YF-19 (VF-19) Vs. YF-21 (VF-21)

David Hingtgen · October 21, 2003

Also, the FSW gives it built-in instability like a few others have mentioned, which makes it inherently more manueverable

NO IT DOESN'T

That's twice now. FSW isn't unstable. Period. Doesn't give instability, doesn't make things more prone to be unstable, nothing. It has the same effect as painting the plane green. Nothing.

As I said a page ago, it actually makes it MORE STABLE at high alpha. The exact opposite of what most people seem to think. An FSW plane can hold extreme angles of attack without rolling off to the side due to the reversed spanwise flow. Very few aircraft can hold greater than 45 alpha and have ANY manueverability, and almost nothing can hold 60 and not fall out of the sky. But FSW gives you a bit extra. (not a lot, like 5-10 degrees).

Man, if the old boards weren't down I'd go copy my whole "FSW and what it does and how it works" from there...

Anyways, in response to Lightning 06:

Nope, YF-19 has 1D vectoring (but 2D nozzles). It's one of those things where everybody gets things confused--like centrifigual and centripedal force. (It's CENTRIPEDAL on a roller coaster--though 9/10 of text books and TV shows say centrifugal). Regardless of what compendium says, it's 1D, it's clearly shown in a close-up. (Using it to roll, ironically).

Lots of people think up and down count as two. No, it's 1. It's a freedom of motion. Best analogy: trains. The engineer can make them go forward, or back. One choice, no others. Cars have 2--front/back, left/right. 2 choices, in any combo. A YF-19's engines (and F-22 for example) can only go up/down. Yes, they may be used differentially to give a left/right roll, but they themselves cannot go left/right (if they did, they'd give yaw--and you almost never see pure yaw vectoring).

To do this, you have 2D nozzles. Think of a "normal" nozzle. That's considered 1D---1 dimension about an axis. A circle (which is a line). (Geometry be damned, that's how works with planes--standard nozzle is a 1D axisymmetric cone--equidistant about the thrust axis). But for your standard "flat rectangle" vectoring nozzle, it's not a cone, so you need 2D to describe it---the top/bottom, and the sides. Different dimensions/non-syemmetric (it's a lot wider than tall).

Now, to get actual 2D vectoring (left/right) you need what is called the 3D nozzle. Which is really a hyped-up 1D nozzle. F-15ACTIVE or any REALLY modern Super Flanker. Basically a 1D nozzle that can fold and flex a bit at any point to subtly shift itself.

Lightning · October 21, 2003

oh, i'm sorry then.

Zentrandude · October 21, 2003

i dont think he knew about the XB-70 by the time he was starting macross. That project might been still classified during that time.

it was Declassified before Shoji K started doing Macross, XB-70 was done in the mid-seventies (that's what the MiG-25 was built to counter) and even during an interview he said that's where the idea for the Name came from (AFAIK)

hmm bit odd then. my grandfather was a machinist for boeing in the 60s in the sst projects and he worked on the XB-70.

Lightning · October 21, 2003

well, for awhile North American (the people who did the XB-70) they were kinda doing a SST based on the XB-70, so they might've been connected....

EDIT: hey! lookit the voting! it's even 22-22!

Edited October 21, 2003 by Lightning 06

Noyhauser · October 21, 2003

Okay the YF-19 had overswept wings, but I'd still take the YF-21's configuration any day. Overswept means that you have NO flight control area because they are now blended into the body. you are relying on thrust alone to get the job done. Its a zero sum system with the 19, either reverse sweep and no control at all or slower with enough control. Isamu probably couldn't pull off the manuver that guld did against the high manuverability missiles because to get to the speed he needed to trick the fuses on the missiles he would not have the control to evade them (he would need to sweep the wings back). The 21 still has its rear horizontal stabilizers (I can't rememer the term they use for them, blended tail/horizontal stabilizers) , and its shockwave mission adaptive wing assembly to control flight AS well as a far superior system of thrust vectoring (three paddles directing thrust 2 dimentionally vs a one dimention horizontal/vertical system that the 19 has) .

