Newbie Questions on Macross

[Mr March]

Looks like the questions have been mostly answered. I will add that the despite the infrequency of their use, the Valkyrie head lasers were clearly implemented as anti-mecha weaponry. In addition to the aforementioned scene in which Roy destroys a Reguld with the VF-1S Valkyrie head turret, Max Jenius also uses his VF-1S Valkyrie to damage Milia's Queadluun-Rau in DYRL? So head lasers have always been originally envisioned as capable of damaging and destroying enemy mecha. Only Macross Zero showed the lasers as ineffective weapons against mecha with Energy Conversion Armor, but this is both a commentary on the limited power generation capability of the VF-0S Phoenix (without reaction engines) AND to visually show the audience the many impressive virtues of Energy Conversion Armor.

The reason we see the head lasers more often used as point defense than as anti-mecha is because such use provides the animators a reason to use the head cannons in a dramatic fashion. Which leads into the problem with the almost-never-used beam weapons on the Valkyries from Macross Plus and onward: the animators simply haven't found a dramatic use for those additional guns. Small-to-medium bore beam cannons have been present on virtually every Valkyrie since the Macross Plus era (YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II, VF-17/VF-171 Nightmare, VF-25 Messiah, VF-27 Lucifer, etc) yet we've seen them used on screen ever so briefly if at all. Macross Plus probably has the record for briefest use of a Valkyrie's beam guns, showing the YF-19 firing it's wing root cannons in a flying-toward-the-camera transition scene in the Macross Plus OVA that lasts about 2-3 seconds of screen time

Basically Kawamori and Co. have an erection for ballistic weapons, especially the gun pod. Aside from missiles, the Gun Pod is by far the darling of the Macross universe. Directed energy guns in Macross, while represented as useful and practical weapons, are largely shown as second place to the gun pods or as situational/special weapons (VF-1S Strike Valkyrie double beam cannon, YF-19 FAST pack arm armament unit, VF-17 Nightmare beam gun adapter, etc). When the gun pods did face the danger of obsolescence, Kawamori and Co. simply introduced a more powerful gun pod like the VF-11C Protect Armor high-piercing-round gun pod used by Kinryu in Macross 7 or SSL-9B Sniper Gun Pod for Mikhail's VF-25G Messiah in Macross Frontier. Then later all the gun pods in Frontier were refitted with anti-Vajra munitions and it's back to heavy metal mayhem

[frothymug]

I see what you guys are talking about. I think my confusion is the problem of perception from seeing the action in the series.

I guess the question would be "what is the difference between a laser cannon and beam cannon?" I'm guessing this is never clarified in any of the official media, right?

[Mr March]

When it comes to depicting energy weapons, Macross is much like the vast majority of science fiction. That is to say that functionally, one Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) is much the same as another. Unless the plot demands it ("Stand by, Ion control"), a beam gun, a laser gun, a blaster, a plasma gun, a phaser, a disruptor, a super-dimension-energy cannon, a wave motion gun, or turbolaser functions identically to every other DEW. The only real difference from one DEW to another is the sound effects and the visual effects

I've not read much from the official Macross literature that even describes how the DEWs function. Maybe the Macross Chronicle might describe something about DEWs in more depth, but I doubt it.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Mr March

[Kurisama]

Still, I love me some head-laser action! I absolutely go SQWEEEEE everytime Roy makes his grand entrance into the arena in ep.4... screen caps and gifs for your pleasure

Does the Octos have energy converting armour at all? Seems the first barrage of blasts from the VF-0 do no damage to the hull, but do make boom-boom when they hit the internal/articulation joints (and the mid-air missile)... Cool to see the Octos has head-lasers too

[azrael]

Does the Octos have energy converting armour at all? Seems the first barrage of blasts from the VF-0 do no damage to the hull, but do make boom-boom when they hit the internal/articulation joints (and the mid-air missile)... Cool to see the Octos has head-lasers too

No. Early models used composite armor while post-SWI models, which mounted a thermonuclear reaction engine, were capable of using energy converting armor.

