VF-0 questions - payload, flaps, etc

[tetsujin]

Hey,

I'm planning to use the Hasegawa aircraft weapons sets to give my VF-0 a little bit of firepower. I've heard that the VF-0 actually carried AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles at some point in the anime... maybe episode 1, where Focker's plane is carrying the twelve underwing missiles when it first transforms? I don't know...

Anyway, my questions, if there is anyone here aircrafty enough to answer them:

- twelve AMRAAMs on four underwing hardpoints - is that something that could actually work? If so, what sort of launcher would hold them?

- Are wing-mounted missiles on a variable geometry (understatement - heh) fighter a totally screwed-up notion, or is it valid? I suppose the missile launchers would need to turn if the wing sweep were changed...

- Would a payload including some AIM-9's in place of some of the AIM-120's be more sensible?

Other quasi-related questions:

- Can anybody explain to me how the flaps might be expected to work, and when they would likely be deployed? (I guess I'm already familiar with the airbrake behind the heat shield, and I suppose the ones on the wing closest to the fuselage are flaps, as well as the little scribed-in rectangles on top of the wing in front of the ailerons and rear-edge flaps... (Is that correct? Are those rectangular ones flaps/airbrakes, which would hinge upward? If so, what would be underneath them?) Maybe I don't want to mess with the flaps.

(EDIT): To rephrase part of the missile question: if a payload of 12 AMRAAMs on four hardpoints is impractical on current aircraft, why is that the case? Weight? Cost-effectiveness? Control circuit issues? Or can pilots generally not be expected to effectively use that many missiles on a single flight?

Edited June 7, 2004 by tetsujin

[Macross_Fanboy]

Um, I think you see the AMRAAMs on the wing tips of the VF-0D Shin and Edgar use. Man, when I watch the sequence when they're being chased by Nora I was saying, "FIRE YOUR OTHER MISSILES!!!!" On the Macross Compendium it states that the VF-0 is compatible with most current NATO weaponry, just like the SV-51 is with Soviet weapons. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please.

[David Hingtgen]

My kind of thread.

I'll just go in order:

1. 12 AMRAAM's on 4 launchers? Not with anything that exists nowadays. Practicality? None, DRAG, DRAG, DRAG, and weight. Also, 12 is more missiles than even the most heavily-armed dedicated fighter carries nowadays. You're just weighing the plane down needlessly. Do you actually plan to take down 12 enemy planes yourself in one mission? (And you shouldn't be, for this isn't a 2D shooter where it's you vs the world--the military does not send 1 good pilot to take down the entire enemy fleet)

2. Yes you can mount stuff on a swing-wing. The F-14 is about the only swing-wing plane that doesn't. Whether the pylons swivel with the wings to keep everything aligned varies. Most do.

3. Depends on the launcher. AIM-120's fit literally anywhere, but AIM-9's can only be rail fired. They are generally interchangeable on most modern aircraft. (Any AIM-120 launcher can also accomodate the AIM-9, but an AIM-9 launcher cannot take AIM-120's) AFAIK, the Hase weapons set 5 includes LAU-128 launchers, which are the F-15's inboard pylon launchers. And they can carry AIM-9's. They are horizontal, not vertical. (Missiles go on the sides, not the bottom) See here: http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/weapons/lau128a/lau128a.htm I have that set coming soon, I'll let you know exactly what's inside. (From the pics, it looks like there's more than just LAU-128's, I'm hoping for -127's since they're much harder to find)

4. Flaps. Boy is that a question. Let's see.

From what I can tell, VF-0's have only flaps, no ailerons, like an F-14. So everything on the trailing edge is a flap. The "little rectangles ahead of the flaps" are spoilers, more on them in a bit. And they do hinge upwards.

