New Hasegawa VF-1S and YF-19

[RT junkie]

I'll pass on the VF-1, but I kind of like the 19. It looks a bit skunkworks-ish.

[Cancer107]

Hello,

For those who concerning the color of these models;

VF-1 will be molded in blue, but it is just ordinary blue plastic.

You have to paint it in metallic blue by yourself.

(It is the same color Hasegawa called out for their 1/24 Subaru Impreza WRC)

Gold line will be reproduced by "foil decals" made by Caltgraf (spell?)

YF-19 will also be molded in dark blue.

[jipe]

In stock now at HLJ.

The box arts look nice (hard to see very well)

[Guld]

[Kurisama]

Damn - that VF-1S would look hella sweet with a YF-21 colour scheme!

[jipe]

Received the 2 kits today. Really nice boxarts. The kits are well .... like the other ones. No differences.

The gold decals are really shiny. Pretty diificult to apply on the YF 19, I'm sure.

For the VF 1. The colors for the pilot are blue for the uniform and silver for the helmet. I don't know if there is any mention of squadron ???

[Valkyrie addict]

Macross BLING BLING, hahaha!

[moss]

People of Hasegawa if you want to make me happy: I want the injection-plastic kit of the VF-1 A/S and D, in 1/32nd scale (perfect transformation) for the 25th Anniversary.

[kkx]

1/32 perfect transformation from Hasegawa? That will be sweet, but I am not as hopeful as you are. Even some Gerwalk model will be nice.

[Steve68]

Is it just me or does the VF-1A/J/S seem small compared to the VF-0 and YF-19?

I know that the design of the VF-1 is much older than the other two, but when you put all three 72nd scale kits along side each other (one of these things doesn't belong here) comes to mind. The VF-1 looks like it's 1/90 scale or something. Not to mention it looks downright low tech compared to the others as well. I guess that's the problem with prequals.

I'd be happy if Hasegawa just upscaled all of their Macross kits to 1/48.

[jipe]

Is it just me or does the VF-1A/J/S seem small compared to the VF-0 and YF-19?

I know that the design of the VF-1 is much older than the other two, but when you put all three 72nd scale kits along side each other (one of these things doesn't belong here) comes to mind. The VF-1 looks like it's 1/90 scale or something. Not to mention it looks downright low tech compared to the others as well. I guess that's the problem with prequals.

I'd be happy if Hasegawa just upscaled all of their Macross kits to 1/48.

The VF 1 scale is well 1/72. Really tiny compared to the VF 0, it's true.... But not the same time, different technology. See your Ipod with an old discman or walkman

Hasegawa sucks with all those repaint schemes (fortunaly there are the box arts of Hidetaka). It could be easy for them without spend a lot of money on molds and other things to propose a gerwalk version of the VF 1 / VF 0 / YF 19... (and why not a battroid of the last one !)

How many times they will wait ?!!!!

[Steve68]

But with aircraft the iPod analogy doesn't really hold up. Look at WWI fighters compared to WWII, then WWII to Korean War era jets, then Korean War to Vietnam, to 1970's (F-14 and F-15). See the planes get bigger as performance goes up. You need a larger airframe with more power, not a smaller one. Look at the YF-23 (the real one) that thing is freakin HUGE! I think it's just a continuity error that is just glossed over between the VF-0 and VF-1 series. It would make more sense if the VF-1 was at least the same size as the VF-0 or if the the VF-0 was the smaller of the two.

[warpaint22]

Is it just me or does the VF-1A/J/S seem small compared to the VF-0 and YF-19?

I know that the design of the VF-1 is much older than the other two, but when you put all three 72nd scale kits along side each other (one of these things doesn't belong here) comes to mind. The VF-1 looks like it's 1/90 scale or something. Not to mention it looks downright low tech compared to the others as well. I guess that's the problem with prequals.

I'd be happy if Hasegawa just upscaled all of their Macross kits to 1/48.

You should look at the size of an F-14 compared to an F-16 or A-4 or even the prototype of the F/A-18 which was not much bigger than the F-16, plus the advances of tech at the time made it easier to compact the size of the aircraft. I would prefer to fly a small fighter than a large easy target and besides good things come in small packages.

The VF 1 scale is well 1/72. Really tiny compared to the VF 0, it's true.... But not the same time, different technology. See your Ipod with an old discman or walkman

Hasegawa sucks with all those repaint schemes (fortunaly there are the box arts of Hidetaka). It could be easy for them without spend a lot of money on molds and other things to propose a gerwalk version of the VF 1 / VF 0 / YF 19... (and why not a battroid of the last one !)