[Seto Kaiba]

The reason we see the head lasers more often used as point defense than as anti-mecha is because such use provides the animators a reason to use the head cannons in a dramatic fashion.

Indeed... and this particular problem isn't necessarily limited to only those Macross titles created by Kawamori and company. Even though the VF-2SS Valkyrie II's anti-aircraft lasers face forward like those of the VF-1, we almost never see them used in combat. The only noteworthy occasions were in the OP and the first big battle scene, and otherwise they seem to prefer the more visually impressive railguns and Itano Circus-style missile attacks for drama's sake.

When the gun pods did face the danger of obsolescence, Kawamori and Co. simply introduced a more powerful gun pod like the VF-11C Protect Armor high-piercing-round gun pod used by Kinryu in Macross 7 or SSL-9B Sniper Gun Pod for Mikhail's VF-25G Messiah in Macross Frontier.

... the only noteworthy main timeline exception to which being the VF-27 and its crazy huge beam rifle. Even in the Macross II parallel world continuity, when slugthrowers were in danger of obsolescence they were replaced with more powerful and advanced slugthrowers in the form of railguns instead of the beam weaponry they had toyed with on the VF-4ST some fifty years prior.

I guess the question would be "what is the difference between a laser cannon and beam cannon?" I'm guessing this is never clarified in any of the official media, right?

Not that I'm aware... sketchley might know, since he digs into a wider variety of stuff than I do. There may be an answer for that question in Macross Chronicle Technology sheet 06A, but I don't think anyone's tackled that one yet. I'll dig it out and check in a little bit.

EDIT: No... doesn't look like it offers any significant detail on that front. Sorry.

Does the Octos have energy converting armour at all? Seems the first barrage of blasts from the VF-0 do no damage to the hull, but do make boom-boom when they hit the internal/articulation joints (and the mid-air missile)...

Some do, some don't... it depends on which model of powerplant the Octos was equipped with. Early in their production run, they were equipped with composite armor and powered by diesel turbines and fuel cells, and later models were equipped with energy conversion armor and powered by thermonuclear reaction turbines. It's unclear whether it was only the ones produced by the UN Spacy after the war had reaction powerplants or the later Anti-UN models did too. Either way, they seemed to have enough juice to fuel a pair of 12.7mm beam machine guns.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

Not that I'm aware... sketchley might know, since he digs into a wider variety of stuff than I do. There may be an answer for that question in Macross Chronicle Technology sheet 06A, but I don't think anyone's tackled that one yet. I'll dig it out and check in a little bit.

EDIT: No... doesn't look like it offers any significant detail on that front. Sorry.

Nothing comes to mind at the moment. I think others have clarified the answer to the original question ("what is the difference between a laser cannon and beam cannon?") better.

If memory serves, more than a decade and a half ago, one of the English anime mangazines (Protoculture Addicts? Mecha Press? Something else?) did analyze beam cannons in anime in general. The article is probably not worth looking up, as, if memory serves, beam cannon is a term deliberately used because it is vague.

[Seto Kaiba]

If memory serves, more than a decade and a half ago, one of the English anime mangazines (Protoculture Addicts? Mecha Press? Something else?) did analyze beam cannons in anime in general. The article is probably not worth looking up, as, if memory serves, beam cannon is a term deliberately used because it is vague.

IIRC, it was one of the earlier issues of Mecha Press... and it was not terribly edifying. The one they really dug into on that front was the mega-particle weapons in Gundam, since even back then there was a boatload of data on Minovsky physics.

[e_jacob77]

HI all,

Didn't know where to post this, but here goes.... The Malaysian bootlegs does Bandai ever receive any money from thier sale?

[Seto Kaiba]

The Malaysian bootlegs does Bandai ever receive any money from thier sale?

If they're bootlegs, then you already know the answer to your question... of course not.

[mechaban]

This is the one we all see throughout the series. Is the explanation that they were originally on the Daedalus and hence the "D" and the tools of a skilled craftsman, the Hammer and Torch.

Did the Destroids originally on the Macross have their own insignia?

And I would assume this is for Macross City civil defense.