Flap's main purpose is to increase the amount of lift a wing is producing. Secondary purpose is to increase drag. On airliners, they are used only for takeoff and landing. On modern fighters, they are often SLIGHTLY deployed to gain manueverability for combat. (F-15's about the only one that doesn't do this). How exactly they move is a plane-specific thing. The F-14's are unique among all aircraft in the world AFAIK. I'd need better pics to comment on the VF-0's. (So many terms are just "tossed in" for Valk info--especially convergent/divergent nozzles, fowler flaps, etc--all these aviation terms, which are just added in to sound technical, regardless of if the valk actually has those features or not)

Spoilers--generally the most multi-purpose and IMHO useful thing a plane can have. Spoilers can either make a plane roll, descend, slow down, or in some cases ascend. Airliners tend to deploy exactly how many they need, as much as they need, but fighters tend to use all of the ones on a wing together.

Spoilers generally work all together, or left/right wing on a fighter. If you want to roll right, put the ones on the righ wing up, do nothing on the left. And vice-versa.

If you want to descend and/or slowdown, put them ALL up. What happens depends on the plane and how much you put them up.

Now, some planes (most notably the F-14) have a nifty little feature called DLC--direct lift control. This is used for approach/landing. This is so you can alter your rate of descent/angle, without altering the plane's own angle. This is important, and neat, especially for carrier landings. Simply: you can go up and down, without pointing the nose up or down.

To do this, DLC puts all the spoilers slightly up. This is the new "neutral" position for the spoilers. Then, DLC automatically slightly increases or decreases the spoilers' extension based on pilot commands. The lift of the wing changes, without changing the aircraft's position at all. Pure up and down movement. L-1011's also do this.

Finally--spoilers are the fastest-acting thing on a plane, nothing moves faster. Nearly every airliner has ground-only spoilers (for they are too powerful to ever use in the air, even for an emergency descent due to cabin pressure failure or something) and they are FAST. I always watch for them, but on a 767 they're so fast you can't see them. They are simply UP the moment it's on the ground. Amazingly fast.

Edited June 7, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[tetsujin]

#1: I figured it was probably something like that. (I do love the missile swarms, and know they aren't real.) I guess now I just need to decide my personal middle ground between anime-style Rambo loadouts and real-world practicality.

Side note: do we even know if those were AMRAAMs on the VF-0? I don't have a good screenshot but they didn't really look like AMRAAMs to me...

Interesting... so the control surfaces I figured for ailerons may not be ailerons at all? How can you determine whether they are ailerons or not? Just by checking the anime to watch for movement during roll? Or by looking at the structure of the wing design?

Thanks for the info.

[imode]

1. 12 AMRAAM's on 4 launchers? Not with anything that exists nowadays. Practicality? None, DRAG, DRAG, DRAG, and weight. Also, 12 is more missiles than even the most heavily-armed dedicated fighter carries nowadays. Do you actually plan to take down 12 enemy planes yourself in one mission?

Yes, but you must remember, in the Macross world, one needs at least 50 missiles to shoot down a single opponent!

[Stamen0083]

Side note: do we even know if those were AMRAAMs on the VF-0? I don't have a good screenshot but they didn't really look like AMRAAMs to me...

They're not AIM-120 AMRAAM's as we know them. They're AIM-200 AMRAAM II, or as I called them before I found out about them, Super AMRAAM. SAMRAAM, if you will.

They don't look like AMRAAM's. Similar, but not quite the same.

Interesting...  so the control surfaces I figured for ailerons may not be ailerons at all?

I don't know. I think they might be ailerons. The inboard pieces might be the flaps, and the outboard pieces might be ailerons. Doesn't the F-16 have "flaperons", or some such?

[David Hingtgen]

A slotted flap is generally easy to distinguish from an aileron (at least when deployed). And double and triple slotted flaps are obvious even when retracted. A simple flap (like on 99% of fighters) is impossible to tell from an aileron. It's simply how it is used.

A flaperon is one that acts as both, or either, depending when and where it's used. And yes, you can simply reprogram the computer, and "convert" an aileron into a flaperon. It is simply how its used.