How many times they will wait ?!!!!

You will never probably see a YF-19 model kit from hasegawa in battroid or gerwalk. Gerwalks are an easy conversion that anyone can do with a little skill and as for a battroid of the 19 hasegawa probably could not see a good profit in a 19 or 21 battroid and considering the cost to make moulds and tool up a factory it would not be worth the outlay, as the 19 has only a couple of decal options so the can't make money on it like they can on the VF-1 or the VF-0's. You will probably never see a hasegawa SV-51 battroid either but who knows. You would see more kits if HG didn't stop macross comming out of japan, this is where I place the blame as there is a good market that can't really be touched as there must be thousands of people that would buy kits who still aren't on the net or just won't order from overseas, sad for us all.

Edited September 19, 2007 by warpaint22

[kkx]

But with aircraft the iPod analogy doesn't really hold up. Look at WWI fighters compared to WWII, then WWII to Korean War era jets, then Korean War to Vietnam, to 1970's (F-14 and F-15). See the planes get bigger as performance goes up. You need a larger airframe with more power, not a smaller one. Look at the YF-23 (the real one) that thing is freakin HUGE! I think it's just a continuity error that is just glossed over between the VF-0 and VF-1 series. It would make more sense if the VF-1 was at least the same size as the VF-0 or if the the VF-0 was the smaller of the two.

I agree. Take the YF-19 and YF-21 in Macross plus, they are both bigger then VF-1 even if they come later in the time line.

This is indeed a difficult problem for any prequel. But I am not too concern about this myself. The VF-0S looks good at that size, I think.

The VF-1 is a bit small, but since I know them since my childhood, I sort of get use to them.

I have yet to see both VF-1 and the other bigger 1/72 models side by side in real life, so I don't know for sure how I would react to that.

(need to speed up my macross model building schedule.....)

[Noyhauser]

I agree. Take the YF-19 and YF-21 in Macross plus, they are both bigger then VF-1 even if they come later in the time line.

This is indeed a difficult problem for any prequel. But I am not too concern about this myself. The VF-0S looks good at that size, I think.

The VF-1 is a bit small, but since I know them since my childhood, I sort of get use to them.

I have yet to see both VF-1 and the other bigger 1/72 models side by side in real life, so I don't know for sure how I would react to that.

(need to speed up my macross model building schedule.....)

Actually it makes alot of sense when you think of it from a design perspective. the VF-0 is still limited by old technology like jet engines and the need to carry fuel. It necessitates a larger frame in order to be a transforming craft. The VF-1 is truly a breakthrough in technology. Its smaller, lighter, more nimble, has an engine that is smaller than any jet engine, but produces the same thrust but with unlimited range and no need for fuel. IT can go to battroid and stay in the mode for as long as it likes. Thats probably the greatest difference between the two craft. The VF-0 is a fighter first, and a transforming craft second. The VF-1 is a true transformable craft, so its not as concerned with aerodynamics as the VF-0 is. Being smaller is not a disadvantage, if anything its a huge advantage over the large ungainy VF-0.

[Steve68]

You should look at the size of an F-14 compared to an F-16 or A-4 or even the prototype of the F/A-18 which was not much bigger than the F-16, plus the advances of tech at the time made it easier to compact the size of the aircraft. I would prefer to fly a small fighter than a large easy target and besides good things come in small packages.

Single engine jet designs don't really apply. You don't seriously think that an A-4 is a better fighter than either an F-14 or F-15? All that horse sh!t that comes out of Hollywood.

It isn't about small nimble fighters it's about POWER. It takes power and the necessary fuel to go fast. F-16 and F-18 can just scratch at Mach 2. If I recall correctly VF-0, VF-1, YF-19, YF-21, VF-4 all are twin engine designs.

Have you noticed how the next generation F-22 Raptor positively dwarfs an F-16? Have you noticed how the Super Hornet is much larger than the F-18A? Or the Su-27 and the Mig-29? Fighters aren't getting smaller despite advances in technology.

I would prefer to fly an aircraft with enough electronics so I never have to even see my enemy. I fire a Phoenix missile from 100 miles out and forget about it. Let the other guy worry about a Mach 4 missile that can pull 15+ Gs. Smaller fighters don't equal better fighters. Just ask all the Mig-17 pilots that fell to Phantoms in Vietnam. Talk about the ultimate size mismatch. With more advanced weapons systems the fight is less about guns and more about missiles. This isn't to say that guns are obsolete, but they are going that way.

The VF-1 is an anomaly because the VF-0 was invented after the VF-1. Had Macross Zero actually come out before Macross I'm sure things would be different.