All the of YF-19's controlls are not exclusively on the wings. In oversweep it would still have controll from it's canards, thrust vectoring and rudders. Similarly the YF-21 would lose some maneuverability in high speed configuration since it would lose the use of its rudders, and the angling of the wings would most likely kill alot of the authority of the ailerons. All of this is moot since we see both aircraft perform admirably in high speed configuration in ep 4.

The YF-19 did not have Active stealth, as the YF-21 first introduced such a system, which was later retrofitted into the 19 program. Look at the Macross compendium entry for the YF-19 and VF-19, the the YF clearly does not carry such a system as it followed a completely different design philosophy (fast and manuverable.)

Actually it does, it's in the compendium and it's mentioned explicitly in the show.

Yes but the 19's canards are small, at high speeds, the 21's blended tail/stabilizer assembly is larger and can physically deflect more air. Its really difficult to explain but because the 19 in overswept relies on thrust and the "lifting body" tecnique, it would have marginal manuvering capabilities at high speed. At high speeds the FSW would make the fighter more unstable. This is not a "good unstable" but a very very very bad one that would make the fighter uncontrolable and would cause a crash. The 21's wings are swept back and have mission adaptive wing technology (I keep harping on it but for good reason) which means it has full control over a whole range of speed settings. Again Guld can evade missiles at high speed, Isamu probably couldn't

Sigh, I guess I'm wrong about active stealth, they put it under the Avionics, rather than features (that they did in the VF19 and 21). Thats sorry number 2

imode · October 21, 2003

Again Guld can evade missiles at high speed, Isamu probably couldn't.

I think you're overestimating the abilities of the missiles, or underestimating the 19 or Isamu's piloting skills. He was doing a pretty good job of evading the missiles with a VF-11. I have no reason to doubt he could have done the same in a 19.

Nied · October 21, 2003

Yes but the 19's canards are small, at high speeds, the 21's blended tail/stabilizer assembly is larger and can physically deflect more air.

Not that small! From a side view they look small but viewed head on they're quite large (take a look at the line art). And the YF-21's rudders cant deflect anything in high speed mode since they're folded against the body of the plane.

Its really difficult to explain but because the 19 in overswept relies on thrust and the "lifting body" tecnique, it would have marginal manuvering capabilities at high speed.

At high speed the 19 would have it's canards, rudders, and thrust vectoring to controll it. The YF-21 would have TVC, and to a limited extent ailerons. If anything the YF-19 should be more maneuverable.

Edited October 21, 2003 by Nied

Zentrandude · October 21, 2003

Actually it does, it's in the compendium and it's mentioned explicitly in the show.

i aways thought that part he was looking at the -22 spec as in know your enemy to beat them.

David Hingtgen · October 21, 2003

Things to consider:

YF-19's canards have a heck of a moment arm due to the long "neck" of the plane. Control effectiveness is "size X distance from axis". And it's got a LONG distance from the pitch axis. (Wouldn't be too good for rolling, or drag-induced yaw, but sure as heck has plenty of pitch authority).

Also--high speed=lots of airspeed. Even a 1-foot control surface has authority with 1000kts of air. (Unless people want to get into a compressibility discussion)

Raptor · October 22, 2003

Also, the FSW gives it built-in instability like a few others have mentioned, which makes it inherently more manueverable

NO IT DOESN'T

That's twice now. FSW isn't unstable. Period. Doesn't give instability, doesn't make things more prone to be unstable, nothing. It has the same effect as painting the plane green. Nothing.

As I said a page ago, it actually makes it MORE STABLE at high alpha. The exact opposite of what most people seem to think. An FSW plane can hold extreme angles of attack without rolling off to the side due to the reversed spanwise flow. Very few aircraft can hold greater than 45 alpha and have ANY manueverability, and almost nothing can hold 60 and not fall out of the sky. But FSW gives you a bit extra. (not a lot, like 5-10 degrees).

Man, if the old boards weren't down I'd go copy my whole "FSW and what it does and how it works" from there...

Anyways, in response to Lightning 06:

Nope, YF-19 has 1D vectoring (but 2D nozzles). It's one of those things where everybody gets things confused--like centrifigual and centripedal force. (It's CENTRIPEDAL on a roller coaster--though 9/10 of text books and TV shows say centrifugal). Regardless of what compendium says, it's 1D, it's clearly shown in a close-up. (Using it to roll, ironically).