Now, F-16's have flaperons because their entire trailing edge only has one gigantic control surface. So it must be a flaperon otherwise it'd have to give up something. Used more like an aileron though. (FBW can make anything happen) F-18's have inboard flaps (only used as flaps), and outboard flaperons (normally move as ailerons, but when you select flaps down they'll go down too--but they'll still move as ailerons, with "down" as their new neutral position---of course they can't go all the way down as a flap, since then there'd be no more "down" to move to for roll) F-15's have inboard flaps, and outboard ailerons. No flaperons. (It looks like it should have flaperons, but it doesn't---no slats or leading edge flaps--the wing's just that big it doesn't need anything to land other than small, simple flaps inboard)

AFAIK there's conflicting info on the VF-1, but I think it's all flaps. VF-0, I'm not sure. But as a rule, the way those plane's control surfaces are, they look to be like the F-14/VF-1. No ailerons, no flaperons. Just flaps, and spoilers. Same as the Tornado. Now, the F-14 and VF-1 and VF-0 have clearly different types of flaps (since the F-14 is unique, and most people who try to copy it fail since they don't know how they REALLY move), the arrangement is the same I think.

[tetsujin]

Side note: do we even know if those were AMRAAMs on the VF-0?  I don't have a good screenshot but they didn't really look like AMRAAMs to me...

They're not AIM-120 AMRAAM's as we know them. They're AIM-200 AMRAAM II, or as I called them before I found out about them, Super AMRAAM. SAMRAAM, if you will.

They don't look like AMRAAM's. Similar, but not quite the same.

Interesting... do you have a link to info on them?

[Stamen0083]

Interesting... do you have a link to info on them?

Only the little snippet from Macross Compendium on the VF-0:

"Maximum of twelve standard Raytheon Bifors AIM-200A AMRAAM 2 I/ALH-guided medium-range air-to-air missiles mounted on four hard points, each with a three-missile rack."

[David Hingtgen]

Triple AMRAAM launchers? Interesting. Wonder if they look like triple Maverick launchers. (only triple-missile launcher I can think of in the real world)

[Aurel Tristen]

4.  Flaps.  Boy is that a question.  Let's see.

From what I can tell, VF-0's have only flaps, no ailerons, like an F-14.  So everything on the trailing edge is a flap.  The "little rectangles ahead of the flaps" are spoilers, more on them in a bit. And they do hinge upwards.

I believe the VF-0 does has ailerons and flaps:

Edited June 8, 2004 by Nanashi

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, VF-0 has at least ailerons, if not flaperons. Any pics of it flaps down?

BTW--if it's moving its ailerons like THAT, why the heck isn't it using its spoilers????

Edited June 8, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Commander McBride]

Maybe Zero's spoilers are used for purposes other than roll and the duty of supplementing the ailerons is taken care of by the thrust vectoring?

[Aurel Tristen]

Ok, VF-0 has at least ailerons, if not flaperons. Any pics of it flaps down?

BTW--if it's moving its ailerons like THAT, why the heck isn't it using its spoilers????

I don't think Focker had induced a roll long enough for the spoilers to be deployed.

I'll get a pic of the spoilers up soon.

[tetsujin]

Turns out there's a pretty good shot of the spoilers and the flaps in episode 2 during the canyon run...

[P.W.Royce]

Maybe Zero's spoilers are used for purposes other than roll and the duty of supplementing the ailerons is taken care of by the thrust vectoring?

Yeah, this makes sense. I mean, the whole reson these planes can fly without an elevator is because of the thrust vectoring feature of the "feet" right?

[Myersjessee]

It would be nice to see some pictures of the flaps extended to get an idea of exactly how, and how far, they extend. Additionally, I would love to see some approach pictures with the spoilers deployed...great read all...now go get me some pictures!!!

(LOL...man..they need to release a tech manual for M0! )

David Hingtgen - thanks for the very informative and complete responses...most helpful!

