Jump to content
l_e_m

X-Valkyrie Flight Model

Recommended Posts

This is my first post, and I wanted to let anyone know who is interested that I am almost finished with the Valkyrie.

The flight test team and I have a few issues yet to work out with the flight control logic along with carrier suitability.

I used Macross source material to construct a rendition of the Valkyrie. I used the elements that worked, removed those that didn't, and made alterations for the sim's capabilities. Overall, I am satisfied with the design, and I hope everyone else is too. The paint scheme is reminiscent of what is seen on the X-35C demonstrator with a few tweaks here and there.

I am sorry that this is Robotech Valkyrie, but it is still a Valkyrie.

No one is perfect I guess. Here is the technical data on the flight model. I am sorry for the length.

VF-1A-35 Test Data

All measurements are approximate figures.

Tests were performed with GU-11 on centerline at 34,651 lbs (airport 26 C, 30.04 in Hg).

Class: 1st Generation Veritech/Variable Carrierborne Variable Geometry Aerospace Multi-Role Fighter

Service: RDFN (UNN), RDFS (UNS), RDFM, RDFAF (UNSAF), TASC, TAF, EFS, EFAF, EFM

Height (on gear): 14.68 ft. (-0.95 deg)

Length: 47.5 ft.

Wingspan (unswept, 20deg): 48.76 ft.

Wingspan (swept, 60deg): 32.28 ft.

Aspect ratio (unswept): ~5.33

Aspect ratio (swept): ~<2.00

Cruise L/D (35,000 ft, 0.80 Mach): 5.8:1

Max Cruise L/D--VG override (35,000 ft, 0.80Mach): 7.6:1

(L/D is a mark of subsonic aerodynamic efficiency.)

Weight (empty): 29,000 lbs

Weight (combat, typical): 35,700 lbs [12 AMM-1 Stilletos, 1 GU-11]

Weight (maximum): 45,000 lbs

Weight (typical D20, 50% fuel): 300 lbs [enough to maintain limited LEO, SFC .01 lbs/hr]

Engines (atmosphere): 104,000 lbs [overboost, 200%], 52,000lbs [military, 100%]

Engines (space): 104,000 lbs

TtW (military, atmosphere, typical combat weight): 1.46: 1

TtW (military, atmosphere, GU-11 on centerline): 1.60: 1

Max Speed (1,000 ft. AGL, overboost): Mach 1.35

Max Speed (10,000 ft. AGL, overboost): Mach 1.88

Max Speed (30,000 ft. AGL, overboost): Mach 2.50+

Max Speed (60,000 ft. AGL, overboost): Mach 4.50+

Speed (1,000 ft. AGL, military): Mach 1.00

Speed (10,000 ft. AGL, military): Mach 1.10

Speed (30,000 ft. AGL, military): Mach 1.88

Supercruise (40,000 ft. AGL, military): Mach 1.90+

Maximum Service Ceiling: > 400,000 ft.

Take Off Speed (military): 120 knots

Vunstick: 135 knots

Carrier Landing Approach: 135 knots, 8 deg AOA

Stall Speed (generalized): 100 knots, 18.5 deg AOA

Time to Atmospheric Ceiling (takeoff to 120,000 ft, overboost, not in reaction mass mode): 99 s

Climb Rate (during atmospheric ceiling climb): 72,727ft/min+

Note: Climb rate during atmospheric ceiling is less actually than climb rate in atmosphere due to the engine's power loss in thinner air and the vacuum.

Models -J and -S with an additional 6,000 lbs thrust combined in military and 12,000 lbs in overboost should have a better than marginal climb rate when compared to the -A.

The following is representative of the final performance of the airframe with full consideration of a humanoid operator.

FBW Instantaneous G-Load (350knots, 10,000 ft. AGL): 8.5 G

FBW Maximum Roll-Rate (350knots, 10,000 ft. AGL): 310 deg/sec

FBW Maximum Roll-Rate (550knots, 10,000 ft. AGL): 170 deg/sec

FBW Best Instantaneous Turn Rate 180 deg turn (500 KIAS, 1,000 ft AGL, military): max 9.5 G, ~27 deg/s (stall)

FBW Best Sustained Turn-Rate 360 deg turn (400 KIAS, 1,000 ft AGL, military): 9.5 G, ~20 deg/s

FBW Best Instantaneous Turn Rate 180 deg turn (400 KIAS, 10,000 ft AGL, military): max 9.0 G, ~25 deg/s (stall)

FBW Best Sustained Turn-Rate 360 deg turn (400 KIAS, 10,000 ft AGL, military): 8.0 G, ~19 deg/s

FBW Best Instantaneous Turn Rate 180 deg turn (400 KIAS, 30,000 ft AGL, military): max 9.0 G, ~16.5 deg/s (stall)

FBW Best Sustained Turn-Rate 360 deg turn (400 KIAS, 30,000 ft AGL, military): 5.5 G, ~11 deg/s

Models -J and -S with an additional 6,000 lbs thrust combined in military would potentially have better performance throughout the entire flight envelope but especially at higher altitudes.

