Favourite Variable Fighter

[JB0]

I just realized the Konig is on the list. I vote it be stricken, as it's clearly not a variable FIGHTER.

I furthermore vote that all votes cast for the Konig between now and when it's removed be reassigned to the One True Plane, AKA the YF-21.

Edited June 23, 2008 by JB0

[Sulendil Ang]

Kronnang Dunn: Yeah, it's more or less my fault. I also notice the unique design of VF-14, but since I originally intended to limit the options to only those who appear in the shows, and being a forgetful person, it didn't occur to me that VF-14 did appear in Macross 7 P*L*U*S, I omitted it. Teach me a lesson of being more careful next time I'm going to create a similiar poll.

JBO: Actually, my main target of my poll are Variable Vehicles, but since most of these vehicles are fighters, so I'm being lazy and use the term Variable Fighter instead. Besides, why must the votes goes to YF-21? It should go to the penultimate pilot's machine, YF-19 instead.

Gubaba: The ultimate machine? It is Mylene's VF-11MAXL. *run*

Shaka 7: Yeah, VF-0 did look more of less the same with VF-1, although I think VF-0 looks far modern than VF-1, which didn't make much sense, if you ask me. BTW, nice picture! Where did you get it?

You know, it's quite surprise to me that no one votes VF-17 or Q-Rau yet.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Sulendil Ang

[VFTF1]

Really hard question... There have actually been very few VFs to date - and this is a good thing on the part of the Macross universe... each new one is a masterpiece in its' own right - but that makes it really hard to chose "one."

For me I guess it's a match up between the SV-51 and the VF-0A....

ooops.

Did I just let slip my undying love for Macross Zero? ?)

VFTF1

[vanpang]

YF-19 all the way !

[grss1982]

Shaka 7: Yeah, VF-0 did look more of less the same with VF-1, although I think VF-0 looks far modern than VF-1, which didn't make much sense, if you ask me. BTW, nice picture! Where did you get it?

I think it has something to do with the VF-1 being "boxy" in appearance, while the VF-0 looks a bit streamlined:

http://toysdup.up.seesaa.net/image/VF0S2.JPG

http://toysdup.up.seesaa.net/image/VF0S1.JPG

Found this two while googling.

As for me, my fave VFs are:

TOP 5:

1) VF-25 = All that versatility with the use of the different PACKS made me fall in love with it. And did I mention that the the TRANSFORMING Heavy Armor pack is just AWESOME!!!

2) YF-19 "Alpha One" = The only version I ever liked of the 19s. I did not like what came after it though: Fire Valkyrie, VF-19S, VF-19F, Super Packs seen in M7, etc., etc.

3) VF-0S = I feel that a version of these babies equiped with those thermonuclear engines could have pwned the VF-1.

4) SV-51 = Don't know why I like it really. It must be the tactical versatility like using the retractable head to assist in firing at an opposing VF while "in defilade"?

5) VF-1S = I love it, because it was the catalyst that started my love affair with Macross and VFs.

Special Mention:

VF-17/VF-171 = I recently google this VF and there is a version of it equiped with a Super Pack. The addition of the pack made it loke really menacing. Hope we see that Super Pack in action in MF.

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macross7/vf-17...ck-battroid.gif

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macross7/vf-17...ack-fighter.gif

Edited June 23, 2008 by grss1982

[Gubaba]

VF-19P with Galactic Whale blood paint scheme

The YF-21, of course!

The ultimate machine? It is Mylene's VF-11MAXL. *run*

Good answers all...theree's a real lack of Sound Force options on this poll...they're different enough, I think, that they should've gotten their own options. C'mon, people...BOOB SPEAKERS!! What's cooler than that??? (Besides boob missiles, of course..)

Methinks that this is just a case of someone not understanding what 'penultimate' means.

I know, and it's made for some great answers, hasn't it?

[Sulendil Ang]

Special Mention:

VF-17/VF-171 = I recently google this VF and there is a version of it equiped with a Super Pack. The addition of the pack made it loke really menacing. Hope we see that Super Pack in action in MF.

Actually, I always found that VF-17 is Super Pack seems less nice than in its original form. Somehow, those super pack seems to (for a lack of word) "disturb" the otherwise nice design of that plane. In fact, I consider VF-17 as the only few variable fighter that actually look much cooler in its original form.