Lots of people think up and down count as two. No, it's 1. It's a freedom of motion. Best analogy: trains. The engineer can make them go forward, or back. One choice, no others. Cars have 2--front/back, left/right. 2 choices, in any combo. A YF-19's engines (and F-22 for example) can only go up/down. Yes, they may be used differentially to give a left/right roll, but they themselves cannot go left/right (if they did, they'd give yaw--and you almost never see pure yaw vectoring).

To do this, you have 2D nozzles. Think of a "normal" nozzle. That's considered 1D---1 dimension about an axis. A circle (which is a line). (Geometry be damned, that's how works with planes--standard nozzle is a 1D axisymmetric cone--equidistant about the thrust axis). But for your standard "flat rectangle" vectoring nozzle, it's not a cone, so you need 2D to describe it---the top/bottom, and the sides. Different dimensions/non-syemmetric (it's a lot wider than tall).

Now, to get actual 2D vectoring (left/right) you need what is called the 3D nozzle. Which is really a hyped-up 1D nozzle. F-15ACTIVE or any REALLY modern Super Flanker. Basically a 1D nozzle that can fold and flex a bit at any point to subtly shift itself.

Actually, painting a plane green WOULD have an effect... Haven't you heard of the Streak Eagle? Erm...

What I mean by "unstable" is that it has a tendency to change direction faster in normal flight then a rear-sweeping wing. ie, you make a hard sharp pitch up, and it responds faster, seemingly less stably than a rear-sweep.

You could at least avoid looking like a high-and-mighty "YOU'RE WRONG AND I KNOW MORE THAN YOU" a-hole by not overeacting about people's mistakes.

So there.

Lightning · October 22, 2003

he's not trying to, it's just he's posted at least 4 times in this thread already that FSW isnt inherently instable, the -19 is "unstable" for other reasons! but people dont read half the posts in here or they just ignore what other people who happen to be a bit knowledgeable about this topic have to say.

Macross_Fanboy · October 22, 2003

I have to be a naysayer to those that think the YF-21 has better response time. Not all pilots have the same reflexes as the next guy. Theoretically if you put a pilot with lightning quick reflexes in a conventional VF, you'd still get the same results as you would with the BDI and BCS that the YF-21 possesses. Also, a clumsy pilot in a sensitive fighter like the YF-21 would be a very bad idea. In the conventional Valkyries a computer controls more than half of the essential systems while in Battroid mode, like the balance and such things. And I've given it some thought...what if you save a person while in Battroid mode with the YF-21 and forget that they were in your grasp and accidentaly turn them into bloody pulp? Ouch! The computers in the conventional Valkyries would prevent something like that. Anyways, you can't feel that you're grasping something as delicate as a person especially if the fighter is a senseless hunk of metal that is an extension of your body. Now, if your senses were truly attuned through the YF-21, then that be really great. But it's not gonna happen. Best to go with the YF-19, a conventional fighter with a lesser chance of harming friendlies and civilians.

Lightning · October 22, 2003

Best to go with the YF-19, a conventional fighter with a lesser chance of harming friendlies and civilians.

unless you're Isamu....

Macross_Fanboy · October 22, 2003

True that. But then Isamu and Guld were both at each others' throats. :lol:

David Hingtgen · October 22, 2003

FSW has nothing to do with pitch-rate in normal flight. Doesn't make it seem less stable, doesn't make it faster. Also, a rapid pitch-up leads to high AOA, the FSW's reason for being, where FSW is *more* stable. Thus a YF-19 doing a rapid pitch-up would be more stable than say an F-16 doing such a manuever.

Edited October 22, 2003 by David Hingtgen

Macross_Fanboy · October 22, 2003

David is right when it comes to FSWs. And the wings aren't heavy like engines on F-16s so there would be no unwanted instability. Hey, David, are you a former USAF, USMC, USN, or Army pilot? Because you seem to know A LOT. If you are, then those people that keep saying the YF-19 is instable should read your posts and take your word for it. Yeesh!

ArchVile · October 22, 2003

I think that this debate comes down to Quality over Quantity.

