Jump to content
logan_4600

[Help] VF-1 Cokpit Doubt

Recommended Posts

I'd say that's a good guess, but the bigger question is, where is the second and third image from? I've never seen the pilots seating position during transformation illustrated. And am I the last person to learn that the front landing gear partially deploys? O__O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen those smaller diagrams before with the seating position and landing gear box extended to make room for the pilot seat rotation.

The top illustration I've seen also but does seem a little spacious than you'd expect. In reality it would be somewhat cramped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was the second one at? It looks like a toy or model manual or something. The top one is rather common (as Macross goes), but yeah, it looks a wee bit spacious for sure. Though it would be hard to show all those details without it being GoPro like. The cockpit transformation discrepancies are one of my biggest issues with the VF1. I think the YF19 and others had it right. Just tilt the seat back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys! That pic is actually in this forum! Is from the book series Variable Fighter Master File. (im trying to see if a can get one of those books) You can find them here http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=34651&page=5

So, what do you say? is that accurate?


I have seen those smaller diagrams before with the seating position and landing gear box extended to make room for the pilot seat rotation.

The top illustration I've seen also but does seem a little spacious than you'd expect. In reality it would be somewhat cramped.

Hooo yeah! I´m having a VERY hard time with my CG VF triying to make everything work mechanically accurate, and then have the space that the pics shows. Some things when you start wroking them just, doesn´t seem to work well.


Where was the second one at? It looks like a toy or model manual or something. The top one is rather common (as Macross goes), but yeah, it looks a wee bit spacious for sure. Though it would be hard to show all those details without it being GoPro like. The cockpit transformation discrepancies are one of my biggest issues with the VF1. I think the YF19 and others had it right. Just tilt the seat back!

Yes, also the VF-0 acctually making the seat AND instrumental rotate seems more logic. But, if the VF-1 is like that... well... i will model it like that! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ook! This going somewhere. The gear sholud not be getting down, but, its just to show you it does move too!

You have the seat getting in position, and the head too. Also the fron gear bay goes down to make the space (in this vid, the full nose and the actual cage / bay are absent )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with the lower 2 diagrams is the position of the pilots head to the canopy. That canopy is damn low. Typically there has to be room for the pilots head so he can swivel and move, even on an aircraft like the F-16, which has an angled seat the pilots will use their fist as aa measurement to make sure they have proper clearance between the canopy and their helmet . The lower two diagrams pilot looks like they are out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This transformation diagram is from the Variable Fighter Master File VF-1 Valkyrie Vol. 2 Space Wings, but remember, these Master File books are not necessarily official continuity. They have the disclaimer. I've scanned a better version, attached here.

post-114-0-56383200-1445653200_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, they make sense. If not, The front landing gear shuould be way farther from The cockpit to make some room for the pilot seat to rotate.

I did re watch the first and second episodes from Macross and it makes sense. ( other VFs in other series are simpler tough )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be slightly off topic, but this website appears to be selling this book. Has anyone heard of it? Might it be legit? Seems like a valuable resource for any of us modeling this bird.

http://www.animebooks.com/vafimafivfva.html

looks legit but those asking prices are pretty stupid expensive!

You're far better off buying them from Mandarake..

http://order.mandarake.co.jp/order/detailPage/item?itemCode=1031843032&ref=list

http://order.mandarake.co.jp/order/detailPage/item?itemCode=1031603156&ref=list

http://order.mandarake.co.jp/order/detailPage/item?itemCode=1028032875&ref=list

http://order.mandarake.co.jp/order/detailPage/item?itemCode=1021788468&ref=list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the nose tire looks to be out of proportion also. Typically fighter nose tires tend to be smaller than that. Even when it is a double tire like the F-18 or F-14 would use. Even most nose tires on these aircraft tend to be around a foot and half in diameter or a little wider than the human head. That angle box section of the nose well could be reduced in size when the tire is proportioned correctly and more than likely the only area raised to allow for the torque links to fit would be directly over them. You would be shocked at the amount of space that can be utilized in a well engineered wheel well. I also just noticed something amiss in the lower 2 diagrams, mainly the left one. The barrel for the laser on the A model VF-1 would be in the way of the nose gear as it extends. I would also suspect that the strut would work better for landings if it was mounted the other way. With the trunnion pin being mounted to the rear of the well and the nose tire being in the front of the well when it is retracted. Just give an idea of what a modern fighter wheel well looks like here is a link with walk around photos of an F-16.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/awa01/001-100/awa002-F-16C/00c.shtm

