Jump to content

Bandai Sv-262 DX valk

seti88

By seti88
in Toys

 Share

Recommended Posts

Master Dex New Edwards Test Pilot

Master Dex

Posted
Posted

If he is serious and doesn't know, the YF-23 is the real world prototype fighter jet that was the competitor to Lockheed's prototype the YF-22. Macross often takes inspiration from reality so these kind of competitions like the one in Macross Plus happen all the time (there was a competitor to the F-35 as well.... but it looks really weird... not that the 35 is much better).

Anyway, Lockheed won the contract and developed the F-22. I actually know a lot of people who worked on the design team of the YF-23, who kinda feel shafted now. In hindsight a lot of evidence shows it really was the better plane, but this is how things go. If you want to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23

Atheonyirh Skull Leader's Lackey

Atheonyirh

Posted
Posted

My parents both worked for Northrop around that time period so I may be a bit biased, but I'm among those that feel that the YF-23 got robbed. And yes the less said about the YF-32 the better.

snakerbot Destroid Armour Waxer

snakerbot

Posted
Posted

YF-23? Where has this appeared? I don't recall ever seeing one before.

Real life. It competed with and lost to the yf-22 for the Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter program. The yf-22 was developed into the F-22 Raptor, while the yf-23 faded away. The Advanced Tactical Fighter competition was Kawamori's inspiration for Project Super Nova in Macross Plus, if I recall correctly.
Sandman SMS Squadron Leader

Sandman

Posted
Posted

Thanks to the people who left the non-assy answers. I actually misread the meaning of the posters post. I thought he meant yf-23 in Macross fiction not real life. To the rest :rolleyes:

kajnrig SMS Squadron Leader

kajnrig

Posted
Posted

Oh I dunno, the X-32 has its charms... You have to be in a certain contrarian mood to appreciate its look, but then the same could be said of the YF-23 (to a lesser degree). Who was it, some general or something who helped choose the YF-22 over the -23, who said something along the lines of "If it looks like a fighter, then it's the better choice."

The YF-23 certainly looked unorthodox compared to the more "aggressive" YF-22, and the -32 to what was essentially a scaled-down F-22 in the X-35. Both were ignored in favor of their inferior but more aesthetically pleasing competitors, proving once again that fashion really is everything.

Master Dex New Edwards Test Pilot

Master Dex

Posted
Posted

Oh I dunno, the X-32 has its charms... You have to be in a certain contrarian mood to appreciate its look, but then the same could be said of the YF-23 (to a lesser degree). Who was it, some general or something who helped choose the YF-22 over the -23, who said something along the lines of "If it looks like a fighter, then it's the better choice."

The YF-23 certainly looked unorthodox compared to the more "aggressive" YF-22, and the -32 to what was essentially a scaled-down F-22 in the X-35. Both were ignored in favor of their inferior but more aesthetically pleasing competitors, proving once again that fashion really is everything.

I suppose that is true. In the engineering world we follow the idea that form follows function. If it looks pretty and works then that is a happy accident. However the looks are the last thing designed for in a project usually.

Sounds like that general was ok with getting an inferior model as long as it looked cool, so I guess that worked out. The 22 certainly does look nice, lol.

Mazinger Bridge Bunny

Mazinger

Posted
Posted

+1 for the X-32. Hadn't seen it before, but it certainly seems like a jolly fellow. Now if they made it a 6 seater, it'd look like my mazda!

mog_kupo Global's Pipe Holder

mog_kupo

Posted
Posted

I recall seeing a documentary where they said the deciding factor was that the X-35 could make vertical take-offs without "part swapping" or something like that

Kinda like a Macross toy if you think about it

wmkjr SMS Squadron Leader

wmkjr

Posted
Posted

Can't wait to see the other aerial knights versions. Hopefully around Keith's release they'll have one on display somewhere.

kajnrig SMS Squadron Leader

kajnrig

Posted
Posted (edited)

I recall seeing a documentary where they said the deciding factor was that the X-35 could make vertical take-offs without "part swapping" or something like that

Kinda like a Macross toy if you think about it

If you're thinking of "Battle of the X Planes" by PBS Nova, yeah, that was also a big part of the decision. The X-35 demonstrated a functioning transformation to/from VTOL whereas the X-32 required parts-swapping.

When I first saw that documentary, I thought these two planes were the inspiration for Project Super Nova. But then I paid attention to timelines and got my facts straight.