Maximum Controllable AOA: +55deg/-30deg

Structural G-Limit: +11.5 G/-5.5 G

FBW G-Limit: +10.5 G/-4.5 G

Flying Controls: Valkyrie has a redundant fly by light control system. The main wing is a two section fowler flap (flaperons out board, flapervators in board) with spoiler/speedbrake that occupies the entire trailing edge with full leading edge slats. Midbody LERX has wing fence and conventional outward canted vertical stabilizers with center mounted rudder. Two-dimensional thrust vectoring (20 deg pitch, 10 deg roll) replace conventional tailerions. Assorted vernier thrusters assist in pitch control in atmosphere, and three dimensional thrusters provide attitude control in a vacuum. One pair of small ventral mounted strake elevators to assist in correcting pitching moments, and there is a speedbrake stored behind the fuselage's cockpit.

On a further note, you can watch a demo video of an older version of this flight model here @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUuLtNFa0N0

You can download the model here @ http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?automo...p;showfile=3545

post-5495-1186492602_thumb.png

Edited by l_e_m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like you squished it in that picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looks like you squished it in that picture.

It's according to scale. (The featured fighter on the left is a F-22A; the one on the right is a F/A-18E.)

Sub fifty foot fighters often look "squished," at least to me.

Maybe, it's the angle.

post-5495-1185818980_thumb.jpg

post-5495-1185819007_thumb.jpg

Edited by l_e_m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're visual model looks way off, too fat overall, what did you use for reference and what program are you "flying" this in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's your opinion.

Macross.anime.net

X-Plane 8.60

Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but the proportions DO look off. Nice modding nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but the proportions DO look off. Nice modding nonetheless.

I don't take constructive criticism personally.

Where are the proportions off?

Does anyone have a picture of a model of a Hornet and a Valkyrie for a basis of comparison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't take constructive criticism personally.

Where are the proportions off?

Does anyone have a picture of a model of a Hornet and a Valkyrie for a basis of comparison?

Well I can't provide you with a comparison between a F-18 and a VF-1, but I can supply you with this.

I too the pic from here. It's from the model section from the main site.

post-4654-1185820311_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, those could be used as great reference source for your project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, those could be used as great reference source for your project.

Thanks.

I'll post some corrections soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to point out: The XPlane modeling software is pretty nasty, when it comes down to it. I've used it a few times, and even modeling a fairly simple aircraft is quite a pain. To do something like a VF is very impressive.

~Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is reason most moders are using wings3d now, I used the X-Plane modeller before once, and said I would never try that again, it is a pain to tyr and use. All the good models now are done in a 3-D modeler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is even possible for something not made in the X-Plane modeler to work in X-Plane? Last time I checked, it was necessary so the airflow simulation engine could run the simulations. Then again, I haven't touched X-Plane since version 5.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is even possible for something not made in the X-Plane modeler to work in X-Plane? Last time I checked, it was necessary so the airflow simulation engine could run the simulations. Then again, I haven't touched X-Plane since version 5.0

Yes, I believe that is accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC wings3d was developed specifically for X-plane so it can be imported without any problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are pretty close.

There are some things like wing dihedral and twist that I will not change.

post-5495-1185910627_thumb.jpg

post-5495-1185910655_thumb.jpg

post-5495-1185910668_thumb.jpg

post-5495-1185910684_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks better.

Nice modelling skills display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, people are launching Millennium Falcons and Serenities (and a Battlestar, dammit!) out there at X-Plane.org, and talking about importing Lightwave models wrapped around Planemaker models and such nonsense, so I guess you can attach a visual model over a physics model. I guess that's kinda cheating (from an engineering point of view anyway), but, hey, people like their eye candy.

Hmm. Maybe I should get a copy of 8.0 and try and model a Viper Mk VII.

However, Austin Meyer really, really, should get to overhaul Planemaker. IMHO, that thing is only good for modeling airliners - I pity whoever try to make a YF-23 or F-117 in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that how's its being done, I thought that they had made it so plane maker could read the imported models, oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good job bro hope it workout, I hope you make one for the MS flight sim also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good job bro hope it workout, I hope you make one for the MS flight sim also.

I don't know anything about MS flight sim. Maybe there is a way to port X-Plane aircraft over. I know of converters that will import MSFS scenery over to X-Plane. Hopefully, it's something someone else can do in the future.

However, I think you would loose most of the fidelity if you model in MSFS. That's just what I heard.

