VF-0 vs. VF-1

[Prime]

The VF-0 appears, to me at least, to but a much more "futuristic" VF in appearance than the VF-1. The OOU reasons for this is obvious, but after watching some Macross Zero I was wondering if it implies any changes to the VF-1. Stylistically there are several features on the VF-0 that reappear on later VFs but are not present on the VF-1, like the red FLIRs (I think that's what it is) on the nose. Functionally there things like active stealth and images being displayed directly on the canopy and not just the actual HUD, the latter not being present in earlier pre-block 6 VF-1's.

I'm just wondering if the VF-0 implies something of a visual retcon for the VF-1 like DRYL is (in the Zero case not officially no doubt), or if everything is explained away as the VF-0 being a testbed, and only some features made it into the production version. It just seems in hindsight to not make much sense in-universe to go from the sleeker VF-0 to a rather blocky and dated look of the VF-1 (classic as it is).

[RedWolf]

Well it seems to me that the VF-0 and the VF-1 are of the same generation fighter much like the VF-25 and VF-27. If you notice SDF Macross happens a year after Macross Zero.

Derived from what was learned from the VF-X prototype untransformable fighter. Which was test piloted by Roy Focker. Kinda like the YF-24 in Frontier.

The VF-0 Phoenix was supposed to have the same thermonuclear reaction turbines as the VF-1 but mass production and distribution was delayed and they had to use liquid fuel based ones.

It is lucky as the VF-0 Phoenix's engine frame is bigger than the VF-1 allowing the swap.

If it had the VF-1's thermonuclear reaction turbines it would have worked just as well in space and combat.

Heck it is because of these facts did I make in my fanfic that Jenius sisters' VF-0 Phoenix VF-0S, VF-0A and VF-0D retrofitted with the engines used by the VF-1X Plus.

Edited September 19, 2008 by RedWolf

[kanedaestes]

I think that even though it seems more advanced it was just a race to the finish. They were both being made and tested at the same time and the VF-1 was probably the one that could get into mass prouction fastest. Then you have to figure that they didn't have time to retrofit the VF-1 with the abilities from the 0 because the Zentradi came and messed up everything so advancement of fighters was put on hold for the survival for mankind. That's probably why they went with the VF-1 and why the never added the cool features from the 0 to it.

[RedWolf]

I think that even though it seems more advanced it was just a race to the finish. They were both being made and tested at the same time and the VF-1 was probably the one that could get into mass prouction fastest. Then you have to figure that they didn't have time to retrofit the VF-1 with the abilities from the 0 because the Zentradi came and messed up everything so advancement of fighters was put on hold for the survival for mankind. That's probably why they went with the VF-1 and why the never added the cool features from the 0 to it.

Think of the wonders if the SV-51 had thermonuclear reaction engines. They may prove very much more superior than the two UN fighters.

Heck fifty years later the SV-51's transformation concept was designed into the YF-24 and to its subsequent evolutions.

Edited September 19, 2008 by RedWolf

[akt_m]

Think of the wonders if the SV-51 had thermonuclear reaction engines. They may prove very much more superior than the two UN fighters.

Heck fifty years later the SV-51's transformation concept was designed into the YF-24 and to its subsequent evolutions.

Huh? Unless Kawamori states that the YF-24 has the same transformation tecnology of the SV-51, they share some of the same design because the SV-51 was the latest design concept Kawamori made.

[RedWolf]

Huh? Unless Kawamori states that the YF-24 has the same transformation tecnology of the SV-51, they share some of the same design because the SV-51 was the latest design concept Kawamori made.

Well the Valkyrie lineage chart had the SV-51 with a question mark.

Its like the B2 Bomber delta wing design was taken from a plane design concept in an earlier age.

Plus look at the torso they basically just stole the concept from the SV-51.

[505thAirborne]

Bare in mind too that the VF-1 Valkyrie fighters were original designed as far back as 1981-82. High tech for the day with many features off of modern fighters for that time like the F-14 & F-15. In DYRL in 1984 The VF-1 Valkyries received an update in the flight controls like that of the F-16 Falcon, with fly-by-wire control sticks.

As to the VF-0 Phoenix, I think Kawamori designed it to look very advanced with every bell & whistle on it, and as is usually true in Fighter plane development for mass production, everything that doesn't need to be there gets scrapped. and what your left with is a good solid/simplified fighter. Though of everything the VF-1 did not receive, it got the thermonuclear engines which made it a space bound fighter.

