VF-0 vs VF-1

[VF-101Guy]

Ive been watching Macross Zero "thanks to the guys on the board here that told me about it" and is it just me or does the VF-0 seem more manuverable than the VF-1? Maybe its just the way it was animated but looking back on DYRL it looks like the 0's transformed faster and had better handling capabilities. Please correct me if im wrong but thus far im really getting into the Zero story line.

[LordSixx]

Lets remember that DYRL was animated back in '84, so it may seem as if it was a bit slower than the kick ass digital animation that we are currently seeing in Zero. Of course, the digital is more consistent and smoother. Also, check out that kick ass dogfight between Max and Millia in DYRL. That was pretty damn impressive and still holds my vote as best on screen battle. Glad to hear you are enjoying Zero... so am I!

[Hikuro]

Might wanna put this on the newbie form instead, but I tend to think the oppisite.

The VF-0 is larger than the VF-1, generally the smaller of the fighter will be the more capable of moving around at higher speeds.

Second, the VF-0 uses regular fueled exhaust engine which just sucks out gas as fast as a Hummer. While the VF-1 uses a thermo nuclear turbine engine which will last longer and is designed for space combat at its best.

Transformation speed in reality really wouldn't be seconds that's almost impossible in real terms for now if anything could transform. But a good reason for fast transformation is animation mistakes aren't apparent.

But if you really wanna get technical, I'd say because the VF-1 uses nuclear power, it can generate a faster transformation.

If you really wanna get technical, the VF-1 is far more superior....

[ewilen]

Yup, we've talked about this in several threads. Not only has animation technology advanced, but styles develop and change. I wouldn't draw any conclusions about how maneuverable the two fighters are based on the animation. Unless and until we see a VF-1 in M0, or Kawamori makes a direct comparison, it's probably more useful to look at the specs for the two aircraft.

Here's one thread where we talked about it: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...opic=3755&st=40

[VF-101Guy]

guys thanks for the input.. i know that digital animation litterally blows away the old school animation.

Hikuro. i can see where the engines are able to operate in space and use a different fuel but just because something is smaller doesnt always mean its better. That would be like me comparing the tomcat to the hornet. Granted the tomcat is bigger and faster with a greater range than the hornet but the hornet can carry more missiles but doesnt have the range of an F-14.

I do however understand your point that with a smaller airframe and stronger better engines than the 0's the 1's have a greater range and can probably handle better than their older counterparts. Im gonna check out the info you guys gave me and see what the differences are. hmm kinda interested in seeing a thermonuclear engine myself..wonder if they use plutonium as the power source... Again thanks gentlemen for the info.

[Beltane70]

wonder if they use plutonium as the power source

Nope. The VF-1's engines are fusion-based, not fission-based. Plutonium is a by-product of uranium-based fission reactions.

I'm sure those of us who are better-versed in nuclear physics can explain this further than I can.

[Lightning]

we had a 14-ish page discussion on how the engines of Valks (except the VF-0) possibly work and all, just do a search within the last 180 days or so

[ewilen]

Beltane70, to be precise, plutonium is formed by bombarding uranium with neutrons. In other words, it's not a fission product of uranium, as it has a higher atomic number. But it is correct as you say that plutonium can be a byproduct of uranium-based reactors, because some of the uranium in the reactor gets hit by stray neutrons and turns into plutonium. (Here's one description of what goes on.) Plutonium can also be used to create a self-sustaining fission reaction, both in bombs and reactors.

Anyway, yes, the VF-1's engines are based on an advanced fusion reaction developed by overtechnology, and thus do not use heavy fissile elements such as plutonium and uranium.

[Drad]

The simple answer is just that the VF-0 is animated using today's state-of-the-art animation techniques, so it's obviously going to look like it'd run circles around the VF-1. Appearances aside..

.. the VF-1 is the production model and according to the specs, it's better. It's anime. Go with it.

[eugimon]

eh, default answer: the wizard did it.

