The Real World capabilities of a VF-1 Valkyrie

[Mr March]

Well, the VF-17 Nightmare legs/engines rest laterally in Fighter mode, so would the feet/nozzles. That being said, the feet/nozzles are fully articulated, so I suspect three-dimensional thrust vectoring is possible, in spite of the official trivia saying it's two-dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, but that does seem kinda weird

[Sildani]

Don't forget the VF-1 is festooned with vernier thrusters. If pitch control is needed, one or more of those can always fire and restore control sharpish. I have no doubt they're controlled by the flight control system whether in atmosphere or space.

[GuardianGrey]

My thoughts are that the HOTAS flight control system (introduced with the Block 6 upgrades to the VF-1) allows for better space & atmospheric maneuvering.

It's responsible for the vernier motors firing to allow a semblance of aerial maneuvers in the vacuum of space (the program algorithms/calculations for burn times on which motors would induce headaches in most).

While inside an atmosphere, the same system utilizes all control functions (flaps, verniers & anything else) to provide the best performance possible.

If said program is faulty/incomplete, the craft will be hard to control, which may have been an additional problem/reason the YF-19 burning through pilots (besides the biological barrier due to the craft's performance).

While the HOTAS system streamlined the 53 controls (number might be wrong) in the original VF-1 cockpit, I feel Macross Zero brings up two things.

First is that the VF-0 cockpit had the HOTAS controls, and not the original VF-1 style. Which would make little/no sense for a preproduction/training unit (with the military's 'train like you fight' philosophy). Though that could be for entertainment reasons.

And second, I believe I read somewhere that the flight control system had a learning capability to be able to perform better. That maybe true, though (could be speculated) the system would also learn the pilot's behavior and try to facilitate for that individual (& making it hard for anyone else to control the unit).

Since we seem to also be discussing verniers & thrust vectoring, I do have a question.

There is no doubt about the vernier motors have enough thrust to lift a VF into VTO...

As I said before---the Harrier's puff-jets turned up to 11.

Which brings up my point.

The puff-jets on a Harrier helps in transition from level flight to hovering & back.

Above is a training VF-1 in GERWALK mode, though what is the mode below?

Is it GERWALK simply Without Arms deployed, or a aircraft with extreme thrust vectoring by moving the main engines (JBO's comment about emergency stopping comes to mind)?

Considering my theoretical VTOL with just using the vernier motors (in Real World Technological References of Macross Variable Aircraft) was with the original controls, not the Block 6 HOTAS system (which the computerized controls very well may not allow such maneuvers). Edited May 28, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Mommar]

Well, the VF-17 Nightmare legs/engines rest laterally in Fighter mode, so would the feet/nozzles. That being said, the feet/nozzles are fully articulated, so I suspect three-dimensional thrust vectoring is possible, in spite of the official trivia saying it's two-dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, but that does seem kinda weird

While the feet do move in three dimensions when extended for Gerwalk/Battroid that doesn't mean they have the freedom for 3D movement when recessed. That doesn't mean they don't have internal systems that can't move in 3D, that 171 pic clearly shows an internal mechanism for that.

[vsim]

Don't forget the VF-1 is festooned with vernier thrusters. If pitch control is needed, one or more of those can always fire and restore control sharpish. I have no doubt they're controlled by the flight control system whether in atmosphere or space.

Yes, those can help, although typically they are discrete inputs. They either put out full thrust or none. But in general they would be a last resort because you don't want to burn through all of your fuel firing them all the time. I'm not sure how much fuel the VF-1 carries for the thrusters, but most spacecraft don't have a lot of firing time for them. It only needs to last for one sortie, but still..

The control system would most certainly use whatever controls are at it's disposal to drive the aircraft to do whatever the pilot is calling for. You can do all types of weird things, like deflecting both rudders symmetrically to help slow down quickly. The control system mixer would be responsible for that. And regarding learning systems, that is entirely possible and actually a very cool area of study . The control system can learn by monitoring the performance of the system and if it does not perform as is expected, it can start to deploy additional surfaces to maintain control. They also can monitor control surfaces to see if one is frozen in position or not responding to commands correctly (i.e. damaged and flapping in the breeze so to speak). I'm not aware of any aircraft in production that do this, but I know there is research out there.

While the feet do move in three dimensions when extended for Gerwalk/Battroid that doesn't mean they have the freedom for 3D movement when recessed. That doesn't mean they don't have internal systems that can't move in 3D, that 171 pic clearly shows an internal mechanism for that.

The power of the thrust vectoring comes from the paddles that redirect the thrust in the other directions. On the VF-1 and VF-117 (and all the others except the 21/22) the paddles are the bottoms of the feet. For the 171, these move in the lateral direction, giving large yawing moments, not pitch. The 21/22 has actual paddles that look more like a real-world aircraft with thrust vectoring (ref F-18 HARV, F-22, X-31). The 21/22 thrust vectoring is a full 2-D 3 paddle system and can vector for both pitch and yaw.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Given that thrust drops off heavily at higher alts while the mass of the plane stays. Would that make the F-22's pitch ability using nozzles much much less effective at higher alts?

