Valk Designs

[kanedaestes]

I don't know if it has been brought up before if it has please close but when they design valks in the context of the show why do they design them? Like if it for pilot safety which is why many newer ones have the pilot sit in the back of the battroid? Why do they design more complex transformation? Is there a purpose or are the designer just want to show off how complex they can make them. If you guys designed one how would u do it? Mind you this is in the context of the show like when General Galaxy or L.A.I. designs them.

[Mr March]

*keeping in mind that the real reason is because different transformation systems are more interesting for Kawamori to design*

In-universe, the VF-25 Messiah is an easy one; so the Valkyrie could transform with a Full Armor system.

As for the other Valkyries, I doubt the transformation has anything to do with pilot safety. I don't think the pilot in a VF-1 Battroid was any less protected than the pilot of a YF-19 Battroid, especially considering it's all Energy Converting Armor. The reason for different transformation systems could be to simply accomodate an efficient transformation for a given air frame. I would think that variable fighters are designed with a priority on the fighter, meaning the Battroid is built to suit the Fighter, not the Fighter built to suit the Battroid. In order to transform a differently shaped fighter they need to invent a different transformation system.

It also possible that variable fighter engineers are constantly looking for ways to reduce the size and weight of the transformation machinery. Better to have a few dozen small and light transformation mechanisms than to have a half dozen large and heavy transformation mechanisms. Saves weight, saves space, saves power = more efficient. If two smaller and lighter mechanisms can achieve the same job as one big mechanism for less combined weight, space and power, why not go with it?

Since we're on the subject, I've always wanted to know what exactly makes a transformation system more or less complex in the eyes of a Macross fan? I often see fans talk of the Valkyrie transformations as supposedly "more complex" than the old VF-1. Now granted, most fans (especially old Macross fans) have a strong idealized nostalgia for the VF-1, so it's probably natural that they will always compare what comes after to the original. But I guess another benchmark would be the less detailed design or the shape looks simpler, like the VF-1 line art or the VF-19 line art? Fewer lines means more efficient?

Digressing, I would guess that the different transformation systems are created to make transformation possible for different airframes and to make the process faster. If it's more complex, so be it, but speed would be a key consideration. Other factors might include reliability, durability, weight, redundancy, power, simplicity, cost, etc.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Mr March

[kanedaestes]

Well for me complexity has to do with all the folding parts and where things are stored. The original was a fairly easy transformation, while newer models have folding noses, arms coming out from other spots than the bottom, newer hip designs, etc. I was never saying the original wasn't complex but compared to the VF-25 or 19 it is just not as complex as those, or at least in my opinion.

[Vifam7]

I don't know if it has been brought up before if it has please close but when they design valks in the context of the show why do they design them? Like if it for pilot safety which is why many newer ones have the pilot sit in the back of the battroid? Why do they design more complex transformation? Is there a purpose or are the designer just want to show off how complex they can make them. If you guys designed one how would u do it? Mind you this is in the context of the show like when General Galaxy or L.A.I. designs them.

Well, like real life combat aircraft, the design will be dictated by what the user wants in order to accomplish its missions and what the maker feels is the best design for such requirements. And ofcourse politics and economics.

[Mr March]

kanedaestes

Hmmm, interesting. I wonder, would the VF-1 transformation be considered more or less efficient? More or less simple? I think I wrote about it a while back for fun, but it was like fan fiction and not really all that conclusive. Not sure if it was here or another website.

I would think the legs are the big ineffcient thing in the VF-1. Looking at the other transformation systems, they don't have those big piston plates on the VF-1 that lift the legs off the fuselage and onto the nose. Part swapping!

Another thing that just struck me; perhaps newer transformation systems allow transformation at higher speeds in the atmosphere?

Edited October 8, 2008 by Mr March

[kanedaestes]

One thing i have noticed is the placement of battroid heads now. i guess they figured that it is more effecient to have the head already on top of the valks because every major valk in use after the VF-1 from the 4 to the 25 has the head all ready on the top. Really as i was watching frontier and seeing the transformations is when i thought of all this thinking is all that nose folding necessary? And why do they not fold the wings to help prevent damage when in battroid? having them just stick out on the back or on the side of the legs has to be asking for more damage to them. I do like how the vf-27 and yf-21 have their overall thrusters on the main body of the valk instead of being the legs on the battroid so that if the leg is damaged they aren't just sitting ducks.

[hobbes221]

Since we're on the subject, I've always wanted to know what exactly makes a transformation system more or less complex in the eyes of a Macross fan? I often see fans talk of the Valkyrie transformations as supposedly "more complex" than the old VF-1. Now granted, most fans (especially old Macross fans) have a strong idealized nostalgia for the VF-1, so it's probably natural that they will always compare what comes after to the original. But I guess another benchmark would be the less detailed design or the shape looks simpler, like the VF-1 line art or the VF-19 line art? Fewer lines means more efficient?

