Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
azrael

Macross Frontier Mecha/Technology Thread II *Read 1st Post*

Recommended Posts

Not just the colours, that looks like a VF-25S head, makes you wonder if Alto will get the same promotion as Hikaru did, for the same reasons (pineapple salad).

Its not a VF-25S actually. Notice there are only TWO head lasers.

While the VF-25S Ozma uses actually has 4 lasers:

http://img381.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ozmaeyecatchke9.jpg

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macrossf/vf-25s.htm

IMHO, the pic Morpheus provided looks more like concept art for Alto's VF-25 with Armored Pack + BFG. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a VF-25S actually. Notice there are only TWO head lasers.

While the VF-25S Ozma uses actually has 4 lasers:

http://img381.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ozmaeyecatchke9.jpg

http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macrossf/vf-25s.htm

IMHO, the pic Morpheus provided looks more like concept art for Alto's VF-25 with Armored Pack + BFG. :ph34r:

Actually, that's not even a proper VF-25F head in the pic, that and the fact that there are a few things that are different from what the final armor pack looks like (shoulder launchers are different, more like the VF-1s in the pic, also, they're missing in fighter mode when they should be mounted dorsally) says to me that it's either an early concept of sorts.

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody else think that the fighter mode profile of the VF-27 looks really weird with no tailwings?

Taksraven

The VF-27 seems optimized for space as opposed to atmosphere.

I agree the thurst vectoring will help a lot and no doubt the forward canards are there to give it greater stability in atmospheric flight due to the lack of rear control surfaces (though how much is debatable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The VF-27 seems optimized for space as opposed to atmosphere.

I agree the thurst vectoring will help a lot and no doubt the forward canards are there to give it greater stability in atmospheric flight due to the lack of rear control surfaces (though how much is debatable).

Off course, for a fighter, less stability is more desirable (hence most modern fighters are actually inherently unstable, relying on their computers to keep them inline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now while we have some free time before Frontier resumes its regular broadcast section, let me just bring up one thing that has been bothering me for some time now.

How the heck do VFs land on such short runways? Especially in the case of the VF-1 and VF-0 which were seen to operate of normal, similar to real world, aircraft carriers when they don't seem to have any visible arrestor hooks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the heck do VFs land on such short runways? Especially in the case of the VF-1 and VF-0 which were seen to operate of normal, similar to real world, aircraft carriers when they don't seem to have any visible arrestor hooks?

...thrust vectoring?

(and before i saw the vf-0/vf-1 part, I was going for the catapult 'arrestors'...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...thrust vectoring?

(and before i saw the vf-0/vf-1 part, I was going for the catapult 'arrestors'...)

But that would mean that they'd transform into Gerwalk mode to land, in that's probably a no-no in the crowded space of an aircraft carrier (even one as large as the ASCA II or Prometheus) since it would require equipment to hold the valk up while it transformed back into fighter mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the real world requirement for a STOL fighter?

For STOL, enough aerodynamic lift that it can fly even at low airspeeds.

On a related note, the SV-51 actually has twin lift fans mounted ventrally in it's fuselage (similar to the old Yakolev VTOLs) although landing the thing as a tail-sitter must've still been a b*tch.

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the SV could do 90 deg. thrust-vector on the main engines..? That, plus the lift fans, would have been more than enough to land vertically, sort of like a twin-engine version of the F-35... In the Compendium, it's stated (I think) that the SV can perform a non-transformed vertical landing...

Now, how it got back inside the submarine is up for debate.

Also, just a footnote, canards don't necessarily equal stability... It depends a lot on where the center of gravity is located. FWIW, I've flown radio-controlled flying wings (no stabilizers) that are more stable than some conventional (wing + tail) setups, and I had a canard ship that actually was completely unstable (divergent)... Which, without a flight computer, was bad. :p

~Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vernier thrusters? All the valkyries have them, so they'd be an ideal way for the Valkirye to both take off and land with very little runway.

Edited by Mr March

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the heck do VFs land on such short runways? Especially in the case of the VF-1 and VF-0 which were seen to operate of normal, similar to real world, aircraft carriers when they don't seem to have any visible arrestor hooks?

Modern technology, William.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern technology, William.

Correction, Overtechnology (thought modern would actually cut it in this case).

Edited by Master Dex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the VF-1 does have arrestor hooks, two of them in fact, one on the inside edge of each engine nacelle. there is a picture of a VF-1 with landing hooks deployed in the Macross Design Works, and in the This is Animation Special Macross Plus. I don't know about the Phoenix though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the vf-0 has one arrestor hook that is on the backpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing some surfing, I discovered that by it's capablilities, the VF-27 is more of a "Strike Fighter" than any other.

A strike fighter is a fighter aircraft which is also capable of attacking surface targets, including ships. It differs from an attack aircraft in that the aircraft remains a capable fighter.

Which lends itself to a more specialized role compared to the VF-25 and does support its basis on the VF-22 since that too was a strike fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY! :)

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=605580

The differences between the VF-25 Messiah and the VF-27 seem to be operational, not necessarily performance. I've no doubt there will be differences in the numbers for weight and thrust if we ever see official statistics, but I doubt the VF-27 is necessarily superior; I believe it's just more specialized.