I suppose the other astounding thing (if it was real) about the VF-1 is that those engines are flat rated all the way to vacuum? Which makes its high alt performance really something. Actually are they 'flat rated' all the way to vacuum? If they were, and with the >1 thrust weight ratio, why do they need the boosters to reach orbit? They can just stand on it and slowly claw their way out to space right?

And if they are not 'flat rated;, that does mean at higher alts, using them for pitch control would be crappy. Back to the OT verniers, but like an above poster said, if you fire verniers all the time for pitching, that's a lot of reaction fuel.

BTW, those flat squarish leading edge extensions next to the cockpit above the intakes, would it help if they could deflect and act like canards?

Not sure what the term to use but by 'flat rated' in this instance I mean same thrust regardless of alt.

edit *hmm, was trying to quote David's post but somehow my quote function doesn't work.***

Edited May 28, 2015 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Mr March]

While the feet do move in three dimensions when extended for Gerwalk/Battroid that doesn't mean they have the freedom for 3D movement when recessed. That doesn't mean they don't have internal systems that can't move in 3D, that 171 pic clearly shows an internal mechanism for that.

Agreed, but I think this is a part of the Macross fiction that has never made much sense.

All the feet/nozzles of the variable fighters - way back to the VF-1 Valkyrie/VF-0 Phoenix - are fully articulated to allow a highly adept level of GERWALK/Battroid movement. Not only that, but the feet/nozzles can use thrust while deployed in nearly any direction and even when under stress during robotic movement! And yet when the variable fighters transform into fighter mode, they are intentionally designed so that they lose all three-dimensional thrusting capability because....reasons? Has always made ZERO sense. I see no reason why the feet/nozzles wouldn't be deployed for maximum effectiveness in fighter mode just like they are in GERWALK/Battroid. Looking at it from a logical, functional perspective.

So yeah, officially, the Macross franchise is just plain wack when it comes to feet/nozzles

Edited May 28, 2015 by Mr March

[vsim]

Given that thrust drops off heavily at higher alts while the mass of the plane stays. Would that make the F-22's pitch ability using nozzles much much less effective at higher alts?

I suppose the other astounding thing (if it was real) about the VF-1 is that those engines are flat rated all the way to vacuum? Which makes its high alt performance really something. Actually are they 'flat rated' all the way to vacuum? If they were, and with the >1 thrust weight ratio, why do they need the boosters to reach orbit? They can just stand on it and slowly claw their way out to space right?

And if they are not 'flat rated;, that does mean at higher alts, using them for pitch control would be crappy. Back to the OT verniers, but like an above poster said, if you fire verniers all the time for pitching, that's a lot of reaction fuel.

BTW, those flat squarish leading edge extensions next to the cockpit above the intakes, would it help if they could deflect and act like canards?

Not sure what the term to use but by 'flat rated' in this instance I mean same thrust regardless of alt.

edit *hmm, was trying to quote David's post but somehow my quote function doesn't work.***

Higher altitude is going to have a less dense atmosphere and that is going to cause everything to work less efficiently. Control surfaces are also not as effective. But don't forget that that also means the aircraft has less drag at the same time. In short, the aircraft will just respond to a lot of things slower at higher altitudes, unless you can get your airspeed up, in which case thrust will go up again and everything goes back to normal (more or less). Top speed limits on aircraft are typically due to heating (the cockpit glass in particular), not because the engines can't put out more thrust.

I'm not sure what to say about the VF-1 engines. They are "magic" . My guess was always that they used intake air mostly for cooling and not so much for "combustion" like a normal turbofan engine would. I haven't seen much written up on the theoretical inner workings of the engine but would love to see something. And I would also love to hear the clarification on why it needs a booster to get to space. I can explain it away for a turbofan engine, but not the VF-1 engines. Unless the argument is just that the VF-1 would take way too damn long to get there, then I'm good .

I don't think the leading edge extensions move or change shape. But yes, in theory if they did do something it could be used for pitch control.

Agreed, but I think this is a part of the Macross fiction that has never made much sense.

All the feet/nozzles of the variable fighters - way back to the VF-1 Valkyrie/VF-0 Phoenix - are fully articulated to allow a highly adept level of GERWALK/Battroid movement. Not only that, but the feet/nozzles can use thrust while deployed in nearly any direction and even when under stress during robotic movement! And yet when the variable fighters transform into fighter mode, they are intentionally designed so that they lose all three-dimensional thrusting capability because....reasons? Has always made ZERO sense. I see no reason why the feet/nozzles wouldn't be deployed for maximum effectiveness in fighter mode just like they are in GERWALK/Battroid. Looking at it from a logical, functional perspective.

So yeah, officially, the Macross franchise is just plain wack when it comes to feet/nozzles

Okay, well in Fighter mode, I can say that lateral thrust vectoring is not very useful. In theory you could use it and get rid of the rudders on the aircraft, which is nothing to sneeze at, but the rudders are really only used a little bit unless you are trying to land in a cross wind. Fighters maneuver in pitch the most because that puts the load on the pilot vertically, which is easier for the human body to endure. Slamming the pilot around sideways would not go over very well. So for the fighter mode, very little lateral vectoring would be needed really, so I'm actually good with that.

As for Gerwalk, I had always just envisioned that for small side movements, the ankles could twist to provide fast, small thrust changes, but for larger ones, the whole leg would start to turn in or out to get larger angle movements.