Are there any others throughout the series? Did any of the models/toys have other insignia's?

[Seto Kaiba]

Is the explanation that they were originally on the Daedalus and hence the "D" and the tools of a skilled craftsman, the Hammer and Torch.

Eh... your guess is as good as mine, since I don't think they ever really bother to explain the markings found on destroids in the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross. It seems like a reasonable assumption though.

Did the Destroids originally on the Macross have their own insignia?

And I would assume this is for Macross City civil defense.

Not that I'm aware... the line art for the Super Dimension Fortress Macross series and Macross: Do You Remember Love? only ever shows that "D" insignia. The only exception to that I can think of is that is a Mk.XII Phalanx that shows up in one cut in episode 27, which has a palm tree and slogan in place of the usual logo. If there was an insignia specifically for destroids stationed on the Macross itself, it's probably the one you've got there... but I'm not aware of any official line on the matter.

Are there any others throughout the series? Did any of the models/toys have other insignia's?

Some... there's a bunch of "nose art" type stuff that was published in the old Macross Model Hobby handbook, and I think there's some newer stuff in the same vein for Macross Frontier in either Model Graphix 2009 #1 or Macross Frontier Archives.

[Zinjo]

This is the one we all see throughout the series. Is the explanation that they were originally on the Daedalus and hence the "D" and the tools of a skilled craftsman, the Hammer and Torch.

Did the Destroids originally on the Macross have their own insignia?

Are there any others throughout the series? Did any of the models/toys have other insignia's?

I suspect Seto is right in terms of nose art, however it is possible that Destroids had squad logos much like modern army and marine units have. Essentially a quick way to distinguish one destroid's unit from another...

As for models and toys, it is doubtful since the hero mecha in Macross has always been the variable fighter. Maybe at some point a garage kit maker released some custom decals, but I don't know of any...

[VFAce]

Hi, Ive been wanting to ask a question for awhile now but never new where to post. So if this goes somewhere else please move it. Do variable fighters with reaction engines have armor strength more comparable to a gerwalk or battroid? Looking at the Macross Mecha Manual, it says in the VF-0 entry that SWAG doesnt work in fighter mode because most of the energy is used to fly. But since reaction engines put out so much power, (MMM says the VF-1 produces 650 MWs per engine) wouldn't there be enough extra power to fly AND increase armor stength?

[Seto Kaiba]

[...] Do variable fighters with reaction engines have armor strength more comparable to a gerwalk or battroid? [...] since reaction engines put out so much power, (MMM says the VF-1 produces 650 MWs per engine) wouldn't there be enough extra power to fly AND increase armor stength?

Excellent question...

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to your question is "no" in almost all cases. It fighter mode, it seems that most of the reactor output was needed to provide thrust for flight. I would guess, given what's said about the VF-25 in Great Mechanics DX 9, that the trend continued as the thrust ratings of reaction engines grew, and increased the burden on the power plant. It wasn't until the VF-25 and VF-27's Stage II reaction engines were introduced that VFs had enough of a power surplus in fighter mode to operate energy conversion armor in even a limited fashion. In the case of the VF-25, there's enough spare juice that it can operate a light form of energy conversion armor around vital areas like the engines and cockpit. Having four engines, the VF-27 has a sizable enough surplus to allow it to run both the energy conversion armor AND the pinpoint barrier in fighter mode.

EDIT: The armored VF-25 can draw on the capacitors built into the armored packs to run the energy conversion armor built into the packs for an unspecified amount of time... but the beam guns built into the packs share the same capacitor.

EDIT #2: The VF-0 did have a large capacitor that allowed the fighter to operate in "mighty wing" mode, wherein it could run its energy conversion armor in fighter mode for a short period of time. That system was apparently not carried over to subsequent models.

EDIT #3: Ironically, the variable fighter with the highest known reactor output, which would presumably give it more than enough juice to run energy conversion armor in fighter mode, belongs to Macross II: Lovers Again... a continuity where energy conversion armor doesn't exist and VFs have conventional armor made of supermaterials (ala Gundarium).

