Nied

Edited to put all the content on the new page I accidentally made.

We see the VF-1 fold it's wings while carrying stores plenty of times, especially during the series. We don't see it much in DYRL because the vast majority of combat scenes take place out of the atmosphere. IIRC we do see the wings sweep during Max and Millia's dogfight.

Looking at the underside of the Hasegawa model, it does look like only the two standard hardpoints are variable, but the three RMS hardpoints (the ones that seem to be used in the series) apear to be fixed.

Interesting note: a few F-4's got the 30mm GPU-5 anti-tank pod. It's basically the A-10's gun (but the 4-barelled version) in a pod. THAT is a gun pod.

The GPU-5 is a great idea, it's just too bad it never worked. Fewer barrels, lower cyclic rate, and a less stable mount than the GAU-8; bad combination. I heard that back when the Air Force was trying to replace the A-10 with GPU-5 equiped F-16s, they had some trouble. Aparently the guns rattled around so much that they were more like an anti-tank shotgun. Test squadrons ended up using it like a stand-off cluster bomb during missions in Deser Storm, before finally giving up and going back to regular cluster bombs.

Lets clarify what we're talking about here. Are we talking about weather the wings of a Valkyrie are structurally sound enough to carry a heavy weight outboard? Surely they could, remember we've seen them plow through buildings cars and bridges with little to no effect. If the structure of a Valkyrie can withstand that kind of stress I find it hard to beilieve that it couldn't bear 2000 kg on the outboard pylons. So that leaves us with the problem of adverse yaw and unbalanced loads, and what caused me to bring up the F-111. As david pointed out the reason the Aardvark carries larger weapons outboard is because of clearance issues. Carrying big bunkerbuster bombs on the inboard pylons would interfere with the wing folding. Is it too hard to beilieve that carrying an MER with two giant nuclear weapons inboard would also interfere with the wing folding on a Valkyrie?

The VF-4 doesn't normally carry a gunpod, however if required it can carry one (as seen in VF-X). In fighter mode I'd imagine it could be carried just off centerline(to avoid the nose fin) or close to one of the nacelles like in the Club-M kit (though that would cause all sorts of adverse yaw effects, see the thread below about the RMS-1).

As for the cockpit, there's only one good picture of it this one right here. As you can see it looks pretty much like the late block VF-1 cockpit, only with a seperate HUD.

This is pretty intersting. Don't the Australians know how to load aircraft?

Note that in terms of how it carries weapons, the VF-1 is a lot close to the F-111 than it is to the F-14.

F/A(gack)-22 has external pylons as well. Though I can't believe they made stealth hardpoints. IMHO, the F/A-22's stealthiness from below (especially the wings) has been compromised compared to the YF-22. Once you remove the pylons, there's still connectors on the underside of the wings. Those aren't stealthy. And then there's the big new aileron hinges on the underside. YF-22 had a smooth, flat, featureless wing underside--nice and stealthy. Now it's got hinges, fairings, and hardpoints. All things which are bad for stealth.

When the F-22's pylons aren't being used the attach points are covered over so that they don't compromise stealth. I hear that the entire pylon can be ejected as well (though that would leave the attach points uncovered) to improve stealth and drag once the external stores have been used.

Simple lever mechanics. The further out you get along the lever(wing), the more force is exerted.

A given mass on the innermost hardpoint is going to exert far less force on the wing than that same mass on the outermost hardpoint.

Just because the wing can support 3 of the missiles doesn't mean it can support them in any location.

Ah but the MER is mounted further inboard than the pylons for the single RMSs. We'll have to look at the distribution of the pylon mounts on the Hasegawa model, but I'd bet that the MER would mount pretty close to where the middle RMS station would. Heck it might even be that the wing can better carry the wieght at the double MER than with the single pylon mounted further out.

I would guess that people who thought VF-1's had 3 hardpoints because of having 3 RMS-1's didn't know much about how missiles are carried, and just assumed 1 missile per pylon.

Most planes only have 2 hardpoints (thus pylons) per wing. If it's got 3, the outboard one is almost certainly AIM-9-only. (Or nowadays, AMRAAM). It's the pylons themselves which carry multiple bombs or missiles. I mean, you always see F-15's carrying 4 Sidewinders, but it's 2 per pylon on just 2 pylons.

Boy, could I (and would I love to) get into a discussion about pylons, stub-pylons, multi-ejector racks, launch rails, pallet adapters, and the like. :)

What a about the Super Bug? Or the Harrier, A-10, or A-7 (on that one the sidewinder rails are inboard).

Personally I find the three RMS pylons pretty plausible, at least for early block VF-1s (like the ones seen in the TV episodes). However I could see the outboard pylon being strengthened enough to carry an MER in later block models. After all if the wing was strong enough to carry three heavy missiles across it's length why couldn't it be strong enough to carry two missiles on the outboard pylon?

