Does Size Really Matter?

[trueblueeyes]

Sorry for the flip message title, but this is a serious question that has been on my mind for quite a few days. Namely the larger size of the VF-0 (Length overall: 18.69m) versus the airframe size of the VF-1 (Length overall: 14.23m) So, here is my question: Is there any advantage in having a small (or large, for that matter) aircraft? And another question on the subject: Why is the VF-0 so much larger than the VF-1? Does it have anything to do with accomodating it's conventional engines? What think? Help me out aircraft experts!

Thanks,

Melissa

[Lightning]

it definately has to do with the engines, since the VF-0's engines are so fuel-hungry, the VF-0 needs to hold enough fuel for it to go fight for like 30 min with a 2 hour loiter time (somewhere near that long) and still make it back to the carrier. since the VF-1 uses Hydrogen for fuel, all it has to do is just fly and suck the air to get it's fuel, so it can fly as long as the pilot basically wants to, needing only a small space to store fuel.

as to the advantage for size, usually the smaller the aircraft, the more manuverable it is, hence, the VF-1 being able to outmanuver the VF-0 (be cool to see a VF-0 vs a -1 dogfight, to see how unbalanced they are)

Edited August 31, 2003 by Lightning 06

[JsARCLIGHT]

My guess is that it simply is a matter of different air tactics. Smaller fighters are much more nimble and manuverable than big ones but the big fighters tend to have much more power and can attain faster speeds and have much larger areas of operation.

Then again there is the old addage: most technology shrinks with age. The more streamlined and refined something gets, the smaller it gets. Look at cars, they went from being small and clunky to huge and powerful then to small and powerful

Valks on the other hand have had changing roles... the original VF-1 series was kind of a ship based short-range interceptor whereas the new VF-19 and VF-22 are long range interdiction fighters designed to fold into enemy space and "take the fight to them", thus they had to be larger.

Form follows function, find the function and it will always dictate the form.

[David Hingtgen]

Please don't use length to compare aircraft. Planes are three-dimensional. Length is actually pretty poor, wingspan is generally better. (The BEST is empty weight of the aircraft--for that actually says how much "structure" the plane has). Going by length, the Concorde will beat out 90% of all airliners due to its pointy nose and tail, even though its takeoff weight is less than half that of a 747-400. (Of course, if you go by wingspan, Concorde is on the extreme low side, even though it's medium-large overall). Now, if 2 planes have a very similar configuration (VF-0, F-14, VF-1, Tornado) then maybe one dimension will work, but as a general rule don't rely on one meausurement.(Too bad nobody ever lists volume/displacement for plane stats)

Imagine two people----a 5'10 girl and a 5'9 guy. Girl's skinny, guy's a weight lifter. She may be taller, but he's a heck of a lot bigger overall. Same with planes. Longer planes may be much smaller. (And often are, since length often accompanies high-speed pointy delta planes--like the Concorde, while BIG planes are often a bit shorter and bulkier--like a DC-10)

Anyways---yeah, look at the plane as a whole. Front, side, above. That's why planes always have 3-view drawings--need to see it as a whole, not just one dimension.

Now as for size "small is beautiful" is often said for fighters. Why? Harder to see. Having a 50-mile range missile is worthless since 99% of the time the rules of engagement require *visual* confirmation of the enemy. (F-14's have high-magnification TV cameras to do this at long range---you'd think other planes would too, but it's still an F-14-exclusive-advantage)

The main advantage of having smaller planes (real-world sense) is that they're cheaper. If the US had infinite money, we'd have 3,000 F-15's and the F-16 and F-17 wouldn't have even been considered. (And hence no F-18). F-16's the best example for a (good) small plane.

Bigger planes CAN do more. But they also cost a lot more, and cost more to operate on a daily basis. And hey, 2 engines are going to cost exactly twice as much to buy, and twice as much to maintain and buy spare parts for. It's no problem making an F-15 or F-14 carry a lot of stuff far. The real skill is taking a small lightweight day fighter (F-16A) and making it into a serious multi-purpose night-striker (F-16C Block 50). And it's still cheaper than F-15E's.