[Sulendil Ang]

Good answers all...theree's a real lack of Sound Force options on this poll...they're different enough, I think, that they should've gotten their own options. C'mon, people...BOOB SPEAKERS!! What's cooler than that??? (Besides boob missiles, of course..)

Well, there's only 20 options, and after mixing/adding all previous suggestion, I'm left with no space left to adding the Sound Force.

Although I'm considering making a new poll for various variation of VF-19 and YF-21 in the near future, so maybe I will insert them. We shall see.

BTW, thanks for the suggestion, Gubaba!

[Shaka_Z]

Methinks that this is just a case of someone not understanding what 'penultimate' means.

argh... thats my bad... I should have said ultimate pilots machine. editing that post now

[Sulendil Ang]

Nay, you don't need to edit it, Shaka Z. Just like Gubaba had just said...

I know, and it's made for some great answers, hasn't it?

We are having a good time with it, so why bother to fix it?

[Shaka_Z]

Shaka 7: Yeah, VF-0 did look more of less the same with VF-1, although I think VF-0 looks far modern than VF-1, which didn't make much sense, if you ask me. BTW, nice picture! Where did you get it?

I have every confidence that if the original macross were to be remade using today's techniques, the primary differences between the VF-0 and VF-1 would be the legs, as the 0's legs house conventional turbines, while the VF-1's house fusion turbines (among other things, such a change would require a different internal structure, smaller propellant tanks, the addition of rad shielding etc). a few small exterior cosmetic differences other than that, just as all production models are slightly different from their prototypes. The biggest changes would likely be to the cockpit and control interface, as the manufacturer would be getting feedback from as many of the prototype pilots and mechanics as possible - one of the benefits of being forced into an early limited production run.

remember that back when macross was made, they just couldn't afford to flesh out details like that and keep to a production schedule and budget.

[Sulendil Ang]

I have every confidence that if the original macross were to be remade using today's techniques, the primary differences between the VF-0 and VF-1 would be the legs, as the 0's legs house conventional turbines, while the VF-1's house fusion turbines (among other things, such a change would require a different internal structure, smaller propellant tanks, the addition of rad shielding etc). a few small exterior cosmetic differences other than that, just as all production models are slightly different from their prototypes. The biggest changes would likely be to the cockpit and control interface, as the manufacturer would be getting feedback from as many of the prototype pilots and mechanics as possible - one of the benefits of being forced into an early limited production run.

remember that back when macross was made, they just couldn't afford to flesh out details like that and keep to a production schedule and budget.

Yeah, I know all about that, but that didn't stop me for feeling a little bit weird whenever I saw Macross Zero right after DYRL?. You have to admit, for a developmental variable fighter of the VF-1, VF-0's design looks a little more 'modern' than VF-1. I have no problem of the technology behind VF-0, through, especially the Block-6 cockpit it used.

[d3v]

I have every confidence that if the original macross were to be remade using today's techniques, the primary differences between the VF-0 and VF-1 would be the legs, as the 0's legs house conventional turbines, while the VF-1's house fusion turbines (among other things, such a change would require a different internal structure, smaller propellant tanks, the addition of rad shielding etc). a few small exterior cosmetic differences other than that, just as all production models are slightly different from their prototypes. The biggest changes would likely be to the cockpit and control interface, as the manufacturer would be getting feedback from as many of the prototype pilots and mechanics as possible - one of the benefits of being forced into an early limited production run.

remember that back when macross was made, they just couldn't afford to flesh out details like that and keep to a production schedule and budget.

Actually, most of the current differences between both models could be attributed to the conventional engines. The 0 is longer (longer neck) and has larger wings which can be attributed to needing space for internal fuel tanks. Also, being fusion engines that should be using relatively safe Hydrogen and not something radioactive like Uranium or Plutonium, radiation sheilding shouldn't be an issue.

Although, from what I've read (c/o the Compendium) the VN-0 is not as much the VF-1s prototype but rather a technology demonstrator, showing off the new overtechnology derived transfomation sequence while containing more conventional tech (you could attribute the larger nose to using an older radar system, while the smaller nose of the VF-1 uses a smaller more advanced sensor suite, and we can explain the size difference mainly in the need for space for fuel). The true prototype for the VF-1 was the VF-X-1.

Edited June 23, 2008 by d3v

[Shaka_Z]

Actually, most of the current differences between both models could be attributed to the conventional engines. The 0 is longer (longer neck) and has larger wings which can be attributed to needing space for internal fuel tanks. Also, being fusion engines that should be using relatively safe Hydrogen and not something radioactive like Uranium or Plutonium, radiation sheilding shouldn't be an issue.