Edited June 10, 2004 by Myersjessee

[Mule]

A friend of mine that used to work on flight sims for Boeing in St. Louis told me of a poster he saw of a Super Hornet with a load of 14 AMRAAMs. One on each wing tip rail, one on each outer wing hard point, two each on the middle and inner wing hard points and one on each fuselage hard point. He may have been mistaken about the wing tip rails. Those may have been AIM9s, although he does know his missiles. Not really a practical loadout, but a pretty impressive picture.

[tetsujin]

Another question (I should really just ask David, but...) - lights:

When would formation and anti-collision lights be on? Just when a plane is flying formation or taking off/landing? I assume they'd be off during combat to avoid the "shoot here" effect... And what color would those light strips on the wing ends, vertical stabilizers, and sides of the nose be when lit? White or yellow?

Also, does anybody have a good understanding of the VF-0's tail section, and how it hinges, folds, unfolds, extends, etc. to go from fighter to gerwalk/battroid? I'm thinking mainly of the tail deck that appears behind the thrusters, and the hinged plate which connects the assembly to the main fuselage. My best guess based on screencaps would be that the tail assembly extends backward, and both the rear deck and the connecting plate emerge from inside the fuselage. My best guess based on the lineart would be that the connecting plate is the upper rear segment of the fuselage, and that the rear deck is the lower rear segment of the fuselage, and that there's a notch taken out of the rear of the fuselage for those two plates when in battroid/gerwalk. But that'd be a bit strange on the model, since the lower rear segment of the fuselage on the model isn't level with the inner deck of the backpack.

I also think the VF-0D is somewhat different than the VF-0S, so I don't know if I can trust screencaps of the VF-0D for that information.

Edited June 10, 2004 by tetsujin

[David Hingtgen]

There's a billion "lots o' AMRAAM" Hornet pics. But people always over-count by 2, assuming the outboard ones are AMRAAM's. They're not, they're Sidewinders. Despite common belief, Hornets can't carry AMRAAM's outboard. It's the one and only situation I know of where an AMRAAM can't be placed instead of a Sidewinder. Regular Hornets can carry 10, Super 12. Real-life tends to max out at 4-6. Australia has the highest-end air-to-air loadouts of anybody, their standard loadout is ASRAAMx2 and AMRAAMx6.

Formation lights: yup. Don't turn on when fighting.

Strip lights color: "glow-in-the-dark green". That pale, yellow-green color. They're called "slime" lights for a reason. Also, the color of snot when you're sick is amazingly close, leading to the other nick-name for them...

Pic of F-14 spoilers in "approach" position. I'll have a look.

[Aurel Tristen]

Ok, VF-0 has at least ailerons, if not flaperons. Any pics of it flaps down?

BTW--if it's moving its ailerons like THAT, why the heck isn't it using its spoilers????

Sorry about the delay.

Here are some images of the VF-0's left main wing flying controls.

1. shows the trailing edge flying controls moving in an upward direction

2. shows the trailing edge flying controls moving in an doward direction with spoilers extended.

3. shows the trailing edge flying controls moving in an doward direction with second section of flap[eron] extended

Hope these help. Apologies if the images take long to load-I will not sacrifice quality. : ) Please do not redistribute these images and only use them for personal viewing. Thank you.

[David Hingtgen]

At this point, I'm wondering if the animators have any clue what they're doing, and if they've talked to Kawamori at all about how the VF-0's controls work.

The second pic makes absolutely postively no sense at all, unless it was on the ground trying to slow down after landing. But it's flying in that pic.

1st one, makes slightly more sense than the first, but is still "huh?".

3rd one---there's a limit to how far flaps can go before they stop working, and that is well past that. Another "huh?"

PS---got my Hase weapons set V yesterday, it also includes both style of LAU-129 launchers (F-16) for AMRAAMs, so those'd work great for anywhere you'd want to mount some AMRAAMs. Or SAMRAAM's.