[Radd]

Due to its less efficient engines, the VF-0 has considerably shorter range, more delicate handling, and longer airframe compared to the VF-1. (Engine nacelles are comparatively longer to accommodate the earlier engine design.)

Straight from the compendium, folks.

[trueblueeyes]

Due to its less efficient engines, the VF-0 has considerably shorter range, more delicate handling, and longer airframe compared to the VF-1. (Engine nacelles are comparatively longer to accommodate the earlier engine design.)

Straight from the compendium, folks.

Thanks Radd! I am not sure how I missed that bit! That definetly answers my questions! I really need to learn to be more patient and read everything before asking a stupid question! Thanks!

[ayoung]

Due to its less efficient engines, the VF-0 has considerably shorter range, more delicate handling, and longer airframe compared to the VF-1. (Engine nacelles are comparatively longer to accommodate the earlier engine design.)

Straight from the compendium, folks.

Thanks Radd! I am not sure how I missed that bit! That definetly answers my questions! I really need to learn to be more patient and read everything before asking a stupid question! Thanks!

That was a stupid question, just kidding. I wasn't even thinking about that question, but because you asked it I now know the answer to the question. So thanks for asking the question.

[Nightbat]

I would say in a place where space is limited (aircraft carrier)

having small planes would allow you to carry more

[Murphy]

hey can somebody do a side by side picture so we can see the size difference?

[Jedi Knight]

I would love to see some orthographic views of the VF-0, especially in comparison to the VF-1. Are there any sources out there yet?

[trueblueeyes]

hey can somebody do a side by side picture so we can see the size difference?

I'll do a search while I am at work tomorrow. Although I don't remember seeing any comparison pics/drawings yet. That is why I can't wait for Hasegawa to release their 1/72 VF-0! If that comes out, it would be nice if we could convince WM Cheng to build one and shoot pics of it with one of his Hase VF-1's! That would be a really good way to do a comparison! (That or wait for Yamato to release an M0 toy! ) ...unless I can find some pics!

[Radd]

Unfortunately, Yamato seems to be planning to do their Macross Zero line in 1/72 scale, instead of the 1/60 scale that their VF-1X line is in.

[Nightbat]

Unfortunately, Yamato seems to be planning to do their Macross Zero line in 1/72 scale, instead of the 1/60 scale that their VF-1X line is in.

damn...another toyline wasted <_<

either release all 1/60's in 1/72 or vice versa, this is irritating

[Angel's Fury]

Please don't use length to compare aircraft. Planes are three-dimensional. Length is actually pretty poor, wingspan is generally better. (The BEST is empty weight of the aircraft--for that actually says how much "structure" the plane has). Going by length, the Concorde will beat out 90% of all airliners due to its pointy nose and tail, even though its takeoff weight is less than half that of a 747-400. (Of course, if you go by wingspan, Concorde is on the extreme low side, even though it's medium-large overall). Now, if 2 planes have a very similar configuration (VF-0, F-14, VF-1, Tornado) then maybe one dimension will work, but as a general rule don't rely on one meausurement.(Too bad nobody ever lists volume/displacement for plane stats)

Imagine two people----a 5'10 girl and a 5'9 guy. Girl's skinny, guy's a weight lifter. She may be taller, but he's a heck of a lot bigger overall. Same with planes. Longer planes may be much smaller. (And often are, since length often accompanies high-speed pointy delta planes--like the Concorde, while BIG planes are often a bit shorter and bulkier--like a DC-10)

Anyways---yeah, look at the plane as a whole. Front, side, above. That's why planes always have 3-view drawings--need to see it as a whole, not just one dimension.

Now as for size "small is beautiful" is often said for fighters. Why? Harder to see. Having a 50-mile range missile is worthless since 99% of the time the rules of engagement require *visual* confirmation of the enemy. (F-14's have high-magnification TV cameras to do this at long range---you'd think other planes would too, but it's still an F-14-exclusive-advantage)

The main advantage of having smaller planes (real-world sense) is that they're cheaper. If the US had infinite money, we'd have 3,000 F-15's and the F-16 and F-17 wouldn't have even been considered. (And hence no F-18). F-16's the best example for a (good) small plane.