Although, from what I've read (c/o the Compendium) the VN-0 is not as much the VF-1s prototype but rather a technology demonstrator, showing off the new overtechnology derived transfomation sequence while containing more conventional tech (you could attribute the larger nose to using an older radar system, while the smaller nose of the VF-1 uses a smaller more advanced sensor suite, and we can explain the size difference mainly in the need for space for fuel). The true prototype for the VF-1 was the VF-X-1.

so, it is safe to assume that the engines weren't the only thing that wasn't ready for prime time as of Zero, and the VF-0 had to make all sorts of compromises because of that. Perhaps the VF-0 should be seen more as a forced-into-production pre-prototype (prototype of the VF-X-1)... that would make the VF-1 its' grandchild - talk about a rapid development cycle!

Oh... rad shielding would be necessary - even aneutronic fusion reactions (ie reactions that produce electrically charged particles directly) like deuterium-he3 produce some hard radiation via uncontrolled side reactions. the amount of such undesired radiation depends on the ability to 'tune' the reaction.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Shaka_Z

[Javier]

VF-1 with super parts it`s the best

[JB0]

Oh... rad shielding would be necessary - even aneutronic fusion reactions (ie reactions that produce electrically charged particles directly) like deuterium-he3 produce some hard radiation via uncontrolled side reactions. the amount of such undesired radiation depends on the ability to 'tune' the reaction.

Actually, that's only a problem for SOME anuetronic fusion reactions.

He3-He3 fusion produces no neutrons ever(assuming your fuel is pure). And protons are easy to trap.

There's also free proton + B11. And some others.

Maybe that's what they mean when they say overtech thermonuclear reactors use non-nuclear materials. An overtech neutron trap!

And the VF-1 should have LARGER propellant tanks than the VF-0.

Certainly, the Phoenix has to carry jet fuel, which supplies far less energy than fusion reactants, but since it can't run in space, it can safely assume air is available for propulsion and maneuvering. The Valkyrie doesn't have that luxury, and has to have large delta-v tanks because of it.

[ruskiiVFaussie]

The problem with the Macross 2 Valkyries is that while they are some of the nicer things to come out of Koichi Ohata's brain (the not so nice things being MD Geist) they're kind of an anomaly with the established tradition set down by the VF-1 and VF-4 of having fighter forms somewhat grounded in reality or at least realistic aesthetics. I hate to say this, but they're almost Star Trek TNG in their looks with the curvey "futuristic" curves without any real functionality. The VF-2JA is particularly puzzling because despite being the atmospheric Valkyrie, it looks like a low polygon VF-1J. And the gunpods look like phaser rifles and not, well, guns.

How dare you quote star trek along side Macross! >_<

[d3v]

And the VF-1 should have LARGER propellant tanks than the VF-0.

Certainly, the Phoenix has to carry jet fuel, which supplies far less energy than fusion reactants, but since it can't run in space, it can safely assume air is available for propulsion and maneuvering. The Valkyrie doesn't have that luxury, and has to have large delta-v tanks because of it.

Depends on the efficiency of the engines. Also, in space, the plane shouldn't really be burning that much propellant since it only needs to overcome it's mass/inertia, meaning only accelerate, decelerate and maneuver. Once on the move a VF shouldn't need to burn much fuel if any.

[raptormesh]

Hi MW!

I voted for the Zero, as i think it's the one most grounded in reality(ok that sounded rather silly). But IMO it's the most ungundam-like valk(VF-25s being on the other end of the spectrum, but i still love em ) out there that extrudes a warbird feeling. It's robust, built for war, and have a huge list of compromises which gives it a certain aura of vulnerability that only pure pilot talent can make up for.

Or maybe it's coz my first yammie is a Zero

Cheers

[taksraven]

1- VF-1J Valkyrie (includes Super and Armored variants)

2- YF-19/VF-19A Excalibur only

Totally agree with your first two choices. The VF-1J in particular always symbolised Macross for me (with its little "chin" jutting out that I always loved) and the classic white with red trim colours.

Not sure about what choice I would make for third place, but I think that the thunderbolt has always been underrated, the VF-0 is really cool and I like the VF-25 as well. So many choices.

