|
|
F/A-32 Valkyrie
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
F/A-32 Valkyrie // Image Gallery
Post by Weevil // Feb 21, 2008, 1:53am
|
Weevil
Total Posts: 534
|
It's my latest piece of work (after another long break (that's what hibernation does to you (never become a bear))). It started a while ago getting that bit better each time I wonder which variant is better. (and now just having read the "Hey this thing can fly" speed challenge, it's irritated me a little, but hey...) EDIT 2: Not wait, never mind...it has to exist doesn't it?
I started making one of these flying washing machine contraptions a year ago. It was pants. I was basing it too much on the harrier.
Now I've tried again. And my brother said. Is that the Raptor? I'll admit. Yes it kinda does. In a weird sense.
It's not though. I'll tell you why. The raptor's engines start closer into the body, then comes out at the direct back. Mine don't. It's got pods kind of like the Flanker, Fulcrum and the Blackbird.
So I did variant one. Landing gear 'n' all:
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient1front1.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient1front2.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient1rear1.jpg
and thought, what if:
So I made a second variant, where the pod had a flat topside to attach straight to the fuselage. I also reasoned that the wing are is WAY too wide, for what the armament is, so I made the wing area smaller. I haven't got the gear on this one though.
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient2front1.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient2front2.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient2rear1.jpg
Now I thought, Hmm. If the blackbird got away with it, can I? So I stuck the engines through the wings, made them round again, and made sure they had enough security on them so they won't just fly off. And moved the fins out. Personally this is the most stylish but I'm not sure it's the most practical
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient3front1.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient3front2.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/Varient3rear1.jpg |
Post by Weevil // Feb 21, 2008, 1:54am
|
Weevil
Total Posts: 534
|
*INSERT TWO DAY BREAK*
I know double posting is a bad habit but there was that image limit, sorry
I decided to go with variant 3, I've finished it now. (minus the paint)
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieFront3.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieFront2.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieFront1.jpg
I've added an airbrake, and the gear, and change the shape of the engine
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieRear1.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieRear2.jpg
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32ValkyrieRear3.jpg
And I also changed the shape of the wing, and it starts further back
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32Valkyrietop.jpg
And also the rear landing gear comes down further than the front gear so when it lands i has to take a shallower angle upward (because you land rear gear first)
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/Weasle_01/F-32Valkyrieside.jpg
I can't think of what to name it though:
I've decided it's going to be F/A-32 (Because F/A is the most known)
But F/A-32 what?
I'd love to call it the vampire, that's taken
It was originally going to be called the Thunderbird but then you've got that stunt squadron and of course international rescue
Firebird? Or doesn't that flow?
I like the idea of Valkyrie. It seems...fitting. And is seems deadly yet stylish. Almost femenine.
So we've got
F/A-32 Thunderbird
F/A-32 Firebird
F/A-32 Valkyrie
What do you think? |
Post by Nez // Feb 21, 2008, 3:19am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
Very nice, just found this thread by accident. If you've been looking at the MMC then you may know I've been doing a jet too.
I like that you've gone to the trouble of showing the main control surfaces which is something I haven't got round to (and may not bother with). I think the development of the shape is good and I mostly like what you've ended up - I can see the early Raptor resemblance but you've managed to move away from that quite a bit to quite a nice sharp looking concept.
Couple of 'worries' for me which you can choose to ignore if you like -
I think the canards in front of the engine intakes may disrupt the airflow into the engines and alter the efficiency? (don't know really - just most jets with canards don't have them placed in front of the intakes, that I'm aware of)
They're also very big intakes for a sleek fast jet, leaving the engine fans a bit vulnerable? I can hardly talk, with my hulking A-10 style engines on my own model, but mine doesn't look as fast/slippery as yours to start with.
Landing gear - I think the front and gears need to be further apart or possibly longer - and if anything the front gear is usually longer than the rear. At the moment you look in real danger of scraping the wingtips and engine nozzles on the ground during take off and landing... nasty on the paint-job!
