0 on this one, and besides, if you did a passive scan, for it, you'd have a neon bullseye on your ship. More likely the active stealth system ionizes the material itself or a material layer, causing the ship to either absorb the radar waves, or to attenuate them and refract them. We don't really know (unless Seto has it in a master file book or other source somewhere) exactly how the Active stealth systems are supposed to work. It could be as I said, or it could generate an electromagnetic field or something.

All told, the available descriptions of the Macross universe's active stealth technology I've found point to it being an ECM-based active stealth system which uses destructive interference to mask the fighter's presence by zeroing the returning radar wave.

Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie's second volume has some brief mentions of the UN Forces having to make post-war adjustments to the VF-1 active stealth system to improve its effectiveness against Zentradi radar systems, because they use different frequencies, modulations, and search patterns from what human-built radars do.

[GuardianGrey]

On fuel economy, I will admit I had not given though to that due to the usual range and capabilities associated with the VF craft in general. This is also the first time turbine temperatures has really been brought up in a discussion.

It's one of the acknowledged advantages of the delta wing configuration used on the VF-0C/D, VF-11MAXL, etc... you have more internal capacity for fuel and, if what's said about cooling on other models holds true, room for a larger coolant loop to dissipate heat from engine components that isn't being used to produce power.

The coolant loop, that sounds like Battletech's dissipation rules for LAMs heat sinks in the wings, which makes sense.

If fuel consumption is a issue, then the Super part's conformal propellant tanks could be used (in a similar fashion to those used by Roy Fokker on the VF-0S). It could also be argued (for operational costs) that using the FF-2099A with drop tanks would be cheaper than (the cost of fuel & manufacturing for) cusing boosters to achieve orbital status.

Conformal tanks on their own would probably be cheaper, yes... though the simplest way to go about it would be just enlarge the airframe for better internal tank capacity (e.g. the VF-11MAXL).

That seems true enough, though without a single set of specifications and regaled to reserve units did not aid in much.

With the data from Project M Special Technologies Group, Project: Thunderbird's YF-11E/MAXL configuration seems to fit all the minimum requirements for an AVF craft. While using the turbines from the VF-16 & the P&W HMM-7Y verniers give it superior speed and maneuvering over the Thunderbolt, though not at a intensity that a good pilot cannot handle.

We also know the VF-171 EX utilizes engines that produce nearly fifty percent more thrust, though only 20% improvement in armor strength is mentioned.

That's because the improvements in armor strength are due to upgrades in the energy conversion armor system, not reinforcement of the airframe itself.

Which the ANIME point I was trying to make is missed.

The VF-11 needed frame reinforcements in the MAXL when equipping the FF-2099A, which had about 45% more thrust than the FF-2025G.

The VF-171 EX's FF-2550F turbines (used in the VF-19F-Kai) produces roughly 50% more thrust than the FF-2110A engines.

Even if the redesign for the Nightmare Plus didn't weaken the legs/engine area of the original frame design of the VF-17, the turbines still generate over 20% thrust more than the original FF-2100X, with no reference about structure reinforcements needed.

Though back to subject, not all AVF-grade equipment comes from the VF-19 (though said craft set the bar high). In size comparison, it does seem that the arrangement of sensor equipment in the VF-19 is larger than the nose-cone of the VF-11. Although, who said that the exact same arrangement was going to be used? The VF-17 Nightmare equipments a dissimilar array in a smaller area, as an example.

As the dethroned "next main fighter", the VF-19 tends to be the go-to source for AVF upgrade parts... though we know little about what the configuration of the VF-17's radar system is. The AVF-tier radars and other composite sensor systems we know about in official or semi-official sources suggest they probably wouldn't fit inside a smaller airframe without compromises elsewhere (like an elongated nose, e.g. the VF-171, which adversely affected stealth).

I can see the points of reference you have made with the VF-171 & VF-25, Seto Kaiba. With the other changes to the Nightmare Plus, it would affect the passive stealth resulting in the need for the active system.

Although, the nose-cone is not the only place in which sensors can be installed. The wings have also been used, and we do see that in reality with the EA-18G Growler & in cannon with the VEFR-1(VF-1G).

With the larger wings of the MAXL configuration, this should be easy to accomplish with space for fuel and active stealth emitter arrangements.

Of the Nightmare-line; I noticed that the VF-171's FF-2110A turbines have roughly 20% less output than the VF-17's FF-2100X, though they added both Active Stealth & PPBS to the Plus series & didn't mention any need for an energy storage system.

Yes, the VF-171 Nightmare Plus uses a detuned version of the VF-17's burst turbine engines in its "stock" configuration for cost reduction, but as discussed earlier, that doesn't necessarily translate into reduced generator output. The engine may simply be design-limited to reserve more of its reactor output for onboard systems instead of thrust production.

Either way, it's still using the more efficient thermonuclear reaction burst turbine technology... so it's at least in the same category, power-wise, as the VF-19 or VF-22's engines.

(Also remember that, with its coolant limitations on thrust production, the FF-2450 used on the VF-22 had comparable output to a FF-2110 but more than enough power for active stealth and a pinpoint barrier as well.)

