edwin3060

I must have confused what I heard about the -24 and the -25 then However, all we know is that the VF-25 performs significantly better than the VF-24, not that it surpasses the YF-19/-21. It may perform more poorly in some ways (maneuverability) in order to give it other advantages (transformable even with Super/Armour packs). Similarly in the real world, fighters like the F-16/-18 are slower than predecessors like the F-4 but have better acceleration and maneuverability. Besides, the VF-27 already holds the title for 'ultra high performance derivative' of the YF-24 We have never had any signs that the G-limits were for transformation rather than maneuverability. Agreed about G-suits and real world comparison-- I always put in the caveat about pilot performance. However, totally disagree about aircraft performance and G limits-- there is no point in over-building an aircraft for a G-limit it can never reach-- the added weight penalties alone would kill the design. I suspect that the safety factor would be even more reduced for Valkyries than for fighters given how light they are-- simply put, you want to make full use of your abilities. Real world aircraft can easily exceed their G-ratings-- even F-14s can pull instantaneous maneuvers of 20Gs or more. Thats why there's a difference between instantaneous and sustained turn rates for aircraft. Either way, just like in the real world, G-limits are maneuvering limits, not airframe limits. Just like for the F-16, G limits of +9.0/-3.0 are maneuvering limits, so it is for the YF-19/-21. Your argument about airframe strength, etc, just doesn't make sense, I'm afraid.

Well, if the hips were in a lower position on the DX, wouldn't the poseability of the legs be affected by the intakes, like someone has mentioned before? Although, it is possible for the legs to be in the correct position, then be pulled out for the more extreme poses. Oh well. At least we know that the chunkiness is actually closer to SK's vision... maybe there will be less complaints now?

Good point, although I always thought that the heating problems were due to air being a poorer conductor of heat and having a lower specific heat than the onboard propellant. From an engineering point of view, though, it is far easier to have the fusion reactor designed for one specific input and one operating temperature than for two or more-- especially since you don't need alot of 'fusile' material to sustain the reaction for practically forever.

Like I said, the VF-25 is the first VF to ever be able to accelerate past what it is tested for. Thrust:Weight ratio is about 38 when empty, probably around 30+ loaded. G-limits, 27.5 Gs... you do the math That said, Mr March, I don't entirely agree with your conclusion about the YF-21. We know a few things-- 1) Guld disabled the limiters on the YF-21 2)There was structural damage to the YF-21 3)The human body can withstand instantaneous shocks of up to 60 Gs with little damage-- it is prolonged acceleration that kills you, and that is more due to circulatory shock than (literally) bone crushing acceleration. The fact that structural damage occured is probably the most convincing evidence that it exceeded the G limits on the machine-- which he would logically have had to do in order to collide with the Ghost.

So... can we now say that the Bandai 1/60 VF-25 is actually closer to SK vision for the VF-25 as compared to the show? Maybe less people will complain about Bandai then...

thanks azrael! Looks like everybody got it wrong

Well they would probably branch out into that as well eventually, just like the Astray stories for Gundam SEED/Destiny. Gundam has already shown that side stories can be pretty lucrative in terms of toy sales

Nice theory about the thruster designations FV. It would help if we could make certain comparisons within the anime about the maneuvers that the valkyries could perform in order to support it with some evidence-- otherwise, sketchley's assertion about efficiency would hold just as much water. However since the thrusters control the battroid in the atmosphere, so clearly they have enough thrust to make a significant difference in GERWALK and fighter modes as well-- we see this in the last OVA for MacPlus when Isamu and Guld are maneuvering in the stratosphere just after re-entry-- the YF-19's ventral nose thruster fired to help it achieve a tighter barrel loop. About the G limits, on the other hand, they would only indicate armour strength if the valkyrie was of monocoque construction. Since we know that it has a space metal frame, that cannot be the answer.

Hence my caveat, pilots not being the limiting factor. As long as the pilots can take it, the airframe being able to generate and endure a higher G rating would actually equate to a tighter sustained turn rate/radius, since your turn radius is simply proportional to the square of your velocity and the inverse of your acceleration (i.e. the G's that you pull). Actually, this whole thing fits in pretty well with the VF-25 being a cheaper, more controllable and more mass-production friendly aircraft as compared to the YF-19/-21 and their derivatives. By limiting your airframe to a lower G rating and with better G compensating mechanisms, you run less risk of your pilots being Gulded, after all. There is a real-world parallel in the new liquid filled G-compensating flight suits which allow pilots to endure 12Gs, vs the 9Gs that the 1980's aircraft were limited to. Interestingly, though, given the insane thrust that the VF-25 has, it can actually run itself to pieces-- the thrust to weight ratio can potentially be greater than the G-limits, so even acceleration in a straight line can compromise the structural integrity of the airframe-- something that the YF-19/21 series couldn't do

However, the problem with fusing heavier elements is that you get far less energy out of fusion of an equivalent weight of fuel, while requiring far more energy (i.e. higher temperatures) in order to ionise the fuel to a plasma so you can get fusion to occur. Ultimately, the scenario where the fusion reaction and thrust generation are separate still makes more sense. SchizophrenicMC: It wouldn't make the craft any more explosive, especially if water were both the fuel and the propellant. Water is good in this way because it is a easy way to store large amounts of hydrogen, and because it will generate alot of plasma from a small starting volume of water when heated.