So I don't find Macross too bad for feet/nozzle non-sense for the most part (except the 117! ).

[Mommar]

Agreed, but I think this is a part of the Macross fiction that has never made much sense.

All the feet/nozzles of the variable fighters - way back to the VF-1 Valkyrie/VF-0 Phoenix - are fully articulated to allow a highly adept level of GERWALK/Battroid movement. Not only that, but the feet/nozzles can use thrust while deployed in nearly any direction and even when under stress during robotic movement! And yet when the variable fighters transform into fighter mode, they are intentionally designed so that they lose all three-dimensional thrusting capability because....reasons? Has always made ZERO sense. I see no reason why the feet/nozzles wouldn't be deployed for maximum effectiveness in fighter mode just like they are in GERWALK/Battroid. Looking at it from a logical, functional perspective.

So yeah, officially, the Macross franchise is just plain wack when it comes to feet/nozzles

Well, yeah, I'm mostly just basing it off of the fact the toys don't function like that really when the feet are in position in fighter and you never see them moving in that manner during the show but if you factor in that 171 photograph shows there's some internal adjustments being made even as the feet stay in position. If you think of it that way, when the feet are able to move PLUS you have that internal motion that really increases the maneuverability in the other two modes.

[Seto Kaiba]

Well, the VF-17 Nightmare legs/engines rest laterally in Fighter mode, so would the feet/nozzles. That being said, the feet/nozzles are fully articulated, so I suspect three-dimensional thrust vectoring is possible, in spite of the official trivia saying it's two-dimensional. Maybe it doesn't, but that does seem kinda weird

*Coughs*

Survey says "Yes, it totally does".

If said program is faulty/incomplete, the craft will be hard to control, which may have been an additional problem/reason the YF-19 burning through pilots (besides the biological barrier due to the craft's performance).

Unlikely... if anything, the reverse was probably true. The YF/VF-19 program's difficulties are generally attributed to the prototype's excessively high performance, and particularly the g-loads pilots were subjected to as the result of its exceptional maneuverability... the issue was that the airframe was hard to control because it was programmed perhaps a little too well, requiring special training to handle an aircraft that was much more responsive than any previous design.

First is that the VF-0 cockpit had the HOTAS controls, and not the original VF-1 style. Which would make little/no sense for a preproduction/training unit (with the military's 'train like you fight' philosophy). Though that could be for entertainment reasons.

I've read a couple different explanations for that one... the one that made the most sense being that, at the time the VF-0's had been retired before being pushed into service due to delays in VF-1 mass production, they had been evaluating refinements meant for the VF-1's later production blocks and successors. (Probably wasn't so much a case of "train like you fight" so much as "Our enemy has a combat-worthy VF in the air, get a transformable fighter combat-worthy YESTERDAY".)

And second, I believe I read somewhere that the flight control system had a learning capability to be able to perform better. That maybe true, though (could be speculated) the system would also learn the pilot's behavior and try to facilitate for that individual (& making it hard for anyone else to control the unit).

What you're thinking of here is the VF-25+EX-Gear, where the EX-Gear's learning computer learns the habits of its user and uses that data to improve control response.

The VF-0 is also described as having a learning computer, but it's only really mentioned in connection with the Ghost Booster... due to the complexity of the aerodynamics involved, the learning computer had to sort out the handling on its own in actual flight due to gaps in the simulated data it was "Trained" with.

[Mr March]

Yes folks, I've seen the picture already...

Well, yeah, I'm mostly just basing it off of the fact the toys don't function like that really when the feet are in position in fighter and you never see them moving in that manner during the show but if you factor in that 171 photograph shows there's some internal adjustments being made even as the feet stay in position. If you think of it that way, when the feet are able to move PLUS you have that internal motion that really increases the maneuverability in the other two modes.

Oh I agree, but my post was an analysis beyond that. I know why the toys look the way they do and why 3D thrust vectoring is not shown in the anime (outside of rare examples, as pictured above). What I'm saying is given the abilities of the feet/nozzles in GERWALK/Battroid, it makes no sense why it can't be done in fighter mode nor why the official trivia states the thrust vectoring is limited. I'm questioning the silliness of what appears to be contradictory engineering, not the fact that the writers and animators conveniently ignore it. They build a VF with 3D thrust vectoring capability, then deny that capability in the mode that needs it the most? Like I said, ridiculous

Edited May 28, 2015 by Mr March

[vsim]

Yes folks, I've seen the picture already...

Oh I agree, but my post was an analysis beyond that. I know why the toys look the way they do and why 3D thrust vectoring is not shown in the anime (outside of rare examples, as pictured above). What I'm saying is given the abilities of the feet/nozzles in GERWALK/Battroid, it makes no sense why it can't be done in fighter mode nor why the official trivia states the thrust vectoring is limited. I'm questioning the silliness of what appears to be contradictory engineering, not the fact that the writers and animators conveniently ignore it. They build a VF with 3D thrust vectoring capability, then deny that capability in the mode that needs it the most? Like I said, ridiculous

I agree with Mr March here, I had not seen the picture before. And yes, the picture shows vectoring in the pitch axis, but (to quote Red vs. Blue) "That doesn't seem physically possible". To some limited degree, sure it could, but something has to actually direct the thrust in that direction, i.e. a paddle on top and the bottom (or part of a foot shaped like a paddle). Really this debate is going down the road of reality versus animation at this point, fun but I don't think we can really conclude much of anything.