I think I am starting to see your point...

T + E = R

T = Percentage of Thrust Output

E = Quantity of Electrical Production

R = Reactor Capacity

Since JBO (and other sources) mentioned that the reactor's electrical production increases with the decrease in thrust output in battriod mode, hence the ability for capacitor charging to be used at a later time (PPBS or the "Mighty Wing mode").

The logic with this would be limit the maximum thrust potential from the reactor to allow greater electrical production. This makes sense, with the above equation, to make a turbine with more electrical output than thrust.

____________________

With the Project: Thunderbird (YF-11E & YF-11E/MAXL) craft upgrades, I was trying to outline how the 3rd generation VF-11 Thunderbolt-line could be improved with AVF-style technology, though not directly compete with the AVF (effectively a 3.5 generation like the VF-17).

The evolution of the F-5E/F Tiger to the F-20 Tigershark is mirrored in cannon with the VF-17/VF-171 Nightmare-line (a 3.5 generation VF made easier to fly/maintain/manufacture).

The F-15's evolution from the McDonnall-Douglas to the Boeing design is also mimicked, when the VF-171 Nightmare Plus series integrated systems from Shinsei Industry and higher output turbines than the original VF-17 (in effect, making it a 4th generation VF).

Edited June 22, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Seto Kaiba]

The coolant loop, that sounds like Battletech's dissipation rules for LAMs heat sinks in the wings, which makes sense.

Well, the waste heat has to go somewhere... and in most cases the wing is the largest contiguous surface on a Valkyrie, and thus an ideal radiator surface for that waste heat when not in combat. (As noted on the VF-25.)

Which the ANIME point I was trying to make is missed.

The VF-11 needed frame reinforcements in the MAXL when equipping the FF-2099A, which had about 45% more thrust than the FF-2025G.

The VF-171 EX's FF-2550F turbines (used in the VF-19F-Kai) produces roughly 50% more thrust than the FF-2110A engines.

Even if the redesign for the Nightmare Plus didn't weaken the legs/engine area of the original frame design of the VF-17, the turbines still generate over 20% thrust more than the original FF-2100X, with no reference about structure reinforcements needed.

Er... just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean it's an inconsistency, my friend.

As noted in Macross Chronicle¹, the VF-171 Nightmare Plus used by the Macross Frontier fleet were (effectively) detuned models operating at well below the airframe's design limit in the name of reducing costs and improving handling. It was designed with the structural strength to support a much more powerful engine, and is noted as being both more durable and having comprehensive performance superior to that of the VF-17. The (still comparatively detuned) FF-2550F engines the VF-171EX was fitted with are noted² as having loaded the airframe right to the limits of its structural strength.

By contrast, the VF-11 was designed in a much earlier era... when the kind of thrust even the detuned FF-2110A produces could only be achieved by a "brute force" approach of simply building bigger, thirstier engines. I'm certain the airframe was, like others, designed with leeway for reasonable improvements in engine technology like those seen on the VF-1 or VF-4... but they probably didn't anticipate that, a decade or so after finalizing the design, there'd be a quantum leap in engine technology that'd just about double the potential output of a thermonuclear reaction turbine.

In short, the VF-171 didn't need reinforcement to adopt the more powerful engines because the airframe was designed to take a more powerful engine than it ended up using... while the VF-11 needed reinforcement because it was designed for the outputs of engines available when it was built, and used those engines to the max.

Although, the nose-cone is not the only place in which sensors can be installed. The wings have also been used, and we do see that in reality with the EA-18G Growler & in cannon with the VEFR-1(VF-1G).

As a point of order, there are already sensors all over the airframe on regular VF's... even moreso on AVFs.

I think I am starting to see your point...

T + E = R

T = Percentage of Thrust Output

E = Quantity of Electrical Production

R = Reactor Capacity

Since JBO (and other sources) mentioned that the reactor's electrical production increases with the decrease in thrust output in battriod mode, hence the ability for capacitor charging to be used at a later time (PPBS or the "Mighty Wing mode").

Yep... that's what we've been saying. On a thermonuclear reaction turbine engine, the production of thrust is a function of energy losses at the generator stage. Plasma, heat, and power are bled off the reactor to heat intake air and/or run the MHD plasma ion engine, which means less power is available for other systems.

With FAST packs, it's also possible they could be utilizing the thermonuclear reaction turbines at a lower level and relying more on rocket boosters to provide more generator support for things like the capacitor banks in the APS-25 Armored Pack... though newer craft using Stage II reaction turbine engines have a greater energy surplus at maximum thrust than previous generations, which is responsible for their ability to use light energy conversion armor in fighter mode (and probably helps fill the demand for power from capacitor banks in FAST packs).

The logic with this would be limit the maximum thrust potential from the reactor to allow greater electrical production. This makes sense, with the above equation, to make a turbine with more electrical output than thrust.

So... using a detuned engine to preserve AVF technical functionality at lower levels of performance.

