Are the Macross Variable Fighter designs actually viable?
Can a plane accurately modeled after them be capable of flight?
>>14017464
maybe
Its pretty likely.
The VF-25 is pretty much a flanker with variable sweep wings. If the flanker and its variants can fly, why can't it? Giving it bigger tail fins would probably help, I think those are a little too small.
>>14017464
>Are the Macross Variable Fighter designs actually viable?
The main issue is structural strength. The planes are physically modelled after real life aircraft, the issue is that the transformation requirements leave the chassis heavily weakened and not plausible with modern materials. The planes would disintegrated under stress.
The excuse in Macross is that they used reverse-engineered alien technology to build the VFs.
>>14017464
https://youtu.be/5is-d0jE7UU
Yes...ish. There is rc model of Sv51 that flies decently and someone claimed that vf-25model in simulated airtunel behaves like it would
work.
>>14017547
This, thou if build to scale as rc model with REALLY strong engines the simpler transformation of vf-1 probably can be achieved at least.
Here's an RC model of the VF-1 in flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EQqXysHYR4
Bit of a struggle getting it airborne but looks quite stable while flying.
>>14017464
They don't have elevators, which could make for some odd flying.
If they can get the F117 to fly, they could get VFs to fly.
>>14018356
>They don't have elevators
They have thrust vectoring, and the tail fins are at an angle so they can help with pitching up and down, I think.
>>14017464
With enough thrust, anything can fly. Thats what rockets are.
The VF series are based off of and shaped similar to F-14 tomcats, with thurust vectoring exhaust nozzles in lieu of elevators. Which is why >>14018126 has trouble getting airborne, no elevators. Wait does that little guy have TVC? That would be badass, and not too hard, considering its not jet exhaust.
>>14018766
>With enough thrust, anything can fly. Thats what rockets are.
Right, but keeping a plane stable in the air is much easier than keeping a large brick stable in the air.
>>14019065
Modern planes are inherently unstable aerodynamically though for maneuverability.
>>14019087
To elaborate even further ideally you'd design your plane for the hypersonic regimes aerodynamics are more important, with unlimited propellant (air) and high power maneuvering thrusters all over the plane the deficiencies of such a craft are diminished at lower speeds
>>14019150
I sure hope that computers in macrossverse are capable of really minute corrections or this method of attitude control will become bumpy very fast.
that is a terrible place to even try to make one of those fly.
but that was a pretty sweet landing tho.
>>14020154
Pretty sure that's not a problem for them, since the targeting computers int he VF 25 can track and target up to 1024 enemies at the same time for theoretically simultaneous attacks. Its theoretically, because the VF 25 doesn't physically carry enough guns and ammo to fire that many shots in a single salvo.
>>14018126
How to make macross fans really mad?
Repost the video of the RC VF-1 Valkyrie.
Rename it to "Super cool VF-1 Veritech! Robotech!"
Watch macross fans rampage!
>>14020358
>2016
>still caring about robotech
>>14021298
On that note, could it be possible that Japan wouldn't be able to copyright strike any Macross videos on Youtube, because Harmony Gold is suppose to be the rights holder in the West?
>>14021708
no one knows, that's the problem
even so, youtube would rather take down a video even if ownership is unclear rather than leave it up
>>14017464
I know that VF-1s could actually fly, dunno bout the rest
>>14018126
which only proves how retarded VF's are. if it requires more thrust than the actual lift required. it's a bad design. I mean, Robots are impossible, this only flies because of it's light weight, and thrust ratio. If this were made to 1:1 scale, it wouldn't work. it'd be shit, like Macross.
>>14022036
>>14022036
Thrust ratio isn't exactly a problem in Macross, where there are planes running thrust/weight of 50+.
>>14022036
calm down anon-san, did Basara wake you up with Holy Lonely Night at 5am this morning?
>>14022869
Not him, but he did exactly this for me 1st 9:00 this morning.
It's my alarm.
>>14022745
And suddenly I have urge to know just how much thrust force verniers on, say, YF-19, have .
>>14022036
>which only proves how retarded VF's are. if it requires more thrust than the actual lift required. it's a bad design. I mean, Robots are impossible, this only flies because of it's light weight, and thrust ratio. If this were made to 1:1 scale, it wouldn't work. it'd be shit, like Macross.
Trolling aside, we are talking about vehicles designed to be able to leave Earth's gravity under it's own power. This means it obviously has the thrust ratio to fly any way it wants. And obviously if you are going to use it in Space you would not want to rely on features that assumes air is present. VFs work well enough for what they are suppose to be, and it makes sense that a RC model would struggle when it had no where the thrust and isn't able to perform in Space.
>>14017464
MACROSS Zero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZR_lGjtIHM
>>14023604
Well as far back as the VF-1 we can see they can lift the plane off the ground unassisted, so they must be quite high performance.
>>14024078
So, over 1:1 ratio on attitude thrusters alone? This is more than enough to maneuver anything.
>>14021752
Despite being modelled after the tomcat, VF-1s have a lot of discontinuities along the body = high drag.
Later designs (including vf-0) are better streamlined
>>14023604
Imagine the thrust of the vernier thrusters on the Ghosts.
Those are so powerful, they make Ghosts fucking zigzag through an atmosphere.
>>14026453
Heh.
https://youtu.be/B9mNNA2gEF8
>>14026444
What about the VF-4 and other pre-Plus designs?
>>14030824
Consider this - sv51 flies. Vf-1 flies. Pretty sure 4, 11 will fly just fine too. I haven't found anything thou beyond what already have been posted, unless you are interested in lengthy development log of that SV on RCGroups.
With today technology it's possible to built scale model with thrust/weight ratio comparable to earlier valkiries. Brushless motors allow for lots of force and 3d thrust vectoring with autobalancing of an airframe really isn't that hard to do- quadcopters are managing just fine.
Is it possible then? Sure. You can litterally make a cinder block fly after all. Will it be most efficient design? Hell no.
But then again, Flytetest built helicarrier. Who cares about practical.
>>14031804
Ok, I stand corrected.
https://youtu.be/iB3Mh95tack