Edited by kajnrig
kaiotheforsaken Bridge Bunny

kaiotheforsaken

Posted
Posted (edited)

Been a long time since I've posted here and a long time since I've bought a Valk. But this guy looks pretty slick. Would someone refresh my memory on AmiAmi and when they charge for preorders?

Edited by kaiotheforsaken
Sildani SMS Squadron Leader

Sildani

Posted
Posted

One last thing about the X-32: they could only build one. IIRC, Northrop had so much trouble curing the hand-laid CF sheets that made the wing and upper fuselage that they only had one prototype kinda ready by the deadline. And yes, before it could demo VTOL they had to rip off its intake lip and install big, non-stealthy, thrust vectoring nozzles.

Finally, it looked hideous. Northrop promised the production 32 would be quite different from the prototype, which maybe isn't the way to build confidence in your initial design.

Chronocidal Super Dimension Member

Chronocidal

Posted
Posted

Finally, it looked hideous. Northrop promised the production 32 would be quite different from the prototype, which maybe isn't the way to build confidence in your initial design.

Funny thing about that... both the production F-22 and F-35 look pretty much nothing like the prototypes either. :p Good thing, in the F-22's case, it went from a stubby boxy thing, to actually looking quite sleek, I think.

Anyway, glad these are showing up for preorders again!

M'Kyuun SMS Squadron Leader

M'Kyuun

Posted
Posted

Oh I dunno, the X-32 has its charms... You have to be in a certain contrarian mood to appreciate its look, but then the same could be said of the YF-23 (to a lesser degree). Who was it, some general or something who helped choose the YF-22 over the -23, who said something along the lines of "If it looks like a fighter, then it's the better choice."

The YF-23 certainly looked unorthodox compared to the more "aggressive" YF-22, and the -32 to what was essentially a scaled-down F-22 in the X-35. Both were ignored in favor of their inferior but more aesthetically pleasing competitors, proving once again that fashion really is everything.

Going OT, but I'll agree that the X-32 has a lovely silhouette from directly above, her only flattering angle. From any other view, it's an eyesore. I'm not sure what they had in mind for changes, but in my mind it was always going to look like a fat legless bullfrog about to swallow an insect.

IMO, the YF-23 was the far more aggressive looking aircraft with its flat, thin profile, and Northrop was really pushing unconventional design with the wing shaping and use of an all-moving V-tail in lieu of a conventional vertical and horizontal stab configuration. The YF-22 was chosen because pilots favored the more conventional setup, despite the fact that the YF-23 exceeded the YF-22 in the accomplishment of the Air Force's two primary goals: supercruise speed and stealth. In other words, the YF-23 was what the AF wanted performance-wise, but they chose the inferior design for its conventionality. Of course, this is an oversimplification, and many other factors were involved, but from everything I've read/heard, the flight control configuration won them over.

OT, I'm surprised AmiAmi are still posting POs for this thing this far out. Is anyone else? Just curious; I managed to get one through AmiAmi on one of their earlier PO reopenings, so I'm happy. I'm just wondering if there's more stock to be had this time around, perhaps b/c Delta wasn't as popular as previous Macross installments and sales are reflecting that. Anyway, I'm glad, and hope that everyone who wants one manages to get one. I wish every Bandai Macross release had this many opportunities for POs.

Chronocidal Super Dimension Member

Chronocidal

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not to drag the conversation too far off again, but I believe the YF-23 partly suffered from being "further behind" in development, without a functional weapons bay, and significantly higher production costs. It was at the bleeding edge of low signature, high speed performance, with possibly one of the lowest drag designs in history, but the complex curvature of the airframe made it a lot more difficult to manufacture. In the end, the "further along" YF-22 won out, only to be sent through a near complete redesign that might have wound up even costing more in the long run.

Far as the X-32 went.. I think the production design was supposed to ditch the delta wing for a more traditional planform, at least with certain models. Being a product of the times though, the running nickname for it was "Monica." :lol: Honestly, the only hope that thing had for a publicly acceptable name was "Guppy."

Edited by Chronocidal
Duymon Alaska Base Survivor

Duymon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Anyone else going to put this sucker in fighter or gerwalk with that clear canopy? I am :D

It seems less half-assed than the VF-27 clear canopy

Edited by Duymon
Chronocidal Super Dimension Member

Chronocidal

Posted
Posted

Yep, guess I should apologize for the derailing, but that would be a better place for it.

Back on topic, I'm just really looking forward to another valk that's not your typical F-14-ish layout, and really loving that Kawamori actually attempted something based on a single-engine design.

Really hoping we see more of that F-104-derived one as well in the future.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...