The Real World capabilities of a VF-1 Valkyrie

[camk4evr]

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.

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.

And assuming the hydrogen slush they use for fuel is as volatile as regular hydrogen... you'd better not ignore the 'no smoking' sign.

Seriously, I was at the Abbotsford airshow one year and there was a fuel leak and a bunch of morons were smoking around the spilled jet fuel (the clean up crews were cleaning it up while people were puffing away watching).

[JB0]

And assuming the hydrogen slush they use for fuel is as volatile as regular hydrogen... you'd better not ignore the 'no smoking' sign.

That too.

And given it's almost certainly just supercooled hydrogen(slush because it's cold enough to partially solidify)... yeaaaaaah.

Also, I assume the Valkyrie's nature as an aerospace craft means the focus is probably on ensuring you never lose power rather than ensuring it's flyable without power. In space all the control surfaces in the world won't help you get home.

Also it's transformable nature. Power failure in GERWALK or battroid mode, you aren't going far in any direction except down... unless you were "skating" your GERWALK, then you might be traveling in a lot of different directions as soon as that foot hits the ground.

So yeah... just do your best to ensure you have power at all times, given glide potential is only valid to one of six major possibilities(three modes x two environments)

[sketchley]

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

The one on the forearm is a camera.

[sixtybucks]

The one on the forearm is a camera.

If that's true then I'm back to square one! May I ask where you got this info?

[vsim]

I think I did try one engine out flying with the vehicle in the simulation I did, and I seem to recall it worked, but was certainly more limited than with two engines.

I never did two engines out because I never taught the control law to deal with that condition. i.e. have the mixer use the rudders, speed brake, and possibly flaps to provide pitch up/down moments and trim the aircraft closer to neutral. It's likely possibly, and with the thrusters it should be able to land safely.

Now losing an engine in gerwalk....hehe... wheeeee!

[sketchley]

If that's true then I'm back to square one! May I ask where you got this info?

Doing a little delving into it - memory serves wasn't quite accurate. It wasn't a camera eye, but a "Hybrid Sensor" (presumably includes a camera).

As for a source, one or all of the following:

Macross Perfect Memory. Tokyo: Minori Library, Oct. 1984

"Macross Plus Game Edition." Shouji Kawamori. PS1 CD-ROM. Takara, 2000.

"VF Evolutionary Theory." Great Mechanics.DX 9. Tokyo: Futabashi Co., Jun. 2009.

"Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie." Tokyo: GA Graphic, Aug. 2009

"Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Space Wings." Tokyo: GA Graphic, Dec. 2010

For kicks, google VF forearm hybrid sensor and see what other VFs come up.

[sixtybucks]

@sketchley Holy @#%$ dude, I just found a bunch of translations made by you! You are awesome! Here goes the rest of my evening, thanks!

[JB0]

If that's true then I'm back to square one! May I ask where you got this info?

The VF-1 has some number of attitude thrusters that are rarely illustrated, just because without them it can't maneuver in space.

The best example is the VTOL thrusters on the trainer in DYRL.

[grigolosi]

And assuming the hydrogen slush they use for fuel is as volatile as regular hydrogen... you'd better not ignore the 'no smoking' sign.

Seriously, I was at the Abbotsford airshow one year and there was a fuel leak and a bunch of morons were smoking around the spilled jet fuel (the clean up crews were cleaning it up while people were puffing away watching).

The jet fuel in use now is on the same lines as kerosene or diesel. You can throw a lit cigarette or match in it and it won't even spark. Now if you bring an electrical spark into play, say goodbye. when we refuel fighters we worry more about static discharge than anything else........Try changing a tire on an F-16 while the knuckleheads in the bay next to you are trying to refuel in a thunderstorm......gotta love foreign AF's.

[grigolosi]

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...

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).