Heavy stuff goes inboard, no exceptions. I've always thought one of the "stupidest" things in all of Macross canon is to have the dual RMS-1's outboard. That's just WRONG for any aircraft. I put them inboard without a second thought. I mean, just go have a look at your "standard" F-16 SEAD mission load-out (one of the most common weapon loadings in the USAF in the 90's)---you have the huge heavy fuel tanks occupying the inboard pylon, the big HARM missile in the middle, the medium AMRAAM missile outboard, and the light Sidewinder on the tip. Now, you will also see the AMRAAM and Sidewinder swap places, because it's been found the AMRAAM is picky about it's line of sight, and likes to be outboard. Since there's less than 100lb difference between the two, it makes little difference. But you'll never see a heavy weapon outboard---they just won't take it. Putting a light weapon inboard is pointless, since the inboard ones are the ONLY ones which can take a heavy weapon. Most planes have every pylon rated differently, even if the pylons are physically identical---it's the wing itself which is the issue.

And you have to take into account G-loading for the pylons, as well. An F-15 will NOT be pulling 9G's if there's drop tanks on its wings. (One of the prime factors for F-15 FAST pack design was that it must be able to maintain 9G's with them attached--few fuel tanks can take that stress)

Here's an F-16 with a SEAD loadout (not typical SEAD, but illustrates my point better):

PS-- SEAD: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses. Basically extended patrol/air combat, with anti-SAM added in.

Well the only time we really see dual RMS outboard is in DYRL, and then they don't apear to be loaded with heavy nuclear warheads. Instead they're being used as BVR missiles to take out Battlepods. It's possible that in this configuration the two RMS-1s are actually lighter than the micro missile boxes. In the TV series, when the RMS-1s apear it looks almost like they're on three individual hardpoints.

Actually, I think the B originally used yet another engine... For a while, they tested it with two of a different type of engine, one that had a nozzle that resembled an F-15 more than an F-16C...most of this comes from model kits though, so it may not match real life.. all I know is that F-16C kits often come with a new nozzle that often is divided up into individual petals that must be glued together. The F-14 D kit came with those nozzles. The F-14B on the other hand, from all reference photos, has nozzles that resemble the nozzles of an F-15C, with the "petals" still attached... these nozzles are more streamlined to the airframe, and in my opinion, actually looked better when fully open than the other nozzles... I'm gonna check an F-14 book, it lists the actual engines used, which have slipped my mind at the moment.. I think one was GE, and the other was Pratt and Whittney...but I don't remember which was which.

Edit: Ok, can't find the book.. maybe someone else knows for sure... but I know the F-14 was tested with another type of engine.. something in me wants to say they were modified engines from the B-1 bomber, but that could be my lack of sleep.

The original F-14B had a pair of F101DFEs (Derivative Fighter Engine in essence B-1B engines modified for fighters) to replace the dangerously unreliable TF-30s in the orginal F-14A. However that program went nowhere and only one prototype was built. The F-14C was a related program that would incorperate some avionics upgrades along with the new engines. Later on in 1984 the F-14 prototype was re-engined with GE F110-400s (the same engines as in late block F-16s). Since the GEs were almost identical to the ones being put in new F-16s (and it was hoped at the time they would be installed in F-15s as well) they could be had for cheap, so the go ahead was given to start upgrading F-14As with the new engines (and the new avionics from the F-14C). At first they called this new version the F-14A+ but most of the Navy's inventory computers couldn't read that, so it was later changed to F-14B. The F-14D also uses the same F110-400 engines, but also has the new radar and cockpit that I mentioned in my post above.

Close (David is going to have a field day with this). The F-14D is either a new build or completely remanufactured F-14A, new engines completely new avionics and some minor structural changes. The canopy is the same yes, but what's under it is almost completely different. All new displays and gauges and even new seats. While I was watching M0 a while back I noticed that there still seemed to be alot of old fashioned "steam" gauges and such in Shin's cockpit. After consulting photos of the real thing and David (who by far deserves the title of resident F-14 expert) we came to the conclusion that it is in fact an old F-14A cockpit in an F-14D fuselage.

The F-14B was developed in I think '88 and is an upgraded A, it has the same engines as the D, and some of the structural modifications, but none of the new avionics (and the same old A model cockpit).

I would say it's more analagous to an F-16D or F/A-18D. It does in fact serve a training prupose, in that it's used to familiarize pilots to flying that particular aircraft not actually teach them how to fly, but it also can be put into combat, and is particularly useful in situations where a second set of eyes come in handy. The VT-1 on the other hand looks to be an actualy trainer. It's primary purpose is to teach pilots how to fly and operate a variable fighter, equivelent to a T-45 Goshawk or T-38 Talon.

What's to say that they just didn't stick the cockpit section and head unit of a VF-1D on Max's VF-1A? We know from the beggining of the tv series that the cockpit section is removable. Seems it would be easier to just repaint these two components than an entire fighter.

Doesn't work. The fuselage is completely different on a VF-1D, the nose and the fuselage would have no way of mating.