[phoenix01]

Beltane70, to be precise, plutonium is formed by bombarding uranium with neutrons. In other words, it's not a fission product of uranium, as it has a higher atomic number. But it is correct as you say that plutonium can be a byproduct of uranium-based reactors, because some of the uranium in the reactor gets hit by stray neutrons and turns into plutonium. (Here's one description of what goes on.) Plutonium can also be used to create a self-sustaining fission reaction, both in bombs and reactors.

And that is not the most intersting possibility for fission nuclear reactions. Take for instance pair production where a high energy gamma/photon passes near a large atomic mass like a uranium nucleus. The gamma becomes an electron and a positron (aka anti-electron) When the positron finds another electron, the two slam together making two lower energy gammas whose total energy equals the energy of the original high energy gamma.

Star Trek fans rejoice at antimatter.

[Lightning]

Beltane70, to be precise, plutonium is formed by bombarding uranium with neutrons. In other words, it's not a fission product of uranium, as it has a higher atomic number. But it is correct as you say that plutonium can be a byproduct of uranium-based reactors, because some of the uranium in the reactor gets hit by stray neutrons and turns into plutonium. (Here's one description of what goes on.) Plutonium can also be used to create a self-sustaining fission reaction, both in bombs and reactors.

And that is not the most intersting possibility for fission nuclear reactions. Take for instance pair production where a high energy gamma/photon passes near a large atomic mass like a uranium nucleus. The gamma becomes an electron and a positron (aka anti-electron) When the positron finds another electron, the two slam together making two lower energy gammas whose total energy equals the energy of the original high energy gamma.

Star Trek fans rejoice at antimatter.

ok, im lost now...maybe in a couple years i wont be

[Zentrandude]

so if someone fused plut with another plut we get?

[Stamen0083]

so if someone fused plut with another plut we get?

A plat. Its atomic mass is a little less than two pluts, but that's because the mass has been annihilated and turned into a plitz, which bombards lead and turns it into gold.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

you guys totally missed out on the whole engine achilles heel. Much like the TF30 powered F-14A',s the VF-0 is prone to engine stalls which could in teh tomcat result in loss of control and into a flat spin. Possible in VF-0 i imagine as the whole premise was REALLY mirroring the F-14A program. For those who do not know, the F-14A was set to get the ATE engine being developed with the air force bu thte navy backed out aznd the F-110 GE engines were not fitted until the middle of the tomcats operational career.

Pujt it this way.

VF-0=F-14A

VF-1=F-14D

THe VF-1 is everything the VF-0 was SUPPOSED to be. Vf-1's weren't ready to they needed something to combat the SV-51s/ PLus the nuke engines weren't ready either for the VF-1/

VF-0 is more proimitive looking though a lot of newbies say its the other way around thinking its way more advanced. Sory but the only advanced thing is the HTS that targets the missles on Roy's helmet. Other than that It is big, bulky, bulges hanging everywqhere, not good drag wise.

And no its not really like thje tomcat and hornet

Tomcat could outspeed hornet and take the fight on its own hands, hornet cant do that unless it gets the turkeyt in real real real low speed. ITs got a lot of drag working against it. Besiudes tomcat is the BETTER PLANE. LOL

and the VF-1? better than theVF-0/ So the tomcat vs hornet scenario don't really cut it.

due to more reliable engines VF-1 can dogfight with no throttle restrictions. So yes it can dogfight well and its less drag too...and slimmer and sleeker...so yea better.

[vanpang]

Case closed ?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Case closed ?

should be. VF-1 is a better plane. I just think in some ways the VF-=0 looks better.Esopeciually with a ghost drone and FAST packs attacked...good GOD how awesome!

[joscasle]

CLOSE!!!!

[newca]

VF-0's normal single tail hook is way too better than VF-1's twin hooks!

how does VF-1's nuke engine work in aerosphere? fuel needed?

[ewilen]

VF-0's normal single tail hook is way too better than VF-1's twin hooks!

This is true.

how does VF-1's nuke engine work in aerosphere? fuel needed?

Nope, no fuel needed as such. Fans suck air in, compressors compress it, nuclear engines heat it, and it exits the engine as a hot jet.

[newca]

and the nuclear engine also provide electricity power for compressor, that's perfect! but...how to cool the engine?