Taksraven

[Kronnang Dunn]

The problem with the Macross 2 Valkyries is that while they are some of the nicer things to come out of Koichi Ohata's brain (the not so nice things being MD Geist) they're kind of an anomaly with the established tradition set down by the VF-1 and VF-4 of having fighter forms somewhat grounded in reality or at least realistic aesthetics. I hate to say this, but they're almost Star Trek TNG in their looks with the curvey "futuristic" curves without any real functionality. The VF-2JA is particularly puzzling because despite being the atmospheric Valkyrie, it looks like a low polygon VF-1J. And the gunpods look like phaser rifles and not, well, guns.

They are supposed to be like 80 years after the original Macross... So that doesn't seem strange to me at all. In fact, I like those designs... they do fit that time-line pretty well...

Edited June 24, 2008 by Kronnang Dunn

[JB0]

Depends on the efficiency of the engines. Also, in space, the plane shouldn't really be burning that much propellant since it only needs to overcome it's mass/inertia, meaning only accelerate, decelerate and maneuver. Once on the move a VF shouldn't need to burn much fuel if any.

Read what you just said.

ANY change in velocity or orientation will require a release of propellant. Unless the Valkyrie is functioning as a very expensive clay pigeon, it will be constantly expelling propellant.

Check the animation. A variable fighter is rarely in a stable velocity and orientation.

It's simple newtonian physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Any change requires an expenditure of propellant.

And if you raise your thruster velocities too high, you weaponize your exhaust, which will be highly hazardous to your allies(that and the thrusters are animated as gas releases, not particle beams). With thruster velocity low by necessity, the only option is to expel large amounts of mass.

[d3v]

Read what you just said.

ANY change in velocity or orientation will require a release of propellant. Unless the Valkyrie is functioning as a very expensive clay pigeon, it will be constantly expelling propellant.

Check the animation. A variable fighter is rarely in a stable velocity and orientation.

It's simple newtonian physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Any change requires an expenditure of propellant.

And if you raise your thruster velocities too high, you weaponize your exhaust, which will be highly hazardous to your allies(that and the thrusters are animated as gas releases, not particle beams). With thruster velocity low by necessity, the only option is to expel large amounts of mass.

But at the same time, you're not constantly burning propellant like a VF-0 is. Put it in a Combat Air Patrol situation and the only time the Valk needs to burn fuel is when it has to change direction, or when a threat is encountered. To put things into perspective, aerodynamic friction or drag is proportional to the square of the speed; for example doubling speed quadruples drag meaning that over a period of time a faster vehicle needs to overcome twice the amount of drag one that is traveling at half it's speed, meaning it has to output more power and burn more fuel. In space, there is no aerodynamic drag so to speak (unless you pass through dense clouds of material), that alone means that the accelerate, a VF-1 in space doesn't need to burn as much fuel as a VF-0 in the atmosphere.

[Shaka_Z]

Read what you just said.

ANY change in velocity or orientation will require a release of propellant. Unless the Valkyrie is functioning as a very expensive clay pigeon, it will be constantly expelling propellant.

Check the animation. A variable fighter is rarely in a stable velocity and orientation.

It's simple newtonian physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Any change requires an expenditure of propellant.

And if you raise your thruster velocities too high, you weaponize your exhaust, which will be highly hazardous to your allies(that and the thrusters are animated as gas releases, not particle beams). With thruster velocity low by necessity, the only option is to expel large amounts of mass.

exhaust gases from jet and rocket engines are weaponized... jetwash has been known to cause windshear like effects on aircraft that follow too close behind for instance. in this case it the exhaust from such an engine would look more like a plasma torch, and would tend to dissipate into the ambient space environment rather quickly - gas atoms excited to the plasma state really dont like to be in close proximity to others. granted, it would remain as a dangerous jet of plasma for a short distance, but so long as allies dont follow too closely behind that shouldnt be a problem - the exhaust would not behave at all like a particle beam, and I think that frontier has depicted this fairly well so far - the exhaust trails dissipate pretty quickly, within a few hundred yards or so, and following pilots dont cross that trail while it's visible if they can help it (once it cools to the point that it isnt visible, it is safe to cross). attitude control thrusters would likely operate at much lower Isp levels and temperatures.

come to think of it, it is highly likely that valk fusion turbines are able to vary their Isp in a manner similar to NASA's VASIMIR drive - when you see the visible plasma trail, the engine is running HOT. also, in an atmosphere, where reaction mass is effectively unlimited, they would most certainly reduce power output and use more propellant mass, so the exhaust would look more 'normal' under those conditions.

Oh yeah... remember that animation aside, we have pretty much established that there is no way that a valk could carry enough propellant to maneuver the way they do unless the engines have very high values of Isp.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Shaka_Z

[JB0]

But at the same time, you're not constantly burning propellant like a VF-0 is. Put it in a Combat Air Patrol situation and the only time the Valk needs to burn fuel is when it has to change direction, or when a threat is encountered. To put things into perspective, aerodynamic friction or drag is proportional to the square of the speed; for example doubling speed quadruples drag meaning that over a period of time a faster vehicle needs to overcome twice the amount of drag one that is traveling at half it's speed, meaning it has to output more power and burn more fuel. In space, there is no aerodynamic drag so to speak (unless you pass through dense clouds of material), that alone means that the accelerate, a VF-1 in space doesn't need to burn as much fuel as a VF-0 in the atmosphere.

But the propellant for the VF-0 ISN'T solely the jet fuel. The propellant is the air around it. The jet fuel's primary purpose is to supply heat to expand air.

A VF-0 needs to supply enough energy to heat the air going into the engines. As does a VF-1 in atmosphere(something it's fusion power plant should excel at). But in space, a VF-1 needs to supply the "atmosphere" too.

And a jet engine uses HUGE amounts of air.

You're also ignoring the other half of the equation. To stop, a VF-0 has to do... nothing. A VF-1 in space has to expend an equal amount of propellant in the opposite direction. To turn, climb, dive, roll, etc, a VF-0 has merely to adjust the control surfaces and let airflow and gravity do the work. A VF-1 in space will have to expend reaction mass for any of these actions.

In fact, to mimic a terrestrial climb, a space gandam Valkyrie will actually have to expend thrust in multiple axes at once. There's the thrusters fired to reorient the main thrust axis, the thrust needed to grant the plane an "upward" motion, AND an additional thrust to shed forward velocity.

Certainly, there's more practical maneuvers, but any way you slice it...

[JB0]

exhaust gases from jet and rocket engines are weaponized... jetwash has been known to cause windshear like effects on aircraft that follow too close behind for instance. in this case it the exhaust from such an engine would look more like a plasma torch, and would tend to dissipate into the ambient space environment rather quickly - gas atoms excited to the plasma state really dont like to be in close proximity to others. granted, it would remain as a dangerous jet of plasma for a short distance, but so long as allies dont follow too closely behind that shouldnt be a problem - the exhaust would not behave at all like a particle beam, and I think that frontier has depicted this fairly well so far - the exhaust trails dissipate pretty quickly, within a few hundred yards or so, and following pilots dont cross that trail while it's visible if they can help it (once it cools to the point that it isnt visible, it is safe to cross). attitude control thrusters would likely operate at much lower Isp levels and temperatures.

I was thinking weaponized maneuvering thrusters. Every fighter's in constant deathblossom mode.

You COULD get away with very low reaction masses if you used very very high-velocity thrusters.

But you'd have, effectively, particle beams for maneuvering thrusters.

Oh yeah... remember that animation aside, we have pretty much established that there is no way that a valk could carry enough propellant to maneuver the way they do unless the engines have very high values of Isp.

Yah. They do crazy stuff.

[d3v]

But the propellant for the VF-0 ISN'T solely the jet fuel. The propellant is the air around it. The jet fuel's primary purpose is to supply heat to expand air.

A VF-0 needs to supply enough energy to heat the air going into the engines. As does a VF-1 in atmosphere(something it's fusion power plant should excel at). But in space, a VF-1 needs to supply the "atmosphere" too.

And a jet engine uses HUGE amounts of air.

And the VF-1 uses less air/propellant anyway since it doesn't need to overcome drag.

You're also ignoring the other half of the equation. To stop, a VF-0 has to do... nothing. A VF-1 in space has to expend an equal amount of propellant in the opposite direction. To turn, climb, dive, roll, etc, a VF-0 has merely to adjust the control surfaces and let airflow and gravity do the work. A VF-1 in space will have to expend reaction mass for any of these actions.

In fact, to mimic a terrestrial climb, a space gandam Valkyrie will actually have to expend thrust in multiple axes at once. There's the thrusters fired to reorient the main thrust axis, the thrust needed to grant the plane an "upward" motion, AND an additional thrust to shed forward velocity.

Certainly, there's more practical maneuvers, but any way you slice it...