Thus the VF-1 having a smaller frame, Better engines and a much simpler body frame for ease of maintenance. Just think of the VF-0 being an F-14. Big, beautiful, expensive & very hard to maintain. The VF-1 is the F-18 Super Hornet, Smaller, sporty, less expensive and a maintenance workers dream.

I know this comparison is my own opinion and general, buts its the best way to describe the differences. I have my VF-0 & VF-1 side by side and every time I look at them, this is what comes to mind.

[Duke Togo]

Huh? Unless Kawamori states that the YF-24 has the same transformation tecnology of the SV-51, they share some of the same design because the SV-51 was the latest design concept Kawamori made.

Which really is the truth of the matter. Doesn't mean it won't be worked into the story.

[Final Vegeta]

Stylistically there are several features on the VF-0 that reappear on later VFs but are not present on the VF-1, like the red FLIRs (I think that's what it is) on the nose.

It must be mentioned that the VF-1 had FLIRs on the nose too.

two forward-looking infra-red (FLIR) sensors in recessed emplacements in leg-joint nacelles below and to the the fore of the canopy

The look was obviously influenced by RL later designs though. Another thing you may not have noticed is that all VFs designed after the eighties have pointy feet, which has become a trademark of Kawamori design. No influence on the story, though

Functionally there things like active stealth

Even in the original series Kamjin mentioned some kind of waves that blocks radar. While the term is recent, the concept was present from the start.

I'm just wondering if the VF-0 implies something of a visual retcon for the VF-1 like DRYL is (in the Zero case not officially no doubt), or if everything is explained away as the VF-0 being a testbed, and only some features made it into the production version. It just seems in hindsight to not make much sense in-universe to go from the sleeker VF-0 to a rather blocky and dated look of the VF-1 (classic as it is).

Not forgetting about the Karyobin, the original Anti-UN fighter, and the Dragon II

Anyway, the school of Alto had a statue of a regular VF-1 on the roof, so the answer is no

FV

[VF5SS]

I dunno. The VF-0 is pretty blocky. The intakes and engines are really squared off and the whole thing is full of bumps on the dorsal side. The DYRL VF-1 is just as slick as the VF-0. The TV design should be best forgotten.

[Final Vegeta]

I dunno. The VF-0 is pretty blocky. The intakes and engines are really squared off and the whole thing is full of bumps on the dorsal side. The DYRL VF-1 is just as slick as the VF-0. The TV design should be best forgotten.

?

I thought the only differences between DYRL and TV were the hands and the head of VF-1A

FV

[akt_m]

The only thing about the TV vf-1 version that really should be forgotten is the cockpit. Best left to robotech. 

Edited September 19, 2008 by akt_m

[VF5SS]

?

I thought the only differences between DYRL and TV were the hands and the head of VF-1A

FV

The cockpit is completely different.

[anime52k8]

Well the Valkyrie lineage chart had the SV-51 with a question mark.

Its like the B2 Bomber delta wing design was taken from a plane design concept in an earlier age.

Plus look at the torso they basically just stole the concept from the SV-51.

Not really, if you look REALLY closely at the Vf-27 and how it transforms it's actually identical to the VF-25, which in turn is actually more like the YF/VF-19's transformation

The similarities between the VF-27 and the SV-51 are all purely cosmetic. The three toed feet, the funky canards, and how the torso and winds look in batroid mode look similar, but they don't transform in anywhere near the same way.

OOU its Sk reusing the elements that he currently likes putting on 'evil' mechs.

in universe, it's probably a case of two designers in two different times independently coming up with the same solutions to similar design problems. (It happens in the real world.)

[badboy00z]

Or maybe it's because the VF-0 was designed way later than the VF-1. I'm talking about real time and not Macross time line.

[Vic Mancini]

I'm just wondering if the VF-0 implies something of a visual retcon for the VF-1 like DRYL is (in the Zero case not officially no doubt), or if everything is explained away as the VF-0 being a testbed, and only some features made it into the production version.

I vote retcon.

