Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andras

  1. It might just be a matter of reducing the twitchyness of the controls. The YF might have been so sensitive that a less then stellar pilot gets caught in PIO and loses control. Dial down the twitch factor, the raw sustained performance remains, but it easier for a lesser skilled pilot of remain in control. Here's a thought, should the AVF program been run out of a ship instead of on a planet? Lose control in space you are not likely to run into anything soon. Lose control in the air, well, the ground is waiting.
  2. But VFMF has no more 'legal' standing the SkyA does, right? That's two non-canon sources contradicting each other. Does the Chronicle say anything? That's one of the few official sources. Larger bore cannon like the 78mm should have a lower MV then the small bore guns. For example, the Oto Melara 76mm has a m/v of 905m/s, while the 35mm Oerlikon runs 1175m/s. In this case the longer range gun has the lower m/v, 2-4x the range in fact. The Oto127/64 has a lower MV and even longer eff range then the 76mm. Shell weight determines eff range, not m/v. BTW, have they ever defined the difference between 'Standard T/O weight' and 'Maximum T/O weight' in the published stats?
  3. Sky Angels also gives the GU-11 a muzzle velocity of 5980m/sec. Has that ever been changed in a later publication? 'Cuz if not, wow, with a GAU-8 API round scaled up to 55mm, that's roughly a 2.4kg shell hitting for 43MJ each.
  4. Ok, I see in Picture E where the green part flips over, that would also block any beam gun in the flippy sections wouldn't it. The green section on the model do appear to be thinner then the art depicts. There's also an extra set of missile ports on the now exposed dorsal surface of the green sections between the vertical tail fins. It's also possible there is no beam gun there, and that is just a mating interface with the fixed part of the arm where the hand retracts in F mode.
  5. sw-xaii: I'm certain the missile ports as shown all the way to the rear in F mode is an error. They are shown to be at the rear of the lower arm/elbow joint in B&G modes, so unless the upper arm can stretch all the way to the back of the fighter, the elbows should be towards the front, and the hands/beamguns pointed aft, as in most other VFs.
  6. Since we're talking advanced VFs here: I've been looking at the SW-XAII and how to integrate it into my Mekton lists. The arms look like they have a large bore beam gun in each outer panel, in fact, they really look like they have a version of VF-1s arm mounted fast packs with beam cannon instead of missiles, and there is also a missile port in the back of the lower arm. (Also like the beam guns in the arm packs on the VF25Armored & Typhoon) If it is a competitor/contemporary to the VF-17 then matching beam cannon in the arms makes a certain amount of sense. The failure is they point to the rear in F mode (ok for dogfighting perhaps). On the other hand, the missile ports in the legs do point forwards in F mode, but they also point straight up into the wings, body and arms in G and B modes. So in F mode you can fire the leg missiles to the front, while in B&G mode you have forwards firing beamcannon. The arm missiles (only 8 per arm, like the VF-5000) seem like they point backwards in Fighter, but would be all-around in B & G modes. Since the VF17 can fire it's beam cannon forwards in F mode you now see why it was chosen as the strike VF and not the SW-XAII (aside from the fact it doesn't officially exist in M-universe) http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossga/sw-xaii-schneegans.htm
  7. I found an interesting factoid in the Sky Angels book. The VF-1 has an exhaust velocity of 10km/sec and a total delta-v of 6530m/s http://i.imgur.com/SJKoO7N.png I figured this wasn't worth a thread on it's own, and we don't really have a thread for the technical discussion of the VF-1 (do we?).
  8. You included the afterburner max thrust of 42klbs in that t/w ratio. At 28,000lbs dry thrust, F135 is roughly 7.46:1 on max military power, with the fuel pipes stripped out of the burner can. Going go back to the VF11s, the -B models engines put out 28.5kg of thrust, the MAXL, 41,500kg, so of course there will be a need for reinforcement. In the case of the F16XL/F135 though, you ignored the stipulation that there is no afterburner, and max thrust is slightly lower then the existing F110 engine.
  9. F110 General characteristics Type: Afterburning turbofan Length: 182.3 - 232.3 in (463 - 590 cm) Diameter: 46.5 in (118 cm) Dry weight: 3,920 - 4,400 lb (1,778 - 1,996 kg) F135 General characteristics Type: Afterburning Turbofan Length: 220 in (5.59 m) Diameter: 46 in (1.1684 m)[41] Dry weight: 1,701 kg / 3,750 lbs So, the F135 is actually smaller then the F110, which is the engine for the F16C/D and F16XL-2. W/o an afterburner section it will be shorter and lighter. TheC/D has the universal engine bay allowing either the F100 or the F110, so adapting a smaller F135 doesn't seem to be too much of an issue. In addition, the F135 on dry thrust produces as much thrust as early F110s, or slightly less the later variants, so the frame would not need to be reinforced.
  10. The VF-1 Super booster packs on one of the DVD covers do have tiny wings that might be sensors of some kind. http://i.imgur.com/s0IecdY.jpg The other interesting thing about that cover is the 4 barrel gatling carried in hand or under the wing, in addition to the GU-11 pod.
