Nied

That's pretty good looking. A few things though: I don't beilieve that the VF-4 has a sperate HUD, I think it just projects HUD data directly onto the canopy (ala the DYRL VF-1 and all later VFs). Also you might want to lower the top of the main MFD a bit. Right now it would kill most of the forward visibility for the pilot (I wouldn't want to land on a carrier with something like that blocking my view). That and the proportions on the main MFD look a little off anyway, It's a little too tall.

In Macross Plus OVAs there was a scene where Isamu's VF-11 reload a clip. The clip was shaped as the upper side of the barrel (a half cylinder). Maybe it could work in the same way.

FV

The GU-9 has a big support strut right where the a clip would go if it attached the same way as the VF-11's gunpod. Plus there are no visible seams where a large clip would be.

Been busy lately but here is my all new VF-11 scheme using the blank supplied by Nied. Next will be SVF-33 and a blank for the SAP.

Updated image.

Holy Crap!! That's from my blank? That's some great work hellohikaru!

Back to the subject of the VF-0/VF-1 issue for just a minute, I have a little theory of my own. I think the VF-1 and VF-0 were originally developed by seperate corporations as competitors. I'm guessing the VF-1 was a Stonewell-Bellcom and the VF-0 was a Shinkasu. Shinkasu's higher technology in the avionics area allowed them to have an extensive system in their VF-0 prototype. They also had Overtechnology advancements like the SW-AG system/ However, Stonewell-Bellcom's experience in the airframes themselves allowed them to creale a lighter, more compact, aircraft. When it came down to the final competiton, both VFs were evenly matched, with different strengths and weaknesses....until S-B unveiled their secret weapon, the Pratt & Whittney Thermonuclear Turbine, which led to the adoption of the VF-1, because, despite the higher cost of the engines, the savings in fuel would be huge, and due to the monetary issue, was viewed as a better advantage than the stronger SW-AG armor.

After the completion of the competiton, due to the fragile situation, Shinkasu was convinced to work alongside S-B in development and production of the VF-1, and to share the expertise learned in the VF-0 project. Some of the VF-0's improvements were integrated into the VF-1, such as a production version of the SW-AG system. Shinkasu aqquired the right to build a version of the VF-1 inder license, specifically the VF-1J, which incorporated some of the weapons, sensor, and avionics advancements that appearred in the 0. Note the similarity of the 0S head to the !J head. However, Shinkasu continued development on the VF-0, adding such features as GERWALK mode, and making a limited production run of VF-0s, possibly to test the use of VFs, not testing the transformation systems themselves, but to develop tactics and train the first batch of pilots while the VF-1 was not yet ready. When tensions flared up, and turned to conflict, with the Anti-UN, the small force of VF-0s was deployed to ASCA and sent to the South Pacific. In addition to the fact that more VF-0s were available and ready for combat, it also helped that the ASCA (possibly) and the VF-0s, which were at Shinkasu, were in Japan, much closer to the target area than any of the S-B development aread in the US.

Shinnakazu didnt show up until after SW1, it was then that Stonewell-Bellcom (or what was left of it) split and Shinnakazu and General Galaxy were born, so Stonewell-Bellcom was running the whole Valk show until after the VF-4 was built.

Actually you have that backwards. Shinikasu was born when Stonwell-Bellcom and Shinsei Heavy Industries merged. General Galaxy seems to be its own company.

By the way, does somebody here know whythey called it "Funny Chinese"? What does VEFR mean anyway?

Well the UN Spacy generally followes US military naming conventions meaning:

The V would stand for Variable (in the current US naming system it denotes vertical takeoff such as the AV-8B Harrier or the CV-22 Osprey)

The E would stand for Electronic warfare (like the E-3 Sentry or the EA-6B Prowler)

The F would stand for Fighter, which really is a vestigal designation (like the EF-111 Raven)

And the R would stand for Reconisance (like the RF-4 Phantom)

As for the "Funny Chinese" name, it probably refers to it's apearance in batroid mode (that radome looks a little like a traditional Chinese hat).

* The VF-0 has active stealth, the VF-1 does not.

We don't know that for sure, hell as Final Vegeta's picture illustrates, it could explain the four seemingly superfluous blade antenea on the VF-1's nose.

* The VF-0 has flare and chaff launchers, the VF-1 does not.

I doubt that the VF-1 is devoid of countermeasures.

* The VF-0 carries more gunpod ammo than the VF-1 (550rds vs 200 rds).

However the GU-11 has higher caliber ammo and a lower cyclic rate, giving the pilot about the sime fireing time (and more hitting power).

* The VF-0 can carry two spare gunpod magazine in the leg FAST packs. The VF-1 has no spare magazines. In fact the VF-1's gunpod cannot even be reloaded in the field and has to be taken back to base to be reloaded.

The design of the GU-9 is nearly identical to the GU-11 I don't see how one can incorperate a helical magazine and the other some kind of clip system. I'll beilieve it has one when I see it.

* Both the VF-0 and VF-1 have a similar max speed in atmosphere.

But the VF-0 can only maintain it's maximum speed at full afterburner, meaning that it would run out of fuel after a matter of minutes at maximum speed. The VF-1 would be able to cruise along at mach 2.71 forever if it wanted. Note too that the VF-1 has a much higher thrust to weight ratio (3.5:1 vs 1.8:1)or the Sv-51 (2.3:1), giving it alot more options in a dogfight vs it's oponents.

Looking at the lineart it apears that the only way you could fit a crew in the back there is if there was no room for any kind of avionics, lfe support, fuel, or engines. Remember that a vast majority of the crew on board a modern AWACs bird perform sensor analysis, which right now is a task that's too complex for a computer to do reliably. Given the computer advances provided by overtech I could see how you could eliminate those jobs and leave one person to make the command and controll decisions (which apears to be what Misa did). Another thought: If there was crew in some back compartment why didn't we hear from them? Why weren't they anylised and interogated along with Misa Hikaru and Kakizaki?

Great work MG! That color scheme looks awesome. In the next iteration you might not want to repeat the tailcode on the inside of the fins, ditto with the UN Spacy on the inside of the nacelles.

The decision to axe the Tomcat was made during the Clintoon "Administration" so don't blame Cheney.

No the decision to kill the F-14 was in fact made by Dick Cheney himself. It was also his decision to destroy the manufacturing jigs for the F-14 (ensuring that building more would be a costly afair), and he spearheaded efforts to kill the A-10 (though that was fortunetly reversed in time by the next "administration").

1) Air enters turbine

2) air is compressed over several stages of the trubine blades

3) Compressed air is uper heated as it is mixed with small amounts of Fusion reactor plasma

4) air exits at really high speeds.

With most of the major modellin of the outside done (just added the nose veniers this morning), I am now starting the cockpit area. I have plenty of references on the VF-1, but... any idea for the VF-4? A VF-1 cockpit should be OK? I have been watching the few seconds of Macross 2012 to no avail. I've seen some nice detail on the rear part of the cockpit, but little to none of the control panel, seat, etc.

Thnkx in advance

(my name is gorgon, mighty gorgon)

I always figured that the VF-4 would have a cockpit that is nearly identical to the DYRL style VF-1 cockpit. In story terms you could say the the VF-4's cockpit came first and when they refited the Valkyries to Block 5 they modeled the cockpit after it.

Bill Sweetman wrote an article on this (who else would?) The X-31 program uses standard vecotring techniques, the X-44 is supposed to as well, at least at first.

Go down to the fith paragraph under the heading of Supersonic cruise bypass

Flights of fancy take shape

Seems most of those use B-2/flying-wing style drag-inducing ailerons for yaw-control. You still can't just chop off the v.stab and have it fly using vectoring alone. (X-31 with "simulated" lack of v.stab doesn't count)

Again I don't know what to tell you. Lockheed seems to think it's possible. And why doesn't the X-31 count? How is the TVC reacting to random destabilizations caused by the rudder any different than it reacting to random destabilizations caused by no rudder at all (or the Vertical Stabilizor it's attached to). Everything I've read says that the engineers were confident they could go ahead with loping the tail off the X-31, they just didn't have the budget to do it.

Well, according to DYRL?, the fins fold over one another...

They do? I didn't remember them doing that.

I always figured that since the Hasegawas pretty obviously model Block 5 Valyries, that the double folding fins are just another feature of late block Valks (like the new cockpits, hands , and FAST packs).

I don't know what to tell you, these things have been proposed and in the case fo the X-31 it's been tested (though they had to program the rudder to simulate the lack of a rudder).

X-44 MANTA

FB-22

X-31 (14th paragraph)

F-16X

You and Lockheed are on the same page:

F-16X - The Tailless Fighter

EF2000 thrust vectoring will look like this:

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Euro...er/engines.html (very nifty design, better than an ACTIVE nozzle)

Also, if you want a tail-less plane, it better be a flying wing. You need a WHOLLY different control system. Vectoring isn't used for yaw. Pitch-yes, roll-yes, yaw-no. It CAN be used for supplemental yaw, usually combined with pitch and or roll. But no plane uses vectoring for yaw alone, not yet. Yaw is just plain different than other forces on a plane. Don't know why, just always has been. There's a difference between yaw control and yaw stability. Vectoring can replace control (but it hasn't yet) but it'll never replace stability. (Not until we have like Star Trek level of tech) If you plan to remove the v.stab, you better attach some massive ventral fins. (Unless you've got a flying wing and are using split-style elevons--flying wings are SO stable and so un-influenced by yaw they can be tail-less---but a normal plane cannot have the stab removed) Normal planes simply need X amount of vertical surface. Check out early F-14, F-15, and F-16 designs. You'll see plenty of swapping between "ventral fins+1 stab" versus "no ventral and 2 stabs". (And even the "2 small stabs with 2 small ventrals to make up for the shortened stabs"---looked kind of cool on the F-15).

YF-23's get away with it by having MASSIVE tails, to counteract their low angle. (Plus they do have B-2 style split ailerons for yaw control--a YF-23 does fly like a flying wing, even if it doesn't look like one--it uses opposing ailerons for drag-based yaw control) (A YF-23's tail still has no technical name AFAIK--it is not a ruddervator, nor a taileron---it is simply "an all-moving canted tail surface"---Pelikan tail has come up as a rejected F-32 tail, but it's not quite the same, but still obviously based on the -23's tail)

Not necesarily David. There have laready been several proposals for tailess aircraft, the afore mentioned X-31 modification (though the final stage where the tail was physically removed was axed for budgetary reasons), two F-22 variants (the X-44 MANTA, and the FB-22), Boeing has already flown the tailess X-45 UCAV, as has Northup-Grumman with thier Pegasus, and finnally Lockheed just proposed a modified F-16XL as a tailess research craft. Three of these aircraft are attempts at creating operational combat aircraft, not just X-plane flights of fancy. The MANTA is probably the most interesting though, since it proposes to control the aircraft entirely by TVC.

That shot is from "Pineapple Salad" during Max and Millia's battle.

Here's a thought: What if the leg bay is normally taken up with a fuel tank, but for special missions it can be swapped out and the resulting cavity can hold weapons. Of course doing that would require you to put some kind of external tank on, but we see precisely that in M7 (the leg FAST packs apear to be nothing more than fuel tanks).

Just for comparison a standard mission load for an F-15E is 12 bombs mounted on the CFTs, a pair of AMRAAMs on the Sidewinder rails, a pair of Sidewinders on the other two, and a pair of drop tanks below that (plus maybe a centerline tank). A similar loadout for an F-16E would have two more bombs, two more AMRAAMs and the same number of drop tanks.

I've been checking a number of online sources and the range (depending on who you go by) of the F-15E, with CTF and the three extra tanks, ranges from 2,400 to 3,400.  The F-16XL is stated as up to 2,800, though I can't find any details on if that is in clean condition or itseld carrying any tanks or weapons.  But still, that is some impressive numbers for what started as a light weight fighter, but the numbers that count are the range, amount of fuel for said range, and the weapons load that either the F-15E or F-16XL would carry into combat.  Of course there were the issues of commonality of these two aircraft with their predecessors and which one is the better cost savings, too.  What would have happened to the XL's performance and RCS if it were carrying LANTRIN pods?

(David, let me know what you think of Rocket Challenge )

ACtualy the F-16XL had a hell of a lot of load carrying capability. It had 16 hardpoints for bombs mounted almost semi recessed 2 more wing hardpoints, the standard wingtip missile rails, four semi-recessed hardpoints for Sparrows or AMRAAMs, the standard centerline hardpoint (which was wired for weapons), and two hardpoints under the intakes for LANTIRN pods. The only caveat is that if wing tanks were carried only 14 of those 16 hardpoints could be used. Note too that with so many hardpoints semi recessed or held extremely close to the body, the F-16XL could carry quite a warload with very little drag.

edited to correct for my bad memory of the number of hardpoints the XL has

The XL had almost half again the range of a normal F-16, was capable of supercruise (very limited but still capable), and carried its weapons in a unique way that made for very low drag and lower RCS.

You are correct in thinking that the F-16 wouldn't be a stealth aircraft which is precisely why the Air force killed it. It would have been close to the ATF requirement but it wouldn't be the ATF (stealthy but not stealth, supercruise but just barely, and an ancient airframe streched to it's limits). In essence it would be more like the Typhoon or the Rafale than the F-22.

The person who took us to see the F-16XL said "off the record" that the F-16XL was proven superior to the F-15. However, because of "politics", the F-16XL "lost" to the F-15E!

The F-16XL actaully had limited super cruise capability, it also carried it's weapons very close to the fuselage without pylons, which combined with the F-16's already somewhat stealhty features made it tough to detect. The Air Force saw all this as a threat to the ATF program. They figured (probably rightly) that an F-16XL, with upgraded avionics and twin engines, would be cheap enough, and close enough to the ATF requirement that congress would cancel the ATF, and give them warmed over F-16s instead. There is some truth to this as the General Dynamics ATF proposal does share quite a few features with the F-16XL.

there is too much room in the anime. It's a mistake I think. At least, the maximum width of the nose should be the battroid's cockpit's width because the pilot's chair is only rotating. The pilot is not leaving the nose. He stays in place. He doesn't travel into the robot's chest. LOL. He is not a fly worm in a dead body.

The seat doesn't just stay in the nose it actually elevates up into the chest. Ditto with the YF/VF-19 the seat rotates and moves up into the chest of the mecha where there is more room.

lol

"room in a plane"

have you ever seen a plane in which ther eis enough room for a cockpit the size of my living room?

we must admit here that it's a real mistake from the VF1 designers.

Maybe they use some kind of technology to reduce the size of human beeing. Some kind of size transformation, the same sing used by zentraedi to become giants. You know what i mean

It requires nothing of the sort. There isn't that much room in a batroid cockpit in the first place. I think the roomiest (the TV VF-1 cockpit) has at most hafl a foot of space between the pilot and the furthest object. Most later designs are quite small (though still slightly bigger than their fighter mode counterparts.