I'm sure if Kawamori could go back and re-do SDF Macross, (Lucas style), he'd have more modern looking valks replacing the old VF-1 design complete with cool features like retina tracking sensors wired to the Battroid head lasers. I think we're supposed to assume that it's being implied that the VF-1 had a lot of cool tricks and features that we were never shown in the anime because it was designed in the 80s.

[Mr March]

The VF-1 appears in Macross Frontier, looking the same as it does in all of the original Macross productions. So no, the VF-1 has not been retroactively redesigned as a chronological result of the more aerodynamic appearance of the VF-0 in a prequel series.

Besides, for all intents and purposes, the VF-0 basically is a retroactively redesigned VF-1.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Mr March

[Final Vegeta]

The cockpit is completely different.

Then with "The DYRL VF-1 is just as slick as the VF-0" you were referring to the cockpit?

FV

[Vic Mancini]

The VF-1 appears in Macross Frontier, looking the same as it does in all of the original Macross productions. So no, the VF-1 has not been retroactively redesigned as a chronological result of the more aerodynamic appearance of the VF-0 in a prequel series.

Oh.

See that I didn't know. I'm saving Macross Frontier so I can watch it all at once.

Never mind then.

[VF5SS]

Then with "The DYRL VF-1 is just as slick as the VF-0" you were referring to the cockpit?

FV

The overall design is a lot tighter too. The hands, the new head, the little details, etc.

[d3v]

Think of the wonders if the SV-51 had thermonuclear reaction engines. They may prove very much more superior than the two UN fighters.

Heck fifty years later the SV-51's transformation concept was designed into the YF-24 and to its subsequent evolutions.

Not really, the only thing from the SV-51's transformation in the YF-24 derived craft are the folding wings and the use of swing arms to move the upper torso area over the fuselage. Overall however, their transformations are closer to the VF-19, with the main difference being the wings and the use of the swing arms instead of the folding gullet to position to upper torso over the fuselage (which sits upright in the VF-19, VF-25 and VF-27 and not diagonally pointed downward as in the SV-51).

Edited September 21, 2008 by d3v

[VF-25S Full Armour]

One could only wonder at the moment as to how it would be like if the SV-51 ended up with thermonuclear engines and fighting in space just like the VF-1. It is quite possible that if such were the case it could have ended up as the superior machine in some ways.

Let's just look at armament. The VF-1 has one 55mm gun pod and a number of lasers on its head, plus some multi-missle packs. The SV-51 had all that too, but up close it would have been much more prickly to a zentradi warrior then the relatively simplistically armed VF-1. With all those smaller but still somewhat dangerous to zentradi at close range machine guns over some key locations on its body, it would be extremely annoying to an armored zentradi infantry up close and possibly fatal to one with compromised or nonexistent armor (or shot in some delicate and unarmored part).

The zents may be huge, but their flesh is still far from bullet proof. A prickly machine the SV-51 is.

If anything, the SV-51 was a more mature design given the technology they had at the time.

Edited September 23, 2008 by VF-25S Full Armour

[azrael]

The zents may be huge, but their flesh is still far from bullet proof. A prickly machine the SV-51 is.

If anything, the SV-51 was a more mature design given the technology they had at the time.

The notes do indicate that the SV-51 was a more combat-ready design compared to the VF-0/VF-1.

[Vic Mancini]

It's fun to imagine an SV-51 battroid in hand to hand combat with a Zent. The SV-51 battroid was enormous.

[Macross_Fanboy]

Thus the VF-1 having a smaller frame, Better engines and a much simpler body frame for ease of maintenance. Just think of the VF-0 being an F-14. Big, beautiful, expensive & very hard to maintain. The VF-1 is the F-18 Super Hornet, Smaller, sporty, less expensive and a maintenance workers dream.

That's true! I'm in a Super Hornet squadron and at FRAMP as these guys like to call it, the instructors go on and on about the F-14, it looks bad ass, but it's a bitch to do the maintenance on it, especially now with IETMs to help the maintenance process go along smoother on Super Hornets.

I don't know about you guys, but the VF-0 just looks way more contemporary to me than the VF-1, the VF-1 just suffers from bad animation, the VF-0 is a taste of what a VF-1 might look like in today's standards. If you look on the compendium it says it was a developmental design that was pushed into service, hence their limited numbers too because I imagine those cost a helluva lot more with all the experimental technology they put inside there and equipment they've adapted for it like the Ghosts. The 0 is one of my favorite designs ever because it looks like it really does exist in this world IMO.