That sounds very familiar.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Macross Chronicle Macross Frontier mechanic sheet NUNS 02A "VF-171 Nightmare Plus"

2. Macross Chronicle Macross Frontier mechanic sheet NUNS 03A "VF-171EX Nightmare Plus EX"

Edited June 22, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[Valkyrie Driver]

Guardian Grey, Which LAM is that? As for the point on cooling, Seto's correct, you have to shunt waste heat somewhere, and anywhere but the cockpit (ala BattleTech, which I always thought was silly) is preferable.

[GuardianGrey]

Guardian Grey, Which LAM is that?

It is the S-PW-1LAM Pwwkt, a Word of Blake LAM based off their Spectre-series of aerospace-fighters. In the Jihad era (3065-81), this was the new light (30 ton) LAM. The battlemech mode reminds me of the classic VF layout.

This is the Waneta (S-WN-2LAM), a 55 ton unit with twin LRM-15 launchers.

Other than the possible use of VDNI (Vehicular Direct Neural Interface) system & Clan-tech weapons, the WoB LAMs are only marginal better than the Star-League versions.

For comparison of realities, the Word of Blake was attempting to achieve 4th/5th gen Heavy Battriod VF performance while limited to second generation equipment/materials/technology.

Edited June 27, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Valkyrie Driver]

I had never seen the Fighter/AirMech mode of the spectral series. And that's a pretty good comparison you did there on the realities. I'm an old school Battletech guy, I don't much go into the Jihad era (I haven't made it that far into the books, I got to the FedCom Civil war and pretty much lost it).

Interesting to mention that though as it was BattleTech that got me into Macross (Warhammer was my favorite mech, come to find out it came from Macross via Robotech).

Back to the Macross , as this isn't the Off topic forum.

[GuardianGrey]

Somehow double posted

Edited July 17, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[GuardianGrey]

I had never seen the Fighter/AirMech mode of the spectral series. And that's a pretty good comparison you did there on the realities. I'm an old school Battletech guy, I don't much go into the Jihad era (I haven't made it that far into the books, I got to the FedCom Civil war and pretty much lost it).

I have access to the newer Battletech books (not novels) due to Catalyst Game Labs being a customer of my employer (an independent book bindery). Above is the redesigned AirMech mode of the Phoenix Hawk LAM that appears in the Techbook 3085.

Interesting to mention that though as it was BattleTech that got me into Macross (Warhammer was my favorite mech, come to find out it came from Macross via Robotech).

I knew a many war-gamers that liked the Warhammer/Tomahawk design/layout. Always made me wonder why Destriods (which are supposedly cheaper) are not seen more often as sentries in the Macross continuum.

Back to the Macross , as this isn't the Off topic forum.

Quite true, and agreed...

<<<=========>>>

Well, the waste heat has to go somewhere... and in most cases the wing is the largest contiguous surface on a Valkyrie, and thus an ideal radiator surface for that waste heat when not in combat. (As noted on the VF-25.)

True, though delayed/timed bleed-off of heat has its own issues, and potentials.

Even with the lower temperatures of "cold fusion" (if applicable, or normal nuclear reactions) and the difference of that in orbital atmosphere (or higher) could (theoretically) allow some electricity to be generated via a thermocouple system.

Though, to my understanding, this is not discussed as an auxiliary power source for any system utilization.

As noted in Macross Chronicle, the VF-171 Nightmare Plus used by the Macross Frontier fleet were (effectively) detuned models operating at well below the airframe's design limit in the name of reducing costs and improving handling. It was designed with the structural strength to support a much more powerful engine, and is noted as being both more durable and having comprehensive performance superior to that of the VF-17. The (still comparatively detuned) FF-2550F engines the VF-171EX was fitted with are noted as having loaded the airframe right to the limits of its structural strength.

I do not mean to cite a criticism; your referencing to the Macross Chronicle (though it is the main cannon of information) is aggravating when others (like myself) for whatever reason either do not have access to the publication &/or cannot read Japanese. Now, I shall move on.

Yes, the VF-171 is an economically redesign (I prefer this terminology over 'detuned') version of the VF-17.

The nose/cockpit (according to cannon & earlier posts) was altered/elongated to have better visibility for the pilot & sensors.

This we can see in the art, although the statistical length in fighter-mode is less than an inch longer, and the EX series is shorter than the original Nightmares.

So, with this said, there is conflicting/inconsistent data that can affect the ability to judge the size of AVF sensor arrays.

The engine/leg units, arms & wings were also redesigned; which is cannon, although to me it's like saying the 1967 & 2007 Shelby Mustangs are the same (of course, they are not).

With the wings and vernier motors alterations, I can see for increasing maneuvering, of which I have no conflict.

The redesign of the arms I see as a necessity with the decision to remove the co-axial beam guns. While I would disagree with the removal, the subsequent elimination of the space for does make sense if the systems are not going to be there.

On the modifications to the engine/leg units, this is were I did have conflict/issues with.

The reactor of the FF-2110A thermonuclear turbine may have the same output as the FF-2100X, though less of that potential is dedicated to thrust.