Oops forgot this:

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=147424

Edited September 18, 2007 by Steve68

[jardann]

The VF size issue has come up several times before. There really should be no problem accepting a smaller plane as the more advanced plane. In real life, things like this happen all the time depending on technological advancements.

Look at automobiles. The very first cars were not very big at all. As powerplants and chassis/suspension technology improved, cars became larger. This continued from the early 1900s up until the 1970s. The 70s was a mix of very large inefficient cars and the smaller compact and subcompact cars came along. Would you say a 2007 Saturn coupe is a less advanced piece of machinery than a 1977 Cadillac? The performance, safety and comfort of the 07 Saturn is better all around than the 77 Caddy. OK, some people might really like the extra room inside the Cadillac . But that would be an opinion, not a quantifiable statistic.

Acceleration and agility are large factors in airplane design too. That is why the F-16 is so successful. Even though it is not the largest or fastest, it is very agile and it can accelerate very quickly. When I first saw the VF-0 my first thought was that it was clunky, large and ungainly. The design has since grown on me, but I still look at the VF-1 as a more advanced, faster, more maneuverable and more reliable design. Of course I realize this is all fiction, but since it is, I just don't see why anyone has a problem using some imagination to go along with the story and the designs.

One other big factor that would have been considered in the design of the VF-1 is that it was designed for use in atmosphere and in space. Extra unecessary mass in space would result in greater fuel requirements. In space, fuel is required to stop as well as to accelerate, not to mention that the larger the craft, the harder it is to launch it out of the atmosphere. To me, the size of the VF-1 fits in just fine with the timeline/technology layout of the world of Macross.

[warpaint22]

Single engine jet designs don't really apply. You don't seriously think that an A-4 is a better fighter than either an F-14 or F-15? All that horse sh!t that comes out of Hollywood.

It isn't about small nimble fighters it's about POWER. It takes power and the necessary fuel to go fast. F-16 and F-18 can just scratch at Mach 2. If I recall correctly VF-0, VF-1, YF-19, YF-21, VF-4 all are twin engine designs.

Have you noticed how the next generation F-22 Raptor positively dwarfs an F-16? Have you noticed how the Super Hornet is much larger than the F-18A? Or the Su-27 and the Mig-29? Fighters aren't getting smaller despite advances in technology.

I would prefer to fly an aircraft with enough electronics so I never have to even see my enemy. I fire a Phoenix missile from 100 miles out and forget about it. Let the other guy worry about a Mach 4 missile that can pull 15+ Gs. Smaller fighters don't equal better fighters. Just ask all the Mig-17 pilots that fell to Phantoms in Vietnam. Talk about the ultimate size mismatch. With more advanced weapons systems the fight is less about guns and more about missiles. This isn't to say that guns are obsolete, but they are going that way.

The VF-1 is an anomaly because the VF-0 was invented after the VF-1. Had Macross Zero actually come out before Macross I'm sure things would be different.

Oops forgot this:

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=147424

Did I say that the F-16 and A-4 are better than anything NO, so get your own facts straight, I have studied aircraft for 20 years and have a library that will put most to shame as well as a brother in the airforce and one of my best customers is/was a RIO for the F-14 and then the F/A-18 superhornet for VF-102 "Diamondbacks"and the simple fact is that the VF-1 has advanced engines and tech, so now go and ask grumman or mcdonnell douglas how much smaller they would make these fighters is fuel alone was not a requirment and the engines had 5 times the power or more so wing loading no longer becomes a factor. With nuclear engines you could make a brick fly. So areodynamics play next to know part in the design as for electronics well with the tech they have radar eqipment could be the size of an Ipod along with other electronics. Also did you ever consider that the YF-19 and 21 had to have a size increase due to the use of a fold system and if memory serves the VF-11 from yamato in 1/72 is really more close to 1/60 and everybody was worried about the size compared to the 19 and 21 so the VF-11 is also smaller in size to the 19 and 21. Yes the VF-1 was designed first but they had problems with the power plant so then they have to make a fill in plane that has to take into consideration all the normal flight factors which the VF-1 didn't need so much. Besides this is Macross not the real world so real world ideas don't come into anything and well I know which aircraft I would prefer to be shot at in and it's not the flying whale. Oh and I noticed that you mentioned nothing about the prototype F/A-18 or then it was the F-17 by northrop which was almost the same size as the F-16 with TWO engines and had to be bigger due to the navy wanting bigger engines=more fuel+ increased payload=more wing area=much bigger plane. Now take fuel and need for wing loadingout of the picture do you think they would have mad the plane bigger.