For example, with four engines, the big beam gun and internal fold system, the VF-27 appears to be the Macross equivalent of a Strike Fighter. It is designed to deliver heavy ordnance against hardened targets and even warships, but it remains a capable variable fighter. The VF-25 Messiah is a straight Fighter craft, but ANY VF-25 can be equipped for numerous operational roles using specialized equipment like Super Parts, Full Armor or ELINT packages which the VF-27 cannot use (unless another set of specialized equipment was built to suit its frame).

The VF-27, like the VF-25, might also represent the new boundary of what's possible in variable fighter technology. The VF-25 Messiah introduced a "transformable full armor system" which is a first. The VF-27 seems to feature an internal fold system, a fighter-scale heavy converging energy beam cannon and a fully holographic or cyberspace cockpit interface, also firsts. I see the two Valkyries as roughly on the same developmental curve, but the VF-27 is more specialized and arguably more experimental.

:)

Edited by Mr March

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sooo, what's your point??? :p

I just wanted to say don't eat yellow snow. It's a good tip :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wanted to say don't eat yellow snow. It's a good tip :lol:

NOW you tell me.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed there is:

Arrestor hooks deployed at the rear of the VF-1

The VF-0 Phoenix also hase a single arrestor hook that runs along the ventral side of the auxillary thruster pack. The GERWALK picture of the VF-0A clearly shows an arrestor hook running right down the middle of the thruster pack.

VF-0A GERWALK mode

The question now is where does the hook in the VF-1 deploy from? The arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ventral/forward inside engine/leg edge. See the following picture:

VF-1 control surfaces, air brake and arrestor hooks

Mystery solved :)

Ooh! twin arrestor hooks. I wonder though, what would happen if one hook misses?

On hindsight though, I probably should have gone through all those scans before asking.

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's okay. You may have actually gone through it already and didn't even realize the arrestor hooks were there. It's not like they stand out and grab the onlookers attention. I think those two drawings are the only time the hooks are ever seen, so they are easy to miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How the heck do VFs land on such short runways? Especially in the case of the VF-1 and VF-0 which were seen to operate of normal, similar to real world, aircraft carriers when they don't seem to have any visible arrestor hooks?

The VF-1 would need THRUST REVERSERS.

This is basic equipment for many commercial airliners.

ATF aircraft were supposed to have these (initial requirement) but they were dropped due to added cost/complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The VF-1 would need THRUST REVERSERS.

Gerwalk mode is designed for that purposes I think. Who needs runway when you can jump/hover to take off :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The VF-1 would need THRUST REVERSERS.

This is basic equipment for many commercial airliners.

ATF aircraft were supposed to have these (initial requirement) but they were dropped due to added cost/complexity.

Thrust reversers aren't enough to stop a fighter jet in the limited space of an carrier, hence the need for tailhooks.

Gerwalk mode is designed for that purposes I think. Who needs runway when you can jump/hover to take off :lol:

Except that Gerwalk mode takes up too much space in a carrier meaning that they'd still need to land conventionally, unless they had a mechanism to hold the Valk up while it stowed it's legs and deployed landing gear. They'd probably do something similar for ARMDs and similar while in space though; reverse to a stop then let the launcher arm pick the Valk up.

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thrust reversers aren't enough to stop a fighter jet in the limited space of an carrier, hence the need for tailhooks.

True, however together the fighter would stop very quickly.

Many of the newer attack fighters and/or superiority fighters are being developed with them, particularly for smaller European countries which would utilize roads as makeshift runways in the event of a conflict.

Since the VF already uses them in spaceflight, it would make sense they'd use both systems for carrier landings.

Edited by Zinjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, however together the fighter would stop very quickly.

Many of the newer attack fighters and/or superiority fighters are being developed with them, particularly for smaller European countries which would utilize roads as makeshift runways in the event of a conflict.

Since the VF already uses them in spaceflight, it would make sense they'd use both systems for carrier landings.

The only problem with that is, if I recall correctly, standard carrier landing procedure means that as soon as he touches down (regardless of the hook catching or not), the pilot will punch his engines into full throttle so that he can put the bird back in the air in case he misses.

Reverse your thrust while landing on a carrier, then there's a 1 in 5 chance that you'll end up taking a swim.

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with that is, if I recall correctly, standard carrier landing procedure means that as soon as he touches down (regardless of the hook catching or not), the pilot will punch his engines into full throttle so that he can put the bird back in the air in case he misses.

Reverse your thrust while landing on a carrier, then there's a 1 in 5 chance that you'll end up taking a swim.

Commercial airliners, which have thrust reversers, don't land on carriers if I recall correctly.

You can see evidence of a thrust reverser (thrust expelled from the intake) in the Max and Milia marriage episode in the original series.

Edited by l_e_m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Commercial airliners, which have thrust reversers, don't land on carriers if I recall correctly.

You can see evidence of a thrust reverser (thrust expelled from the intake) in the Max and Milia marriage episode in the original series.

But we're talking about carrier landings, especially those involving the VF-1 and VF-0 sinc those were clearly designed to work with real world aircraft carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reverse your thrust while landing on a carrier, then there's a 1 in 5 chance that you'll end up taking a swim.

Not a huge issue for a fighter designed for space flight... B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a huge issue for a fighter designed for space flight... B))

Indeed, if they are landing on a carrier on an ocean and miss the Valk can survive in water just fine. It will simply switch to Gerwalk, fly out of the water and if landing on the carrier deck in Gerwalk is really out of the question then it flies up, transformers to fighter and tries again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...