Though this is were the economical redesign can get "ugly" in order to save money with materials (since the area should be under less stress due to the engines producing lower physical thrust), a less stressed design may have been used redesign of.

Though, due to the following & the fact I feel that the Plus-series was suppose to have the FF-2100X originally, I will disengage from this part of the debate.

This then leads to the VF-171's mass gain over the original Nightmare-series.

We don't know how much weight savings we have with the removal of the arm guns, or the addition with the active stealth, fighter-scale PPB, flight-control & AVF sensor systems.

By contrast, the VF-11 was designed in a much earlier era... when the kind of thrust even the detuned FF-2110A produces could only be achieved by a "brute force" approach of simply building bigger, thirstier engines. I'm certain the airframe was, like others, designed with leeway for reasonable improvements in engine technology like those seen on the VF-1 or VF-4... but they probably didn't anticipate that, a decade or so after finalizing the design, there'd be a quantum leap in engine technology that'd just about double the potential output of a thermonuclear reaction turbine.

A few good debate points, Seto Kaiba, although their could have been as many issues with the economic redesign of the Nightmare-series as there would be to upgrade the Thunderbolt-lseries, after the MAXL-unit development.

Though on the "bigger, thirstier engines," comments, I am conflicted.

Yes, the Burst/Stage II thermonuclear turbines may have nearly double the reactor potential, while being more efficient (in mass/space & economy).

They were used in the VF-16, VF-17, AVF, 5th generation & newer VF designs.

Which leads the FF-2099A (originally trailed in the VF-16) having about 45% additional thrust output over the FF-2025G (needing structural redesign/reinforcements for the VF-11MAXL), though it is unclear/unknown how efficient with fuel consumption the Burst/Stage II turbines are.

With the mass of a VF-25 being comparable to a VF-11, and the FF-3001 engines producing over twice the physical thrust of the 2099A series, with there seeming to be no concerns over fuel usage.

I understand that I am comparing (in Macross) roughly two to three decades of technical advancements; though the point is that if the Burst/Stage II turbines are so great, then why couldn't a VF-11C/D with the MAXL refinements be able to operate with normal fuel capacity?

Though, in the cannon of Macross, these engineering complications are not usually noted.

The exceptions to this is with newer technologies; the YF/VF-19 being difficult to operate, the BDI feedback due to emotional spikes & the near fatal failure of the ISC system.

In short, the VF-171 didn't need reinforcement to adopt the more powerful engines because the airframe was designed to take a more powerful engine than it ended up using...

While the modified FF-2550F used in the VF-171 EX has a moderate (>20%) improvement of thrust than the FF-2100A, which if the Plus-units may have been designed to facilitate (though budget did not allow them to) would be compatible to the difference between the FF-2025G/S turbines for the Thunderbolt-series.

while the VF-11 needed reinforcement because it was designed for the outputs of engines available when it was built, and used those engines to the max.

That is true; with the production of MAXL for reserve units, it shows that they have identified the weakness and addressed it from the original design for manufacturing, even if it is in limited fashion.

The question though is something that has (to the best of my knowledge) no answer in cannon.

If they did all the research to produce the VF-11MAXL with the better performance, why was it not adopted for wider production & deployment?

Yep... that's what we've been saying. On a thermonuclear reaction turbine engine, the production of thrust is a function of energy losses at the generator stage. Plasma, heat, and power are bled off the reactor to heat intake air and/or run the MHD plasma ion engine, which means less power is available for other systems.

On the FF-2550F turbines, I will agree is "detuned," for the thrust limiters on the Nightmare Plus EX for this reason, with it only produce roughly 75% of the numbers for the thrust used in the VF-19(F)-Kai.

With FAST packs, it's also possible they could be utilizing the thermonuclear reaction turbines at a lower level and relying more on rocket boosters to provide more generator support for things like the capacitor banks in the APS-25 Armored Pack...

Which I strongly believe...

though newer craft using Stage II reaction turbine engines have a greater energy surplus at maximum thrust than previous generations, which is responsible for their ability to use light energy conversion armor in fighter mode (and probably helps fill the demand for power from capacitor banks in FAST packs).

On this, I have my doubts.

Even with two Burst/Stage II reactors higher output potential, in reality they would not make much of a difference unless the VF is not highly active.

In fighter-mode, without the pack-systems, they can't by themselves have full ECA or any PPBS protection. Even with additional equipment (topping off the capacitors would mean drawing from the main unit), the output of the main engines do not change, which could/would tax the already very limited surplus of.

Ever if one considers the capacitor system as surplus energy for the VF-25; once the fur-ball starts, you're on borrowed time.

The pilot will/would be pushing the craft to the limits, and even if the PPBS is not active, the energy draining ECA would most likely be.

Most of the combat is in fighter-mode, so the surplus possible from the unit in battriod is mostly negated.

In battriod-mode without the additional equipment, the PPBS is limited in its applicational areas (hands/knife/shield) when active, so it is logical that a secondary system of is used with the Armored system for the whole unit coverage (if the main system is powered down during said time is not clear) though seems to use more power than the main.

