Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hey guys I was wondering why did united forces bother to make the vf-1a? coz in macross zero it seems like the vf-0d or the vf-0s looks more advance :)

Posted
:unsure: They are still test machines the VF-0, they also don't have the nuclear engines as the VF-1s
Posted
Hey guys I was wondering why did united forces bother to make the vf-1a? coz in macross zero it seems like the vf-0d or the vf-0s looks more advance :)

The VF-0 is

A. a jet. It needs air to run.

B. a next-gen testbed. It's too expensive to mass-produce(as if cost ever factored into the VF series...), because they threw every last widget they could think of onto it.

Posted
Hey guys I was wondering why did united forces bother to make the vf-1a? coz in macross zero it seems like the vf-0d or the vf-0s looks more advance :)

The VF-0 is

A. a jet. It needs air to run.

B. a next-gen testbed. It's too expensive to mass-produce(as if cost ever factored into the VF series...), because they threw every last widget they could think of onto it.

I thought the vf-0 is also built for space

Posted

If that the VF-0 is designed for space, does that mean that we be able to see at least one space battle before the end of Macross Zero ?

Posted

vanpang Posted on Apr 25 2004, 02:28 AM

If that the VF-0 is designed for space, does that mean that we be able to see at least one space battle before the end of Macross Zero ?

I believe RICHTER X already mentioned that the VF-0 doesn't have the nuclear engines, so the chances of us seeing a space battle in M0 is nil.

Posted

Well too bad, I was hoping I can watch one space battle with the VF-0s before the end but lets hope we can see the VF-1A in the last episode or at least a glimpse of it. ;)

Posted

Speculating on why the UN produced the VF-1 instead of the VF-0 is kind of moot considering the fact that Mzero came out after the original series.

Posted

more likely we will see the VF-X (which is little more than a non-transformable VF-1) or the VF-X1, which was the first transformable VF-1.

Posted
Edgar in episode 3 says so...

That's debatable I think.

I think what he actually said was that it was capable of operating without an atmosphere for a short period of time. (I'll need to watch the episode again).

Of course, he might have been referring to the internal combustion engines being able to work without oxygen ngine might still need something to push against in order to operate (which it would have in the water, but not in space).

Jet engines don't work in space.

Anyway. *IF* the VF-0 is space capable at all, it shouldn't be capable of sustained flight of anything more than a few minutes I would think.

Posted

Of course, he might have been referring to the internal combustion engines being able to work without oxygen ngine might still need something to push against in order to operate (which it would have in the water, but not in space).

Key word there is combustion.

It HAS to have a source of oxygen, either internal or external.

Posted

Of course, he might have been referring to the internal combustion engines being able to work without oxygen ngine might still need something to push against in order to operate (which it would have in the water, but not in space).

Jet engines don't work in space.

Anyway. *IF* the VF-0 is space capable at all, it shouldn't be capable of sustained flight of anything more than a few minutes I would think.

Bingo. The VF-0, like its decendents, are all-environment. However, the limitation on the VF-0 is it's engines. It's engines are conventional jet engines. Conventional engines don't work in space, at least not for long, i.e. they would be used as rocket engines. Since VF-0s already consume fuel in large quantities, in space, you would not last long.

coz in macross zero it seems like the vf-0d or the vf-0s looks more advance

It only looks more advance because this was done after the original series. And IIRC, Mr. Kawamori has commented in the DVD liner notes that prototypes look different when they get to the mass production stage. Look at the YF-22 vs. the F/A-22. The basic design is the same yet there are changes.

Posted

Of course, he might have been referring to the internal combustion engines being able to work without oxygen ngine might still need something to push against in order to operate (which it would have in the water, but not in space).

Key word there is combustion.

It HAS to have a source of oxygen, either internal or external.

Well yeah.

I worded that clumsily. ;)

If it being able to work underwater (or hypothetically, in space) is due to it maybe storing a small amount of oxygen somewhere to keep the engine going...

i.e., if it operating underwater (or in a vacuum) is *not* dependent on having oxygen to keep the combustion going, it *still* needs something to push against. Jet engines work by moving air, and the VF-0 was equipped with jet engines, afaik.

Posted

Of course, he might have been referring to the internal combustion engines being able to work without oxygen ngine might still need something to push against in order to operate (which it would have in the water, but not in space).

Key word there is combustion.

It HAS to have a source of oxygen, either internal or external.

Well yeah.

I worded that clumsily. ;)

If it being able to work underwater (or hypothetically, in space) is due to it maybe storing a small amount of oxygen somewhere to keep the engine going...

i.e., if it operating underwater (or in a vacuum) is *not* dependent on having oxygen to keep the combustion going, it *still* needs something to push against. Jet engines work by moving air, and the VF-0 was equipped with jet engines, afaik.

Okay.

The act of combustion WILL generate something going out the back(heck, jsut flooding hte engine with air and letting it leak out would).

From there the 3rd law of motion kicks in. The exhaust will push it forward, just not as much as in an atmosphere. You'll move, but probably not fast enough to be very effective.

But you'll run out of air fast.

Posted

To add a somewhat stupid question to this topic... is the VF-1 not always dependant on fuel in space?

I seem to recall that a while back, there was a big kerfuffle over how the nuclear engines could work in space, and it was decided that the engines used internal reaction mass to fly in space.

