Super O Booster Question

[Skull-1]

Would it be completely incorrect to mount the Super O boosters like the Super/Strike pack, i.e. parallel to the nose of the fighter?

I can't understand for the life of me why they aren't both mounted the same way and I am thinking I will just mount my Super O just like the standard Super.

[kidkorrupt]

for the 1/55 ostrich the backpack's booster tabs are at an angle so you pretty much have to mount them with the tailpack open and at an angle or else the two boosters wouldn't be parallel to the valkyrie

Would it be completely incorrect to mount the Super O boosters like the Super/Strike pack, i.e. parallel to the nose of the fighter?

I can't understand for the life of me why they aren't both mounted the same way and I am thinking I will just mount my Super O just like the standard Super.

[jenius]

This is what KK is talking about.

It doesn't matter as much on the Yamato 1/60 version since the tail section lies flat even with the fins out.

[Skull-1]

for the 1/55 ostrich the backpack's booster tabs are at an angle so you pretty much have to mount them with the tailpack open and at an angle or else the two boosters wouldn't be parallel to the valkyrie

I have a set without tabs. I can mount them at any angle I want.

Was thinking of mounting them like the Strike's and not at the angle.

Why are they mounted at an angle in the first place? Does Kawamori say anything about this? It seems unnecessary but I don't have the big picture.

The only thing I can come up with is that they're fatter and thus need to be angle-mounted for clearance. They'd rub on the dorsal of the Valk if they were flat I think...

Edited December 24, 2006 by Skull-1

[VF5SS]

The only thing I can come up with is that they're fatter and thus need to be angle-mounted for clearance. They'd rub on the dorsal of the Valk if they were flat I think...

They are a lot larger than most model depict and could not be mounted in a normal fashion. See Here.

[Skull-1]

Do they have any non-trainer role?

What in the world is the head sensor for?

[VF5SS]

Well, the Compendium only states that the VT-1 is the two-seat trainer version of a VF-1. The head is said to contain "Head-mounted radar attenna which folds for atmospheric flights and wingtip detection system (VT-1)."

http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

See the section on avionics.

[Skull-1]

" NP-AU-T1 arm units with no micro-missiles." - Why carry the arm units at all?

"The VT-1 and VE-1 normally carry no armament." - Note NORMALLY. So I guess I could put a GU-11 in the VT-1's hand and not violate canonicity?

[VF5SS]

" NP-AU-T1 arm units with no micro-missiles." - Why carry the arm units at all?

Give the pilot a feel of how the machine handles with the arm units attached?

[Skull-1]

Give the pilot a feel of how the machine handles with the arm units attached?

Yep. That sounds like the only plausible explanation.

Hmmmmm......

VT-1 seems like a waste of time to me. "Kawamori's excuse to make another Valkyrie Variant."

[VF5SS]

Yes because the idea of a dedicated Valkyrie trainer is totally out of line.

[Skull-1]

Yes because the idea of a dedicated Valkyrie trainer is totally out of line.

Certainly with limited resources and the monumental cost. I would think that an airplane you can use in a pinch to fight with would be preferable when it shares 99% commonality with the first line fighter of the day.

What do you think the head unit is for? Is this airplane also an ELINT trainer?

[VF5SS]

Right. Limited resources. Was this before or after they they started building transforming robot jets? The VT-1 original purpose was to recreate Hikaru and Minmei's flight in the VF-1D but with an added sense of danger because no Hikaru couldn't fight back. Canon wise, the VT-1 may be a new design created after Space War One or whatever. There are civilian customized VT-1Cs in Macross Dynamite 7 so they are still be built in the time of 2040. Honestly, if you really want answers to some of your questions maybe you need to learn Japanese in order to read some of the accompanying notes in the Design Works book and possibly the DYRL Gold Book. I'm sure there is some information in there. Right now, I have no answers for your questions and speculation isn't going to help the situation.

[Skull-1]

Wish I could read Japanese believe me!

Don't worry about it. Your speculation at least reinforces some of my thinking.

I am probably going to build a pair of VT-1s. One will have a gray set of boosters and the other will be orange.

[sketchley]

" NP-AU-T1 arm units with no micro-missiles." - Why carry the arm units at all?

"The VT-1 and VE-1 normally carry no armament." - Note NORMALLY. So I guess I could put a GU-11 in the VT-1's hand and not violate canonicity?