Sorry for starting the topic wandering off to the 117!

Here are the paddles for the X-31. This is a different configuration that allows the thrust to be manipulated in both directions, but is much clearer than any F-22 picture I can find.

[vsim]

Okay, after a quick google search and I come up with a possible explanation. Fluidic thrust vectoring. Sounds interesting actually, so I'll just go with the 117 uses this and call it a day . 15 degrees is not much deflection at ALL, but that's yet another argument (even 30 would be small). I think when I did my simulations, I let it move +/- 60 degrees.

[From Wikipedia]

Now being researched, Fluidic Thrust Vectoring (FTV) diverts thrust via secondary fluidic injections.^[9] Tests show that air forced into a jet engine exhaust stream can deflect thrust up to 15 degrees. Such nozzles are desirable for their lower mass and cost (up to 50% less), inertia (for faster, stronger control response), complexity (mechanically simpler, fewer or no moving parts or surfaces, less maintenance), and radar cross section for stealth. This will likely be used in many unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs), and 6th generation fighter aircraft.

[Mr March]

That may be vsim, but just to clarify my own position, I'm not faulting the Macross fiction for being unrealistic. I'm faulting the Macross fiction for having some silly internal inconsistency when it comes to thrust vectoring. All these variable fighters are shown capable of utilizing full 3D thrust vectoring in GERWALK/Battroid mode from their existing feet/nozzles. But in fighter mode, suddenly that capability is lost when it's needed most and becomes restricted to two dimensional thrust only. Anyway, moving along.

I think the animation does show thrust vectoring to be quite extreme. Macross Plus and Macross Frontier both showed angles at least as far as 70 degrees or more.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Okay, well in Fighter mode, I can say that lateral thrust vectoring is not very useful. In theory you could use it and get rid of the rudders on the aircraft, which is nothing to sneeze at, but the rudders are really only used a little bit unless you are trying to land in a cross wind. Fighters maneuver in pitch the most because that puts the load on the pilot vertically, which is easier for the human body to endure. Slamming the pilot around sideways would not go over very well. So for the fighter mode, very little lateral vectoring would be needed really, so I'm actually good with that.

The rudder is a lot more important that you might think. My source (My dad, who was a fighter pilot, and the only person I know that remotely resembles an air combat and aeronautics expert) says that roll control surfaces actually play very little role in high speed maneuvering. as he put it, you "Bury the stick, and work the pedals" to affect a roll. So I disagree with the assumption that lateral thrust vectoring would be useless, in fact, the apparent absence from most VF designs begs the question of why?

[JB0]

Higher altitude is going to have a less dense atmosphere and that is going to cause everything to work less efficiently. Control surfaces are also not as effective. But don't forget that that also means the aircraft has less drag at the same time. In short, the aircraft will just respond to a lot of things slower at higher altitudes, unless you can get your airspeed up, in which case thrust will go up again and everything goes back to normal (more or less).

Much of that isn't necessarily true for a variable fighter.

Attitude thruster effectiveness will go UP with reduced atmosphere, and the engine performance should stay fairly constant, if not improve, as you shift from air-breathing mode to "space" mode.

I'm not sure what to say about the VF-1 engines. They are "magic" . My guess was always that they used intake air mostly for cooling and not so much for "combustion" like a normal turbofan engine would. I haven't seen much written up on the theoretical inner workings of the engine but would love to see something.

My impression is that they harvest heat from the fusion powerplant, and transfer it to the engine.

In atmosphere, they can use that heat to rapidly heat air. From there it functions on similar principles to a conventional jet engine, just using a heat exchanger in place of a combustion chamber. Remember, fuel is burned to heat the air and force it to expand, not because it offers intrinsic value.

Out of atmosphere they can use the same supercooled hydrogen that feeds the fusion generator itself.

As the air gets thinner, you can just stop sucking air into the engine. Close the intakes, turn on the hydrogen injectors, and let 'er rip. Heck, you may see a performance BOOST at high altitudes as you switch from compressing and superheating (very thin) air to vaporizing liquid hydrogen. FAR more expansion on the latter circumstance.

Obviously this reduces operational time somewhat vs atmospheric flight, but the implication from the shows is that they can still run for a very long time.

"Space" mode is, from my perspective, also going to be a necessity for battroid foot thruster usage. Your entire air intake is of highly variable geometry, very rarely in anything resembling an optimum path, and prone to sucking debris through the compressor.

And it's probably a good idea in GERWALK mode, for similar reasons. Heck, GERWALK seems specifically designed to suck in debris.

...

I don't want to talk about the VF-0.

And I would also love to hear the clarification on why it needs a booster to get to space. I can explain it away for a turbofan engine, but not the VF-1 engines. Unless the argument is just that the VF-1 would take way too damn long to get there, then I'm good .

That's a very good question.

Especially since they show VF-1s rendezvousing with the Macross as it heads for orbit in episode 1, which strongly implies that a VF-1 can ALSO generate enough thrust to attain orbit.