Bigger planes CAN do more. But they also cost a lot more, and cost more to operate on a daily basis. And hey, 2 engines are going to cost exactly twice as much to buy, and twice as much to maintain and buy spare parts for. It's no problem making an F-15 or F-14 carry a lot of stuff far. The real skill is taking a small lightweight day fighter (F-16A) and making it into a serious multi-purpose night-striker (F-16C Block 50). And it's still cheaper than F-15E's.

Just an out-of-topic question, if you were to match up the VF-0, VF-1, YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel, SV-51, which of them will emerge as the top variable fighter? Please give details to support your answer.

Thanks.

[David Hingtgen]

Well the only real choice is -19 vs -22. (Sorry, but 30 years kinds of eliminates the VF-0/1/SV-51 from competition---that's like asking YF-22/YF-23 vs F-101/F-100)

Anyways---we don't really have any stats or info on most of these planes. I mean, for F-14/15/16/18 there's plenty of info, and I've seen them all fly and can make informed opinions. For valks, we only have what we see on TV.

AFAIK, the -22 is faster than the -19, but we don't know its acceleration (which is far more important--an F-16 has tremendous acceleration, better than anything--but its top speed is only Mach 2.05)

-21 has an amazing roll rate, but how much of that is due to the magic-morphing wing that the -22 doesn't have?

-19 is probably the more agile of the two overall (certainly in pitch), due to canards (NOT due to FSW).

-19 certainly is better at low-speed/high alpha manuevers, due to FSW.

-21/22 are stealthier, though neither are really *that* stealthy in appearance.

See, the thing is, the most modern fighters (F-22/Super Flanker/EF-2000/Rafale) are evaluated by the following things:

Supercruise ability. Radar range. Missile standoff range. Fuel capacity.

That's what people are going for nowadays. That's stuff we have no info on for valks. The LAST thing an F-22 wants to do is dogfight, and it's not designed for that. (It can, and is supposed to be the F-16's equal in that department). But what it's designed for is for long-range high-speed missile launches prior to detection. It is an assassin. Sneak in, attack quickly and deadly, then run like heck out of there. That's exactly what it is. The YF-23 was that to an even more extreme degree (faster, stealthier--it REALLY didn't want to dogfight--but boy would it have been able to wipe out entire squadrons from afar without anyone knowing)

And hey, what about damage? F-15's can come home missing wings, F-18's have *very* strong wings and their "way out back" engines have saved them from SAM's many times. F-14's are as tough as jets come (practically armored, while F-16's are probably just average. YF-21 sure took an incredible amount of punishment and kept flying--that certainly beats any real plane I know of. (it lost probably 35% of its structure including both tail fins and kept going)

I say the -19 looks cooler, but I can't say which is superior. Not until we get WAY more info. (Like acceleration, roll rate, pitch rate, sustained G's, rate of turn, radius of turn, time-to-height, max AOA, max AOA at various bank angles, supercruise ability, radar effectiveness, etc)

Edited September 1, 2003 by David Hingtgen

[Angel's Fury]

Well the only real choice is -19 vs -22. (Sorry, but 30 years kinds of eliminates the VF-0/1/SV-51 from competition---that's like asking YF-22/YF-23 vs F-101/F-100)

Anyways---we don't really have any stats or info on most of these planes. I mean, for F-14/15/16/18 there's plenty of info, and I've seen them all fly and can make informed opinions. For valks, we only have what we see on TV.

AFAIK, the -22 is faster than the -19, but we don't know its acceleration (which is far more important--an F-16 has tremendous acceleration, better than anything--but its top speed is only Mach 2.05)

-21 has an amazing roll rate, but how much of that is due to the magic-morphing wing that the -22 doesn't have?

-19 is probably the more agile of the two overall (certainly in pitch), due to canards (NOT due to FSW).

-19 certainly is better at low-speed/high alpha manuevers, due to FSW.