The HOTAS is strictly a cockpit configuration designed to ease the load on the pilot so he can focus on flying and fighting. The FLCS is a seperate system, when they introduced the HOTAS Blk 6 mod to the VF-1 it more than likely had no impact on the actual flight control system in use on it. Even now we use a HOTAS configured cockpit in most of our 4th and definitely the 5th gen fighters. Most FLCS system computers are programmed with the aircraft frame and flight control limits like you mentioned. In the case of an aircraft like the VF-1 built with an already stronger than normal frame and the ECS to provide further reinforcement, the flight control envelope must be beyond what our pilots now could estimate. This would mean the pilot of a VF would have to be literally attempting to crush the frame to push the FLCS beyond its limits. This is just speculation but it seems these frames were built to push even the tech in Macross to its limits.

[mickyg]

Welcome to the forums Grigolosi! And what a way to introduce yourself! I take it you've got a fair bit of experience with the real thing?

I'm working on getting into the RAAF here in Australia - hoping to get in as an Avionics tech. I love all the "real world" stuff that we talk about here, in reference to otherwise very "otherworldly" stuff that all the Macross tech is. There's a fair bit of talent in the members here. Glad we've scored another one!

[grigolosi]

Yup I spent 23 yrs in the USAF as an F-16 crew chief. I have seen a lot of real world stuff on fighters. That is probably one of the other reasons of many I like macross so much. I love fighter aircraft. Kawamori has designed some beautiful aircraft over the past 30 yrs. Thanks for the welcome!

Edited July 20, 2015 by grigolosi

[grigolosi]

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.

The F-16 and some other designs have gotten around the shock wave issue by using curved intakes. The intake on an F-16 slopes upward and then slightly down as it nears the the engine fan frame to act as a shock wave dampener. The actual fan frame has IGV's (inlet guide vanes) to angle the airflow even more and slow it down and further back in the compression section it uses VSV's (variable stator vanes) to assist in airflow direction. My guess is that the VF-1 engine would use IGV's to angle the airflow also to slow it down. But the cutaway picture I have seen of the FF-2001 also shows that the front fan section as expected is separate from the engine due to the design of what is the upper leg in Battroid and is connected by the flexible ducting system as mentioned earlier. The front shock wave dampening would depend on how far back from the intake lip the front fan is situated. The leg ducting could also act the same as the angled intake on the F-16 and F-18 in slowing down the airflow.

Edited July 24, 2015 by grigolosi

[Mommar]

The F-16 and some other designs have gotten around the shock wave issue by using curved intakes. The intake on an F-16 slopes upward and then slightly down as it nears the the engine fan frame to act as a shock wave dampener. The actual fan frame has IGV's (inlet guide vanes) to angle the airflow even more and slow it down and further back in the compression section it uses VSV's (variable stator vanes) to assist in airflow direction. My guess is that the VF-1 engine would use IGV's to angle the airflow also to slow it down. But the cutaway picture I have seen of the FF-2001 also shows that the front fan section as expected is separate from the engine due to the design of what is the upper leg in Battroid and is connected by the flexible ducting system as mentioned earlier. The front shock wave dampening would depend on how far back from the intake lip the front fan is situated. The leg ducting could also act the same as the angled intake on the F-16 and F-18 in slowing down the airflow.

I love it when we get insight from someone who has actually worked on these systems in such detail.

Also, are you seriously living in the UAE right now? How is it?

[Valkyrie Driver]

The jet fuel in use now is on the same lines as kerosene or diesel. You can throw a lit cigarette or match in it and it won't even spark. Now if you bring an electrical spark into play, say goodbye. when we refuel fighters we worry more about static discharge than anything else........Try changing a tire on an F-16 while the knuckleheads in the bay next to you are trying to refuel in a thunderstorm......gotta love foreign AF's.

See, I told that contracting company (I interviewed with a contractor before I exited the Air Force, don't remember which one though) that they needed weather guys. But hey, look at Afghanistan, taliban took over and executed the meteorologists for practicing witchcraft...

[grigolosi]

Yeah I am working with AMMROC on the F-16 platform here. The country isn't bad at all. Hell the most dangerous part of living here is driving. One of the drawbacks though is not being able to get any pork products in the restaurants but believe it or not we can get pork here in certain grocery stores you just can't get pork bacon or sausage in the restaurants here. The heat though is insane. This isn't just a dry heat either since the country sits right on the Persian gulf we get LOTS of humidity with the 100+ degree temps.