Edited by grigolosi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This transformation diagram is from the Variable Fighter Master File VF-1 Valkyrie Vol. 2 Space Wings, but remember, these Master File books are not necessarily official continuity. They have the disclaimer. I've scanned a better version, attached here.

ahhh yes this is true but for that particular section of the transformation this illustration does seem to make good sense. I'll admit there is some technical material in these books which does comes across as silly or rubbish but overall they are overall pretty good. And probably the best currently available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd listen carefully to grigolosi, he's on the right track. Though this transformation guide from the VFMF book has some good stuff, it does have some things wrong, most specifically scale. The landing gear are way too large, especially accounting for the official Shoji Kawamori schematics. I've attached an image that shows the VF-1 Schematic FRONT TIRES and they are much smaller, as grigolosi has said. As stated, that forward gear bay is taking up a more space than it would.

spanner76
The VFMF books are lots of fun and they do contain trivia about aspects of the Macross valkyries that have never been detailed in the official trivia. But we do have to be careful when accepting information within their pages since the disclaimer in each book specifically states they are not official continuity. As long as the individual pieces of trivia within the VFMF books don't contradict anything official, they do serve as a good guide for the Macross universe. I'd say this transformation guide does suffer some problems and it's problems with scale do preclude the diagram from being official, but I will agree it does show a lot we don't see and makes a lot of sense of the transformation mechanisms despite a few exaggerations.

Aurel Tristen

The Variable FIghter Master File books are indeed legitimate official Macross products. I think you may be able to find them cheaper than the link you've posted. They are filled with a lot of great images, cross-sections and schematics. Now, the "accuracy" of those images my be debatable (espeically amoung the more artistically skilled fan artists we have on the forums) but they are well worth investing to give you ideas and reference.

post-114-0-57552900-1445712717_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That diagram looks more exact to scale than the other ones. The tires look properly scaled compared to the figure at the nose. But the barrel of that laser is still a bit too long to allow clearance when the gear is retracted. It only needs a little bit taken off the front to provide the clearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same on the yamato V2 toy with the VF-1A. You have to pivot the laser away from the fuselage in order to deploy the front gear. I'm not sure what this would mean in aa real life situation but always assumed itd be the same.

Would there be any real world penalties for doing it this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok! So, we all agree with the schematics for The transformaton. But, seen al the feedback, the gear bay is big. ( i did model it taking The size from the master file pic ). Making it smaller is a benefit. Also, The pilot is oversized too.( And that is something to keep un mind to ).

Also the nose tire looks to be out of proportion also. Typically fighter nose tires tend to be smaller than that. Even when it is a double tire like the F-18 or F-14 would use. Even most nose tires on these aircraft tend to be around a foot and half in diameter or a little wider than the human head. That angle box section of the nose well could be reduced in size when the tire is proportioned correctly and more than likely the only area raised to allow for the torque links to fit would be directly over them. You would be shocked at the amount of space that can be utilized in a well engineered wheel well. I also just noticed something amiss in the lower 2 diagrams, mainly the left one. The barrel for the laser on the A model VF-1 would be in the way of the nose gear as it extends. I would also suspect that the strut would work better for landings if it was mounted the other way. With the trunnion pin being mounted to the rear of the well and the nose tire being in the front of the well when it is retracted. Just give an idea of what a modern fighter wheel well looks like here is a link with walk around photos of an F-16.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/awa01/001-100/awa002-F-16C/00c.shtm

Yes! The barrel is in the way, but there is one pic showing that it rotates to make room!