Additional fuel and/or sensors in the arm units. Plus what previous posters said.

Re: weapons: there's the possibility of wing mounted missiles, too.

[Skull-1]

Additional fuel and/or sensors in the arm units. Plus what previous posters said.

Re: weapons: there's the possibility of wing mounted missiles, too.

I'm just wondering why the arm armor units have missle ports in them. If they are unarmed any way...???

I guess maybe for sensors like the AIM-9 pod that F-16s and the like carry. Has a live seeker head but doesn't have a rocket motor.

[jenius]

I'm a little confused why anyone has a problem thinking the VT is a dedicated trainer. The airframe exists for more than one vehicle (the VE-1). Maybe it was purpose built for the VE-1 to replace the cat's eye and then they realized "Hey, this air frame makes a heck of a lot better trainer than the VF-1D" and so they made some stripped Elintseekers, outfitted them with training equipment, and voila! dedicated trainer! It actually makes a lot of sense that way too as it makes building the VE-1 frame more cost efficient.

Now, could you mount weapons on a VT-1? Sure, but why would you ever do that? If you wanted to get into a fight the more sensible vehicle would be a standard VF-1, if you wanted a fight with two people in the cockpit you'd grab a VF-1D.

I wouldn't let any of that stop you though if you're making a model. Let canonicity be a "who friggin' cares" deal and do what you want.

[sketchley]

I'm curious about these arm pods for the VT-1. I rechecked my Shoji Kawamori's Macross Design Works, and on pg 42 (page on the VT-1), there are NOT any arm FAST packs that are noticeable.

Are there pictures of them available?

The above (toy?) pictures do have arm packs, BUT they look like recoloured VF-1 Strike FAST packs. The entire section between the engine nacelles (legs) also looks different in the lineart that I have available.

Edited December 25, 2006 by sketchley

[jenius]

I don't believe it actually has arm parts. Bandai included a gun and arm parts but Yamato did not.

[Skull-1]

Ah *HA*!!

So this begs the question...which is anime accurate?

I guess this helps as I was going to have to cannibalize a set of arm armor for my VT-1.

Maybe that is what the Compendium meant when it said the VT-1 is "usually unarmed" instead of "always."

Perhaps when training for Super Valkyrie missions they used the armor.

But the line art does have the final say...

[Skull-1]

Is the Bandai factory paint scheme bone white or tan?

[jenius]

Would it be completely incorrect to mount the Super O boosters like the Super/Strike pack, i.e. parallel to the nose of the fighter?

That depends on what you're doing with the backpack overall. If you're planning on having the fins folded rather than splayed than yes, that would be incorrect. Again though, do what you want. You could always rationalize it by saying your's is a custom VT-1 with something specific in mind.

Is the Bandai factory paint scheme bone white or tan?

Completely white without a hint of tan. I'm inclined to say that on all matters defering to the Yamato is the proper way to go (paint and arm armors). The Bandai toys are great and all but the chunky was never known for its anime-accurate-ness.

[sketchley]

The 2nd image (Yamato?) looks more authenitic. I'm basing this supposition mostly on the arms - as the 1st image (Bandai?) has arms that look exactly the same as a regular VF-1; not to mention that it is in battroid mode, still with armour on - something that I have never seen in both the anime and in line-art.

The way that the VT-1 transforms, it would be difficult to impossible to mount Super or Strike VF-1 FAST packs (again, as modeller, it's your call.) The VT-1 FAST packs are pretty much specific to it, and the Rabbit. It doesn't look like the leg and arm packs are limited to the VT-1.

Thank you for the images of the toys (models?,) but what about line art?

[Fly4victory]

Some of the greatest customs are non-canon, like the Minmay Guards, so enjoy what you build. Please post pictures when complete.

The only reason I could think of for developing a trainer after the production fighter was fielded is that putting pilots in a single seat aircraft without a two seat transition trainer was too dangerous and resulted in too many losses. The cost of pilots lost became more expensive than the cost to develop a modified airframe.

Why no head laser or built in armaments????? Same reason the F-4 was produced without a gun. Attack of the good idea fairy, I could just hear a senior leader say “why arm a trainer… it would be safer without any ordinance.â€

[Skull-1]

Thanks Fly!

[KingNor]

the VT-1 w/o a gun is anime accurate in that the one and only VT-1 ever depeicted in macross didn't happen to be carrying a gunpod.