[ewilen]

Actually, the compressor is linked to a turbine like a normal jet engine, so it doesn't need to be powered by electricity except when starting up.

I reckon the engine is cooled by some OT gadgetry, or more likely it's made out of OT stuff that can take the heat.

I forget all the details, so some of what I've written may be personal speculation influenced by other fan speculation. But we've been over this a few times in the past.

[azrael]

There was a lengthy discussion about how a valks engines work way back.

Here's a primer:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-propulsion.htm

[ewilen]

Azrael, that's the first I've seen anyone link the Valk's engines to those technologies.

Generally, what I've seen is something works like a normal jet engine when it's in the air, except that instead of creating heat by burning jet fuel, it uses the heat of the nuclear reaction. In space, it still works in a similar fashion but instead of suckin in air through the fans/compressors, it injects reaction mass (which is stored on board) into the engines, which heat it into a jet.

Maybe someone can dig up those old threads.

The Compendium describes the VF-1's engines thus:

Two Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines (with thermonuclear reactor and MHD), each rated at 11500 kg [x g] class (23000 kg [x g] in overboost) and 650 MW in generation power. Engines generate 17,680 PS during ground combat, or 956 PS/t with standard take-off mass. [...] Rectangular underfuselage air intakes with intake vane, variable ramps, and retractable cover shutters in Battroid mode or space use. Superconducting ram-air pre-compressors in forward engine nacelles and main compressors to the fore of thermonuclear reactors.

There are also a few diagrams which have either been posted or linked in the forums which show cutaways of the engines.

[lutesla]

that link is very interesting... but there's a problem.

The valk, and almost all of it's successors use a Fusion Turbine, not a fussion Rocket.

There a few ways this could work... I mean... the process of turning the Hydrogen into a plasma might correspond to the "combustion/compression" stage in a jet engine. When in air-gilping mode... the engine might turn the air into a plasma.

When in space it would just do this with it's hyrogen stores.

like... switch modes sort of.

---

I mean... it would have too, because the VH-1 is an air gulper when in the atmosphere. It has massive intakes, and it's engines are called Thermonuclear Jets. SO, at least in the air it can't work like a thermonuclear rocket does... which is what that article is about.

-

[David Hingtgen]

If it's in space, it must act as a rocket. Can't have jet engines in space. Jets work because of the AIR. No air=no jet. Taking the air away from a jet is like taking the water away from a ship's propeller---you can spin it as fast as you like, but it's not going to do anything...

[Final Vegeta]

Since Valkyries are stated to have Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), I think this means they have magnetohydrodynamics propulsion, or Ion Drive. Basically it's like a normal rocket except the fire goes out really faster.

Besides, the Compendium says pair annihilation is used in what in Macross is called "thermonuclear reaction", so I think anti-matter must be somewhere, even though the possibilities are many. Anti-matter could be used simply to catalize a normal micro-fusion/fission.

FV

[ewilen]

If it's in space, it must act as a rocket. Can't have jet engines in space. Jets work because of the AIR. No air=no jet. Taking the air away from a jet is like taking the water away from a ship's propeller---you can spin it as fast as you like, but it's not going to do anything...

I don't know if this is reference to my post or others', but I don't think anyone is saying that it's working as a turbojet in space. I meant that the reaction mass (whatever it is--water, kerosene, liquid hydrogen, etc.) gets heated by the fusion engine, expands, and is ejected out the back of the engine. The intakes/fans do nothing in this situation, although perhaps the compressors still compress the reaction mass before heating.

[lutesla]

as megnetohydrodynamics apply to propulsion of the air breathing and rocket type systems... this little PDF article does a nice job of explaining some of it.

http://www.uah.edu/research/PRC/annual%20reports/fy99_2.pdf

It opens up with scram jet tech, so don't think you got the wrong page. the bit on magentic based propulsion systems is 1/3 of the way down.

-

[David Hingtgen]

My point was that in space it's not a jet at all, and cannot work even "similarly" to one.