So... Tryin to wrap up, smaller front gear, and, that box IS the secondary control. Are there any pics with more references of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall seeing much reference for that particular part of the VF-1. The attached images are pretty much all I have.

post-114-0-59509200-1445733071_thumb.gif

post-114-0-19708800-1445733081_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes march! got them (from your site :p) I never got to get what part or what is that thing in the upper right corner form the first image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool animation.

That part in the right corner is the tailfins folding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real world penalty I can think of would be the fact you don't want a turret unlocked on your landing approach. The drag induced by normal pylons loaded asymmetrically is very noticeable on a fighter to the pilot. I also know from watching DYRL that the head turret has to actually lower itself to unlock and swivel. It would take a wind tunnel to ascertain what the drag effect would be with the head turret being unlocked and swiveled either left or right on landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real world penalty I can think of would be the fact you don't want a turret unlocked on your landing approach. The drag induced by normal pylons loaded asymmetrically is very noticeable on a fighter to the pilot. I also know from watching DYRL that the head turret has to actually lower itself to unlock and swivel. It would take a wind tunnel to ascertain what the drag effect would be with the head turret being unlocked and swiveled either left or right on landing.

Great observation. In my case is a Vf-1s, so, The laser is not in the way. Either way, for a Vf-1a is not a lot what it has to rotate to make room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its well within the realm of possibility (and more importantly, "capability") that the head cannons on the VF-1 valkyrie are telescoping or retractable/extendable. They wouldn't even need to go that far; a retraction of less than 1/2 a meter is all that would be required for clearance.

logan_4600

As EXO mentioned, that figure in the top right hand corner of the first image in my post is the base of the top-rear vertical stabilizers, when folding for transformation or storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt all of the head laser barrels need to be able to retract quite a bit to make quick and easy clearance during transformation to Battroid. In most cases, spinning things around just right will allow them to clear, but it would make sens to get as much clearance as possible.

Seeing as how the barrel doesn't need to contain expanding gas (like a gun barrel) I think you could get away with something like this, and still have clean lines when extended. Obviously I didn't spend much time on this (to function, I'd expect a second inner barrel and something to keep everything on track).

HeadlaserTelescoping_zpsnhtnz2e8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I see the head laser momentarily moving out of the way of the bay doors & gear easy enough to be believable. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be unlocked as it could have multiple locking points or it could simply return to its original position after the doors open and the gear extends. The head laser is designed to move during combat anyways so I think the addition of a telescopic laser barrel just wouldn't be necessary.

Edited by spanner76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt all of the head laser barrels need to be able to retract quite a bit to make quick and easy clearance during transformation to Battroid. In most cases, spinning things around just right will allow them to clear, but it would make sens to get as much clearance as possible.

Seeing as how the barrel doesn't need to contain expanding gas (like a gun barrel) I think you could get away with something like this, and still have clean lines when extended. Obviously I didn't spend much time on this (to function, I'd expect a second inner barrel and something to keep everything on track).

HeadlaserTelescoping_zpsnhtnz2e8.jpg

Really cool idea!!! when i was messing around with full transformation in previous versions (with both ´torso` parts and all that) the lasers where a real trouble. Had to sync very carefouly the keyframes to make everything work well. Now, this idea is just great.

To be honest I see the head laser momentarily moving out of the way of the bay doors & gear easy enough to be believable. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be unlocked as it could have multiple locking points or it could simply return to its original position after the doors open and the gear extends. The head laser is designed to move during combat anyways so I think the addition of a telescopic laser barrel just wouldn't be necessary.

I always thought that the lasers were able to rotate and stop at any point ( like that, even in fighter mode you can aim like what, 60 degrees? ) very usefull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real world penalty I can think of would be the fact you don't want a turret unlocked on your landing approach. The drag induced by normal pylons loaded asymmetrically is very noticeable on a fighter to the pilot. I also know from watching DYRL that the head turret has to actually lower itself to unlock and swivel. It would take a wind tunnel to ascertain what the drag effect would be with the head turret being unlocked and swiveled either left or right on landing.