The point here is that the VT-1 is capable of being armed. Capable. That isn't its default load out. I mean obviously if it has hands it can carry a gun pod. If it has valk wings it should have hard points.

Now since it's a trainer what you mount on those hard points and what you put in it's hand is totally up to the trainers and protocol.

The problem people have with the idea that the VT-1 is a dedicated trainer to the point that there woudln't be any way to put live ammo in it is this:

1) it's pointlessly expencive to make an assembly line for the MUCH less in demand trainer serise, when you can just slightly modify a normal war machine for training

2) training by it's very nature is all about getting the trainee ready for combat, the more like the real fighter the training fighter is, the better. The trainee needs to be familiar with fireing and flying with the real live ammo on his vehicle.

3) there is generally very little precident of purpose build dedicated and un-armable training variants of real world fighting machines in the world today. when you ask "why woudln't they make a dedicated trainer" think about real aircraft. yes they have dedicated trainers, but they come off the same assembly line as the normal fighters, and dispite the fact they are 100% for training, almost always they are 100% the same as the combat variant.

So basicly it boils down to:

if you think they are making a stand alone, unarmed and unarmable, valkyrie for training, its YOU that has to supply why it would be cost effective to

a) manufacture 100% identical yet completely nonfunctional parts

b) train technitions to maintain two seperate types of machines dispite the fact they're more or less the same. (they would almost certainly require diffrent maitenence specs)

c) train pilots in a vehicle which mimicks, yet isn't really the vehicle they're training to fly

d) explain why contemporary military practices of training pilots in functional battle ready vehicles now-a-days is ineffective enouogh to warrent the change in the near future.

[Fly4victory]

Yes, it is excessively expensive to build something after the fact when dealing with the military and government contracting. The Luftwaffe in WWII did not have a two seat version of the 262. It was only after they started killing pilots by putting them directly in the airframe that a trainer was built.

My airfield was filled with non-standard, modified, FAA certified training aircraft for military use. They are not combat aircraft.

I have ground and airborne training aids that are manufactured 100% identical to the real equipment but the stuff is non or partially functional. One reason is accountability and security, neither is as high for training equipment as it is for real ordinance, weapon systems, or avionics.

Training pilots in airframes is being replaced with simulation. The total time in the airframe is being reduced due to cost. So you have a pilot with less “air sense†and less time in the aircraft and more time in the box.

Training practices are not fixed. They are always changing thanks to feed back from the War on Terror. Before the war, running and strafing fire were not trained only hovering fire. Talk to any Vietnam Era pilot and they will tell you that hovering fire is the quickest way to get shot down. That is a lesson that was forgot but is being taught again.

Just like after Korea, the decision makers thought that dog fighting was finished and the gun would be replaced by the missile so the F-4 was fielded without one.

Before WWII, there were theories about airpower that had people believing that fast unescorted bombers would be the future.

The thought of making a unarmed two seater does not make sense and would be a waste of money…Hence attack of the good idea fairy.

It would be a lot smarter to put the two seat cockpit on a VF-1A but that does not help to explain the VT-1.

[KingNor]

The only real solution i can think of outside of realism is the fact that SDF and DYRL are both entertainment and in need of plot devices.

Realistic or not the VT-1 served a very important role, not a military or realistic role, but important to the story.

The problem there is that I find it odd that a trained and skilled pilot somehow 'forgot' or didn't realize he was in a Training ship.

Dispite him talking to Min-butt (in the back seat) and it being a clearly bright orange training ship that he STOLE specifically because it had an "instructor" back seat, I find it extremely hard to beleive he didn't realize till the last moment he was in a training vehicle.

How do you forget a ship you must have cut your teeth on, and you chose specifically because it had two seats; as opposed to your "fighter" which only had one seat?

This is what makes me think even the VT isn't a dedicated trainer and that he HAPPENED to get into a VT that was decked out in training armorments.

Either that or i'm wrong and the scene was just poorly written.

Edited January 26, 2007 by KingNor

[Fly4victory]

King you hit the nail on the head. Hikaru should have known it was a training aircraft. The orange has only recently disappeared from the flight line and our older airframes still have it.

Plus what about preflight? Yes he stole the aircraft but I would still preflight it or at least check the logbook to see it was refueled and had two good engines????

His behavior and the entire situation is odd but then the story needed a reason for Roy to come along and save everyone.