Missiles are easy to modify, just clip the fins at some angle, and it'll look like something else. Just don't clip an AMRAAM's fins at an angle parallel to the body, for that'll be the AIM-120C, not a "new" AMRAAM.

Edited June 13, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Aurel Tristen]

At this point, I'm wondering if the animators have any clue what they're doing, and if they've talked to Kawamori at all about how the VF-0's controls work.

The second pic makes absolutely postively no sense at all, unless it was on the ground trying to slow down after landing. But it's flying in that pic.

1st one, makes slightly more sense than the first, but is still "huh?".

3rd one---there's a limit to how far flaps can go before they stop working, and that is well past that. Another "huh?"

PS---got my Hase weapons set V yesterday, it also includes both style of LAU-129 launchers (F-16) for AMRAAMs, so those'd work great for anywhere you'd want to mount some AMRAAMs. Or SAMRAAM's.

Missiles are easy to modify, just clip the fins at some angle, and it'll look like something else. Just don't clip an AMRAAM's fins at an angle parallel to the body, for that'll be the AIM-120C, not a "new" AMRAAM.

Focker was chasing after D.D. in the canyon. In the first pic, I believe he was ascending downward, following him. The whole time he was in GERWALK, changing his altitude in the ravine maneuvering up and down and side to side.... I think the flap[eron]s are pointing upward to generate downward airflow to push the craft down-like Guld thought about before he wreckedIsamu's VF-11 in Macross Plus. The second pic-about the spoilers-the VF-1 has been drawn with its airbrake and spoilers extended to try and slow the beast down. In the third, Focker, dropped the flap[eron]s all the way, right before he increased his thrust hard and his Zero shot straight upward-so I imagine that having the flap[eron]s might increase airflow to lift the plane.

[David Hingtgen]

::edit:: preface to everything below. It's in gerwalk--that kind of obliterates all aerodynamic consequences etc, since it's using engines in its feet for lift and verniers for control. Explanations below are for a real plane actually flying, not a giant mecha hovering around that just happens to have F-14-esque wings stuck on.

For the first pic, well frankly it depends on the alpha. Spoilers would be much more effective and controllable than moving the entire trailing edge up that much. If the airfoil was perfectly symmetrical and had the proper alpha it could produce a downforce, but I'm guessing it's nearly symmetrical, since it has slats, and wouldn't be producing a downforce under almost any circumstance, just a loss of lift.

Second pic: the spoilers are deployed enough to utterly stall the wing. Yes, he'd be slowing down, as he dropped like a rock due to instantaneous and total loss of lift from the wings. It doesn't matter what anything else on the wing is doing, that spoiler position is nothing short of "drop out of the sky".

Third pic: like the second pic--it's just too far. You need a morphing wing so as to be able to do that and have it work--needs to be curved a LOT. The airstream simply won't follow that. You've got a massive, stall-inducing airbrake basically. Like the 2nd pic. Even the most agile fighters at low speeds rarely move a control more than 45 degrees. 60 degrees is extreme (spoilers only for up and generally only on the ground, or maybe only a few of the outboard ones, and that's beyond the max for even multi-slotted curved-profile flaps). Nothing does 70/80/90 while actually flying. And most importantly, all those controls only affect a small part of the wing. Here, the VF-0's moving the entire trailing edge.

Edited June 14, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[tetsujin]

All three of those pics were from like a 5 second sequence, Focker was about to run into a wall (almost) and was all "oh, crap, I'd better get above that thing." I did scratch my head when the flaps hinged up, and got the feeling that the flaps went down too far for that maneuver...

I think in general there are some finer points of Mac Zero's animation that don't fit. Some bits are elements of consistency (auto-reversing "UN Spacy" on the gunpod), some bits are just cheap-looking (odd poses on Battroid legs where it looks like the hip parts/intakes aren't connected to the upper legs), and some things, like the position of control surfaces, maybe just was done wrong.