But while the VF-1 is doing these (and possibly less since it's probably vectoring thrust in place of firing more verniers), it's not supplying forward thrust, while the VF-0 still is, every moment the engines are lit, the VF-0 is gulping precious fuel, while the VF-1 only takes a drink when it needs to.

[Shaka_Z]

I was thinking weaponized maneuvering thrusters. Every fighter's in constant deathblossom mode.

You COULD get away with very low reaction masses if you used very very high-velocity thrusters.

But you'd have, effectively, particle beams for maneuvering thrusters.

Yah. They do crazy stuff.

wow... I just love how the reply with quote function automatically cuts out everybody else's quotes on this board but the person I am replying to...

anyway, like I said, the only thrusters operatiing at crazy Isp levels are the main engines - the others would likely be running at much lower values, perhaps as low as 1000 seconds Isp - and would probably operate as puffers at that.

besides... remember that the exhaust from these engines is being expanded by the nozzle of the engine to match the ambient pressure as much as practical ( to be fully expanded to ambient pressure in space the nozzle would have to be freekin HUGE). It isn't going to have anything remotely like the coherency of a particle beam, and the charged particles that make up the exhaust are going to be trying to get as far away from each other as fast as possible from the moment the stream leaves the nozzle to finish the job. the exhaust cone would be hazardous to other spacecraft for maybe a hundred yards tops in the case of maneuvering and attitude control thrusters... probably much less. I would be more worried about getting hit by a micrometeorite.

BTW, what do you all think of my signature?

Edited June 24, 2008 by Shaka_Z

[shogun029]

Dude, I thought we were just picking our favorite variable fighters. How did it turn into a discussion/debate about applied physics, jet propulsion and fuel consumption? But I'll give it to you guys. If I ever need to build a variable fighter from the ground up I know who to ask about MPG .

[Shaka_Z]

lol.... we are all 'nerds' here. we could probably turn a thread on which frontier girl has the best breasts, butt or legs into an applied physics discussion.

come to think of it... that might not be a bad idea

[Mr March]

come to think of it... that might not be a bad idea

Hehehe, sounds like thread lock love at first sight to me

[d3v]

lol.... we are all 'nerds' here. we could probably turn a thread on which frontier girl has the best breasts, butt or legs into an applied physics discussion.

come to think of it... that might not be a bad idea

Reminds me of that acronym that came up when the two character image/shipping threads for Nanase and Klan were merged into one general image thread: KNOCKERS: Klan and Nanase Observation of Cup-size related Kinetic Energy Rebound for Science.

Although I agree with Mr. March, any discussion of the sort would be baiting a thread lock.

[ruskiiVFaussie]

lol.... we are all 'nerds' here. we could probably turn a thread on which frontier girl has the best breasts, butt or legs into an applied physics discussion.

come to think of it... that might not be a bad idea

speak for yourself, i'm impossibly cool.

[JB0]

And the VF-1 uses less air/propellant anyway since it doesn't need to overcome drag.

Which doesn't change the fact that the Vf-1 has to supply every last bit of reaction mass it uses, while the vast majority of the VF-0's reaction mass is external.

But while the VF-1 is doing these (and possibly less since it's probably vectoring thrust in place of firing more verniers), it's not supplying forward thrust, while the VF-0 still is, every moment the engines are lit, the VF-0 is gulping precious fuel, while the VF-1 only takes a drink when it needs to.

Thrust vectoring only takes you so far. The VF-1 HAS to fire verniers for a good bit of everything it does.

And the VF-1 IS supplying forward thrust every time it does anything. The propulsion thrusters are essentially in a fixed orientation. The foot nozzles don't pivot enough to prevent that.

Certainly going to GERWALK mode can change this, but that's rarely used except for emergency deceleration, likely due to the fact that the thrust in that mode is off-axis with the center of mass and could easily send the robot-plane-thing spinning out of control very rapidly.

The verniers are most likely limited to changing orientation for practical purposes(small and far out of line with the center of mass).

I don't deny that the VF-0 has to keep it's engines running all the time.

I just don't see how the inequities of combustion efficiency versus fusion efficiency and atmospheric drag versus vacuum counterbalance all the free reaction mass and aerodynamic effects an atmospheric fighter has at it's disposal.

Shaka_Z: I approve of your sig.

Edited June 25, 2008 by JB0

[Gubaba]

I liked that cannon fodder VF-1A that said SEX on it in big letters.

Sex, ladies and gentlemen, sex!