For me the most complex problem of the VF-1 was that of the engine nacelles and how they had to be moved to the nose of the VF, that always seemed to be a weak point to me, so I tend to look at that first off. And the second thing for me in the design is how the wings are stored in battroid mode. I have never liked the VF-19s all that much because of the wings but did like the rest of the transformation design. I think that the VF-25 is just about perfect in it's design, they didn't try to tuck the wings into stupid places. IMO the SV-51 has the worst design in that respect with two fold points in the wing, that would have added a fair amount of weight, not helpful as they were using turbofans still. I liked the idea of the VF-0/1's capability to keep the wings deployed in order to carry stores in all modes, (the SV-51 could do it to, right?) something I feel that the -25 should be able to do as well, if we ever get to see it.

I never really have felt that one design was far more complex than another, they all have their good and bad points. And looking at each new design it's easy to see why things were done in the way that they were ( at least for the most part) as compared to some mech designs that seem to be tossed together out of a spare parts bin. I guess I like the fact that Kawamori learns from each new design and will try new things with the next, even if I don't like all of them.

[RichterX]

When I saw the way the wing of the VF-25 folded on its back it made me wonder if Kawamori tested that concept with the design of the Masterpiece Starscream as the wings can be folded in the same manner.

[Zinjo]

*keeping in mind that the real reason is because different transformation systems are more interesting for Kawamori to design*

In-universe, the VF-25 Messiah is an easy one; so the Valkyrie could transform with a Full Armor system.

As for the other Valkyries, I doubt the transformation has anything to do with pilot safety. I don't think the pilot in a VF-1 Battroid was any less protected than the pilot of a YF-19 Battroid, especially considering it's all Energy Converting Armor. The reason for different transformation systems could be to simply accomodate an efficient transformation for a given air frame. I would think that variable fighters are designed with a priority on the fighter, meaning the Battroid is built to suit the Fighter, not the Fighter built to suit the Battroid. In order to transform a differently shaped fighter they need to invent a different transformation system.

It also possible that variable fighter engineers are constantly looking for ways to reduce the size and weight of the transformation machinery. Better to have a few dozen small and light transformation mechanisms than to have a half dozen large and heavy transformation mechanisms. Saves weight, saves space, saves power = more efficient. If two smaller and lighter mechanisms can achieve the same job as one big mechanism for less combined weight, space and power, why not go with it?

Since we're on the subject, I've always wanted to know what exactly makes a transformation system more or less complex in the eyes of a Macross fan? I often see fans talk of the Valkyrie transformations as supposedly "more complex" than the old VF-1. Now granted, most fans (especially old Macross fans) have a strong idealized nostalgia for the VF-1, so it's probably natural that they will always compare what comes after to the original. But I guess another benchmark would be the less detailed design or the shape looks simpler, like the VF-1 line art or the VF-19 line art? Fewer lines means more efficient?

Digressing, I would guess that the different transformation systems are created to make transformation possible for different airframes and to make the process faster. If it's more complex, so be it, but speed would be a key consideration. Other factors might include reliability, durability, weight, redundancy, power, simplicity, cost, etc.

The VF-1 probably had the most inefficient transformation system AFTER the VF-9!

The VF-1 required the engines to separate from the fuselage to complete the transformation process. Eventhough it was momentary, it was an incredible vulnerability that could easily be exploited by a crafty enemy. Even the Zero used swing bars...

[Kronnang Dunn]

I believe it has to do with enhancing their maneuverability, usefullness, speed, autonomy, resistance, safety, etc. etc....

[hobbes221]

The VF-1 required the engines to separate from the fuselage to complete the transformation process. Eventhough it was momentary, it was an incredible vulnerability that could easily be exploited by a crafty enemy. Even the Zero used swing bars...

Looking back at that at least it may have helped in making repairs, have a damaged engine or whatnot in a nacelle, just pull the whole nacelle and replace with a new one.

[bullet101]

I dunno, i certainly think the protection factor could be a big cause for the change in transformation styles. Even with the energy converting armour, a bullet/knife/missile etc would still have to penetrate alot more in the VF-19 and VF-25 than say the earlier VF-1 and VF-11 to get to the pilot.

The VF-1 and 11 only have a shield over the canopy plus, given its location in battroid mode, its right in the front in the 'kill zone' area, where most people would aim for and is also the largest area/target on the valk.