  11. GuardianGrey: I still feel the F-16 (original, F-16XL, as Andras said, or F-16AT that lead to the F-22's wing design) is better than the F-35 A/C units. And the F-35B (the only one that can VTOL) only has the advantage over the AV-8B in speed. You know what I'd like to see? The F135 engine stuffed in the F16XL. The XL had a 24klb engine in the single seat and a 29klb engine in the 2 seater. The F135 makes 28klbs dry, and it has a better fuel economy (.7 vs .8sfc) So not only would it be M2+ on dry thrust, but it would have a cruise range of nearly 3000 miles. Slap some modern avionics and a WSO in the backseat and you'd have one heck of a strike fighter. eta: apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. NO afterburner for the F135 which limits thrust to 28k.
  12. No, you aren't. I have the Aero Series volume on the F-15 (1978) I practically grew up with that book welded to my hands since grade school. The conformal pallets were supposed to be removable and replaceable so the same airframe could perform multiple missions. The fuel pallets had enough to make a nonstop trans-Atlantic crossing w 3 600gallon tanks in 5 hours. The proposed pallet packages were: ECM+ fuel Recon Sensors (on a 2 seater) Strike Assist (IR/Laser + fuel Conformal Bomb Carriage + fuel- this became the E model Conformal AIM-7 Carriage + fuel- would have added fuel while keeping the AIM7s Augmented Thrust (fuel plus small boost engine of some kind) Critical Cargo Carrier w 2 compartments Gunpod w cannon, ammo, and fuel Spray tanks Buddy tanker w probe and fuel The recon pack was to replace the RF-4E birds, in combination with a 2 seat model.
  13. The E model itself was a bit late to be a direct inspiration for the VF-1 FAST packs (E model first flight '86, operational '88) But the concept of the FAST/CFTs was demonstrated at the 1980 Farnborough show. wiki says: McDonnell Douglas modified the second TF-15A prototype, serial number 71-0291, as a demonstrator. The aircraft, known as the Advanced Fighter Capability Demonstrator, first flew on 8 July 1980.[9] It was previously used to trial conformal fuel tanks (CFT), initially designed for the F-15 under the designation "FAST Pack", with FAST standing for "Fuel and Sensor, Tactical.[9] It was subsequently fitted with a Pave Tack laser designator targeting pod to allow the independent delivery of guided bombs.[11] The demonstrator was displayed at the 1980 Farnborough Airshow.[12]
  14. Does anyone know what the a/c doing the refueling for the VF-0 in Zero were? They kind of looked like S3 Vikings.
  15. Or the F16XL, with the stretched body, larger wing, greater ordnance capacity, and larger radius of action.
  16. Yes, too bad they weren't shown at all in the space fight leading up it. And the racks are are usually mounted in pairs, so there should have been 6. Paired racks fire missiles at the same time, so again, 3 missiles does't work according to what is seen on screen. 2, 4, or 6. Are VF25s ever shown on screen with triple underwing racks, or are they all Armored and Supers? Are the triple racks only in VFMF?
  17. Frame by Frame shows 3 missiles hit, they seem to be about the size of the larger VF171 underwing missiles (AAMM-05D). Three missiles is an 'odd' choice, you'd expect an even number if they were stored in symetrical bays.
  18. Went back and checked the Supers rof from the boosters. From the Frontier Itano Circus AMV, at 2:29-2:31, a 25 fires 2 successive volleys of missiles 45 frames apart. That's 1.5 seconds at 30fps between volleys of 3, so it's better then I remembered. IIRC the discussion at the time (on Spacebattles) was if it could carry 480 missiles as per the art, and I think I said that it would take almost 5 minutes of full rate to empty them. That they use the gunpod more then missiles, so it was seem that missles are of a more limited resource then the gunpod was. With 5 minutes at full rate, they could just ignore the gunpod and lay about with micros willy nilly. I jokingly said that if you took the VFMF at face value, you could take an Isamu spec VF19 with -25 wing pods and -19 backpack pods and have 1400 micromissiles.
  19. Aslo the Armored has 4 more FXA60 Antiarmor rockets in the extra armor over the hips.
  20. The Super's booster pods have a limited RoF. Three missiles each with a few seconds between volleys. The only salvo capacity they have is the shoulder packs. The Armored pack can dump almost everything in one salvo, bar the second layer of leg missiles. It also has the 30 'anti-armor' rockets, which I've assumed to be a heavier warhead micromissile, and perhaps less maneuverable, then normal HM micros. eta- also AFAIK the only source for the 90 missiles in the Super's pods is the VF25MF, which is unoffical. The art on the same page contradicts the caption. We just don't know how many missiles are in the booster pods. eta2, if you need to justify having both, the Armoreds roll into the middle of the enemy formation using their exception maneuverability and F mode PPB to get close, and then dump everything at all the enemy units near them. Once the enemy formations are shattered, the Supers can chase down the surviving remnants with their large ammo reserves.
  21. Ok, so to clarify the VF-171 gun-pod situation, it can have either the MC-17C or a GU-14B The VF-17 has the MC-17A, which had 7x 40mm barrels, so the MC-17C seems to be a version of that gunpod. Has a VF-171 ever used a beam adapter like the VF-17 had? Maybe the MC-17C is a simpler unit that doesn't have that ability. The GU-14B seems to have 8 barrels. Does anyone know the bore diameter of the GU-14B? Thanks.
  22. Wait, I thought the VF171 was supposed to have a 7 barrel gun-pod like the VF17, that image above shows 8.
  • Create New...