All in all though, it's a great looking model and I like th esubtle lighting you've used in the last shots. Looking forward to seeing it textured up.
Oh, and on names, I'm pretty certain the Valkyrie name is already taken - by the XB-70 (according to Google). Names are really tough! It's like bands and brands - all the good ones are taken, particularly when you consider the British, Scandicanvian, American, French etc jet builders! |
Post by ghost--scout // Feb 21, 2008, 5:18am
|
ghost--scout
Total Posts: 85
|
I was gonna say it looked more like an F/A-18 Hornet than anything until I saw the later pictures but it does look very nice all around :) |
Post by TomG // Feb 21, 2008, 6:21am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Nice! I dont know enough about planes to say what it looks like, other than that it looks good. Looking forward to seeing more, with textures etc.
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by Weevil // Feb 22, 2008, 12:16am
|
Weevil
Total Posts: 534
|
They're also very big intakes for a sleek fast jet, leaving the engine fans a bit vulnerable? I can hardly talk, with my hulking A-10 style engines on my own model, but mine doesn't look as fast/slippery as yours to start with.
Landing gear - I think the front and gears need to be further apart or possibly longer - and if anything the front gear is usually longer than the rear. At the moment you look in real danger of scraping the wingtips and engine nozzles on the ground during take off and landing... nasty on the paint-job!
All in all though, it's a great looking model and I like th esubtle lighting you've used in the last shots. Looking forward to seeing it textured up.
Oh, and on names, I'm pretty certain the Valkyrie name is already taken - by the XB-70 (according to Google). Names are really tough! It's like bands and brands - all the good ones are taken, particularly when you consider the British, Scandicanvian, American, French etc jet builders!
Damn! Oh well, plan two. F-32 Foxbat!
And it's something the picture doesn't show. When the aircraft is landed it has a 3 degree slant downwards, needing a smaller flare out when coming into land and takeoff. I kinda used the Raptor as a main basis for this but my aircraft might be in less danger than the raptor when taking off and landing. But then. I'll have to see.
Thanks for the C&C |
Post by ghost--scout // Feb 22, 2008, 1:04pm
|
ghost--scout
Total Posts: 85
|
Damn! Oh well, plan two. F-32 Foxbat!
Believe it or not there's a MiG 25 Foxbat |
Post by jamesmc // Feb 22, 2008, 1:41pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Very nice!
I was actually on a sub research team for the Advanced Tactical Fighter and its new seat design ("fly by couch")
That was before it had any name at all. Pilots weren't particularly fond of laying on their back, literally, when they performed high "G" anti-combat maneuvers. But it was the only way to keep them conscious and able to respond to instrumentation. :)
Looks cool and very intimidating. :) |
Post by Weevil // Mar 9, 2008, 5:06am
|
Weevil
Total Posts: 534
|
Garn! No net.
@Jamesmc:
You were? Cool! I modelled this seat on the Phantom seat that was at Hendon, I don't know if that's it.
@ Ghost--Scout. You're kidding? Hmm.... Hellcat?
@Nez. I tested your theory, as it turns out it has a 12 degree angle of elavation, tha's about as much as an F-16 I think, so that's fine.
The front cannards. You had me worried there! But only the tip of the cannard obstructs the intake. Well spotted though, never would have crossed my mind.
And the landing gear, that's the problem I've been having, this was originally a VTOL, and it had a cannon that came out like the Comanche (except more streamlined) when it was hovering, which is now hence the low nose and then it gets taller 1/3 way back, I couldn't put the gear there. Awkward.
EDIT: Oh yeah, you're seeing the gear on "full load", weapons 'n' all, it does come down more. |
Post by Nez // Mar 10, 2008, 12:34am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
Sorry - Hellcat also taken! Gruman F6F or soemthing like that... had a model of one once upon a time!
Providing your happy with your landing gear, that's cool - just looked a bit low to me, didn't want to see you scraping your shiny tailpipes on the ground on take off! ;) |
|
