IAD

A VF-0S, you mean? Alright, I'm forewarned. ~Luke

I've started gluing the airframe together, specifically the lower halves of the nacelles, and the gunpod mount/aft lifting body. This allows me to modify the ducting so it matches the Ivanov airframe. Nasty business... If only I had gotten the ducting right in the first place. Anyhow, no pictures yet, but a few somewhat-topical screenshots that might be interesting... With some (very slight, probably imperceptible) tweaking, I managed to get enough wing area on the VF-0S, without the Ghost. (And it's still 1/24th scale, like the SV!) ~Luke

Looks very good. I like the fighter quite a bit. The canards would help keep the delta planform maneuverable in a high-AOA dogfight. Is the 'normal' looking exhaust cone an Su-35/37-style 2D thrust-vector nozzle? ~Luke

Ah, thanks! ~Luke

www.removeb4flight.com, right? If so, looks like his page is down...? ~Luke

Concerning privately owned variables... There are privately owned fighter jets (mainly early model MiG-29s, and F-16s) around... So, in the Macross world, a parallel would be private VFs. It doesn't mean they were/are cheap, necessarily. I'm not too well-read on Mac7, but weren't the non-military VFs owned by [presumably rich] pop stars? (Similar to Travolta's aircraft collection, which includes an F-16 or two, as I recall.) Anyway, enough talk. Let's see if we can't post some designs! ~Luke

I tend to agree... Active stealth seems like an expensive item, for a cheap variable... (After all, the real-world F-5 A/B didn't even have radar.) Expensive and apparently useless... In M0, nobody seems to have any trouble finding enemies to shoot at. (Everybody's using FLIR?) Another thing... When the Compendium says "variable" does this mandate the standard three-mode (fighter/GERWALK/Battleroid) setup? If this thing is supposed to be even cheaper than a VF-1 (which looks pretty small and cheap to me) a possible first step would be to eliminate one of the modes. (Personally, I'd get rid of Battleroid, but that's practically first-degree Macrossicide.) It would simplify the control system, and could reduce the number of (ultra-super-uber-powerful) actuators needed. (Those things have GOT to be expensive.) ~Luke

Got the other side done, as well. ~Luke

Well... Progress! By changing the hinge geometry, I managed to get a few more degrees of upward thrust-vector deflection... Not only that, but the overall effectiveness should be higher, due to a smaller gap between the lower paddles, in full-up position. Also, I've changed the design a bit, for painting/maintenance sake... On my ship, you have to use a pair of forceps to carefully pull the pivot pins, if you need to remove the paddles. Then you have to twist them around just so, to disengage the paddle interlinks. (In short, a royal pain.) On this one, you simply remove two nylon bolts, loosen a pushrod retaining screw and the entire thrust-vector subassembly slips right out of the aircraft. Needless to say, it's a lot easier to pull pins and what-not, when the thing is outside the nacelle 'glove'. ~Luke

Gotcha, thanks! I'll see what I can come up with. ~Luke

In re: the intakes... Gotcha, forgot this was primarily a space fighter. Nevertheless, slightly larger over-wing intakes could make the design somewhat more 'convincing', in my opinion. Generally, the intake and exhaust cross-section areas should be about equal, as I recall. I might sketch something up... When the Compendium says "Specification inspiration: Convair XF2Y Sea Dart" does this mean the design was directly inspired by the XF2Y, or more "the spec. for water landing capability is similar to the Sea Dart"? (I ask because other entries say "design inspiration: XYZ") ~Luke

My thought exactly. ~Luke

Ok, finally got a bit of work in... (I've been unexpectedly tired, the past couple days. ) Anyway, here are the almost-finished thrust-vector vanes, for the second airframe. They look simple, but carving the same exact thing 2-4x is anything but simple. (Oh, but for some experience in fiberglass moulding. ) Now to install the pivot points. ~Luke

HEHEH. Yes, some formation flying would definitely be an impressive sight. (Easier said that flown, but....) ~Luke

Ok, it's been a while since I posted build pictures, so....... Here are a few. Slowly but surely, I'm remembering how to carve SV parts. I'm almost ashamed to post pictures with mine in there, though... The half-finished paintjob is really damaging to the eyeballs of the viewer. Got to finish the second ship, so I can paint mine. (Motivation! ) ~Luke