I think that we can all agree that it would be easier to mass produce the VF-19 over the VF-22. While the VF-22 is better in almost every aspect, the VF-19 can most likely be more easily mass produced which would make it a better front line fighter where as the VF-22s would be a good frontline fighter it probably would be much harder to produce. Keep in mind in Macross 7 Diamond Squad got their own batch of VF-22s fighters so I assume that means the UN Spacy Special forces recieve VF-22s as their main fighter.

Remember though, "Quantity is a quality in itself" - Stalin

Edit: I voted for the YF-21/VF-22s, it asks which is better, I assume that means 1 Vs 1, not production or anything else.

Edited October 23, 2003 by ArchVile

Macross_Fanboy · October 22, 2003

Yeah. You want a fighter that's cheaper to produce in a large quantity. Think about the weapons our soldiers use. SF troops get super customized weapons or imported weapons while regular troops get regular issue M-16s, M-4s, M9s, M249s and M60s, etc.

Edited October 22, 2003 by Macross_Fanboy

David Hingtgen · October 22, 2003

No, I'm too young to be a former anything. But I've had airplane books since I was 4 (couldn't read until I was 5, but I had them--I've had basic air combat tactics books since I was 6). And since the YF-19 is my fave valk by far, I've read everything on FSW I can. (There's not much, it's pretty simple--inverse spanwise flow, that's it--and that doesn't affect much on a plane).

Macross_Fanboy · October 22, 2003

Oh, ok. Cool. You just gave me that impression. And ArchVile, you scare me, quoting a madman of the likes of Stalin. :blink:

JB0 · October 22, 2003

I have to be a naysayer to those that think the YF-21 has better response time. Not all pilots have the same reflexes as the next guy. Theoretically if you put a pilot with lightning quick reflexes in a conventional VF, you'd still get the same results as you would with the BDI and BCS that the YF-21 possesses. Also, a clumsy pilot in a sensitive fighter like the YF-21 would be a very bad idea. In the conventional Valkyries a computer controls more than half of the essential systems while in Battroid mode, like the balance and such things. And I've given it some thought...what if you save a person while in Battroid mode with the YF-21 and forget that they were in your grasp and accidentaly turn them into bloody pulp? Ouch! The computers in the conventional Valkyries would prevent something like that. Anyways, you can't feel that you're grasping something as delicate as a person especially if the fighter is a senseless hunk of metal that is an extension of your body. Now, if your senses were truly attuned through the YF-21, then that be really great. But it's not gonna happen. Best to go with the YF-19, a conventional fighter with a lesser chance of harming friendlies and civilians.

I'd expect the IO for the BDI/BCS to be computer-filtered anyways.

A human brain has spent it's entire life learning to drive a human body.

It won't interface directly to a fighter very well, because it doesn't understand the body at all.

Even a humanoid mech will have a diffrent performance than a human body, owing to things like diffrent construction and center of gravity. How many humans do you know with rifles in their thighs, jets in their backs, and lasers in their forearms?

So the computer's still ACTUALLY in control of the vehicle.

As was demonstrated during the battle with the Ghost. Guld had to explicitly order the computer to let him push the plane beyond what a human body can withstand before the final battle. It wouldn't have let him pull those maneuvers otherwise.

one_one · October 22, 2003

Well after a strong start from the Yf-19 it seems now the YF-21 has taken the lead.

mikeszekely · October 22, 2003

I think that this debate comes down to Quality over Quantity.
I think that we can all agree that it would be easier to mass produce the VF-19 over the VF-22. While the VF-22 is better in almost every aspect, the VF-19 can most likely be more easily mass produced which would make it a better front line fighter where as the VF-22s would be a good frontline fighter it probably would be much harder to produce. Keep in mind in Macross 7 Diamond Squad got their own batch of VF-22s fighters so I assume that means the UN Spacy Special forces recieve VF-22s as their main fighter.

Remember though, "Quantity is a quality in itself" - Stalin

Exactly! The YF/VF-19 is cheaper and more conventional, and thus is declared the winner. The YF-21/VF-22 is actually the superior plane, but is costlier and less conventional (even the VF-22, which has a more conventional cockpit and controls, requires a special flight suit). Kinda like the whole YF-22/YF-23 thing in real life.