Yes, but for aircraft moving at the same velocity, the aircraft that can sustain a higher G will have a higher sustained turn rate and a lower turn radius. (Assuming pilots are not limiting) Further, since we are not going to get any data on the turn rates, we have to approximate with the G-loading. Given, nothing is said about roll though. The F-15 analogy is flawed since the F-15 is moving much more slowly than then missile, hence the missile needs to sustain a much higher G to achieve the same turn radius. F= mv^2 /r so a= v^2 /r where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity and r is the turn radius. Comparing (at 40 kFt) an F-15 at Mach 1.5 pulling 6Gs against a missile at Mach 4.0, the missile would have to pull 42.7Gs to match the same turn radius-- hence the F-15 can out turn the missile while pulling far lower Gs.

I guess I see it differently then-- in my way of thinking, Valkyrie propulsion can be split into 2 parts, power and propulsion. Power is generated by the reactor, which can be either fusion or antimatter (although from earlier versions of this thread references are made to pair-annihilation, which would point to antimatter). This power is then used to heat up, and possibly even ionise to a plasma, your propellant, which is then expelled to produce thrust. De-linking power and propulsion has advantages and disadvantages as compared to linking it as per your suggestion. Efficiency would definitely be lower due to power conversion issues, however the power generated in the reactor can be diverted to other means such as laser weaponry and the energy conversion armour that we know valkyries have. Since we know that air can also be used as a propellant, it is more likely that power generation and thrust generation are decoupled, i.e. for your scheme, the plasma in the fusion reactor is not constantly expelled but kept in containment to maintain a stable fusion reaction, and the power generated be used to heat up either air or the onboard reaction mass to generate thrust.

Looks like the VF-25 is less maneuverable than the Y/VF-19 and the YF-21/VF-22 then-- while it has more thrust, it can pull less G's?

Not really-- even if it was matter-antimatter reactions generating the heat, water would still be a far better propellant than hydrogen, or indeed, any other substance, given the many advantages already highlighted by Killer Robot and myself. It would just mean that instead of siphoning off some of the hydrogen into the reactor, you can use all the water as reaction mass.

Please post pics once you do! This may finally tip me over into getting an SV-51... I'm already more than halfway convinced!

Interesting idea-- it would be like the all-round PPB that the Macross used in SDF:M then Would be killer on the pilots though--literally.

Exactly my thoughts, KR! IMO water is probably one of the best choices for propellant, with high density in liquid form, but low density in the gaseous form, which could be further enhanced by dissociation of the molecule at the high temperatures at which the fusion engines work-- ideally the water would be turned into plasma, some hydrogen can be siphoned off for the fusion reaction and the rest ejected as thrust. The high specific heat capacity of water would also allow it to act as coolant in the aircraft, and best of all, any fuel leakage would no longer be dangerous. Refueling the valkyrie would be as simple as turning on a tap Also, the water tanks, if placed properly, could act as a dampener in case of ammunition explosion, increasing the chances of pilot survival and reducing the collateral damage from valkyrie explosions--while at the same time the steam would give the nice big explosions that everybody likes

Haha so true. Shows something about the human psyche-- we all love a good explosion! However, the explosions can be explained away as the ammunition (missiles, rounds) exploding, leaving us with the far more attractive (from an engineering perspective) fuel which does not explode.

We need a kind soul to post all the images up here!

Not really-- having fuel stored closer to your centre of gravity reduces your moment of inertia, allowing you to have a higher roll rate in fighter mode and faster turning rate in battroid mode. Many modern fighters have internal fuel tanks along the centreline as well as the wings, so why couldn't there be tanks in both? Also, we have no idea whether the fuel/propellant for the thermonuclear reaction thrusters are explosive, and although the jet fuel for the VF-0 would certainly be inflammable, it would also not be very explosive.

Seems for some reason VLC can't play Northern Cross, although it can play all the other files fine. I downloaded VLC Player, though, and it can play all the files, including the actual rip that ntsan sent me. Thanks!

Ditto...

Yep... I have problems with Northern Cross as well. Thanks alot, ntsan! If only they'd release a dvd of the live concert! But with each passing day my hopes dim

Looks like you built yours as a 'Bandai Chogokin' Custom then I can't wait for my VF-25S to arrive!!

It's actually pretty good, considering that English is not her first language-- its French. Besides, on the part of May'N, her pronunciation is already wayyy beyond what most Asians sound like if they learn English as a second language rather than a first language.