I'd assume it's simply a case of rapid deployment. That really does make the most sense.

Tangentally, "reaching space" isn't really as clear-cut as it sounds. Both the Space Shuttle and Apollo went "to space", but there's LITERALLY a world of difference between the two. To say nothing of the Pioneers and Voyagers. It's more a case of how high you want to go than a hard cutoff from "I'm on Earth!" to "I'm in space!".

(Even more tangentally, I am very pleased I just got to say "literally a world of difference" without misusing the word 'literally')

To date here in the real world, no manned mission except Apollo has ever made it completely out of the Earth's atmosphere. The ISS has to be routinely accelerated to counter atmospheric drag and keep it form falling out of the sky. But many, many manned missions have gone "to space".

It's not outside of the realm of possibility that the VF-1 can "reach space" on it's own, but can only attain the higher orbits with assistance.

[vsim]

That may be vsim, but just to clarify my own position, I'm not faulting the Macross fiction for being unrealistic. I'm faulting the Macross fiction for having some silly internal inconsistency when it comes to thrust vectoring. All these variable fighters are shown capable of utilizing full 3D thrust vectoring in GERWALK/Battroid mode from their existing feet/nozzles. But in fighter mode, suddenly that capability is lost when it's needed most and becomes restricted to two dimensional thrust only. Anyway, moving along.

I think the animation does show thrust vectoring to be quite extreme. Macross Plus and Macross Frontier both showed angles at least as far as 70 degrees or more.

Actually, I've always been impressed that Macross is as realistic as it is regarding aircraft design. The designs are always fairly reasonable and make sense for the most part. Just remember that the pitch control movement of thrust vectoring is a much bigger deal than adding the yaw control at least for fighter mode. And 70 degrees sounds like exactly what I would expect .

The rudder is a lot more important that you might think. My source (My dad, who was a fighter pilot, and the only person I know that remotely resembles an air combat and aeronautics expert) says that roll control surfaces actually play very little role in high speed maneuvering. as he put it, you "Bury the stick, and work the pedals" to affect a roll. So I disagree with the assumption that lateral thrust vectoring would be useless, in fact, the apparent absence from most VF designs begs the question of why?

Okay, maybe I phrased it badly. The rudder (or some form of yaw control) in important, buy is typically almost completely handled by the control system automatically (turn coordination, yaw dampers, etc.). Roll surfaces are just used to roll to whatever the new bank angle you want, after that, you pull (pitch) and change directions. What did your dad fly? On some of the older aircraft the pilot had to do a lot of the rudder work himself, but modern fighters automate this part.

The VF-1 (and others) had rudders, and therefore it had no need for thrust vectoring in the yaw direction (although it wouldn't hurt to have it). That isn't to say that you could do away with the rudders completely; honestly they are often over-sized to handle the case when the aircraft loses an engine and still needs to be able to land safely. Now if the engines had some lateral/yaw vectoring ability, then maybe you could get away rudderless (some current UAVs work this way). Or the B-2 probably uses spoilers and/or clamshells on the wings to control yaw in the event of an engine failure. There are numerous ways to create yawing moments on the aircraft, the most desirable being the ones that don't create extra drag or make the aircraft do other strange things.

Much of that isn't necessarily true for a variable fighter.

Attitude thruster effectiveness will go UP with reduced atmosphere, and the engine performance should stay fairly constant, if not improve, as you shift from air-breathing mode to "space" mode.

My impression is that they harvest heat from the fusion powerplant, and transfer it to the engine.

"Space" mode is, from my perspective, also going to be a necessity for battroid foot thruster usage. Your entire air intake is of highly variable geometry, very rarely in anything resembling an optimum path, and prone to sucking debris through the compressor.

And it's probably a good idea in GERWALK mode, for similar reasons. Heck, GERWALK seems specifically designed to suck in debris.

To date here in the real world, no manned mission except Apollo has ever made it completely out of the Earth's atmosphere. The ISS has to be routinely accelerated to counter atmospheric drag and keep it form falling out of the sky. But many, many manned missions have gone "to space".

Regarding high altitude. Yes, the thrusters will be more effective, I was talking more or less about aircraft that do not have thrusters to use.

That was my guess for how the VF-1 engines worked as well, but I wasn't sure if that was spelled out anywhere. Replace the combustion chamber with a different source of heat and voila. And in space, I envisioned something similar, use some form on onboard propellant, super heat and it shoot it out the back.

I had always envisioned the VF-1 inlet being variable geometry like the F-14. The ramps would move to optimize the flow at different conditions.

And technically the moon has an atmosphere of it's own as well, it's just so thin that it is effectively zero...but not quite . If I recall it is on the order of 1E-9 atmospheres or less. i.e. the thrusters from apollo missions probably increased the moons atmosphere by an order of magnitude, lol.

[GuardianGrey]

Unlikely... if anything, the reverse was probably true. The YF/VF-19 program's difficulties are generally attributed to the prototype's excessively high performance, and particularly the g-loads pilots were subjected to as the result of its exceptional maneuverability... the issue was that the airframe was hard to control because it was programmed perhaps a little too well, requiring special training to handle an aircraft that was much more responsive than any previous design.

I'm going to partly agree with you again, Seto Kaiba.