Edited November 16, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[VFAce]

Thanks Seto Kaiba for the info. The technology behind Macross, even if fictional, always interested me. Is there any place that has more info on Variable Fighters and their technology?

[sketchley]

Is there any place that has more info on Variable Fighters and their technology?

Macross Chronicle #1-50

Great Mechanics.DX (any issue after #4, sans #10)

For the Japanese language impaired, see signature linky or dedicated MW thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=33597

[VFAce]

Thats exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the links and for your work on the translations Sketchley.

[azrael]

Couple of corrections.

To the best of my knowledge, the answer to your question is "no" in almost all cases. It fighter mode, it seems that most of the reactor output was needed to provide thrust for flight. I would guess, given what's said about the VF-25 in Great Mechanics DX 9, that the trend continued as the thrust ratings of reaction engines grew, and increased the burden on the power plant. It wasn't until the VF-25 and VF-27's Stage II reaction engines were introduced that VFs had enough of a power surplus in fighter mode to operate energy conversion armor in even a limited fashion. In the case of the VF-25, there's enough spare juice that it can operate a light form of energy conversion armor around vital areas like the engines and cockpit....

The VF-25 still works like all the previous generations of VFs, that is, no/zero/nada ECA in fighter mode, limited use in GERWALK mode, and 100% usage in Battroid mode. Only when adding the Armored pack, the VF-25 can use ECA in fighter mode due to the Armored Pack's capacitors.

EDIT #2: The VF-0 did have a large capacitor that allowed the fighter to operate in "mighty wing" mode, wherein it could run its energy conversion armor in fighter mode for a short period of time. That system was apparently not carried over to subsequent models.

Only the VF-0A has mentioned the "mighty wing" mode thanks to the a capacitor installed in the VF-0A.

[Seto Kaiba]

The VF-25 still works like all the previous generations of VFs, that is, no/zero/nada ECA in fighter mode, limited use in GERWALK mode, and 100% usage in Battroid mode. Only when adding the Armored pack, the VF-25 can use ECA in fighter mode due to the Armored Pack's capacitors.

Granted, that would be the usual assumption... but the "VF Evolutionary Theory" piece in Great Mechanics DX 9 indicates that surplus output from the VF-25's reaction engines can be used to run a built-in light form of energy conversion armor around the engines, cockpit, etc. in fighter mode. The heavy ASWGA energy conversion armor used on the Armored Pack and powered by the pack's internal capacitors is something else entirely. This is also bolstered by further mention in the VF-0 section... which also says that improvement in engine power, the latest VFs can partially operate their energy conversion armor in fighter mode.

Only the VF-0A has mentioned the "mighty wing" mode thanks to the a capacitor installed in the VF-0A.

Okay, that is a mistake on my part... thank you for the correction.

[Zinjo]

That has always struck me as backward.

It takes more energy to run servos and articulate the body of a Battroid or the hybrid flight and battroid arms of the GERWALK mode than to simply fly using inherent avionics designed into the fuselage. Yet, somehow it takes more energy to simply spin turbines to keep the fighter aloft on its aerodynamic wings and fuselage than to run a fully articulating robot WITH working head turret laser cannons....

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in that logic?

Edited November 17, 2010 by Zinjo

[Seto Kaiba]

[...] Yet, somehow it takes more energy to simply spin turbines to keep the fighter aloft on its aerodynamic wings and fuselage than to run a fully articulating robot WITH working head turret laser cannons....

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in that logic?

No... no, you definitely aren't. I've always thought that was a bit weird too, but I confess I'd always assumed that a lot of any VF's reactor output in fighter mode was spent heating intake air and running the ion thrusters in flight to provide the impressive levels of thrust most VFs put out.

I forget which publication it was, but I remember one of the pieces translated by sketchley mentioned that reaction engines are real light on fuel consumption in atmospheric flight because of the way they flash-heat intake air to provide thrust... that might be why.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[anime52k8]

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in that logic?

I've been calling shenanigans on this since the first time someone brought it up.