For the Armored system we also have the power drain/draw due to the use of the beam weapons.

In short (though thankfully not in the series) in theory as it seems, it should be plausible to deplete the capacitor system fully while in combat (reference the Gundam Destiny). Which could be classified as a fatal error.

So... using a detuned engine to preserve AVF technical functionality at lower levels of performance.

That sounds very familiar.

Though, it brings up a conflict of information.

The VF-16 supposedly used Burst thermonuclear turbines, which are believed to have have higher reactor potential over other engines.

Both the FF-2099A & FF-3600J were supposedly used in the VF-16 (& later in the VF-11MAXL), and therefore are Burst/Stage II turbines.

The 2099A reportedly produced roughly 40% more physical thrust than the 3600J, yet it seems the latter has also less electrical potential with the battery needed for the PPBS in the VF-11C-Kai Thunderbolt Interceptor.

Edited July 17, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Seto Kaiba]

I do not mean to cite a criticism; your referencing to the Macross Chronicle (though it is the main cannon of information) is aggravating when others (like myself) for whatever reason either do not have access to the publication &/or cannot read Japanese. Now, I shall move on.

I fear I may become a perpetual source of aggrivation... as I'm not about to stop citing sources in favor of guessing wildly. It's just not my style.

The nose/cockpit (according to cannon & earlier posts) was altered/elongated to have better visibility for the pilot & sensors.

This we can see in the art, although the statistical length in fighter-mode is less than an inch longer, and the EX series is shorter than the original Nightmares.

So, with this said, there is conflicting/inconsistent data that can affect the ability to judge the size of AVF sensor arrays.

Eh... actually, there's a straightforward explanation for that difference in length. The VF-171EX's nose section changed shape (the nose tips down slightly) to make room for the improved visibility of the "bubble" canopy. The reduction in length is due to that minor change in angle, the nose is otherwise pretty much the same dimensions. It's hard to tell in the animation, but looking at the art or physical models of the craft makes it very easy to spot.

The redesign of the arms I see as a necessity with the decision to remove the co-axial beam guns. While I would disagree with the removal, the subsequent elimination of the space for does make sense if the systems are not going to be there.

Officially, the redesign of the arms to remove the bi-directional beam cannons was not an end in and of itself... it was a necessity of the simplified transformation.

A few good debate points, Seto Kaiba, although their could have been as many issues with the economic redesign of the Nightmare-series as there would be to upgrade the Thunderbolt-lseries, after the MAXL-unit development.

As noted previously, the path would've been considerably smoother starting from the VF-17 than the VF-11 in light of the fact that the VF-17's design was already stressed for an AVF-tier engine and was renowned for its exceptional durability and defensive ability. In the redesign process, they wouldn't have to reevaluate every aspect of the design to see if it would stand up under considerably greater stresses than it was originally designed for.

Though on the "bigger, thirstier engines," comments, I am conflicted.

Yes, the Burst/Stage II thermonuclear turbines may have nearly double the reactor potential, while being more efficient (in mass/space & economy).

They were used in the VF-16, VF-17, AVF, 5th generation & newer VF designs.

At the time the VF-11 Thunderbolt was developed, thermonuclear reaction burst turbines were still a ways off... so the only way to achieve a similar thrust rating to an AVF would be to build an excessively large and consequentially fuel-intensive engine, scaling up output by scaling up input.

With the mass of a VF-25 being comparable to a VF-11, and the FF-3001 engines producing over twice the physical thrust of the 2099A series, with there seeming to be no concerns over fuel usage.

I understand that I am comparing (in Macross) roughly two to three decades of technical advancements; though the point is that if the Burst/Stage II turbines are so great, then why couldn't a VF-11C/D with the MAXL refinements be able to operate with normal fuel capacity?

You're missing a crucial difference here... possibly the most obvious crucial difference of all.

SIZE.

The VF-11 and VF-25 may have roughly similar masses due to improvements in materials and design, but the VF-25 is SUBSTANTIALLY larger. Not only does it have more efficient and powerful engines, it also has a good deal more internal space in which to store fuel. The same can be said for every other AVF which has shown up thus far.

(Size is a noted asset for the nearest neighbor to AVF territory before the VF-17, and the VFs that've been upgraded to AVF levels... the VF-14 is even bigger than a VF-17, and the VF-0 and SV-51 are some of the biggest VFs ever built.)

That is true; with the production of MAXL for reserve units, it shows that they have identified the weakness and addressed it from the original design for manufacturing, even if it is in limited fashion.

VERY limited... the MAXL is a build-to-order aircraft, supposedly only a dozen or so made and no two truly alike.

The question though is something that has (to the best of my knowledge) no answer in cannon.

If they did all the research to produce the VF-11MAXL with the better performance, why was it not adopted for wider production & deployment?

's probably a question of cost and availabilities... with the Special Forces already using the VF-17 and the VF-19 tentatively penciled in as a successor craft, why bother upgrading the VF-11's to MAXL status? For most pilots, the regular variant is more than sufficient and for those who need more powerful craft, just give them the latest toys that are scheduled for mass production.