-21/22 are stealthier, though neither are really *that* stealthy in appearance.

See, the thing is, the most modern fighters (F-22/Super Flanker/EF-2000/Rafale) are evaluated by the following things:

Supercruise ability. Radar range. Missile standoff range. Fuel capacity.

That's what people are going for nowadays. That's stuff we have no info on for valks. The LAST thing an F-22 wants to do is dogfight, and it's not designed for that. (It can, and is supposed to be the F-16's equal in that department). But what it's designed for is for long-range high-speed missile launches prior to detection. It is an assassin. Sneak in, attack quickly and deadly, then run like heck out of there. That's exactly what it is. The YF-23 was that to an even more extreme degree (faster, stealthier--it REALLY didn't want to dogfight--but boy would it have been able to wipe out entire squadrons from afar without anyone knowing)

And hey, what about damage? F-15's can come home missing wings, F-18's have *very* strong wings and their "way out back" engines have saved them from SAM's many times. F-14's are as tough as jets come (practically armored, while F-16's are probably just average. YF-21 sure took an incredible amount of punishment and kept flying--that certainly beats any real plane I know of. (it lost probably 35% of its structure including both tail fins and kept going)

I say the -19 looks cooler, but I can't say which is superior. Not until we get WAY more info. (Like acceleration, roll rate, pitch rate, sustained G's, rate of turn, radius of turn, time-to-height, max AOA, max AOA at various bank angles, supercruise ability, radar effectiveness, etc)

Thanks for that info. How about the F-35 JSF, can it do long-range high-speed missile launches prior to detection, and dogfight? Does it have supercruise ability? What it's radar range, missile standoff range, fuel capacity, etc. ? (Details please.) Can that be compared to the 19 or the 21/22?

Thanks.

[David Hingtgen]

Radar range is said to be 90 miles---2/3 that of the F-22. It's the same radar basically as the 22, just a lower-power version.

Missile stand-off range should be about the same as the F-22, whatever that is. (AMRAAM's range is still classified. 30 miles is a good guess, but 10-20 is optimum. However, when launched in supercruise, range goes up. How much, still classified).

F-35 is like a slower, less stealthy F-22. Overall the same idea, just cheaper and not quite as good. And WAY less payload. That's the F-35's main suckiness (I'm not an F-35 fan, BTW---it's the F-16 replacement, even though it's worse than the F-16 in many ways). It carries *two* weapons. Either 2 JDAM's, 2 AMRAAM's, or one of each. That's it.

And, since the AMRAAM is a medium-range missile, the F-35 is so totally screwed in a dogfight. And it's not manueverable enough to to use its gun well. (Though the gun should be superior to most any other gun).

Now, the F-35 should be decently manueverable, it just won't have any weapons. The F-22 is designed to be quite fast, quite stealthy (but still less than a F-23), and carry 6-8 missiles, both short and medium range, and take out a lot of bad guys quickly. As it gets close, it still has great manueverability, short-range missiles, and a gun, so it can still dogfight if things come to that.

But the F-35--I don't know WHAT it's supposed to do. (Neither do a lot of people). F-16 replacement is often cited, but it's so not. F-16 is originally an AWESOME close-range dogfighter. Unbeatable at "knife-range", can turn on a dime. Designed to use short-range missiles. So how can a plane without short-range missiles be a replacement? Also, F-16C's and such have a very good bombing ability. Because they can carry lots of weapons. No point in a bomber with only 1 or 2 bombs. (Except the F-117, because it's ULTRA stealthy, and is used to deliver a few big bombs to very well-defended, high-value targets)---F-35 can't do that, it's not stealthy enough, and doesn't carry as big bombs. F-35 is designed to be "as good as the F-16/18" in the strike role, and have a secondary air defense capability. Well, if you add the extra pylons on to it the F-35 can carry as much stuff as an F-16/18, but then it's lost its stealth. So you have a new, expensive F-35 that's only as good as the 16/18. And it's certainly 2nd-rate as a fighter. What's the point?