With transformations like on the VF-19 and 25, the cockpit retracts into the rear of the battroid form, not only in a more slender fashion, therefore a harder target to hit, but also with more armour and other things like a wheel well etc to get through before you hit the pilot.

[hobbes221]

The VF-1 and 11 only have a shield over the canopy plus, given its location in battroid mode, its right in the front in the 'kill zone' area, where most people would aim for and is also the largest area/target on the valk.

I never had thought of that to be much of a problem, I mean that the shield is most likely high grade armor in it's own right and along with the ECA system I feel that it would do just fine against most threats, but you have good points for getting the crew away from the front of the body.

[Duke Togo]

"Because its anime"

I mean, really, do you think Kawamori gives this any more thought than, "I need to do something new"?

[Zinjo]

"Because its anime"

I mean, really, do you think Kawamori gives this any more thought than, "I need to do something new"?

It's more like "the Sponsors EXPECT a new mecha design for merchandizing..."

[Sumdumgai]

For head location, I view it as being that the designers realized "hey if we mount an anti-aircraft laser on the top back of the valkyrie, they can shoot down enemies that come from behind. Plus if we stick the head on the top we can simplify the steps in the transformation."

To me all the valks are complicated. To say that the valks that came after the VF-1 are more complicated doesn't really seem that way to me. For me, it's that we're so used to the VF-1 that the transformations of the others seem more complicated (some of us have had a decade of the VF-1 before we were introduced to the VF-11, YF-19, and YF-21).

[d3v]

IRL, the frontal position of the cockpit in the VF-1 was probably something of a Gundam influence as most real robot mecha for the longest time had their cockpits, or at the very least, the hatches fot their cockpits, in that area.

In universe, well if your monitors fail, you can always open up the shields to see up front.

Edited October 9, 2008 by d3v

[sketchley]

If you guys designed one how would u do it?

Like this: http://studiootaking.deviantart.com/art/VF-5-62767743

Transformation: http://studiootaking.deviantart.com/art/VF...mation-62766890

Random notes: this was designed for a mini-VF-5 design competition in Macross World. It was designed the way it was because of the Compendium's description of the VF-5: http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf5/index.html

(Namely: Mission inspiration: Northrop F-5E Tiger II & Specification inspiration: Convair XF2Y Sea Dart + LANDING GEAR: Sea-landing capability to accomodate planets with water over most of their surface.)

Extrapolating from that design process, I'd say that Kawamori Shouji picks a base real-world fighter, assigns a mission role and then starts figuring out the basic what-battroid-part-goes-where-in-fighter-mode. Then it's all finessing the design to look cool.

[d3v]

SK simply picks from what parts he has available in his Lego bin.

[anime52k8]

The VF-1 probably had the most inefficient transformation system AFTER the VF-9!

The VF-1 required the engines to separate from the fuselage to complete the transformation process. Eventhough it was momentary, it was an incredible vulnerability that could easily be exploited by a crafty enemy. Even the Zero used swing bars...

well technically the VF-1's legs are never actually detached from the mech. the part that connects the the top of the leg to under the chest plate swings the legs down at which point the legs connect to the nose cone. once the legs connect to the nose, the other part retracts. so it's always connected

[azrael]

I'll leave out the production reasons for VF designs. It's usually merchandising, need to be creative, or something involving LEGOs.

As for in-universe stuff, the VF-0, VF-9, VF-22, VF-5000, VF-3000 also had the frontal cockpit. So it's not just the VF-1 or the VF-11.

The VF-1's leg design is somewhat dangerous. The fact that the leg can separate from the fighter is somewhat hazardous. True, as the hydraulic is passing the leg to the hip joint, it is always connected. But if the hip joint fails to connect, there's a problem. If the hydraulic connector releases the leg too early, there goes your leg/engine.

[Morpheus]

The most dangerous thing is when the valk transformation is jammed midway due to mechanical error (battle damages etc), that horror is shown in Mac:2 when a valk jammed midway during transformation and a power armor rip it apart afterward.

Alto must be lucky in epi.7 since he still managed to transform his crippled VF-25 to gerwalk despite the damage.

[anime52k8]

The most dangerous thing is when the valk transformation is jammed midway due to mechanical error (battle damages etc), that horror is shown in Mac:2 when a valk jammed midway during transformation and a power armor rip it apart afterward.

Alto must be lucky in epi.7 since he still managed to transform his crippled VF-25 to gerwalk despite the damage.

thus proving that HFH designs are superior to MacII mecha designs.

edit: isn't he able to transform the thing with a missing leg? and lets not forget in SDF:M when Hikaru goes to rescue Misa at the grand cannon, after losing both arms on his VF-1, he transforms to fighter mode, re-enters earths atmosphere then transforms to Gerwalk mode.