That looks awesome Gorgon. I agree with Aztek that it would be a better idea to model your ejection seat on the one in the DYRL VF-1. It would make it feel a lot more Macross, that and he's right about egress procedures as well.

They probably use one of those new "paintless" techniques to come up with those new schemes.  Just print out your new paint scheme on a giant printer and tick it on.

Or some sort of "programmable" paint. The pilot just has to create a color scheme and feed it into the computer, which realigns the pigments as needed.

Intended for stealth purposes(adaptive camoflauge), but the pilots keep defeating the purpose by wiring it up in bright primary colors.

The worst part is there's similar products being developed now.

Only for "smart" paper instead of fighterplane skin.

They're already working on such a system. What I was refering to is different though. It's basically big vinyl apliques that you stick on the plane instead of paint. The idea is that if you ever need to repaint or repair a plane all you do is peel off the old apliques and stick new ones on. Over the long run this actually saves weight (older airplanse can gain several hundred pounds just from new layers of paint over the years). The other advantage is you can come up with new paint schemes out in the field then just print them out on a giant printer and stick them on the plane.

They probably use one of those new "paintless" techniques to come up with those new schemes. Just print out your new paint scheme on a giant printer and tick it on.

I have never heard of that helmet the navy/marines wear being able to break the blades. Seriously?? That's pretty damn cool if that is actualy the case. Even with that though I would still consider it a miracle for someone to survive that. Even if the blades break, you could get hit with a piece of the shrapnel. The force of that would still be pretty heavy on your head, and you would have to be dead on straight going through for that to work. I'm talking "Yes, I'm saying God came and stopped those mother F$^%$ bullets" type miracle.

I work with a guy who was an avionics tech on Harriers, he was the one who told me about them. And you're right, for every thing to work right and spit you out the other side intact would be a miracle, I think it's more intended to up your chances of survival in case that kind of thing happens. Incedentally I think I've seen the video in question, I beilieve the aircraft that the guy got sucked into was an A-6 (or EA-6).

Scan from Nanashi's Information Group. 

For reference only.  Please do not post on a personal website.

That enough cockpit detail?  The sketch is by Kawamori.

Ooh that one's a little higher resolution too. How's the cockpit coming on your model Vinnie? Haven't seen much of it lately.

1,000lb and an AMRAAM? Hmmn. Globalsecurity *is* very good, and I generally don't question their stats.

But F-22raptor.com is pretty good too. Quite a conundrum eh?

No, I meant only the ventral bay. Inside that, it can hold either 6 AMRAAMs, or 2 1,000lb JDAMs, or 2 500lb JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMS.

Since the F-22's stealthiness w/external ordnance is on par with that of a UPS truck, most people only talk about the internal carriage. And 2,000lbs are surely not going to fit. It was designed to hold AMRAAM's, nothing else. They BARELY got the smaller JDAM's to fit, so they could call it an F/A-22 instead of an F-22.

If you want to count external ordnance, the thing could carry practically anything you want. It's bigger than an F-15E.

According to Globalsecurity.org there's enough room for both the 1,000 lb JDAM and an AMRAAM in each bay. And there's also the Small Diameter Bombs to consider too, the main bay can hold eight.

I don't know if that is even possible. Anything that goes in there is coming out pureed out the other end. Wether it's an F-14, or a C-5 engine. You get sucked in that intake, and make it to the blades = you die. There's no gap to go around the blades. It's just straight through the blender. Then get cooked from the thrust exhaust.

I have seen shots of guys that got sucked in and lived, but they either caught the edge, or something snagged before they got to the blades.

Most Navy and Marine mechanics wear what's called a cranial. It looks almost like a leather flying helmet only it's been designed to shatter the trubine blades of an engine as it travels through it, thus any mechanic that gets sucked in would remove all the turbine blades in the path with thier head as they went through. As long as the engine is big enough for them to fit through they could make it out alive (probably some nasty burns and broken bones, but nothing a stay in a hospital could fix). Remember the turbine blades most jet engines are very stiff but also pretty brittle and can shatter when even small rocks are parts get sucked in (the technical term is FOD).

The HUD look to be at about eye level in the B-club pic. The Design Works one is a might small to tell. From the renders you've posted you're not going to have much room to raise the HUD any higher anyway. It's interesting that in the B-club pic the VF-4 apears to have that squared off gap between the canopy and nose that I had always assumed projected HUD data right onto the canopy. Perhaps the VF-4 uses a more primitive full canopy HUD that requires a primary HUD as well

Nice. Guess I was wrong about the HUD, the Eurofighter one looks good on there (especially from the pilot's point of view). You still might want to shrink down that MFD though, the proportions look wrong compared to that B-club pic you posted (which incidently was the one I trying to find from Vinnie). IT should look something more like this:

Hey Vinnie what ever happened to that picture you used to model the guns on your VF-4? Ever since WJ/Nanashi took down studio Kappa I can't find it anymore.