It does have good range though. Lots of fuel. More than an F-15. (Not a lot more, but more---but since it only feeds one engine, instead of two like the F-15, it can go quite far) However, F-15's usually load up on 3 huge drop tanks--another 50%. And then add FAST packs to an F-15 for even more. Can't do that on a F-35 without totally losing its stealthiness. (There is NO POINT in a stealth plane that can lose its stealthiness, IMHO )

[0Coota0]

I think, think, that the F-35 will be used on the first night of a war to hit places that stealth will come in handy, but by the next morning pylons will be hung on the wings with bombs for strike and missiles for defense. Hanging on to the Hornet and Falcon IMO is proabbaly a good idea. I also think the F-35 is what happens when you try to compramise an aircraft inot being what the USAF, USMC, USN, and the RAF all need it to be, while hoping for overseas sells as well. In other words it does a lot of stuff OK, but nothing great.

[J A Dare]

hmmm...I thought the purpose of the JSF was the keep the politicians' constituents happy?

Anyway, speaking of an F-16 replacement, what ever happened to the F-16XL?

Larger wing area = more payload/weapons.

Crank-arrow wing = proved just as manueverable, if not more.

Longer fuselage = more fuel, thus more range.

Retro-fit existing planes = more cost effective than a new design.

Might I add, a wicked cool looking design to boot!

I guess the only things it lacked was pseudo-stealth and STOVL. But how important are these really? Oh I take that back. Very important for the Brits, with their tiny aircraft carriers.

[Nied]

Radar range is said to be 90 miles---2/3 that of the F-22. It's the same radar basically as the 22, just a lower-power version.

Missile stand-off range should be about the same as the F-22, whatever that is. (AMRAAM's range is still classified. 30 miles is a good guess, but 10-20 is optimum. However, when launched in supercruise, range goes up. How much, still classified).

F-35 is like a slower, less stealthy F-22. Overall the same idea, just cheaper and not quite as good. And WAY less payload. That's the F-35's main suckiness (I'm not an F-35 fan, BTW---it's the F-16 replacement, even though it's worse than the F-16 in many ways). It carries *two* weapons. Either 2 JDAM's, 2 AMRAAM's, or one of each. That's it.

And, since the AMRAAM is a medium-range missile, the F-35 is so totally screwed in a dogfight. And it's not manueverable enough to to use its gun well. (Though the gun should be superior to most any other gun).

Now, the F-35 should be decently manueverable, it just won't have any weapons. The F-22 is designed to be quite fast, quite stealthy (but still less than a F-23), and carry 6-8 missiles, both short and medium range, and take out a lot of bad guys quickly. As it gets close, it still has great manueverability, short-range missiles, and a gun, so it can still dogfight if things come to that.

But the F-35--I don't know WHAT it's supposed to do. (Neither do a lot of people). F-16 replacement is often cited, but it's so not. F-16 is originally an AWESOME close-range dogfighter. Unbeatable at "knife-range", can turn on a dime. Designed to use short-range missiles. So how can a plane without short-range missiles be a replacement? Also, F-16C's and such have a very good bombing ability. Because they can carry lots of weapons. No point in a bomber with only 1 or 2 bombs. (Except the F-117, because it's ULTRA stealthy, and is used to deliver a few big bombs to very well-defended, high-value targets)---F-35 can't do that, it's not stealthy enough, and doesn't carry as big bombs. F-35 is designed to be "as good as the F-16/18" in the strike role, and have a secondary air defense capability. Well, if you add the extra pylons on to it the F-35 can carry as much stuff as an F-16/18, but then it's lost its stealth. So you have a new, expensive F-35 that's only as good as the 16/18. And it's certainly 2nd-rate as a fighter. What's the point?