[warpaint22]

Anyway back to the new paint schemes are ok, I do like them just feel we could have had some really fantastic designs for the 25th anniversary, but I've ordered a couple of both kits. I think I'll build one of each and keep one of each in the box we'll see.

[Steve68]

Warpaint,

First get your facts straight. They tried solid core nuclear engines in the 1960's and guess what it didn't work. Guess why. See if you can figure out how big they are and how much fuel is required. You see there is no such thing as weightless fuel. For the record plutonium, uranium, etc. is heavier than lead. Plutonium and uranium are both over 19grams/cc and lead is only a little more than 11grams/cc. So much for light weight fuel. I believe Jet-A is something like 7 or 8 pounds per gallon. Want to take a stab at how much a gallon of plutonium weighs? Just a rough guess, but it's almost 160 pounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

This sentence sticks out:

The weight of a complete nuclear reactor is so great that solid-core engines would be hard-pressed to achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1:1

hmmm...looks like they wont work so well in a small plane.

Not to mention you only get a burn time of between 800 to 2000 seconds depending on which type you use. They make ok, but potentially messy rocket engines, but really crappy aircraft engines.

Also why is it that the most advanced fighter in the world F-22 is less than 2 feet smaller than the ancient F-15 that it replaces? And the F-22 has a larger wingspan. Also the YF-23 would have been almost 4 feet longer than the F-15. Micronisation may hold true for electronics, but jets it doesn't. Also your argument completely falls through when the YF-19 and YF-21 are both again larger than the VF-1.

Steve

Edited September 18, 2007 by Steve68

[moss]

1/32 perfect transformation from Hasegawa? That will be sweet, but I am not as hopeful as you are. Even some Gerwalk model will be nice.

I´m not hopeful, this will be the few lines of Santa´s next letter.

[warpaint22]

Warpaint,

First get your facts straight. They tried solid core nuclear engines in the 1960's and guess what it didn't work. Guess why. See if you can figure out how big they are and how much fuel is required. You see there is no such thing as weightless fuel. For the record plutonium, uranium, etc. is heavier than lead. Plutonium and uranium are both over 19grams/cc and lead is only a little more than 11grams/cc. So much for light weight fuel. I believe Jet-A is something like 7 or 8 pounds per gallon. Want to take a stab at how much a gallon of plutonium weighs? Just a rough guess, but it's almost 160 pounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

This sentence sticks out:

hmmm...looks like they wont work so well in a small plane.

Not to mention you only get a burn time of between 800 to 2000 seconds depending on which type you use. They make ok, but potentially messy rocket engines, but really crappy aircraft engines.

Also why is it that the most advanced fighter in the world F-22 is less than 2 feet smaller than the ancient F-15 that it replaces? And the F-22 has a larger wingspan. Also the YF-23 would have been almost 4 feet longer than the F-15. Micronisation may hold true for electronics, but jets it doesn't. Also your argument completely falls through when the YF-19 and YF-21 are both again larger than the VF-1.

Steve

The fact that they tried nuclear power in real life means nothing we are talking about the Macross world where certain real world facts do not apply, the VF-1 is fitted with overtechnology which is thousands of years more advanced than the most advanced thinking of the time, so how does real world physics apply to the VF-1, you just told everyone that nuclear engines don't work so the VF-1 could not exist so you can't apply physics. If in 1960 they had overtechnology then the exirement with nuclear engines would have most likely worked.

Why is the F-22 only 2 feet smaller than an F-15, because it's confind to the real world with real physics and the thing I find most funny is that it is 2 feet smaller, so it is newer and smaller even if it is by 2 feet while incoperating far superior technology. And besides I only stated in my first post to take a look at fighters around the world, they come in all shapes and sizes I never said one was better than the other and the use of the F-16 and A-4 was an example in size not in how they compare in combat or performance. The size of the VF-1 looks great IMO and it's size makes perfect sence to me especially when most of the fighters are going to be packed into ships.

As to the 19 and 21 I don't know why they go back to being large, I guessed it may have to do with the fold system, who knows. Maybe big is beautiful. So I don't think anything fell apart as I'm not relating real physics to macross physics, thats not going to work. If you want to do that then I say what F-22 as it was probably never made in the macross world nor the superhornet, as the only fighters we Know for sure are used are the F-14 and Mig-29. So all those facts of uranium and so on don't count in the macross world as they have obviously made nuclear power plants work in planes, so you can find all the figures you like but look in the overtechnology section. If you would like the VF-1 to be bigger then that's fine I like it the way it is and that's fine but don't quote real physical facts to find reason in a cartoon it never works, as I still want to know how Hikarus hair stays the way it does without the use of hair products, now thats beyound all physics.