In space (IMHO) it really needs nothing more than the combustion chamber. And is then a pure and simple rocket. (With a rather exotic fuel source and exotic exhaust composition, but still a basic rocket)

Edited September 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[JLYC]

i love macross...but there's not much point in rationalizing how their nuclear engines work, even in SF theory. I mean, even in space, the valks used runway to take off (which was thankfully fixed in DYRL) which was kind of annoying. In general though, macross is pretty good in terms of realism for a 80's cartoon.

What is REALLY annoying is that even to this day, we still see huge explosions with fireballs in space (fire burns in vacuum??). But then again, 99% of movie and TV get something as simple as a gunshot sound wrong, so what am I complaining

[ewilen]

My point was that in space it's not a jet at all, and cannot work even "similarly" to one. 

In space (IMHO) it really needs nothing more than the combustion chamber.  And is then a pure and simple rocket.  (With a rather exotic fuel source and exotic exhaust composition, but still a basic rocket)

But there's no combustion, as far as I can tell. It is most definitely a rocket, but not one as we commonly think of rockets. Again, the mechanism I envision is storing reaction mass in the wings, which is then pumped--and possibly compressed--into a heat chamber analagous to but not the same as a combustion chamber (because nothing is getting oxidized). The reaction mass expands and is expelled out the engine nozzles, producing thrust.

This operation isn't much like a conventional jet engine, but it is similar in ways to the atmospheric mode of the Valk's engine. The similarity is that both processes involve moving reaction mass through a heat chamber, where it heats up, expands, and is expelled out the back. The difference is that in one case, the reaction mass comes from the atmosphere, while in the other case it's stored on board.

That's the "similarly" I was talking about. It's a given that we're not talking about a jet as soon as you have "instead of sucking in air through the fans/compressors, it injects reaction mass (which is stored on board) into the engines".

Anyway, for those curious about what's been debated and/or revealed about the Valk's engines previously, here are three threads:

Thread with pics of Valk cutaways showing engines.

Thread on Valk engines, with different cutaways

Propellant/Reaction Mass Thread (especially toward the end)

A basic problem, IMHO, with some of the official info and fan-speculation is that it is often claimed the Valk's engines have afterburners. I can't figure out how that would work in a fusion-powered engine, as there's nothing to combust. I suppose that maybe, a combustive fuel like kerosene could be injected into the exhaust to achieve a greater output than normal, but that seems a little weird. Another common idea that doesn't sit well with me is the notion that the fusion reaction product is itself ejected from the engines to produce thrust.

Edited September 4, 2004 by ewilen

[Stamen0083]

A basic problem, IMHO, with some of the official info and fan-speculation is that it is often claimed the Valk's engines have afterburners. I can't figure out how that would work in a fusion-powered engine, as there's nothing to combust. I suppose that maybe, a combustive fuel like kerosene could be injected into the exhaust to achieve a greater output than normal, but that seems a little weird.

That would be very weird. Afterburners inject fuel into the stream to burn up the excess oxygen that wasn't consumed during combustion. Injecting fuel into a plasma stream really doesn't do anything.

[ewilen]

Well, we haven't really established that the Valk engines produce a plasma stream either in atmospheric operation or in space. In the atmosphere, there may just be extremely hot air coming out of the engines. In that case, maybe a second-stage reheat via chemical combustion could do something--except it seems strange that it could improve on what the fusion engine can do all by itself. Also, by using a combustible fuel for afterburning, you get the slightly odd effect of the Valk being able to fly virtually forever in the atmosphere, but only having limited afterburner.

In space, it's harder to imagine combustion occurring, though again I suppose that for some reaction mass ingredients, there are things you could spray into them to get a chemical reaction...e.g., for water used as a reaction mass, spray in liquid/gaseous sodium, or if you use oxygen (probably stored as liquid oxygen), then hydrogen or kerosene would work. Or conversely, use hydrogen as the reaction mass and inject oxygen. It seems pretty unnecessary, though.

Nevertheless, some of those official diagrams have references to afterburning, and the Compendium mentions an "overboost" mode for Valk engines, so I wonder if the creators have actually worked out what that means.

[azrael]

Azrael, that's the first I've seen anyone link the Valk's engines to those technologies.

I said it was a primer. I didn't say that's how they work in Macross.