HannouHeiki Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 So, I saw the above clip and was impressed that the VF-1 airframe is perfectly capable of flight. Kawamori's designs, at the very least, look as if they COULD fly. The VF-2JA looks like it would fall like a brick. Even if it could glide like a kite, how the hell would it even turn? It just looks full of drag. I guess the same would apply to the VF-2SS. Quote
Seto Kaiba Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, HannouHeiki said: So, I saw the above clip and was impressed that the VF-1 airframe is perfectly capable of flight. Kawamori's designs, at the very least, look as if they COULD fly. The VF-2JA looks like it would fall like a brick. Even if it could glide like a kite, how the hell would it even turn? It just looks full of drag. I guess the same would apply to the VF-2SS. Eh? The VF-2JA's aerodynamics aren't all that different from the VF-1's... it's hard to tell from the lineart alone but it's actually a reasonably streamlined design. It's got all the same control surfaces and so on that the VF-1 does, and a few more that it doesn't (again, it's hard to see from the art alone, but it actually has horizontal stabilizers too). Not sure how well the switch from rear to forward swept wing would work in GERWALK mode, but lift is hardly the top concern in that case. Aerodynamics aren't really the Valkyrie II's concern though, given that it's a dedicated space fighter. Quote
HannouHeiki Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 But what about the VF-2JA, the dedicated atmospheric version? It looks basically the same. The wings are so short, and nothing in the undercarriage looks like it'll help with lift. Versus the VF-1, I can't imagine an RC VF-2 take flight. Quote
Seto Kaiba Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, HannouHeiki said: But what about the VF-2JA, the dedicated atmospheric version? It looks basically the same. The wings are so short, and nothing in the undercarriage looks like it'll help with lift. Versus the VF-1, I can't imagine an RC VF-2 take flight. ... I'm not sure what you're looking at, that you're saying the VF-2JA looks "basically the same" as the VF-2SS. They don't look much alike at all, and have very different airframe shapes. The VF-2JA's aerodynamic profile is, as I said, very close to the VF-1's if you actually look at the art. It's longer, proportionally, but it's also a fair bit larger than the VF-1. It's got a nice flat bottom, and both the wing and wing glove act as lifting surface. Proportionally it all works out fine... probably better than the VF-1, considering that relied purely on thrust-vectoring and the roll control thrusters as ersatz elevators. Those models in the video you're using as reference aren't correctly proportioned either, they've had their wings enlarged quite a bit. Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Taken from a website full of aviation clichés: "The RF-4E Phantom - living proof that if you put enough engine on something … even a brick could fly." Quote
David Hingtgen Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 I came here to post "see the F-4" but someone beat me to it... Quote
NZEOD Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) see the F-104 Starfighter and the BAC Lightning... Also... Edited January 8, 2017 by NZEOD Quote
Valkyrie Driver Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 16 hours ago, Devil 505 said: Taken from a website full of aviation clichés: "The RF-4E Phantom - living proof that if you put enough engine on something … even a brick could fly." 16 hours ago, David Hingtgen said: I came here to post "see the F-4" but someone beat me to it... ^^ This. Also the F-4 was a patchwork of aerodynamic fixes to an F-101 Voodoo. By all rights it shouldn't have flown, but it did. 14 hours ago, JB0 said: See also: F117? Also true, though for some different reasons. Without computer controlled stability, the F-117 would fall out of the sky. The F-117 has no problem generating lift, it has a problem with departing stable flight. Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Valkyrie Driver said: Also true, though for some different reasons. Without computer controlled stability, the F-117 would fall out of the sky. The F-117 has no problem generating lift, it has a problem with departing stable flight. A similar quote: "With fly-by-wire, even the Statue of Liberty could fly." Quote
NZEOD Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 yeah I think most Macross airframes could fly given how much is now handled by logic engines these days. The vectorable thrust nozzles take the place of a conventional tailplane so their arent too many other issues for flight, just a hell of a flight model to program... ... to avoid things like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8 Quote
David Hingtgen Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 7 hours ago, Valkyrie Driver said: ^^ This. Also the F-4 was a patchwork of aerodynamic fixes to an F-101 Voodoo. By all rights it shouldn't have flown, but it did. F-101? I see so much more F3H in the Phantom. Quote
Nazareno2012 Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 For the record there was an aircraft that looked basically like a flying brick, the Northrop Tacit Blue: Makes Macross VF's look more flyable in comparison. It also reminds me of the RC-4 Rabbit, which is equally boxy. Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 9, 2017 Posted January 9, 2017 12 hours ago, David Hingtgen said: F-101? I see so much more F3H in the Phantom. Well, the F-4 was derived from a proposed attack version of the F3H Demon. Quote
Zentrandude Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 I remember that video. shame his fly is open. Wonder if any new updates on this rc. FPV? Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 On 01/08/2017 at 1:52 PM, NZEOD said: see the F-104 Starfighter Pretty much. Quote
NZEOD Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) in the mean time... Edited January 10, 2017 by NZEOD Quote
Valkyrie Driver Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 On 1/8/2017 at 11:33 PM, David Hingtgen said: F-101? I see so much more F3H in the Phantom. That's a direct quote from my dad, who flew the RF-101 and the F-4C/D. Though the F-101 and F3H were both outgrowths of the XF-88 Voodoo. So neither of us is strictly wrong. Quote
NZEOD Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 its funny how little flying surface vs fuselage and engines there are on the VF-1s in those videos when viewed front on. Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 15, 2017 Posted January 15, 2017 On 01/10/2017 at 2:29 PM, NZEOD said: its funny how little flying surface vs fuselage and engines there are on the VF-1s in those videos when viewed front on. There must be some lifting body characteristics when it comes to the VF-1, similar to the F-15 Eagle that was able to land with a missing wing. Quote
Sildani Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 Don't forget the vernier thrusters. They can probably put out sufficient thrust to stabilize flight for a while, wing or not. Quote
Devil 505 Posted January 16, 2017 Posted January 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, Sildani said: Don't forget the vernier thrusters. They can probably put out sufficient thrust to stabilize flight for a while, wing or not. I didn't even think about that. Quote
BlackRose Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 11 hours ago, Sildani said: Don't forget the vernier thrusters. They can probably put out sufficient thrust to stabilize flight for a while, wing or not. The VF-1 uses the roll control verniers on the wingtips even in atmosphere. It was visible a couple times in Macross Delta episode 3. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.