Knight26

pass

That is freaking awesome.  Almost makes we wonder if they copied the guts out of the 1:24.

Looking great, too early to panic on the head laser issue, it should be a simple fix though, just extend the mounts.  Though making them longer will increase stresses, so the mounts will have to be stronger/heavier.  Maybe this was the compromise.  

Definite Roger Rabbit vibes, and looks like fun.  But I agree with @jenius, all those different animation styles may break my brain.  However, if they complete rip on the CalArts style I will cheer out loud.

27 minutes ago, Master Dex said:

Man you guys talk about the stuff I actually got my degree in and researched when I was asleep or at work lol.

Luckily Sketchley and Seto are on point so far in terms of real engine stuff (how it relates to VF being their domain almost fully anyway) so I don't have too much to add but I'll jump in a bit.

Sketchley is right that the VF nozzles are sacrificing a lot of efficiency in space, though the ability to morph the nozzle geometry at all is kind of a holy grail that's just too complex and expensive to do with most rockets (and part of the reason aerospikes will probably always be best on paper only), so we can thank overtechnology for that. The fact that VFs in space use a wildly inefficient propulsion method already by spamming the fusion reactor exhaust as propellant (which is why they have short operation windows in space) kinda highlights that even if the nozzles could be ideal it would only be a minor improvement.

Thus the UN Spacy proves to be very pragmatic in their design. As a test engineer, I respect that. Eventually there is a point where good enough is the best you can hope for, even if on paper you can do better. If only I could make some professional colleagues I know understand that now... I digress though.

Tl;dr, VF engines can be optimized for air or space but the need for both creates operational inefficiencies that while regrettable, are still more than capable.

Well stated fellow Test Engineer.

9 minutes ago, aurance said:

It's not, it's mainly from me looking at the toys. The -0, -1, and all the -24 derivatives have a much more open design though.

So the answer seems to be, just artistic whims.

Incorrect.

As with real world aircraft that have 2-D thrust vectoring certain design concessions have to be made.  A slight constricting of the exhaust, using more thermally resistant materials, allows the thrust vector exhaust vanes to more easily, and precisely, maneuver the exhaust flow direction, though at the expense of higher maintenance costs.  There is a reason why most countries did not adopt 2-D thrust vectoring IRL.   Also, if you watched animation, particularly Macross Plus, there is a scene where the feet/TVC vanes extend during pre flight demonstrating that they do, in fact, open wider for full thrust/afterburner operations, as real world aircraft do.

Also, you have to realize that the toys are scale models of the designs, and as a result the thickness of the materials and parts, as well as their full degree of mobility, are not necessarily consistent with the VF's "Real World" design dimensions.

3 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

The launch is shown in reasonable detail in the OP...

 

's probably pretty clean... the human centrifuges used for g-force training are WAY WAY worse.  NASA's goes up to 20G!

I would love to find a high res version of this, always thought it was awesome.

Now if we can convince Arcadia and or Bandai to make some FZ-109s and VF/A-14s, plenty of variants theres.

Wow, these are all so awesome.

52 minutes ago, sjoebarry said:

Am I being greedy wanting to see a pic of the Legioss and this new tread actually connected?

That'll be at Sumer Wonderfest, as it is, it appears to have the connector piece integrated at least.

55 minutes ago, F-ZeroOne said:

Military technology has always been this weird blend of cutting edge and yesterdays news, especially electronic wise. I suspect many non-military organisations are the same, you use what  works as long as it does the job until its no longer practical or sustainable to do so. They'll get new deck cameras when a) they can no longer be maintained b) theres budget to do so and c) maybe when the ship next goes in for refit. Theres also d) which is any new system better not interfere with all the gazillion other things on the ship that might break if something changes.

This is all true.  I see this kind of thing all the time.  First launcher I worked on, the most modern one at the time, still used parts from old Trident Missile Launchers.

I'm in, this might be first primary market buy in a long time.

That was a hard hit, like 'nam era hard hit and crash.  Pilot clearly ejected, but I will say this, whoever leaked that video better be careful, there's a board in their future.