If that's so, how would that put the VF-0 at any disadvantage in space when comapred to the VF-1?

Posted
Hi Tank,

We were just speculating, I think there is no such pictures or craft as the YVF-1A yet. ;)

Actually... in the Variable Fighters AeroReport which was compiled under the supervision of Shoji Kawamori, there is a YVF-1A mentioned.

This is the first prototype of the VF-1A. in another source which has now been deemed unoffical, this craft was known as the VF-1A No. 1.

So imagine that it would be more accurate to say that there is a YVF-1A and that it is the first prototype of the mass production version.

Posted
To add a somewhat stupid question to this topic... is the VF-1 not always dependant on fuel in space?

I seem to recall that a while back, there was a big kerfuffle over how the nuclear engines could work in space, and it was decided that the engines used internal reaction mass to fly in space.

Yes. It HAS to. 3rd law of motion again.

If that's so, how would that put the VF-0 at any disadvantage in space when comapred to the VF-1?

The VF-1 didn't use a combustion engine, and therefore didn't need air to operate.

The need to breath air(and very large quantities of it) complicates things greatly.

Posted
Hi Tank,

We were just speculating, I think there is no such pictures or craft as the YVF-1A yet.  ;)

Actually... in the Variable Fighters AeroReport which was compiled under the supervision of Shoji Kawamori, there is a YVF-1A mentioned.

This is the first prototype of the VF-1A. in another source which has now been deemed unoffical, this craft was known as the VF-1A No. 1.

So imagine that it would be more accurate to say that there is a YVF-1A and that it is the first prototype of the mass production version.

Thanks Nanashi for the clarification,

And I though there were no mention of such a craft (YVF-1A)............ :lol:

Posted (edited)

It only looks more advance because this was done after the original series. And IIRC, Mr. Kawamori has commented in the DVD liner notes that prototypes look different when they get to the mass production stage. Look at the YF-22 vs. the F/A-22. The basic design is the same yet there are changes.

i'd llike to make a comment on this line of thinking:

the fact that this plane was designed after the original is not the reason it looks more advanced. Kawamori is a professional mech designer, there is NO reason he couldn't have gone and made something that looked clearly less advanced than the VF-1. (i say clearly, because there are plenty of people who find the vf-0 to look more advanced)

its clear that the VF-0 has alot of styling traits much more similar to LATER valkyries than the VF-1. Kawamori is a person i'm sure has the skill to ignore later itterations of his designs and create something blocky and old school looking like the VF-1 but he actively decided not to go that rout.

the VF-0 looks the way it does for cool factor, plain and simple. i'm sure Kawamori probably likes his later designs and always wants to be doing something new.

this theory that "because the animation of today is so advanced, the dogfights can't help but look super slick" is a total farce. thats like saying that with todays animation, it would be impossible to animate biplanes looking clunky in the air.

if they had WANTED to, the production team could have made the VF-0 look like it was not performing on the level as the VF-1 but they decided to just go for the cool looking fights and not worry about weather the VF-0 appeared to be flying circles around VF-1

i offer this example. say, for a moment, you were to take footage of the VF-0 and the VF-1 doing dog fights in the serise. take both of these to someone totally un affiliated with MACROSS and show it to them. wich do you think they would consider the more advanced fighter?

the VF-0 looks and acts the way it does because it's cool, not because it makes sence. it has nothing to do with the level of animation, skill of the animators, which one has which engines, or which one existed first in the timeline. its a design choice, and thats all there is to it.

Edited by KingNor
Posted (edited)

VF 0 is certainly the ancestors to the VF series (but they look much cooler than VF1) .. but imho macross zero dun seem to be in line with the original macross series..

i'm pretty puzzled with macross zero timeline too :unsure: it probably was way before the zentradii 'SDF' crashed on macross island.. but i remember in the macross saga, someone mentioned the VFs are made to battle the zentradii, which explains y the battroids are comparable to the alien size. so have they alredi encountered the zentradii and thus the VF series or??

coming back to macross zero, they already have VFs in the making? and these real futuristic looking planes (realised they are SV-51) which can flap their wings in gerwalk mode (and claims unity army stealing the veritech desgins from them) hmmzz? :( but still darn cool!!

best part is macross zero focus a lot on the VFs like their targetting system, their transformation in action.. never seen in the orignal saga. Kudos to macross zero team!!

and wheres my macross zero 4!?!?!? i think i waited for almost 2 seasons... u guys promised us an episode per season!!! liars!! hahaha :D

Edited by derk
Posted

OH MY GOD!

My head is going to explode.

Jets need something to push against to operate!? Jets aren't as effective in space because there's no air to push against!?

Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave.

Jets don't have to push against anything to operate. If anything, the engine would be far more effective in space because there is no drag from the atmosphere. The only reason why we use rocket engines instead of jet engines is because rocket engines comes with a solid oxygen supply to burn, which jets need but space doesn't provide.

The next person to insist that jets need to push against something to operate will be flamed by me.

Posted

hmm jets probably dun need things to push against to work.. they provide thrust instead to propel the planes dude :rolleyes:

well pretty interesting come to think of it wat powers the planes to fly in space.

aniway in space u need an action reaction force ( 3rd law ) to move ard.. i.e u gotta throw something to your left to move right.

which come to think if u go puking in space probably u be the first man to be plunged into the infintiy void they call space. (then again which idiot be puking in space..)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...