[sketchley]

It's all in how one uses the output. Take the Bugatti Veyron. It's capable of "1,001" horsepower. However, the engine actually produces 3,000+ horsepower. Where does that extra 2,000 horsepower go? Lost as heat. Enough heat, that one of the test models had a 2 or 3 m jet of flame coming out the rear, caused by the hot exhaust igniting the air :!:

So, it has nothing to do with spinning turbines, even though making the turbines spin is a bi-product of producing thrust that is shot out of the rear of the engine.

Actuators are also a lot more efficient then heat-expansion as a form of motive power. Without boring you all with the science lesson, if you include super materials (ie: super conductors, frictionless joints, etc.), super efficient actuators and other goodies that OTEC allows, it's no stretch of the imagination that a VF could move about on battery power alone.

One should also keep in mind that there is infinitely less air friction (drag) when moving as a battroid at humanoid speeds, then there is when trying to ram through the thick atmosphere. I'm pretty certain that some of the output is also used for cooling of the airframe itself, in those circumstances.

Anyhow, I'll try and simplify it further:

- battroid mode: low energy costs to move like a humanoid

- fighter mode: high energy costs to move like a jet.

[Mr March]

That has always struck me as backward.

It takes more energy to run servos and articulate the body of a Battroid or the hybrid flight and battroid arms of the GERWALK mode than to simply fly using inherent avionics designed into the fuselage. Yet, somehow it takes more energy to simply spin turbines to keep the fighter aloft on its aerodynamic wings and fuselage than to run a fully articulating robot WITH working head turret laser cannons....

Am I the only one who sees the flaws in that logic?

True, but you have to think of operating the Valkyrie in terms of maximum possible performance within each mode. Then the idea of surplus power in GERWALK and Battroid mode makes sense. For example, the Battroid mode is limited to a maximum possible performance of 160 km/h. Obviously, an aerodynamic plane flying at 160 km/h would take a helluva lot less power than a giant humanoid robot at the same speed. However, because the Valkyrie is more than just a giant robot, the other modes operate at levels far beyond 160 km/h. A Valkyrie in Fighter mode can attain upwards of Mach 5 in the atmosphere (approx 6,150 km/h) to Mach 25+ in a vacuum (approx 30,740 km/h). At those speeds, there comes a point where even a power-efficient mode like the fighter mode would require vast amounts of power to attain such performance. Such power requirements would be FAR greater than even a power-inefficient Battroid running at 160 km/h.

Hence, the Battroid mode would have lots of surplus power because it cannot hope to operate at the same levels as the fighter mode. All that surplus power can go towards the Energy Conversion Armor. Mystery solved

Edited November 20, 2010 by Mr March

[anime52k8]

Hence, the Battroid mode would have lots of surplus power because it cannot hope to operate at the same levels as the fighter mode. All that surplus power can go towards the Energy Conversion Armor. Mystery solved

except for the fact that 99% of the time the fighter ISN'T flying at Mach 5+ in an atmosphere.

so for the majority of the time when it's flying at sub mach speeds and using a fraction of the engines maximum power for flight, why can't it run ECA then?

Here's a hypothetical situation: A battroid/GERWALK is hovering and therefore producing enough thrust to offset it's own weight. A VF in fighter mode fly's by with it's engines producing the same amount of thrust. If both VF's have identical engines producing identical amounts of thrust with identical amounts of power in reserve, what is the fighter doing that requires so much more power than running all the servo's and actuators needed to make the battroid work that it has none left over to power the ECA?

I can kind of buy having to turn the ECA off when the fighter mode is flying at full speed and using all of it's thrust, but why can't it turn ECA back on when it slows down and is just crusing at sub mach speeds?

(Still; I find it hard to believe that planes with 15, 20 and even 40:1 T-W ratio's need to use ALL of their available engine power just to reach Mach 5 in the atmosphere.)

One should also keep in mind that there is infinitely less air friction (drag) when moving as a battroid at humanoid speeds, then there is when trying to ram through the thick atmosphere. I'm pretty certain that some of the output is also used for cooling of the airframe itself, in those circumstances.