Well, people are launching Millennium Falcons and Serenities (and a Battlestar, dammit!) out there at X-Plane.org, and talking about importing Lightwave models wrapped around Planemaker models and such nonsense, so I guess you can attach a visual model over a physics model. I guess that's kinda cheating (from an engineering point of view anyway), but, hey, people like their eye candy.

Yep. The physics is what I am concerned with the most, but I guess it's something that someone else can attempt down the road.

Hmm. Maybe I should get a copy of 8.0 and try and model a Viper Mk VII.

However, Austin Meyer really, really, should get to overhaul Planemaker. IMHO, that thing is only good for modeling airliners - I pity whoever try to make a YF-23 or F-117 in it.

There is a pretty good YF-23 floating around on the X-Plane.org downloader.

I used some of its control logic--Ralph Pelican V-Tail configuration--for my own rendition of a VF-4 production aerocraft based on the VF-4-X. I love that Pelican Tail; from my experience, it's weak in yaw, but it's killer in pitch.

BTW, is there any information out there about the Valkyrie's flight characteristics--such as it's variable geometry wings especially--out there besides what is in the Macross compendium? I am trying to nail down spoiler and aileron cut out speeds as the aerocraft transitions to supersonic flight and near full wing sweep. Any information would help.

If anyone has some comments or suggestions, feel free to chime in. I am wrapping this up soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your best bet on that would the MAT books: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/books/dou_mat3extra.htm but they are rare and in Japanese, other then that I would guess take the figures on the F-14 and up 'em by 25%, as a rough guess, but there is no real way to get official numbers on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your best bet on that would the MAT books: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/books/dou_mat3extra.htm but they are rare and in Japanese, other then that I would guess take the figures on the F-14 and up 'em by 25%, as a rough guess, but there is no real way to get official numbers on that.

Does anyone have this "MAT Book" and could give me new information that I could not find elsewhere on the net?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, is there any information out there about the Valkyrie's flight characteristics--such as it's variable geometry wings especially--out there besides what is in the Macross compendium? I am trying to nail down spoiler and aileron cut out speeds as the aerocraft transitions to supersonic flight and near full wing sweep. Any information would help.

If anyone has some comments or suggestions, feel free to chime in. I am wrapping this up soon.

IIRC the Valkyrie doesn't have ailerons just full span flaps. Roll control is provided by differential spoilers and TVC, similar to the F-14 actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the control surfaces are nearly identical.. flap system is a little different, and no stabilators, but the wings are very similar.

I'd say for a rough estimate, the wings might sweep back between 0.5 and 1.2 mach (F-14 I think is between 0.5 and 0.85 or so, but the VF-1's wings go further back), and they shouldn't sweep ALL the way back... at full sweep, there's almost no wing surface. Maybe just stop them once the leading edge matches the angle of the wing glove area like the F-14. Any more would be like the oversweep storage setting on the F-14. Spoilers, maybe cut them out at half sweep (you don't use them with the wings swept since they cause too much yawing force at those angles).

With the thrust vectoring, and power this thing has (dunno thrust ratings, but sheesh they're nuclear engines after all), it would probably maneuver like an F-16, with a top speed of maybe mach 3, more likely mach 2.5 or so.

If you really want it to maneuver well, and possibly in space, you could also give it thrusters, or "puffers" in PlaneMaker, sort of a beefed up version of the hovering directional system in the Harrier.

I worked with X-Plane for a while, and while interesting in the area of design flexibility, I really was never impressed by the graphics (texture mapping blows chunks), or the lousy interface. If they've gotten much better, I may have to rethink that, but I don't need another game to work on. :p

Edited by Chronocidal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC the Valkyrie doesn't have ailerons just full span flaps. Roll control is provided by differential spoilers and TVC, similar to the F-14 actually.

Yes, I realize this. Technically, my model has the same control surfaces. They are optimized by airspeed for the most effective maneuverability and control. This is like most all of the current FBW aircraft. For example, when the wings are at full span or moderately swept back--I forget the exact airspeed--spoilers, outer flaperon, and TVC are used for roll control to get the highest, controllable rate possible. If I were to use only the spoilers and TVC, the roll rate would be like a Tomcat, which is not as good.

Roll control in a F-14 is controlled by spoilers is a function of its wing size. I have read that a low chord narrow wing is subject to twisting moments at high speed, and a spoiler system is a better alternative. The Valkyrie has a different wing than a Tomcat, so I thought it would be alright.

Roll control in the F-14 is controlled by its large horizontal tailerons at high speed, and its spoilers at lower speeds.

Yep, the control surfaces are nearly identical.. flap system is a little different, and no stabilators, but the wings are very similar.