Heheh... Yes, I saw somebody who made a little 3" dia. turbine, which weighed 6.5 oz, and put out a pound of thrust, or something. I couldn't help but think that a pair of those in a larger SV would be rather incredible. You're right that the fans look best, but I will admit being tempted at various stages of development to drop a propeller on the back... 24+ oz. of thrust, on a 10 oz. SV would make for some serious vertical performance. I agree that the TV ideally should be driven off seperate servos... But you'd almost need a fly-by-wire flight computer to actually use it... How would you control both aerodynamic pitch controls and thrust angle at the same time? (Of course, even with independent TV, a model typically doesn't have enough mass to pull a cobra correctly. They tend to decelerate too quickly, which spoils the effect.) ~Luke

Warning: Theoretical rambling commencing in 3... 2... 1... The above got me thinking, so I ran some numbers for the SV, with propeller-equipped over-wing boosters: With a 7" prop., I could produce 12-13 oz. of thrust per booster. Each booster would weigh 3.75 oz., with it's own battery, receiver, motor and controller. Thus, the total weight of the aircraft with boosters would be 20.5 oz., with 32 oz. of thrust, with boosters 'lit'. However, there's a catch: The high weight of the aircraft with boosters would prevent it from flying well (if at all) with only the ducted fans running. Now we're into jettisonable boosters, which would mean release clips, parachutes, and what-not, plus potential CG variations... I still think it would work just fine on the VF-0, which would have only one additional motor/battery... Maybe even leave the ducted fans off altogether, and just make it a pusher prop. job. (Which is probably what I should have done for the SV in the first place. ) ~Luke

Thanks! I'd love to put an extra motor/fan in the booster... But, two problems: First, the ducting would be rather nightmarish... A serpentine duct would probably be required. Second is the battery requirements vs. weight vs. thrust-weight ratio. While the total thrust available would go up, the thrust-weight ratio would not necessarily improve that much... Assuming the fan produces ~5 oz. of thrust, but weighs 1.5 oz., with controller, and requires a 1-2 oz. battery pack, the actual gain in net thrust is relatively small, for a relatively large increase in weight, which is always bad. On the other hand, running a third fan off the standard battery would increase the load, and cause all the fans to give lower thrust... Working at a completely different scale, with different motors and fans, much better than 1:1 thrust/weight could be achieved... Case in point: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=129 (Not one of my ships, but a good demonstration of vertical performance from a ducted fan.) However, flight time suffers, generally speaking. Alternatively, putting a pusher propeller (instead of a ducted fan) on the Ghost would drastically increase thrust, probably far beyond 1:1, and do so using a smaller battery. This would definitely be an option. With a grey propeller, it would be nearly invisible in flight. ~Luke

Next is a relative.... Like I said, after Sean's SV, a couple of aircraft that need upgrading/modification, maybe an own-design or two... But yes, probably. A VF-0S + Ghost is likely in the future. (The QF-2200 is just for wing area, so that the VF-0 can be built to the same scale as the SV-51. It wouldn't/won't have another motor/fan.) ~Luke

Very interesting... I was aware of the 'oversweep' position, but I never heard of an intermediate sweep. Of course, are those games considered 'official' references? (Just curious, I'm not too picky, but others might say it's cheating... ) ~Luke

Oh, FWIW... This configuration has workable wing area... Ok, now off to set the workshop straight, and dust off the SV thrust-vector paddle cutting templates. ~Luke (Yes... The VF-0S has the wrong canopy... It's left over from the VF-0D cutting templates I had worked out.) (Well, not any more. Fixed it.)

Still running the fuel hogs... I still have to "tune them to the max" though... (Very soon, now.) ~Luke

Well... I just got a thrust-test in, using the old 5300 k/V motors with the [new] 1320 mAH Pro-Lites. (Half of the planned upgrade.) Just changing the batteries, I got a 1.5 oz. increase in thrust! I also lost 0.3 oz., thanks to the new battery. So, thrust went from 5.15 oz. up to 6.65 oz., and the weight went from 12.95 oz. to 12.65 oz.! (And that's without the new motors installed yet!) Better than a 1:2 thrust-weight ratio, finally! Of course, the 0.3 oz. weight-loss is negated when I install the new motors, since I suppose I'll need heatsinks. But as long as I gain at least 1 oz. of thrust, the T-W ratio will still be considerably better. Plus, the top speed should increase, which is good for energy-maneuvers. ~Luke

Ah, gotcha. Thanks! ~Luke

Heheh..! Quick question: Does anybody here know where the section of fuselage/lifting body between the nacelles goes, when the SV goes into gerwalk mode? Is it part of the gunpod? ~Luke Edit: Just did some frame-by-frame... It IS part of the gunpod. I learn something new every day.