Yes, the flight control operating system for the YF/VF-19 was programmed to fly at peak performance.

With that said, there was no coding for the "biological barrier" (be it physical limitations &/or operator arrogance/ignorance/stupidity).

A real world example of limiters in the code is the B-2.

Flying wing designs are notorious for tumbling out of control and crashing if the aircraft slows to stall speed.

If the tale is true, Jack Northrop seen a test flight of the B-2, and warned the pilot against trying to stall the craft prior to. After the demonstration, Jack asked the pilot if he tried to stall the plane. The response from the pilot was that the system would not allow him to.

I've read a couple different explanations for that one... the one that made the most sense being that, at the time the VF-0's had been retired before being pushed into service due to delays in VF-1 mass production, they had been evaluating refinements meant for the VF-1's later production blocks and successors. (Probably wasn't so much a case of "train like you fight" so much as "Our enemy has a combat-worthy VF in the air, get a transformable fighter combat-worthy YESTERDAY".)

On this, I can see it, though also willing to wager that Roy was not happy going to the VF-1 cockpit after flying with the HOTAS system.

What you're thinking of here is the VF-25+EX-Gear, where the EX-Gear's learning computer learns the habits of its user and uses that data to improve control response.

The VF-0 is also described as having a learning computer, but it's only really mentioned in connection with the Ghost Booster... due to the complexity of the aerodynamics involved, the learning computer had to sort out the handling on its own in actual flight due to gaps in the simulated data it was "Trained" with.

Nope, I was just referring to the VF-0's flight control computer. Had totally forgotten about the EX-Gear system.

Though, thank you for the clarification.

The EX-Gear having a learning system is logical, for it would know the cause/effect biometric movements of its operator, which would enhance performance (the real world Cyberdyne HAL frame utilize a similarly described system).

----- Back On Topic-----

I have to agree, getting into a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is easier than escaping the plenary gravity and starting Deep Space travel (which, I believe, is needed to be able to safely operate a Fold Booster).

Even on the low end, X-15 test pilots got their astronaut wings due to the operation altitude they achieved.

The SR-71 reportedly could fly to the point where it was losing flight surface control (due to the thin atmosphere), though at the same time achieved its highest speeds.

[Mr March]

Given what is shown in all the anime series/films, I'm fairly certain space folds can be achieved almost anywhere; near the ground, in the air or in space.

[GuardianGrey]

Given what is shown in all the anime series/films, I'm fairly certain space folds can be achieved almost anywhere; near the ground, in the air or in space.

I didn't say that it was not possible, though the gravity-well/planet might mess with the calculation of were one ends up.

I wonder if that is what might have caused so many so-called mid-fold issues.

[Seto Kaiba]

My impression is that they harvest heat from the fusion powerplant, and transfer it to the engine.

Yep... heat from the thermonuclear reaction's plasma stream is used to provide propulsive force, replacing combustion for heating intake air.

As the air gets thinner, you can just stop sucking air into the engine. Close the intakes, turn on the hydrogen injectors, and let 'er rip. Heck, you may see a performance BOOST at high altitudes as you switch from compressing and superheating (very thin) air to vaporizing liquid hydrogen. FAR more expansion on the latter circumstance.

Obviously this reduces operational time somewhat vs atmospheric flight, but the implication from the shows is that they can still run for a very long time.

As Master File has it, the VF-1's engines can also be run as ramjets at high altitude, increasing the service ceiling before they need to cut over to pure space-based propulsion modes.

Especially since they show VF-1s rendezvousing with the Macross as it heads for orbit in episode 1, which strongly implies that a VF-1 can ALSO generate enough thrust to attain orbit.

I'd assume it's simply a case of rapid deployment. That really does make the most sense.

Tangentally, "reaching space" isn't really as clear-cut as it sounds. Both the Space Shuttle and Apollo went "to space", but there's LITERALLY a world of difference between the two. To say nothing of the Pioneers and Voyagers. It's more a case of how high you want to go than a hard cutoff from "I'm on Earth!" to "I'm in space!".

's more of an "Edge of space" thing... getting over 100km is possible with internal fuel, but if you want satellite orbit, you'd better be prepared to bring a booster.

I'm going to partly agree with you again, Seto Kaiba.

Yes, the flight control operating system for the YF/VF-19 was programmed to fly at peak performance.

With that said, there was no coding for the "biological barrier" (be it physical limitations &/or operator arrogance/ignorance/stupidity).

All told, there WERE supposedly limiters installed in the YF-19 and YF-21... it's just that, even with them preventing the pilots from pushing the airframe to the point where the g-forces could kill or incapacitate the pilot, it was still perfectly possible for the pilots to push the airframe to the point where they themselves could lose control of the plane and then crash from a loss of control on their part.

On this, I can see it, though also willing to wager that Roy was not happy going to the VF-1 cockpit after flying with the HOTAS system.

Possibly... though he was probably operating with full knowledge that the updated controls would be swiftly adopted by the majority of VF-1 production blocks.

I didn't say that it was not possible, though the gravity-well/planet might mess with the calculation of were one ends up.

I wonder if that is what might have caused so many so-called mid-fold issues.