I think getting the control surfaces animated correctly probably wasn't a priority... probably they were more interested in viewers being able to tell there was something going on than getting the control surfaces to actually match the maneuvers.

[David Hingtgen]

Very true. Most "normal" manuevers you don't see much move unless you're really looking for it. Watch a 747's ailerons--for a normal bank, they move MAYBE 1 or 2 degrees. Even a F-16 rolling around has only small movements. Could certainly be the animators are exaggerating everything so that people notice it.

[Aurel Tristen]

Very true.  Most "normal" manuevers you don't see much move unless you're really looking for it.  Watch a 747's ailerons--for a normal bank, they move MAYBE 1 or 2 degrees.  Even a F-16 rolling around has only small movements.  Could certainly be the animators are exaggerating everything so that people notice it.

Perhaps not they are not an exaggeration, but may be like the variable fighter's transformation system. The flying controls could also use of the various high technologies such as super high-speed fluid pulse actuation to enable the ability to make faster changes to its its flying controls than a conventional aircraft can, as they might be needed. Since these machines transform so often, in many different air flow environments and under various other situations and surroundings--they require fast reactions. Ever thing in a Valkyrie is tied together for optimum functionality-the vernier thrusters and flying controls, the shuttered verniers and jet/over flow operation for highly maneuverable Battroid aerial combat, etc. While it can be an aircraft and a "half aircraft", it is much more.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Nanashi

[David Hingtgen]

That's not really the issue. The F-16 can move its stabs over 100 times per second. Even something as "ponderous" as an airliner can move its spoilers faster than the human eye can see. There is no need for a "faster" activating control surface, as a 20-year-old 767 can get 60 degrees from its spoilers in a fraction of a second.

The issue with the extreme control surface positions is basically that the airflow simply wouldn't go with it. Spoilers can go to 60 on the ground because when they do that, their only purpose is to utterly and instantly stall the wing, disrupting all airflow across the wing's upper surface. That is why they never ever do such a thing in the air. It is also why there is no setting beyond 60 degrees---you cannot affect the wing anymore beyond "completely stalled". Maybe a slight increase in drag, but that's it. A similar situation would happen with any control surface going to such an extreme angle.

An elevator that's like 70 degrees up will be utterly stalled, and totally ineffective. An elevator at 30 degrees, with smooth airflow, will be far more effective.

[Aurel Tristen]

That's not really the issue. The F-16 can move its stabs over 100 times per second. Even something as "ponderous" as an airliner can move its spoilers faster than the human eye can see. There is no need for a "faster" activating control surface, as a 20-year-old 767 can get 60 degrees from its spoilers in a fraction of a second.

The issue with the extreme control surface positions is basically that the airflow simply wouldn't go with it. Spoilers can go to 60 on the ground because when they do that, their only purpose is to utterly and instantly stall the wing, disrupting all airflow across the wing's upper surface. That is why they never ever do such a thing in the air. It is also why there is no setting beyond 60 degrees---you cannot affect the wing anymore beyond "completely stalled". Maybe a slight increase in drag, but that's it. A similar situation would happen with any control surface going to such an extreme angle.

An elevator that's like 70 degrees up will be utterly stalled, and totally ineffective. An elevator at 30 degrees, with smooth airflow, will be far more effective.

Hmm, interesting.

I see, you are very knownledgeable. : )

[Aurel Tristen]

It's in gerwalk--that kind of obliterates all aerodynamic consequences etc, since it's using engines in its feet for lift and verniers for control.

Okay, but we are talking about something in GERWALK mode here. If a VF-1 Valkyrie can reach hovering-flight speeds of 500+ km/h (about 270+ knots) while in GERWALK mode--wouldn't it still make use of it control surfaces? Such as what might be considered over-extending its flaps/ailerons upward or downward to maintain level flight or climb faster respectively?