I'd say for a rough estimate, the wings might sweep back between 0.5 and 1.2 mach (F-14 I think is between 0.5 and 0.85 or so, but the VF-1's wings go further back), and they shouldn't sweep ALL the way back... at full sweep, there's almost no wing surface. Maybe just stop them once the leading edge matches the angle of the wing glove area like the F-14. Any more would be like the oversweep storage setting on the F-14. Spoilers, maybe cut them out at half sweep (you don't use them with the wings swept since they cause too much yawing force at those angles).

With the thrust vectoring, and power this thing has (dunno thrust ratings, but sheesh they're nuclear engines after all), it would probably maneuver like an F-16, with a top speed of maybe mach 3, more likely mach 2.5 or so.

If you really want it to maneuver well, and possibly in space, you could also give it thrusters, or "puffers" in PlaneMaker, sort of a beefed up version of the hovering directional system in the Harrier.

I worked with X-Plane for a while, and while interesting in the area of design flexibility, I really was never impressed by the graphics (texture mapping blows chunks), or the lousy interface. If they've gotten much better, I may have to rethink that, but I don't need another game to work on. :p

The wing sweeps back from 20deg to 60 deg from .6 Mach to 1.0 Mach linearly. It's a simple function.

The spoilers are cut out at the higher knot ratings where all control is performed exclusively by the TVC, which replaces the tailerons on the F-14.

It maneuvers better than an F-16. The Valkyrie meets all the speed ratings in Macross source material within a few percentage points except a high altitudes. We don't know whether the Valkyrie is limited in speed rating due to it's inlets or the composition of its materials.

It maneuvers well enough in space for the Valkyrie to make quicker drag free flights in LEO at higher speeds.

As for X-Plane, it works for me. I wanted more fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It maneuvers better than an F-16. The Valkyrie meets all the speed ratings in Macross source material within a few percentage points except a high altitudes. We don't know whether the Valkyrie is limited in speed rating due to it's inlets or the composition of its materials.

It maneuvers well enough in space for the Valkyrie to make quicker drag free flights in LEO at higher speeds.

As for X-Plane, it works for me. I wanted more fidelity.

First let me say this is excellent work you should do the rest of the Macross fighters.

Too hear that you got a VF-1, abet in a simulation, to handle better than a F-16 is most excellent. Now how does it compare to a F-22, it's funny they both have about the same thrust output. The VF-1 is much lighter though with a much higher top speed just by the virtue of the fact the F-22's intakes can't feed the engines much past mach 1.8+(some one correct me) as i read. But I find it interesting that Shijo pegged the output of an early 21st century fighter, and she more or less resembles the pre-stealth concept for the YF-23 Blackwidow II with the addition of the swing wings.

Regarding the VF-1's speed being limited by composition of materials, I wouldn't think so much as they are quite capable of entry into an earth type atmosphere from high earth orbit. I think the limiting factor for the VF-1 is aerodynamics, the intake shape, and onboard reaction mass tankage.

I know the fore fans are just superconducting fans for regulation of air flow and possibly feeding of reaction mass. Unless when the doors are closed the whole front half of the main engine and the fore fan are shutdown/disused. Leaving only the reaction chamber(a small torus in the engine), a reaction mass/coolant(most likely one in the same) injector, and the turbine linked to a superconducting generator. There is a diagram of the FF2001 in the Macross design works book, My scanner is dead otherwise I'd share, anybody else have that diagram?

But I digress,... the point is that once a VF-1 goes past mach 2.x(someone correct me on the most likely speed the intake on a VF-1 could feed up to), she's a rocket with 150 seconds at max delta V(Macross compendium). So first we have to ask, at what altitude would the air get to thin for the engine to sufficiently compress to use a reaction mass, then what is the maximum speed the fighter can be going whilst doing that. From there it's 150 seconds at max burn with maybe a bit of climb, wait till burn out and presto you have your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment.

But I digress,... the point is that once a VF-1 goes past mach 2.x(someone correct me on the most likely speed the intake on a VF-1 could feed up to), she's a rocket with 150 seconds at max delta V(Macross compendium). So first we have to ask, at what altitude would the air get to thin for the engine to sufficiently compress to use a reaction mass, then what is the maximum speed the fighter can be going whilst doing that. From there it's 150 seconds at max burn with maybe a bit of climb, wait till burn out and presto you have your answer.

That's eye opening.

I did not know that the reaction mass setting was used in level flight in the atmosphere in its fighter configuration.

I thought the engines were air breathers until you reached a vacuum, water, or mode conversion.

I'll have to rework some settings then. Is this the consensus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hooray!

The VF-1A, at least, is finished.

You can grab it here.

(If you don't want to join the forums, which is required for download, I can send you the file via e-mail.)

You can grab X-Plane 8.6 (1 GB, 6 min limit) demo here.

I hope you enjoy it.

Edited by l_e_m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VERY COOL. Couldn't tell if ya changed the RDF to UN NAVY. Hope ya did.

Thanks.

Comments like this are always nice to see. B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


×
×
  • Create New...