Ok, so your saying that part of the reason they can't use ECA is because it's using that power to run a cooling system on the airframe that exists purely to keep the plane from overheating at high speeds in fighter mode? why don't they just use that power to run the ECA, make the skin of the plane more resilient to heat, protect the thing form incoming fire at the same time and without the added complexity and weight of a dedicated cooling system?

[Mr March]

except for the fact that 99% of the time the fighter ISN'T flying at Mach 5+ in an atmosphere.

so for the majority of the time when it's flying at sub mach speeds and using a fraction of the engines maximum power for flight, why can't it run ECA then?

Here's a hypothetical situation: A battroid/GERWALK is hovering and therefore producing enough thrust to offset it's own weight. A VF in fighter mode fly's by with it's engines producing the same amount of thrust. If both VF's have identical engines producing identical amounts of thrust with identical amounts of power in reserve, what is the fighter doing that requires so much more power than running all the servo's and actuators needed to make the battroid work that it has none left over to power the ECA?

I can kind of buy having to turn the ECA off when the fighter mode is flying at full speed and using all of it's thrust, but why can't it turn ECA back on when it slows down and is just crusing at sub mach speeds?

Who's to say it doesn't? I'm not speaking to such a point. Besides, given what the Macross fighters have been shown surviving on screen, it's clear some kind of super armor/super structure is at work to make the durability they've displayed at all possible. You fly a titanium/carbon composite fighter into the ground or through a bridge and the vehicle literally disintegrates. So obviously for a Valkyrie to survive such feats with little more than a few scratches, SOMETHING must be protecting it no matter what the trivia says.

What I am saying is MAXIMUM attainable output is so vastly different between the modes that such disparity can explain why the Battroid mode would have surplus power. That concept is likely why Kawamori and Co. chose to describe the power system of a Valkyrie as such. It also explains why the Valkyrie engines produce such a ridiculous amount of power (650 MW per engine for the VF-1 alone) for such a small vehicle.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Mr March

[sketchley]

Ok, so your saying that part of the reason they can't use ECA is because it's using that power to run a cooling system

No. I said it takes a lot of energy to force an object through a gas at high speed. The rest is embellishment of the point.

[Seto Kaiba]

Who's to say it doesn't? I'm not speaking to such a point.

The source materials in question, for one... they're pretty unambiguous about saying that all but the newest VFs don't have the surplus energy kicking around to run their energy conversion armor when operating in fighter mode, with the sole (known) exception of the VF-0A for reasons already given in earlier posts.

Besides, given what the Macross fighters have been shown surviving on screen, it's clear some kind of super armor/super structure is at work to make the durability they've displayed at all possible.

Eh... it's been common knowledge for ages that variable fighters are made of far tougher stuff than modern fighter aircraft are. The logical assumption would be that the super-materials used in their construction are responsible for the unusual level of durability they exhibit even when operating in fighter mode without the benefit their energy conversion armor.

Personally, it's confusing stuff like this that makes me long for the clear-cut simplicity of Macross II and its timeline... there's no energy conversion armor there, VFs are tough because they're made from ersatz-Gundarium and that's the end of it. As far as why main continuity VFs can't run their energy conversion armor in fighter mode, I think sketchley has the right of it. When running the engines for propulsion, a lot of energy is being lost as heat by necessity, limiting the amount the mecha can convert to electricity to operate other systems.

[Mr March]

The source materials in question, for one... they're pretty unambiguous about saying that all but the newest VFs don't have the surplus energy kicking around to run their energy conversion armor when operating in fighter mode, with the sole (known) exception of the VF-0A for reasons already given in earlier posts.

Eh... it's been common knowledge for ages that variable fighters are made of far tougher stuff than modern fighter aircraft are. The logical assumption would be that the super-materials used in their construction are responsible for the unusual level of durability they exhibit even when operating in fighter mode without the benefit their energy conversion armor.

Personally, it's confusing stuff like this that makes me long for the clear-cut simplicity of Macross II and its timeline... there's no energy conversion armor there, VFs are tough because they're made from ersatz-Gundarium and that's the end of it. As far as why main continuity VFs can't run their energy conversion armor in fighter mode, I think sketchley has the right of it. When running the engines for propulsion, a lot of energy is being lost as heat by necessity, limiting the amount the mecha can convert to electricity to operate other systems.

Even published Macross trivia must bow to the anime. That means the Chronicle, the Master Guides and any other published trivia cited when the anime shows something for which they do not account. We've never known the Valkyrie's armor composition until ECA came along, with the exception of the VF-0's composite armor and the never-defined "space metal frame". Neither of those account for the durability displayed by the outer "armor" of a Valkyrie as shown on screen. As far as what is verifiable, supposing the ECA is active in fighter mode is no more a stretch than some arbitrary fan-invented armor that "everyone" supposedly knows about but doesn't actually exist.

I will say this: I don't consider it taboo that ECA functions in fighter mode if it can account for the few onscreen examples where "some" explanation is required. The VF-0's mighty wing capacitor and the VF-27's Mach 9 mode are known exceptions to the no-ECA-in-fighter-mode "rule" (*chortle*), which already opens the door for just such an interpretation. As I've stated many, many a time before, that is unifying known trivia without inventing facts not stated on screen or in any book. But as I said to anime52k, I'm not speaking to that point one way or the other, so go with whatever Macross anime you prefer

[Seto Kaiba]

[...] Chronicle, the Master Guides and any other published trivia cited when the anime shows something for which they do not account. We've never known the Valkyrie's armor composition until ECA came along, with the exception of the VF-0's composite armor and the never-defined "space metal frame". Neither of those accounts for the durability displayed by the outer "armor" of a Valkyrie as shown on screen.

Granted, under normal circumstances I would agree with you that the printed materials must bow to the anime when it depicts something that can't be accounted for... but this isn't one of those times. In this case, we have the consistently repeated official line from the hory froating head himself that most Valkyries can't operate their energy conversion armor in fighter mode.

Even before Kawamori introduced this energy conversion armor stuff to Macross in Macross Zero, it was (and still is) a well-established fact that overtechnology-derived super alloys and whatnot are used in the construction of variable fighters... even without drawing on dubious materials like the MAT and Master File books. Mind you, it's the animation that further establishes that these super materials, like hypercarbon, are impressively tough stuff. Prior to this energy conversion armor silly-bollocks runaround, literally the only way to account for the impressive durability Valkyries exhibited in all modes was that more than just the frame was made of OTM super alloys. The new Master File books, despite being not terribly reliable, certainly seem to agree with that position. There's a small section about the use of OTM materials on p75-78 of the VF-1 Master File.

In this, we have a reasonably logical explanation that has at least some small degree of precedent in previous Macross works AND doesn't contradict the official line of the hory froating head. That seems like a winner to me.

I will say this: I don't consider it taboo that ECA functions in fighter mode if it can account for the few onscreen examples where "some" explanation is required. The VF-0's mighty wing capacitor and the VF-27's Mach 9 mode are known exceptions to the no-ECA-in-fighter-mode "rule" (*chortle*), which already opens the door for just such an interpretation.

... and promptly close the proverbial door again by explicitly stating that the VF-0(A), VF-25, and VF-27 are the ONLY VFs capable of such a feat, for which specific reasons are provided ("Mighty Wing" capacitor, the use of Stage II reaction engines, and having four of the bloody things respectively). If there wasn't a pre-existing logical explanation for all this, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly...

Edited November 22, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Zinjo]

Well that's the point.

There isn't a definitive answer as to why ECA is unavailable in fighter mode. The logic behind the "official" explanation is weak at best.

If the reason is that the ECA capacitor is disconnected or unable to be connected during fighter mode (ala Macross Cannon in SDFM), then that is believable. To pin it on the power output of engines that are only partially responsible for the atmospheric lift of an aircraft is not terribly credible for me - regardless of how "official" it apparently is.

We've all experienced things that are official canon "until" the next RETCON comes along...

If we were given explanations like:

1. ECA in fighter mode is progressively reduced as the fighter speeds increase (I'd find plausible).

2. GERWALK mode has something like 50% ECA effectiveness due to the power drain of operating both the jets as well as the limb servos.

3. The Battroid has 100% ECA effectiveness unless it performs a jet jump, then the ECA drops to something like 75 -80% effectiveness.

Now combine this with OTEC alloys for the frame and skin and you have a very tough bird to go up against the superior PC designed weaponry of the Zentradi. It doesn't make valkyrie's invincible, just very tough.

These things I can accept easily. The absence of enough power to run the ECA during aerodynamic flight is much less plausible for me...

Edited November 24, 2010 by Zinjo

[Seto Kaiba]

There isn't a definitive answer as to why ECA is unavailable in fighter mode. The logic behind the "official" explanation is weak at best.

Eh... granted, it would be nice if Kawamori supplied a reason why energy conversion armor wasn't available in fighter mode for most VFs. All the same, the lack of a long and wordy explanation for it doesn't make the hory froating head's official line on the matter any less official. Odds are there's a suitably wordy reason for it all in the Master File books, even if it is unreliable at best and non-canon at worst.

If the reason is that the ECA capacitor is disconnected or unable to be connected during fighter mode (ala Macross Cannon in SDFM), then that is believable.

I doubt that's it... the only times that capacitors are mentioned when talking about energy conversion armor is for the VF-0A's "Mighty Wing" mode and the VF-25's Armored Packs. In particular, the description of the Mighty Wing says that those are non-standard components that were not retained on subsequent models, and in the case of the VF-25 Armored Messiah the capacitors are built into the armored packs to run its tougher 2nd Gen armor in all modes and power its built-in beam weaponry.

These things I can accept easily. The absence of enough power to run the ECA during aerodynamic flight is much less plausible for me...

Well, there's gotta be some kind of explanation for it... since Master File seems to toe the line with it at least in part. I know it's not exactly official/reliable, but the section for the VFA-19A "Assault Calibur" mentions that the greater output of the FF-2550J rev.2 reaction engines can permit it to operate its pinpoint barrier during fighter mode flight if it reduces the power feed to other systems to the bare minimum necessary to sustain flight. It's interesting to say the least, since the pinpoint barrier is known to need 60% of battroid mode's energy output just to operate. Clearly a lot of that energy has to be going to propulsion and other systems, if siphoning off enough to run the pinpoint barrier in fighter mode with enhanced-output engines requires putting everything else into a minimum power state.

[azrael]

Eh... granted, it would be nice if Kawamori supplied a reason why energy conversion armor wasn't available in fighter mode for most VFs. All the same, the lack of a long and wordy explanation for it doesn't make the hory froating head's official line on the matter any less official. Odds are there's a suitably wordy reason for it all in the Master File books, even if it is unreliable at best and non-canon at worst.

The Glossary pages in the Chronicle mention that SWAG/ECA requires a large amount of energy to run and VFs and Destroids don't have that margin of output to operate it so it's treated as a secondary defensive component. The VF-0A's article also mentions that 90% of the EGF-127's output is dedicated ECA in the VF-0's battroid mode. And that's just to give it armoring close to a tank's. In GERWALK mode, ECA operates at a level that is close to an attack helicopter. So it's a scale. In Fighter mode, because the electricity is used for flying, there's not enough for ECA operate effectively without help from a secondary component like a capacitor or more engines, so why have it on at all.

[Zinjo]

I think the sticking point for me is the lack of affect the aerodynamics of the aircraft play in these "official" equations. This isn't the boxy Legioss we're talking about, but a relatively sound aerodynamic fuselage. It also doesn't require constant VTOL to stay aloft and the fighter isn't flying at Mach speeds all the damn time (granted at mach speeds it shouldn't need ECA...) either!

As I said before, any other technical explanation would be acceptable. I just find it hard to swallow that power output during non-supersonic flight with an aerodynamic lift body fuselage is the ONLY reason... In particular that the power requirements for a GERWALK in comparison would have to be much higher...

Other's choose to accept the official line, I remain skeptical.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Zinjo