The VF-16 supposedly used Burst thermonuclear turbines, which are believed to have have higher reactor potential over other engines.

Both the FF-2099A & FF-3600J were supposedly used in the VF-16 (& later in the VF-11MAXL), and therefore are Burst/Stage II turbines.

There are several known typographical errors in Macross the Ride. The FF-3600J number is one. The printed stats block for the SV-52 also asserts that the VF-17 uses the FF-2010X, rather than 2100X.

[JB0]

True, though delayed/timed bleed-off of heat has its own issues, and potentials.

Even with the lower temperatures of "cold fusion" (if applicable, or normal nuclear reactions) and the difference of that in orbital atmosphere (or higher) could (theoretically) allow some electricity to be generated via a thermocouple system.

Though, to my understanding, this is not discussed as an auxiliary power source for any system utilization.

It should be noted that heat is also disposed of through propulsion. I assume quite a large bit of otherwise waste heat is going out the back along with reaction mass.

[sketchley]

I do not mean to cite a criticism; your referencing to the Macross Chronicle (though it is the main cannon of information) is aggravating when others (like myself) for whatever reason either do not have access to the publication &/or cannot read Japanese. Now, I shall move on.

http://www.monkeybacon.host-ed.me/MCindex.php

There you go. Links with a lot of the content translated into English.

[Seto Kaiba]

It should be noted that heat is also disposed of through propulsion. I assume quite a large bit of otherwise waste heat is going out the back along with reaction mass.

That's heat from the reaction itself though, not from the coolant loops keeping the core at a safe temperature or the other systems in line.

[JB0]

That's heat from the reaction itself though, not from the coolant loops keeping the core at a safe temperature or the other systems in line.

It still reduces the burden on everything else, though. Pulling heat out at the "root" means less heat is going into everything else.

At least, that was my thinking.

[Valkyrie Driver]

http://www.monkeybacon.host-ed.me/MCindex.php

There you go. Links with a lot of the content translated into English.

You are a scholar and a gentleman Sketchley. Well done.

[grigolosi]

As far as heat dissipation goes, a logical area to dissipate heat into would be the integral fuel tanks. Especially if the hydrogen slush used is kept at sub-zero temps due to the nature of liquid hydrogen. This would also provide a means to raise the temperature of the reaction fuel for even and precise dispersal into the reactor and atomizing the fuel from the spray bars into the AB while operating in the atmosphere. Modern aircraft also use the fuel cells to absorb heat from the engines by placing the fuel cells directly over the "hot areas" of the engine (the F-16 design uses this) also with any type of jet engine you will have to have a lubrication system for the fan/compression/turbine shaft. Again in modern aircraft the fuel system comes into play. The engine oil and hydraulic fluid are sent through a FOHE (fuel oil heat exchanger) for cooling. This heat exchanger is located within a fuel cell. I have looked at the cutaway on the VF-1 and the mass reactant tank is located directly over the combustion section of the turbine which would be a logical location.

[JB0]

As far as heat dissipation goes, a logical area to dissipate heat into would be the integral fuel tanks. Especially if the hydrogen slush used is kept at sub-zero temps due to the nature of liquid hydrogen. This would also provide a means to raise the temperature of the reaction fuel for even and precise dispersal into the reactor and atomizing the fuel from the spray bars into the AB while operating in the atmosphere. Modern aircraft also use the fuel cells to absorb heat from the engines by placing the fuel cells directly over the "hot areas" of the engine (the F-16 design uses this) also with any type of jet engine you will have to have a lubrication system for the fan/compression/turbine shaft. Again in modern aircraft the fuel system comes into play. The engine oil and hydraulic fluid are sent through a FOHE (fuel oil heat exchanger) for cooling. This heat exchanger is located within a fuel cell. I have looked at the cutaway on the VF-1 and the mass reactant tank is located directly over the combustion section of the turbine which would be a logical location.

This is also a common practice in liquid-fueled rocket engines.

Run the fuel/oxidizer lines around the combustion chamber, use the arrangement to both keep the cryogenic lines from icing up(regardless if the fuel is cryogenic, liquid oxygen is still the best oxidizer that doesn't hate civilization*) and cool the combustion chamber at the same time.

*Fluorine is an even better oxidizer, and chlorine trifluoride is EVEN BETTER STILL. Also highly toxic, highly volatile, and can cause such traditionally fireproof substances as metal, concrete, brick, and ash to spontaneously erupt into flames/explode violently on contact. So we wisely use pure oxygen instead, since it is so meek and docile by contrast.

[grigolosi]

I can't imagine the heat produced by the subsystems of a VF. On our current aircraft heat dissipation is issue. The Blk 60 F-16 has 2 ECS packages in it to deal with cooling the avionics and radar now. Couple that with flying low level training missions here in in the summer with an engine that puts out 32,000 lbs of thrust, the aircraft gets extremely hot. So much so you have to wear gloves to touch the surface especially around the engine section. The pilots have actually burned their hands on the canopy when they have touched it flying these missions. All the heat from the internal systems gets dumped through ECS exhaust on both sides of the fuselage but that system works off of both ram air and bleed air from the engine. It is run through a heat exchanger, cooled, run through the various compartments back to the heat exhanger where it is dumped overboard. What is wild is that up in Alaska when the jets fly in the middle of winter the engine intake are like meat lockers even right after shutdown. the blades are so cold you have to use gloves or you will get a cold burn from them. The rest of the engine feels like it was never run either. The heat buildup/dissipation correlates directly to the environmental temperature the aircraft operates in as far turbine engines go.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yeah, The heat that a VF would create is pretty hard to fathom. Though if your fuel is a cryogenic agent it seems like using engine heat in a pre-injector stage to expand the fuel would be an efficient use of it.

I would also tend to think that you'd use waste heat to prevent ice build up in winter or in the frozen zones. Use bleed heat for wing and engine de-icing.

[Mr March]

Heat is such a major technical hurdle to overcome that most science fiction properties ignore the issue altogther, never even acknowledging how it's dealt with in relation to all this high-energy technology. I've seen heat management systems mentioned in technical specifications and mechanical diagrams to make all the science fiction of a given property "feel real" (like in the Star Trek and Star Wars technical publications), but no more than a token passage. As far as I know, Battletech/Mechwarrior is the only well-known and popular sci-fi franchise to make the problem of waste heat one of the major aspects of their world building, and that was only because originally they wanted heat to act as a gameplay balancer for their tabletop system.

In all my work with the Macross trivia, I've barely seen mention of heat management technology and almost no mention of anything to do with heat. Only exceptions are when heat serves as some kind of limitation on a technology the writers don't want to get out of hand. The Master File books may mention more, but given how much of the MF books are populated by uninsightful fluff, I doubt it there's any inspired creativity with regards to heat management included within their pages. But I do hope I'm wrong.

[grigolosi]

The Master File for the VF-25 indicates that the sub inlet above the main engine intake is for heat exchange through the use of boundary air. That is the only term of heat exchange I have seen on the 25.

[Seto Kaiba]

As far as heat dissipation goes, a logical area to dissipate heat into would be the integral fuel tanks.

You can't do that with a lot of heat... it works for rocket motors, but we're talking about a pair of thermonuclear reactors here.

Yeah, The heat that a VF would create is pretty hard to fathom. Though if your fuel is a cryogenic agent it seems like using engine heat in a pre-injector stage to expand the fuel would be an efficient use of it.

I would also tend to think that you'd use waste heat to prevent ice build up in winter or in the frozen zones. Use bleed heat for wing and engine de-icing.

That's a clever alternate use for the wing heat sinks... probably not a common usage, since most VF's are operating in space or in the relatively temperate regions of inhabited planets where human settlements are raised.

Heat is such a major technical hurdle to overcome that most science fiction properties ignore the issue altogther, never even acknowledging how it's dealt with in relation to all this high-energy technology.

Many do ignore the issue... though a lot of the ones that put serious thought into how the technology works do manage to throw an acknowledgement to addressing it somewhere in their work. (e.g. Macross, Gundam, Star Trek, Five Star Stories, Full Metal Panic!)

In all my work with the Macross trivia, I've barely seen mention of heat management technology and almost no mention of anything to do with heat. Only exceptions are when heat serves as some kind of limitation on a technology the writers don't want to get out of hand. The Master File books may mention more, but given how much of the MF books are populated by uninsightful fluff, I doubt it there's any inspired creativity with regards to heat management included within their pages. But I do hope I'm wrong.

Eh... it crops up more often than you give it credit for, though it didn't really start to become a prominent issue until Macross Plus's technical specs established that the YF-19 and YF-21's more powerful engines had a serious heat-exchange problem. Much more ink is expended about how to make more efficient use of the heat for practical purposes than there is about disposing of the waste heat... though the issue has become progressively more prominent as time has gone on.

The Master File for the VF-25 indicates that the sub inlet above the main engine intake is for heat exchange through the use of boundary air. That is the only term of heat exchange I have seen on the 25.

The BLCS sub-intakes are used for a lot more than that... but disposing of waste heat though that system isn't much different from disposing of it via engine thrust.

[Valkyrie Driver]

That's a clever alternate use for the wing heat sinks... probably not a common usage, since most VF's are operating in space or in the relatively temperate regions of inhabited planets where human settlements are raised.

All military aircraft should have the capability, because you never know what sort of environment you'll end up operating in. Besides, you can still get ice accumulation on the wings in space, which while not affecting the aerodynamic properties since you're in a vacuum, but it would affect the balance and mass of the fighter, meaning your engines will need to work harder, your controls will get sluggish, and it could even lead to overstressing the structural components, due to excess mass. So, even in space you'll need deicing equipment, and every planet is going to have some form of wintery weather somewhere, and you can bet your bottom dollar, the military will operate there. Especially if it's a planet with any similarities to earth (which has got to be my biggest complaint with star wars, a spheroid planet is going to have differences in temperature at different locations on that globe. If you have land and water you're going to get weather similar to earth, and with varied terrain you're going to get different effects based on local circulation patterns, because science!).