Noyhauser · October 22, 2003

I think we came to that conclusion 2 pages back.

ArchVile · October 22, 2003

Oh, ok. Cool. You just gave me that impression. And ArchVile, you scare me, quoting a madman of the likes of Stalin.

Sorry, I know Stalin was a mass murderer, but you have to admit, that quote is true. If you can make a lot of something, you can probably beat something that you can't make a lot of. Look at the Sherman tank VS the Panzer and Tiger tanks in WW2.

Mr March · October 22, 2003

Oh, ok. Cool. You just gave me that impression. And ArchVile, you scare me, quoting a madman of the likes of Stalin.

Wisdom doesn't follow any particular moral mindset. The Stalin quote is really a relavent point, despite the man himself.

mikeszekely · October 23, 2003

No, I'm too young to be a former anything. But I've had airplane books since I was 4 (couldn't read until I was 5, but I had them--I've had basic air combat tactics books since I was 6). And since the YF-19 is my fave valk by far, I've read everything on FSW I can. (There's not much, it's pretty simple--inverse spanwise flow, that's it--and that doesn't affect much on a plane).

Pretty modest for a walking dictionary on the subject, David.

Lightning · October 23, 2003

hey David, Remember this from somewhere?

Nied · October 24, 2003

One other thought on the YF-21's wing: If we're talking about which would make a better production plane, the morphing wing is right out.

Composite materials (based upon OTM theories) which are capable of increasing or decreasing the wing cross section and area with feedback from the pilot's brainwaves. Due to the high cost and problems in the construction of the main wing's complex structure, this technology is not intended for mass production.

Noyhauser · October 24, 2003

One other thought on the YF-21's wing: If we're talking about which would make a better production plane, the morphing wing is right out.
Composite materials (based upon OTM theories) which are capable of increasing or decreasing the wing cross section and area with feedback from the pilot's brainwaves. Due to the high cost and problems in the construction of the main wing's complex structure, this technology is not intended for mass production.

I think I mentioned that once or four times as well.

Macross_Fanboy · October 24, 2003

Geez, why wasn't there a "Both are equals." choice or something?! <_

one_one · November 3, 2003

Geez, why wasn't there a "Both are equals." choice or something?!

Yeah, maybe that would be have been a good idea!

Macette · January 19, 2009

When i first watched Macross Plus, i was a huge fan of the 19, but i think that was due to Isamu being the pilot. As I started watching M7, Basara made me hate the 19...

Edited January 19, 2009 by Macette

VFTF1 · January 23, 2009

Geez, why wasn't there a "Both are equals." choice or something?! dry.gif

There should also be a "Kyle Reese Option" (aka "from your point of view, I don't know tech stuff") ...

Actually, the first thing that comes to mind (which probably isn't helpful) is: The YF-19 is superior because it can stand on its' two legs without the use of a Yamato stand.

But then the YF-21 comes back because - hey - it can actually take in-flight poses on that very same stand, while the 19 just sits on its' wheels.

But naturally - this is silly...so...hmm...

I think the YF-19 is superior for a simple reason:

It is not dependent on the proper functioning of that Brain-Wave system. Naturally, it IS dependent on the proper functioning of the pilot - but this is a given for both systems in the 19 and the 21. The difference is that with the 21, there's just that one additional system that exists to possibly flub...

Although - then again - given how smooth the flying is that Guld manages thanks to the system ... maybe that's not necessarily so.

I mean - technically the ability to "see" the flight patterns of oncoming missiles gives Guld a major edge - and it was shown that in spite of his efforts, the 19 just couldn't compete with "manual" steering on this front.

Really a touch pick between the two.

Pete

Letigre · January 24, 2009

I don't know if it was so much the ability to be able to picture those things, in your mind no less, such as missle projectories and etc. But rather that you could request the info and see them instantly by thought, and also be able to act within that mere instant. It's why the 21 was far better adversary to the AI Ghost: it could potentially match it's processing and reaction times, the only limitations being the physical limitations of the 21's pilot, and maybe the airframe as well.

Sign In

YF-19 (VF-19) Vs. YF-21 (VF-21)

136 members have voted

1. YF-19 (VF-19) Vs. YF-21 (VF-21)

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation