Graham Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I love the look of the Legioss, but studying the design got me thinking would it actually be capable of atmospheric flight as it lacks both horizontal stabilzers and elevators? While the VF-1 also lacks any horizontal stabilzers and elevators, it has thrust vectoring in the vertical axis, which when controlled by the computorised fly-by-wire system could be used for pitch control and horizontal stability. While the Legioss may also have thrust vectoring, it is in the horizontal, not vertical axis, so could not be used for pitch control or stability. Thoughts? Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I admit I'm no expert, but just looking at the Alpha, it doesn't appear to have nearly enough surface area on it's wings to provide any lift. Since this is science fiction, I suppose you can make virtually anything fly if you provide enough thrust. So technically, the Alpha could fly in an atmosphere if it had sufficient propulsion to overcome gravity, drag, and it's own weight. I bet Dave Hingten knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 It probably just uses anti-grav generators to generate it's lift and stability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 Lift is not soley dependant on the amount of wing area. The body of a plane can also act as a lifting surface. The Legioss may have enough thrust to get up into the air, but my point is does it actually have enough control surfaces to stay there. As you said, with enough thrust you can get anything up in the air, but the Legioss would probably be a very unstable design and without the right control surfaces, it's just going to depart controlled flight very quickly. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryHolmes Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Well, to be honest, Mospeada never has had the best of animation or line-art for its mecha. So I think it's safe to assume that such control surfaces are supposed to be there, but were simply ommited to save time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Looking at the awkward design of the body, I can't see too much lift coming from that part of the craft, which is why I think it's up to the wings to make it work. And since the wings have very little surface area...well, hopefully someone more knowledgeable in areonautical design can say for sure. The aft (ie vertical) control surfaces are non-existant just looking at the design, but the craft might use some other method to control itself in the air. Based soley on the design, it doesn't look like it can fly very well. Oh DH where are you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Valkyrie Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Since it`s SCI-FI lets just say that it`s a space ship when combined with the T. bomber, BTW it was designed and built in Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Sama Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I love the look of the Legioss, but studying the design got me thinking would it actually be capable of atmospheric flight as it lacks both horizontal stabilzers and elevators?While the VF-1 also lacks any horizontal stabilzers and elevators, it has thrust vectoring in the vertical axis, which when controlled by the computorised fly-by-wire system could be used for pitch control and horizontal stability. While the Legioss may also have thrust vectoring, it is in the horizontal, not vertical axis, so could not be used for pitch control or stability. Thoughts? Graham the vf1 does have horizontal stabilzers!!! teh tail fins can move . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 the vf1 does have  horizontal stabilzers!!! teh tail fins can move . Nope, the VF-1 has vertical stabilizers(tails). As far as I know, the moving parts on the VF-1's vertical stabilizers are the rudders, which control left and right yaw, but have nothing to do with up and down pitch control. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Sama Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 the vf1 does have  horizontal stabilzers!!! teh tail fins can move . Nope, the VF-1 has vertical stabilizers(tails). As far as I know, the moving parts are the rudders Graham watch psx intro to dyrl. you will see hikaru prep his plane by turning all rudders. inlcuding a pair of hoirzontal stabilizers. in case you dont; have the game you cna downlaod it here haha i think I got the nomen clature wrong. i thoguth horizontal are th eoens that keep it stabel hoirzontally. ooops/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Sci-Fi Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 (edited) Sure it can fly, don't you see it fly in the show? If it existed in the real world it probably would have a real world solution for control. Let's put it this way, have you ever seen a segway? It looks like a fantasy on paper but when someone cruises by you on one the reality is near shocking. Edited December 15, 2003 by Mr.Sci-Fi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Maybe it's like the F-117, the stability of it during flight is handled by computer, while the pilot does the main piloting. If the computer goes down, it turns into a flying brick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatMoose Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Put it this way, it'll fly as well as any other rocket does. Hmmm.... Do rockets really fly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 You put a big enough rocket on it, and you can get just about anything to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGuy42 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 You put a big enough rocket on it, and you can get just about anything to fly. Case in point: F-117... ...and on that note... DYNAMICS IS DONE! There are times I wish I had something better to major in 'sides Aerospace Engineering.. -sigh- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Two places with stats/diagrams of the Legioss are http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~cyclone/ and http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Resea...a/Mospeada.html But I couldn't find anything helpful other than a reference to the Legioss being capable of "VTOL rectification" (related to the stall speed stat). To me this implies that the Legioss has some VTOL capability which can be used to prevent stalling; if this means there are some ducted fan outlets, they could also be used to control pitch, I'd guess. But it probably just means that a Legioss can activate the legs into partial armo-diver mode, similar to the Valkyrie's "Gerwalk brake" maneuver. One thing I notice is that the Legioss's trailing wing surfaces are pretty far back on the body, so maybe it can be controlled like a delta wing, using elevons. But I got in trouble last time I wandered into that realm. Paging David! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 (edited) I had to go find out what a Legioss was first... (I know of the term, but not what they are) Well, my brain says overall "brick with wings" but I can't really find anything specifically "wrong" with it, other than it looks like a 1/48 kit built with 1/72 wings. Wing/body ratio is even worse than an F-104, but F-104's flew. It's just ungodly huge at the back. Pretty much everything aft of the cockpit. More like a box with a triangle grafted on the front. It's like a 747 carrying 2 or 3 shuttles on its back---just too much volume/mass for its size. I can't phrase it right, but you should understand what I mean. All in all---I don't think it'd fly. ewilen--your post appeared while I was typing. I did mention in my first draft of my reply that it wasn't FAR off from being a cranked-delta, but for a delta-wing to work (as in, no h.stab) it generally either is, or isn't, a delta. And this isn't. Wings are too small for it to work. Delta's basically work by having the center of lift spread out over such a large area, and so "matched" with the plane's center of gravity, that the plane has little/no natural pitch tendency. Can't do that when the wing's so small, thus center of lift is so small, and with that big a back end, the center of gravity is way out there... Edited December 15, 2003 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechamaniac Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 You put a big enough rocket on it, and you can get just about anything to fly. Right, just not be controllable. Defying gravity because of massive thrust is one thing... Being able to steer is another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegadeleader1 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 it could fly. There are planes of its size out there, Notably the A-4 skyhawk. a major question would be how long could it fly. an plane of its size can't carry that much fuel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Not even through the magic of Protoculture....? *ducks various blunt objects thrown by angry mob* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) renegadeleader1: A-4's fly because they actually have a tail, and don't have 70% of their weight aft of their center of lift. (Center of lift should be AFT of center of gravity, not ahead of it). Also, their wings are proportionally MUCH larger. That's why A-4's are such good planes--their lift/weight ratio's probably better than the F-14/15/16/18. An obvious fact overlooked by many people: wings are the most important part of a plane. Don't spend 80% of your design time/money/effort on the tail and engines, the wing's the important part. Tiny wings=not good. See F-104's service history. Edited December 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) Here's an A-4, about 1,000x better proportioned than a Legioss: (and it's got a tail, too) Edited December 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) What about the secondary engines? They seem to be able of thrust vectoring? Besides, the tail fins are most definitely NOT vertical but diagonal (see cutaway diagram). That doesn't solve the problem of missing horizontal fins, but it could help... Here, I provided a rear view of the Legioss... Edited December 16, 2003 by Burn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Burn--those count as verticals. Look at an F-22 or F-18. They're angled just as much as the Legioss, but are still the vertical stab, and still require full-size horizontals. F-14 has moderately canted stabs, likely the VF-1's inspiration. (While common nowadays, F-14 was pretty revolutionary for a jet in having two fins, canted outwards) A canted vertical stab does almost nothing, control-wise. If you pull both rudders inward, you can gain a moderate pitch-up when combined with the elevators. But nothing more, no actual pitch control. Works almost exactly like adding nose-up trim. (Good for carrier takeoffs, but not in combat) YF-23 is one of the few planes with true "flying tails" that can do anything and everything, and it has an utterly unique control system. (Also, its stabs are SO out-canted, they are actually more like horizontals that have been bent up---yaw control is B-2 style, from the ailerons) And of course, YF-23 uses the WHOLE tail to move, not just control surfaces on the trailing edges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) The spare engines could indeed be a possibility, but it is really hard to see where their thrust goes and whether/how it might be vectored. Also, I just realized that that picture shows a "protoculture storage compartment". So goodness knows if it represents the original intent of the Mospeada mecha designers. Edited December 16, 2003 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 So now that we have established that the Legioss can only fly the way a brick is meant to fly (with a rocket attached behind...), the question I would like to ask is what changes do we make in order to enable the Legioss to fly in the traditional way? If the Legioss isn't a flyer, I guess the Tread is even less so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) It's simply too tail heavy, that's the main thing. Too much weight too far aft, on too small wings. And no tail. Expand the wing into a big cranked delta, and that'll solve most of the problems. Bigger wing (thus more lift), more aft center of lift, no need for a tail if you make it a true delta. Basically, you want to make it look like an F-16XL/VF-11MAXL. Edited December 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The spare engines could indeed be a possibility, but it is really hard to see where their thrust goes and whether/how it might be vectored.Also, I just realized that that picture shows a "protoculture storage compartment". So goodness knows if it represents the original intent of the Mospeada mecha designers. The original MOSPEADA units used hydrogen fusion. Fuel came in standardized H2 cartridges. If I'm not mistaken, the storage compartment is the MOSPEADA "fuel tank", for lack of a better word. Those engines up top are a joke, sad to say. Mainly beause there's a hand right behind the nozzle. Not sure what pic you're talking about, but ... This pic shows a hydrogen storage comaprtment. HBT is hydrogen something or other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Mospaeda wasn't exactly the pinnacle of realism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 F-4 was a brick that could fly, but it was a stylish brick at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Sci-Fi Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Mospaeda wasn't exactly the pinnacle of realism. Nothing that has huge transforming weapons is to that point either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dna Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 That picture referenced up above isn't that good if that is what you are going by David - try to find the 3/4 front view - the wings are look more able from that view (not as far aft). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The bottom-most pic posted by Burn looks the most do-able, but still too "everything" that I mentioned. (Tail-heavy, lack of wing, etc). PS--just saw a Super Hornet demo on TLC last night, I was honestly impressed--it can do a WICKED tail-slide and practically post-stall manuevers. Now if only it had some speed and big missiles, it'd be a decent interceptor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Heh, History Channel just had a thing on the F-14 last night. Pretty impressive. Wish they had decided on an upgrade program. I like the F-18 and understand how the F-14 is more maintenance intensive, but it'll be a shame to see them go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) Yup, it's the 100th Anniversary of Flight this week, so it's all airplanes, all the time on most of the TLC/History/Discover channels, etc. Edited December 16, 2003 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.