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. I didn't mean the whole head/turret, just the barrel of the canon itself. It has a pivot at the base, so it cover an arc. If it pivots away from the gears when they deploy/retract, it will be out of the way. The only aerodynamic impact would then be the barrel moving into the air stream momentarily while the landing gear is in motion. But given the much bigger size of the gear, I doubt this would cause any issues.

I was late to the reply party here and see there's been quite a few more posts in the interim.

And most importantly, as the OP mentioned, this is for a VF-1S so much of my discussion is moot, as the 4 barrels are not in the way at all with this configuration.

Edited by mickyg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I see the head laser momentarily moving out of the way of the bay doors & gear easy enough to be believable. It doesn't necessarily mean it would be unlocked as it could have multiple locking points or it could simply return to its original position after the doors open and the gear extends. The head laser is designed to move during combat anyways so I think the addition of a telescopic laser barrel just wouldn't be necessary.

I don't disagree. It was a spur of the moment thought. Though I tend to opt for additional complexity in my implementations. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but I like to add back in the complexity I imagine the designers removed for the sake of making a line-art drawing. Sort of like a not-so-crazy version of what they did for Transformers when they made the move, though with minimum cheating. (I think they cheated a LOT with those transformations, but they just did it so well it is hard to see. I'd LOVE to take a closer look at one of those rigs). There is a point where additional complexity adds realism IMO. Once you pass that, it's just silly, such as in Transformers, but bumping it up a bit makes me happy.

Really cool idea!!! when i was messing around with full transformation in previous versions (with both ´torso` parts and all that) the lasers where a real trouble. Had to sync very carefouly the keyframes to make everything work well. Now, this idea is just great.

I always thought that the lasers were able to rotate and stop at any point ( like that, even in fighter mode you can aim like what, 60 degrees? ) very usefull

Thanks, feel free to use it. I'm not at this point in my re-build, but I might look into it again when I am.

To get a bit back on topic about the seat movement and pilot clearance, I'm a big believer in trying to use one big cheat to solve multiple problems. You HAVE to cheat somewhere, and a good option is to slightly scale up the whole aircraft. This makes a bit more room in the cockpit for pilot clearance, as well as more space for a realistic number of controls. I guess it all depends on what you're building your model for. CIG? Cheat your ass off. Video games? Maybe a bit less. 3D printing? You're screwed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did some comparisons for measurement. These are the Height, length, winspans for other aircraft along with the VF-1. All in all it is a very strange aircraft size wise.

F-14- Height 16 ft, length 62.9 ft, winspan (fully extended) 64ft, weight 43,735 lbs unloaded

F-16- height 16 ft, length 49.5 ft, winspan 29 ft, weight 18,000 lbs unloaded

VF-1- height 12.6 ft, length 46.69 ft, wingspan 48.49 ft (fully extended?), weight 37,000 lbs unloaded

here is the kicker!

F-5- height 13.4 ft, length 47.4 ft, wingspan 26.8 ft, weight 9,558 lbs unloaded

I work on F-16's and to comprehend an aircraft like the VF-1 being actually shorter in both length and height is odd to me. F-16's are tiny compared to both the Tomcat and Eagle, but it is about a foot shorter than the F-5 which is one of the smallest jet fighters built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree. It was a spur of the moment thought. Though I tend to opt for additional complexity in my implementations. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but I like to add back in the complexity I imagine the designers removed for the sake of making a line-art drawing. Sort of like a not-so-crazy version of what they did for Transformers when they made the move, though with minimum cheating. (I think they cheated a LOT with those transformations, but they just did it so well it is hard to see. I'd LOVE to take a closer look at one of those rigs). There is a point where additional complexity adds realism IMO. Once you pass that, it's just silly, such as in Transformers, but bumping it up a bit makes me happy.

Thanks, feel free to use it. I'm not at this point in my re-build, but I might look into it again when I am.