It does have good range though. Lots of fuel. More than an F-15. (Not a lot more, but more---but since it only feeds one engine, instead of two like the F-15, it can go quite far) However, F-15's usually load up on 3 huge drop tanks--another 50%. And then add FAST packs to an F-15 for even more. Can't do that on a F-35 without totally losing its stealthiness. (There is NO POINT in a stealth plane that can lose its stealthiness, IMHO )

AFAIK the F-35A is supposed to be an F-16 that can be stripped of all it's external weapons to become a fairly stealthy (IIRC it's purported to be almost as stealthy as the Nighthawk) first day of war weapon. Otherwise it's comperable in performance to the F-16. I think the USAF took a hit for the other services, who got a fairly stealthy plane with the performance of an F-16 that could either a. Land on a carrier(USN/RN), or b. Land anywhere it wants (USMC/RAF/RN).

[David Hingtgen]

I see the point for the "first day" thing, but I mean--F-117, plus B-2, plus the almost-sorta-stealthy B-1B should be more than enough. We've got a lot more stealthy stuff now than for '91. (When B-1B's were still pretty much nuke-only, and B-2's not in service).

And, with plenty of F-15C's, that opens up the F/A (blech) -22 to stuff JDAMS in its belly for the first day and act like an F-117 (though less stealthy).

J A Dare---the F-16XL was in direct competition to the F-15E. And the F-15E was even cheaper than the XL, since there's very little to change between an F-15D and E. Thus F-15E was chosen. (I do believe the 15E was superior in most aspects, though I bet XL won on range--I'd have to look it all up though)

[Lightning]

AFIAK, from all the info, it seems like the F-35 (crap) was supposed to also replace the AV-8 as well.

[Nied]

I see the point for the "first day" thing, but I mean--F-117, plus B-2, plus the almost-sorta-stealthy B-1B should be more than enough.  We've got a lot more stealthy stuff now than for '91.  (When B-1B's were still pretty much nuke-only, and B-2's not in service). 

And, with plenty of F-15C's, that opens up the F/A (blech) -22 to stuff JDAMS in its belly for the first day and act like an F-117 (though less stealthy).

F-117 is old and getting unsuportable (though I suppose they could build more), the B-2 is mighty expensive to operate and more of a strategic solution, ditto with the B-1, with the added disavantage of not being a very stealthy design (redesigned intakes or not). The F-15C is more than good at what it does, but it's also getting old and it will eventually be unsuportable, and I doubt the Air Force would want to replace them with more F-15s. While the F-22 could be very easily be turned into an extremely effective strike platform, with only 339 of them to go around (or is it 200 now, I can't remember) they can't be everywhere, besides which they wouldn't be perfect for everything (CAS and FAC come readily to mind).

edited for grammar and punctuation

Edited September 3, 2003 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

Lightning 06---yeah, that's the one thing it can do well---a stealthy faster Harrier. (I think it'd be a much better Sea Harrier replacement than Harrier II replacement, but that's a whole 'nother thread)

Nied--pretty sure it's still 339.

[Lightning]

well, once i make it through AIT (i've yet to make it thru Boot Camp) i should be able to enlighten us all in a few months on what's goin on with the old fighters and bombers.

Anyone know where i could pick up a surplus F-117? (that would be cool, even though it's not supersonic)

[0Coota0]

Dave, don't get me wrong, I dont think the F-35 is the answer to every service. I believe it is a great replacement for the Harriers, the British and the marines should be happy. I think it has a light load for the Air Force and as someone who is taking his Naval flight aptitude tests in January, I'm really not comfortable with the F-35 not having but one engine,especially when flying over water <_

[Lightning]

i just dont like the F-35 design altogether, the big intake (like it has been said before) makes it look like a bigmouth bass and a big fat plane, not really sleek at all. even the F-22 looks better than that thing!

[ewilen]

You're thinking of the Boeing X-32; the Lockheed X-35 won the JSF competition. Here's a pic:

Regarding JSF role, I think it all comes down to affordability (of acquisition and maintenance) and the likely threat. If David's right about JSF's range, that's a big advantage in future conflicts where there is serious concern about accessibility of nearby bases. Unless and until China emerges as a real military rival, the U.S. is looking at conflicts with third-world dictators and militias. These guys have poorly-trained, poorly equipped forces. In this context, the hardest part for the designers and buyers is keeping costs down so we have enough matériel to cover our farflung commitments.

Edited September 3, 2003 by ewilen