[JB0]

Besides, you can still get ice accumulation on the wings in space,

I'm sorry, but FROM WHAT?

In space, the VF is the hottest thing in it's immediate vicinity. And the "atmospheric pressure" is so low that any ice that DOES manage to start forming on a VF (we'll say there was a recent fold accident and you flew through a cloud) will sublimate almost instantly.

Not melt. Sublimate. It will transition directly from solid to gas.

That said, VFs are designed to be all-environment fighters, and capable of transition between atmospheric and space operation with no advance preparation required. And presumably they operate on a variety of extraterrestrial bodies as well.

Icing could be a HUGE concern on, say, Pluto. A stray missile vaporizes a water ice mountain, and the humidity goes up enough for anyone in the vicinity to start experiencing icing problems.

[Valkyrie Driver]

I'm sorry, but FROM WHAT?

In space, the VF is the hottest thing in it's immediate vicinity. And the "atmospheric pressure" is so low that any ice that DOES manage to start forming on a VF (we'll say there was a recent fold accident and you flew through a cloud) will sublimate almost instantly.

Not melt. Sublimate. It will transition directly from solid to gas.

It's possible, though the cases in which it would occur are few in number. For instance the scene during the battle of Saturn's rings in SDFM, you could see ice accumulation there, depending on the composition of the rings, or you could get it near a sufficiently massive asteroid, or from battling in an asteroid field where there has been significant water ice in the field, granted it would need to be very dense to see accumulation, but still the potential is there. Even in the arctic circle where an airplane is the hottest thing in the environment (granted this is a planetary atmosphere with sufficient atmospheric pressure I'll concede that point) you still get accumulation regardless of how hot the bird is.

I was saying it was possible, not probable. Still though, there are other considerations that we don't account for in VF design that would likely be present, like redundant controls, or auxiliary power systems, cooling systems, and a host of other things that on an aircraft that I don't have the technical knowledge to understand or even know about.

Just pointing out the worst case scenarios, because that's what military planners do...

[JB0]

I DID probably come off ruder than I intended, really.
But there won't be ice accumulation in a vacuum, because there's nothing to be icing the wings up. Anything that could has long since precipitated out onto something else or been blown away by the solar wind.

Large asteroids don't retain an atmosphere. Not even Ceres.
Ice accumulation in Saturn's rings would most likely be from running into the ice, at which point ice on the wings is probably not a primary concern.*

But Pluto has an atmosphere, and the mass needed to keep any spontaneous release of water/nitrogen/methane/carbon monoxide vapors around long enough to start accumulating on planes. So weapons fire impacting the ground would rapidly make atmospheric conditions favorable for icing. The same is probably true of, say, Europa or Tethys.





*Tangentally, it really bugs me how very wrong SDF Macross's portrayal of Saturn's ring system is. But to be fair, Pioneer 11 only flew by in 1979, with the V'gers right behind it in '80 and '81. Knowledge of the ring structure was understandably scant among non-astronomers in 1982, and I can't really fault them for not knowing the rings were so incredibly thin. I SHOULD just give them points for knowing they're largely made of water ice and move on with my life, instead of worrying about the ring system being thinner than the ships hiding within it.

[Mr March]

JBO
I actually found Macross more scientifically sound than a lot of other science fiction (at the time) especially with regards to space, so the rings of Saturn don't bother me. Macross was one of the first space stories to make proper use of reaction thrust maneuvering in a vacuum or even just how long it would take at sub-light to traverse a single solar system. Hell, even a realistic/futuristic cockpit is something Macross has had down for decades while even something like Battlestar Galatica re-imagined (2004) couldn't get it even remotely accurate. I think that for it's time, Macross had much more to offer that was accurate and informative than the reverse.

Seto
I can't recall waste heat/management being mentioned once in any animated Macross production; if it was, it's barely registered. The trivia occasionally mentions something like the atmosphere limitation of the YF-19/21, the fuselage limitation on the VF-27 Lucifer, or other such limitation. A handful at best, and it's never a major part of the IP as a whole; my interpretation of heat trivia in Macross is fair.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Mr March

[JB0]

JBO

I actually found Macross more scientifically sound than a lot of other science fiction (at the time) especially with regards to space, so the rings of Saturn don't bother me. Macross was one of the first space stories to make proper use of reaction thrust maneuvering in a vacuum or even just how long it would take at sub-light to traverse a single solar system. Hell, even a realistic/futuristic cockpit is something Macross has had down for decades while even something like Battlestar Galatica re-imagined (2004) couldn't get it even remotely accurate. I think that for it's time, Macross had much more to offer that was accurate and informative than the reverse.

Which is, honestly, probably a part of the problem. It strives for an attempt at realism, then does something I KNOW is crazy.

Like I said, they were working with the best information they had available(I DO note the rings were made of what appeared to be exclusively water ice), and it really shouldn't bug me, but...