Here they get so little rain that the Emiraties never have to deal with lightning within 5 NM like the USAF does. That day we had torrential downpours and thunderstorms. They also don't understand how a little static can ignite 11,600 lbs of jet fuel in a flash so we had to explain to them and the fuel truck drivers.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Yeah, lightning is no joke. I remember one specific instance where we'd had a lightning strike dead center of Campbell Army Airfield, the ops guys brought in a glassed chunk of asphalt about 18" across and 6 inches thick, weighed about 15-20 lbs if I had to guess. They pulled it up during the FOD walk that morning, shut down the airfield for a good day and a half, to fix it.

[Valkyrie1981]

I am blown away by all the responses to this thread I started. I was an A-10A Thunderbolt II (Took my HD after 6 years before the C Model was in place) So I was dealing with some pretty primitive stuff. So far we've had some fellow Air Force Crew Chiefs, Australian Royal Air Force, British Royal Air Force, Computer programmers, designers, and simulators all working on this problem. We've also went above and beyond the topic into some very detailed stuff that I was very happy to geek out on. I am very much reminded of my time sitting at End of Runway waiting for planes and bullshitting with all the other chiefs of the different air frames everyone bitching and problem solving one problem or another be it the Viper, the Eagle, even got to work with a Germany Mig-29 Fulcrum... Which the Germans hated maintaining... As they stated those shits broke as soon as they got them.

After all of this I think I have come to the conclusion that the VF-1 Valkyrie can fly effectively without traditional elevators to provide pitch control. The vector thrust and puff-jets as well as using the elevator tabs will work. I have also done a little more research into this and noticed during the Macross: Do You Remember Love? (Opening) for the PSX Game at the 00:50 mark the VF-1 does a quick flight control check. In this the Ailerons clearly move in the same directions as a elevator which make them obviously Elevon. I initially gave very little faith to the Elevon system after personally watching a F-117 fall from the sky like a bird having a stroke and ruining a lot of peoples houses and forcing the Air Force to buy out the entire neighborhood and bulldoze it. (Its RAM was still Top Secret back then.) However my research back into the elevon turned me to the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger... Man was that thing a piece of crap, but had workable elevons. I also had issues with elevons really reducing the Valkyrie's cander during pitch messing with wing efficiency (under the impression before that the surface area was bad which turns out I was wrong), but throw in Puff jets and vector thrust and the elevons will work out. One thing we really didn't go into as a possibility is Adaptive Compliant Wings, Fluidic Logic Systems, or Active Aeroelastic Wing. All of which are sound terrestrial systems we will most likely see in 6th Generation aircraft. Which makes you look at the VF as being a more ahead of its time than a 4 Gen going for a design that didn't have elevators.

It was also confirmed on this thread without a shadow of a doubt that the VF-171 Nightmare Plus Leg thrust vectoring design being locked in fighter mode that way is stupid, and needs to go to the stupid farm, so it can be beaten to death by a herd of cows!

[JB0]

Well, the F117 isn't really a fair demonstration of ANY aerodynamic principle except "enough thrust will make anything fly". With aerodynamics like that, it's more surprising that they managed to get it to NOT fall from the sky like a bird having a stroke, elevons or not.

[Valkyrie1981]

If anything is if you put enough engines on it, it will fly is the F-4 Phantom.

[grigolosi]

Don't forget flight control computers either, without that FLCC, the F-117 was damn near uncontrollable. The X-29 was also that same way due to its forward swept wing. I read once it took 3 flight control computers to keep it within a controllable envelope. The control surfaces on the VF-1 wing have to behave also like a flaperon also. Not only does it have to provide pitch control like the elevon but it also has to provide some form of flap control for landing. Somewhere along the way they were able to combine 3 surfaces into one. The flight controls on it must be some what a nightmare. It includes a leading edge flap, aileron/flaperon/elevon, and speed brake. LEF's are a PITA with rigging and mounting. You then have to have a power drive unit (PDU) to move them. The flight control surfaces, more than likely will use ISA's (integrated servo actuator) since it is a fly by wire system. The engineering of this aircraft would be a masterpiece of aeronautical creation.