Allegedly, many of the fold accidents had to do with mis-calculating the power requirements for a fold (and getting stuck in fold space as a result) or running into impassible fold faults.

[JB0]

Regarding high altitude. Yes, the thrusters will be more effective, I was talking more or less about aircraft that do not have thrusters to use.

That was my guess for how the VF-1 engines worked as well, but I wasn't sure if that was spelled out anywhere. Replace the combustion chamber with a different source of heat and voila. And in space, I envisioned something similar, use some form on onboard propellant, super heat and it shoot it out the back.

I'm not sure how MUCH of it is spelled out explicitly, but I know parts of it are(using hydrogen for the reaction mass is canon, and I guess makes sense if you're trying to keep the weight down and minimize what all fluids you have to pour in)).

And technically the moon has an atmosphere of it's own as well, it's just so thin that it is effectively zero...but not quite . If I recall it is on the order of 1E-9 atmospheres or less. i.e. the thrusters from apollo missions probably increased the moons atmosphere by an order of magnitude, lol.

Yup. Solar wind knocks particles free of the surface. But it lacks the gravity to hold onto them, so Apollo only TEMPORARILY increased the atmosphere. .

Re: Fold accidents.

The best-known one was explicitly stated in the show to be due to power fluctuations from an unplanned firing of the main gun(Global Report is not JUST a synopsis of the story thus far!). But the accident, combined with the zentradi dialog around it, implied that folding near a planetary surface is inherently riskier than folding from "in space"

Come to think of it, this may have something to do with why the New Macross class vessels have a separate reactor for the cannon, though it's clearly an under-specced reactor given how long it takes to fire.

[vsim]

As Master File has it, the VF-1's engines can also be run as ramjets at high altitude, increasing the service ceiling before they need to cut over to pure space-based propulsion modes.

I can't say I was aware of that. A ramjet (and a scramjet for that matter) are completely different animals from a traditional turbofan/jet/prop. How do they get all of the internal mechanisms of the engine out of the way, or do they just somehow redirect all of the airflow around the compressor, etc. I could see it if they had a bigger leg to fit both engines into but there isn't a whole lot of space in that leg. Do you have a link to the Master File, it just showed up as underlined text. I would be curious to read a translation if one is available.

Yup. Solar wind knocks particles free of the surface. But it lacks the gravity to hold onto them, so Apollo only TEMPORARILY increased the atmosphere. .

Good point!

[sketchley]

I can't say I was aware of that. A ramjet (and a scramjet for that matter) are completely different animals from a traditional turbofan/jet/prop. How do they get all of the internal mechanisms of the engine out of the way, or do they just somehow redirect all of the airflow around the compressor, etc. I could see it if they had a bigger leg to fit both engines into but there isn't a whole lot of space in that leg. Do you have a link to the Master File, it just showed up as underlined text. I would be curious to read a translation if one is available.

That 'feature' is right up there with some of the other really bizarre purported abilities described in the Master File books.

In short, the legs are semi-deployed and the knee-joint opens up - so that the air flows directly into the lower engine nacelle (the 'hot' part), and bypasses the intake fans that are in the upper part of the leg.

So, yeah, it's totally not a ramjet/scramjet engine as they exist in reality, as those fan blades in the hot part of the engine have no place to be packed out of the way...

[vsim]

That 'feature' is right up there with some of the other really bizarre purported abilities described in the Master File books.

In short, the legs are semi-deployed and the knee-joint opens up - so that the air flows directly into the lower engine nacelle (the 'hot' part), and bypasses the intake fans that are in the upper part of the leg.

So, yeah, it's totally not a ramjet/scramjet engine as they exist in reality, as those fan blades in the hot part of the engine have no place to be packed out of the way...

Wow, that's interesting, lol. Thanks Sketchley!

[David Hingtgen]

I can't say I was aware of that. A ramjet (and a scramjet for that matter) are completely different animals from a traditional turbofan/jet/prop. How do they get all of the internal mechanisms of the engine out of the way, or do they just somehow redirect all of the airflow around the compressor, etc. I could see it if they had a bigger leg to fit both engines into but there isn't a whole lot of space in that leg.

That 'feature' is right up there with some of the other really bizarre purported abilities described in the Master File books.

In short, the legs are semi-deployed and the knee-joint opens up - so that the air flows directly into the lower engine nacelle (the 'hot' part), and bypasses the intake fans that are in the upper part of the leg.

Is that really *that* different from how the SR-71 works? I assume the valk is not a "pure" ramjet in that mode.

[vsim]

Is that really *that* different from how the SR-71 works? I assume the valk is not a "pure" ramjet in that mode.

Good point . When I hear ramjet, I always tend to think of the pure ramjet instead of some of the hybrids.

Wikipedia has a really nice picture on the SR-71 page showing how the engines work at different speeds. It's not as good as a true ramjet but not as inefficient as a turbofan at mid level Mach numbers (~3).

So that gets us up to a maximum speed of around Mach 6 (in atmosphere) using normal propulsion systems. For comparison, orbital velocity for the Earth is up around Mach 25 (27,900 ft/s if I make some assumptions, lowish orbit). So we would still need to get all that extra velocity from the engines somehow, or of course, use the launch boosters.