Edited September 19, 2007 by warpaint22

[PetarB]

I always assumed they were required to carry bigger bomb payloads, which is why they were larger. I mean, check this out!

[Noyhauser]

The VF-1 is an anomaly because the VF-0 was invented after the VF-1. Had Macross Zero actually come out before Macross I'm sure things would be different.

Oops forgot this:

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=147424

Umm would you mind reading my post above your original one? I address why Kawamori (who is a stickler for details) likely let the vf-0 be larger than the VF-1. Just because it came after does not mean that a retcon was required. Kawamori could have put together a smaller fighter. He certainly retconed other aspects, like SWAG, so it seems to me he's happy with how the universe is currently on this subject, and given the explaination I give above, its apparent why that is.

[Steve68]

I bow to your ultimate wisdom. I guess they YF-19 and YF-22 probably couldn't match the small nimble VF-1 either since they are unquestionably larger, and hence more ungainly.

[Noyhauser]

I bow to your ultimate wisdom. I guess they YF-19 and YF-22 probably couldn't match the small nimble VF-1 either since they are unquestionably larger, and hence more ungainly.

Don't be crass, particularly when you missed my point. I didn't refer to the later fighters, because that was not my focus. A development of the VF line after the VF-1 shows a slow growth in size of fighters due to evolutionary development of established technologies. Fighters slowly developed between 2010 and 2040. But in 2004~2010 the development of the VF-1 and VF-0 is completely different situation. The benefits of overtechology provided them with the ability to minaturize components and capabilities, creating what one could describe a revolutionary new fighter.

If the initial design specifications in 2002 called for a variable fighter able to reach Mach 2+, maneuverable, SWAG, integrated EW suite, all environment, and carry a certain amount of ordinance (A 55mm gunpod, head laser, wing mounted missiles) the difference between the VF-0 and the VF-1 shows the difference that a thermonuclear overtechnology engine provides over a supertuned jet engine. They could build the VF-1 at 1/3rd the size of the VF-0 but with all of the capabilities of their larger brethren, would you not do so? Your comparison of technological development among modern fighters is completely misused to explain this situation.

After the VF-1 the subsequent fighters are just evolutionary decendents, which enjoy incremental advances in technology, albeit at a slow development pace. This is more akin to what we see in normal fighter development. Increases in thrust, the efficiency of the thermonuclear engine, different mission roles and weapons layouts. As these advances occur, Valkyries increase in size and capability. The VF-4, VF-5000, VF-17, VF-11 show a growth in fighter size as technology allows them to build bigger planes with the same or greater capabilities as their predecessors. This is comparable to the US fighter development between fighters from 1945 to 1990, going from the P-80, to the F-86 to the F-4, to the F-15. (notice I pointed out mainline fighters, which is different from the F-16 case, emerging from the lightweight fighter mafia of the early 1970s)

Also, does anybody have the comaprative lineart size chart for all Valkyries on hand? Its the one that has them all lined up vertically that shows the slow increase in VF size. I can't find one online but it proves my point fairly well.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Warmaker]

Has anyone ordered and received these kits recently?

I was going to get the YF-19 version, especially since the regular kit is backordered. But the 25th anniv.kits are discontinued already according to HLJ.

[Cancer107]

I got two YF-19 and one VF-1.

Here is a picture of 19 in progress. I am going to make it as VF-19E.

[Zinjo]

I got two YF-19 and one VF-1.

Here is a picture of 19 in progress. I am going to make it as VF-19E.

VF-19E??

[Zinjo]

Has anyone ordered and received these kits recently?

I was going to get the YF-19 version, especially since the regular kit is backordered. But the 25th anniv.kits are discontinued already according to HLJ.

Ah Hasgawa sure know how to boost a kit's value!

I wonder if they have new variants in the pipe, which will suddenly see a massive pre-orders in comparison to the first two?

[Warmaker]

I could care less about the anniversary decals. I just want another YF-19 kit! I'm just sick and tired of the same old, same old paint scheme used from Macross Plus. I have one done that way and it irritates me looking at it now

[Warmaker]

Screw it, HLJ has regular YF-19 kits in stock. That'll suit me just fine

[gnollman]

yeah, they look great, but I've already got these kits. A new set of decals and paint scheme isn't worth my time, or money, especially now that I'm back in school.

Now, a new valk? That would make me lay down some money... especially for a VF-11B. Hear that Hasegawa? Especially for a Thunderbolt!