To add onto what @Seto Kaiba said, the ARMD were basically launch and recovery platforms that could maneuver.  When you look at the original and movie ARMDs, the engines are basically just thrusters for station keeping and orbit changes.  They were intended to operate strictly in Earth Orbit, or attached to the SDF-1, so it had minimal onboard facilities for engines, with probably a basic reactor, and needed near constant resupply.  The later carriers were intended to function completely independently, or with with a fleet, so had full drive bays, large reactors, more fuel and extensive life support systems aboard, etc...  All of that takes up more internal space.

I had several of those that my ex made me sell.  I never knew that the 1:18 F-14 was ever released.

Ok, so playing with my crew calculator:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/0Bx9xl0H5s2WWT014TFpDTFRwSVk/edit?resourcekey=0-JBoPUxQUR6hxHHaeH1Vjqw#gid=2084902012

I am coming up with the following numbers for a crew compliment:
Assumptions:

150 Valkyries
30 support aircraft (AWAC, etc...)
60 Destroids

I recognize that my assumptions may be off, but you are all free to play around and put in more "Accurate" numbers that better match canon, especially for things like emplaced weapons, numbers of troops, vehicles, etc...

8 hours ago, TehPW said:

(Yes, i understand that clevit that That info is highly suspect and now disproven)

 

I literally snorted hard at the notion of 22,000 People on the Prometheus. Then my mind started working on this...

 

Ok, let's play a game. Let's assume that the Ship's Company is 1/2 of that number (11,000)

Departments on the Prometheus:

1. Deck Department
2. Air Department
3. Engineering Department
4. Reactor Department
5. Supply Department
6. AIMD
7. Weapons Department
8. Combat Systems Department
9. Navigation Department

Maybe i'm missing something but that's the generics that i can think of. I cannot think of the exact composition of each department, in terms of how BM's in Deck, How many ABH's, ABE's or ABF's in Air, etc but by merely dividing 11k by 9 departments, you have get a command with over 1200 sailors per Department. I'll even make this thought process even worse

AIMD: Divisions

1. Maintenance Admin
2. Quality Assurance & Main Production Control
3. N/A
4. Power Plants
5. Airframes
6. Avionics
7. Weapons (repairs of weapon systems, not ordinance storage)
8. Paraloft (aka PR Shop)
9. GSE

Now each department has 1200 sailors. In this thought process, each Division in AIMD has 135 sailors. That's 45 sailors on Days, Nights and Mid shift ashore, 67 sailors on Day or Night shift underway. IN RL, a typical AIMD might have 1/2 of those numbers in total employment. I totally was giggles trying to imagine what morning muster would be like on the Prometheus with that many sailors (and that's not even mentioning The Airwing population. Clearly the 22,000 was a slight miscalculation of the numbers because all i could think of was how many folks would have to hot bunk in order to be able to sleep in their racks....?

Bonus giggles: Assuming 4 section Duty, each deployed combined Duty Section musters 5500 sailors. that's literally the norm # of sailors on a typical Nimitz-class...

 

 

 

 

Those numbers definitely seem off, time to break out the Crew Calculator.

I can hear all the phantom phans all climaxing at once at that video.

6 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

Wouldn't mind Buck Rogers, but I'd be far more interested in some good quality Babylon 5 ships.  They've got a pretty massive variety to choose from too.

B5 ships would get me to part with my money for sure.  The only that would make me part with it faster would be ships from Spiral War: Liberators.

7 hours ago, twich said:

Can anyone point me to a nice 1284x2778 wallpaper of the VF-27Beta Commander version (Green) in both battroid and fighter mode.  the only pictures I can find of the green VF-27 are crappy and grainy.  Any help would be appreciated!  Thank You!

Twich

MMM Has some shots you can stitch together, but good shots of the green VF-27 are hard to find.

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossf/variant-vf-27-green.htm

---

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the song is fine and quite era appropriate.

26 minutes ago, sketchley said:

"The Submarine Type Valkyrie is perfected."

"A booster made for underwater combat.  It can even attain great speed underwater."

Submarine?  That thing would not move quickly underwater at all.

Interesting booster concept, I wonder what the text says.

Apparently that intro was largely done in camera using practical effects.
 

That alone bodes well in my mind.