To get a bit back on topic about the seat movement and pilot clearance, I'm a big believer in trying to use one big cheat to solve multiple problems. You HAVE to cheat somewhere, and a good option is to slightly scale up the whole aircraft. This makes a bit more room in the cockpit for pilot clearance, as well as more space for a realistic number of controls. I guess it all depends on what you're building your model for. CIG? Cheat your ass off. Video games? Maybe a bit less. 3D printing? You're screwed. :)

I have this love/hate relationship with movie Transformers, you know, i think the 1st one had some of the very best CG i´ve had seen, the mechs not only are there, they feel like they ARE there. But the transformation system? pfsss... like you said, pure cheat. It has no logic or mechanic accuracy. Hated that.

I really would love to do some kind of fan made movie. I loved what my countrymem did with Valkyre Project (sad is the outcome it had with all the linceces issues) but, it felt way off the Macross spirit. Very much more Robotech and Western.

Either way, right know i am still learning, had to turn down SDF1 for that reason. But, i if i think about it, i am modelling things that i don´t even know i will use/show or not. This is accuracy for fun, and learning. :)

I just did some comparisons for measurement. These are the Height, length, winspans for other aircraft along with the VF-1. All in all it is a very strange aircraft size wise.

F-14- Height 16 ft, length 62.9 ft, winspan (fully extended) 64ft, weight 43,735 lbs unloaded

F-16- height 16 ft, length 49.5 ft, winspan 29 ft, weight 18,000 lbs unloaded

VF-1- height 12.6 ft, length 46.69 ft, wingspan 48.49 ft (fully extended?), weight 37,000 lbs unloaded

here is the kicker!

F-5- height 13.4 ft, length 47.4 ft, wingspan 26.8 ft, weight 9,558 lbs unloaded

I work on F-16's and to comprehend an aircraft like the VF-1 being actually shorter in both length and height is odd to me. F-16's are tiny compared to both the Tomcat and Eagle, but it is about a foot shorter than the F-5 which is one of the smallest jet fighters built.

You work on F-16´s??? .... like... inside them!? o_0

PS: If you look it up, the VF-0 (a craft i LOVE) is wat WAY bigger than the VF-1

Edited by logan_4600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logan they are very crampt when it comes to internal space. Even the engine bay is tightly packed. when we remove or install an engine we have maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch of clearance on either side of the engine for the GE engines. On the P&W engine you can almost stick your head between the sidewall and the engine (which is great when you are hooking up the stage 7 and 13 ECS ducts). The cockpit is so small that when the seat is fully raised you can see the top of the pilot's or brake riders knees with the canopy closed!

I noticed the VF-0 is far bigger, mainly since it has to carry a traditional jet fuel load internally. This required the frame and wings to be bigger. Also one more thing jet engines are not "tuned". They are trimmed. In the case of the EGF-129 the engine is trimmed to the highest thrust rating it can give. This is usually done on the engine through the DEC or DEEC (Digital Engine Control/ Digital Electronic Engine Control).

Edited by grigolosi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logan they are very crampt when it comes to internal space. Even the engine bay is tightly packed. when we remove or install an engine we have maybe 1/4 to 1/2 inch of clearance on either side of the engine for the GE engines. On the P&W engine you can almost stick your head between the sidewall and the engine (which is great when you are hooking up the stage 7 and 13 ECS ducts). The cockpit is so small that when the seat is fully raised you can see the top of the pilot's or brake riders knees with the canopy closed!

I noticed the VF-0 is far bigger, mainly since it has to carry a traditional jet fuel load internally. This required the frame and wings to be bigger. Also one more thing jet engines are not "tuned". They are trimmed. In the case of the EGF-129 the engine is trimmed to the highest thrust rating it can give. This is usually done on the engine through the DEC or DEEC (Digital Engine Control/ Digital Electronic Engine Control).

There´s a lot of technical lenguage i will have to look up there! :p Thank you for such a great insight

On other things; the hole cockpit/gear bay DID work without any ´cheat´, maybe some tweaks on the back/torso; now, the arms got me scratching my head, the closest iv´e got from the attaached line art is this ( pay atention to the support of the shoulders )

I think it can share the rotation axis-gear of the wings, or somethings like that...

post-28350-0-98133600-1446742335_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×