[sketchley]

Doesn't the SR-71 use inlet cones to slow the air to subsonic speeds? Shouldn't there be something similar on the VF-1 in "ramjet" mode?

I know Macross always has the "OTEC" get out of physics problems trump card to play, but it still begs the question about the physical constraints stemming on how the VF-1's engines are actually depicted.

Compare the lower leg engine sections in these cutaways:

http://zarco-macross.wdfiles.com/local--files/wiki:vf-1x/VF1cutaway.gif

http://d20macross.site90.net/web_images/vf1guardianschem.gif

to the SR-71's engines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#/media/File:SR71_J58_Engine_Airflow_Patterns.svg

[vsim]

Doesn't the SR-71 use inlet cones to slow the air to subsonic speeds? Shouldn't there be something similar on the VF-1 in "ramjet" mode?

I know Macross always has the "OTEC" get out of physics problems trump card to play, but it still begs the question about the physical constraints stemming on how the VF-1's engines are actually depicted.

BTW, sketchley, the second link you posted didn't work for me.

Yes, the SR-71 moves the inlet cones fore and aft to control the shock wave to slower the air entering the engine to subsonic. The VF-1 does have a lip over the top of the engine (number 18 on sketchley's first linked image) that could slow the air entering the engine to subsonic (up to a certain speed), but does it move? Maybe a combination of this leading edge lip combined with shaping using the engine inlet doors? It's hard to guess without putting one in a wind tunnel to see where the shock waves form, etc. The engines on the VF-1 are much closer in to the body than the SR-71 and therefore there are bound to be some complex interactions going on at higher Mach numbers.

[sixtybucks]

Just went through this whole thread, whew!, some interesting arguments from the "it should work" camp but I remain unconvinced. As much as I love the VF-1 this big aerodynamic flaw has always been something that bothered me. Sure, it could work with a heavy dose of Overtechnology hand waving on it, but it would be still a flawed design.

Basically this thing can't glide safely. You lose power and you are a dart going straight to the ground because you have no aerodynamic pitch control. Or if you are in a dogfight and you need to ease back on the throttle, bam, you lose it again. One engine dies and you're screwed, same story. Some already mentioned having to probably do very fast landings due to this. You can't slow down on this thing, unless the throttle is not the throttle, it's the airbrake control!

And the vectoring nozzles even if they snapped into place instantly, they wouldn't give you a force normal/perpendicular to the horizontal axis, they are still only pushing at an angle... anyway, enough rant.

Would it have been to hard to put a couple elevators there Mr. Kawamori?

[JB0]

Basically this thing can't glide safely. You lose power and you are a dart going straight to the ground because you have no aerodynamic pitch control.

If you lose power, you're in big trouble anyways. I can't imagine a microfusion reactor fault being anything but bad news, even in an atmosphere. Best case, you ran through all your hydrogen, which it's implied is REALLY hard to do, so you've probably been flying continuously for DAYS. After that, it seems like there's a lot of problems that make landing an intellectual exercise on account of the plane is now made entirely of rapidly-expanding plasma.

And the vectoring nozzles even if they snapped into place instantly, they wouldn't give you a force normal/perpendicular to the horizontal axis, they are still only pushing at an angle... anyway, enough rant.

But the reaction thrusters are always in place and (mostly) pushing directly perpendicular instead of at an odd angle.

Would it have been to hard to put a couple elevators there Mr. Kawamori?

It would've critically damaged the VF-1's LCF.

(Look-Cool Factor)

[David Hingtgen]

The rudders are canted enough that they could at least do some "nose up" control, like the F-18 does. (when moved down, they're little more than airbrakes---again, like the (Super)F-18 does with its rudders)

[sixtybucks]

@JB0 Well, I just checked and yes, the VF-1 has 2 thrusters on each leg pointing up and 1 thruster on each arm pointing down in fighter mode (thought not in a straight opposite position). These could potentially provide proper pitch control... and I guess if we go with the idea that they heat air to shoot it out, then there's no limit to how long you can fly it, just pilot fatigue.

@David Hingtgen yeah, I thought about the canted rudders but, like you say, kinda like an emergency deal, not really for sharp maneuvering.

I think that will do it for me, just because it has these thrusters in reasonable spots... otherwise it would be still be bugging me! Oh and fusion is safe as far as I know, no meltdowns to worry about, just the Zentraedis trying to shoot you down.

It would've critically damaged the VF-1's LCF.
(Look-Cool Factor)

Well, that's subjective isn't it? The F-14 is cool as hell to me with the wings fully swept and a VF-1 with elevators can't be that far from that...

[mickyg]

Well, I just checked and yes, the VF-1 has 2 thrusters on each leg pointing up and 1 thruster on each arm pointing down in fighter mode (thought not in a straight opposite position). These could potentially provide proper pitch control... and I guess if we go with the idea that they heat air to shoot it out, then there's no limit to how long you can fly it, just pilot fatigue.

Wait, these red things are thrusters? I always wondered what they were for.

Edited June 16, 2015 by mickyg

[JB0]

Oh and fusion is safe as far as I know, no meltdowns to worry about, just the Zentraedis trying to shoot you down.

There's different kinds of safe. It won't dump long-lived radioactive material all over the place when it goes, but you've still got a small sun contained in something the size of an ice chest.