[VFTF1]

Let's just look at armament. The VF-1 has one 55mm gun pod and a number of lasers on its head, plus some multi-missle packs. The SV-51 had all that too, but up close it would have been much more prickly to a zentradi warrior then the relatively simplistically armed VF-1. With all those smaller but still somewhat dangerous to zentradi at close range machine guns over some key locations on its body, it would be extremely annoying to an armored zentradi infantry up close and possibly fatal to one with compromised or nonexistent armor (or shot in some delicate and unarmored part).

Don't laugh at me if this post shows my ignorance of engineering - just correct me

Ahem:

I have always felt that the SV-51 would be useless in space combat due to the horrendously gargantuan huuuugggeee butt wing span.

Wings are unnecessary in space - aren't they? If anything - they just make a great target to put holes into.

Look at the Zendradi crafts and mecha - no wings - none. Space-warriors don't have wings. And they are still able to function in earth's atmosphere.

Not that I blame the UN Spacey for the VF design - after all, given the Unification Wars - is it any wonder that they wanted something that could fly well in the atmosphere? The Variable bit was "just in case the giants show up."

Pete

[VF-25S Full Armour]

Don't laugh at me if this post shows my ignorance of engineering - just correct me

Ahem:

I have always felt that the SV-51 would be useless in space combat due to the horrendously gargantuan huuuugggeee butt wing span.

Wings are unnecessary in space - aren't they? If anything - they just make a great target to put holes into.

Look at the Zendradi crafts and mecha - no wings - none. Space-warriors don't have wings. And they are still able to function in earth's atmosphere.

Not that I blame the UN Spacey for the VF design - after all, given the Unification Wars - is it any wonder that they wanted something that could fly well in the atmosphere? The Variable bit was "just in case the giants show up."

Pete

Maneuverability in space has nothing to do with just wingspan alone, besides the fact that bigger wingspan does move the mass distribution away from the COG a bit and cause a relatively slight increase in inertia. But practically, most of its mass is still at the fuselage i.e. close to COG, so that's not much of an issue. Also do remember that having verniers at the tips of your wings does lead to insane roll rates both atmospherically and in space. In space, all that aero is of course useless, but it's a different story when fluid dynamics come to play.

Yes, with the sheer power and number of verniers in all the right places, zentradi suits can obviously work in the atmosphere. And do remember that zentradi are predominantly space faring, so atmospheric performance isn't exactly their chief concern. If it wasn't from the sheer power of their vertical thrusters, keeping those ships flying well in the atmosphere will be an absolute pain. Not to mention that it'll never be as efficient and as high performance as a well designed winged aircraft. Try to chase a VF-1S in fighter mode running away with a Glaug and you'll get the picture.

In space, it's all about mass, mass distribution and thrust magnitude + vector. Whilst in the atmosphere, a non-lifting shape will always be less efficient and rely more on the magnitude, vectoring and control of power than anything else, assuming that the machine could actually take the immense aero induced stresses involved.

edit: silly mistype

Edited September 25, 2008 by VF-25S Full Armour

[VFTF1]

Thank you for clearing that up.

I wish guys like you wrote Wheeljack's dialogues in the Transformers instead of "his Cosmotron is broken!"

Anyways - I also noted that the VF-1 could sweep its' swings back, as can the VF-0. This in my opinion makes it optimal for multi-environmental combat.

The SV-51 was incapable of wing sweeping - and the fact that it could flap its' wings actually doesn't help much...

Another question - and forgive me for veering slightly off the VF-1/0 subject but...

What possible practical use were the SV-51's flapping wings? I mean - other than looking like the Bird Man? There must have been some technical reason for their design.

The only one I could think of is that this was just the equivalent of the VF-1's folding wings - to hide the wings in battroid mode which is considerably a slower mode and therefore prone to having outstanding wings clipped by enemy fire...

Or is there more to it?

Pete

[Clay Cliff]

Flapping wings on the SV-51?... I though that they were for storing the SV-51 inside the submarine aircraft carrier's launching tubes.

[VF-25S Full Armour]

Flapping wings on the SV-51?... I though that they were for storing the SV-51 inside the submarine aircraft carrier's launching tubes.

That just answered a large part of your question VFTF1. And you also answered the other part of the question yourself too.