Edited October 9, 2008 by anime52k8

[badboy00z]

The pilot of the VF-22 seems very vulnerable in battroid mode. There's barely any heat shield.

[Mr March]

Regarding vulnerability and armor...

Why would we assume the heat shield is the most vulnerable part of the VF-1 Valkyrie (or any Valkyrie that features one)? It's a "shield"; it's likely the most heavily armored part of a Valkyrie, with the possible exception of the anti-projectile shield. Which makes sense because, as azrael has noted, the cockpit sits right in the center of the Battroid on many Valkyries.

That's if armor thickness even matters in a Valkyrie, which I still maintain does not. Maybe I'm way out in left field here, but it seems some are labouring under the idea that thick armor is a primary consideration on a Valkyrie. As I understand it, all that matters when using Energy Converting Armor is "energy". Need stronger armor? Use more power. The Valkyries aren't 60-80 tons tanks; they are VERY light weight vehicles; the majority weigh 8-12 tons, typically less than a modern jet fighter. That's why ECA is such a brilliant solution to the need for a light weight super strong mecha.

I suppose if a projectile or energy beam had to penetrate more than just the armor to harm the pilot (as is the case for the YF-19 or VF-25 Battroid) there might be some small incrementally improved amount of protection. But let's be honest, once the armored skin is breached, the unarmored machinery inside is going to yield like butter against any anti-mecha weapon. Maybe the "space metal" frame will offer more resistance, but I don't really see the "benefit". Once the valkyrie is hit (its first and best defense is avoidance) and the armor is penetrated (its final defense), the engineers have really done all they could have possibly done to protect the pilot. It's lights out after that

Going back to heat shields for a moment, aren't most of them actually an additional layer? Looking at the VF-1 in particular, half the cockpit is actually covered by the fuselage. It is a similar case for the VF-0 Phoenix, VF-3000 Crusader and VF-5000 Star Mirage. So right there, the heat shield is actually a second layer over the cockpit. And the smaller the heat shield, the more armored hull protect the pilot, as is the case in the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II. This is of course assuming that the heat "shield" is actually weaker than armored hull, which as I stated above doesn't make any sense anyway

Regarding transformation...

Yes, those piston plates for moving the VF-1's legs look really nasty. The whole leg system in the VF-1 is pretty damned inefficient. Just look at all the space those transfer mechanisms take up in the fuselage and imagine how much they have to weigh in order to move around the engines/legs, the heaviest parts of the variable fighter. From an in-universe context, I can see why the engineers wanted to come up with something better.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Mr March

[Knight26]

Something else to consider in valkyrie design is sensors. Now I realize that in battroid mode the head contains the sensors, radar, EO/IR etc... but those units, especially the radar are probably no where near as powerful as the nose radar. Now look at your valks, only has its nose radar pointing forward in battroid mode, the YF/VF-19, all the others have it pointed down, or in the case of the SV-51 and the VF-25/27 back up into the fighter. To me this seems like a bad idea, now I realize that Battroids are primarily meant for close in combat so that radar is not as important, but still, doesn't it make sense not to just toss away your most power sensor when in battroid mode?

[sketchley]

VF-1's, and presumably all the others, have a radar array in the head unit. Sure, it's not as large and probably not as powerful as the one in the nose cone, but hey, it's not like the VF-1's battroid mode was designed expressly for firing ordinance at distant ranges.

[hobbes221]

On the topic of radars, with today's Active Electronically Scanned Array systems and allowing for the advances by Frontier's time frame I don't think it to be unreasonable that a VF might have three small arrays in the nose with two mounted on the horizontal axis facing to the left and right giving a very wide sweep angel. And if the two arrays were mounted at a slight down angel that increase the tracking area below the line of flight. Combine that with a third array mounted atop the first two giving the ability to track targets well into the vertical and you would have a radar with something close to full a hemisphere of coverage even at extreme close range. If this was the case then the top array would be in position to scan ahead of the VF while in battroid mode.

Well that my theory anyways, got the idea from hearing about how the F-22s were designed to have room in the forward fuselage for side looking radar arrays, but nothing has come of it yet.

Edited October 9, 2008 by hobbes221

[taksraven]

well technically the VF-1's legs are never actually detached from the mech. the part that connects the the top of the leg to under the chest plate swings the legs down at which point the legs connect to the nose cone. once the legs connect to the nose, the other part retracts. so it's always connected

This is one of the reasons why I like Macross much more than shows like transformers. The fact that they bothered to create a transformation system that at least looked like it could work, rather than the transformers transformation process which always looked like some sort of magic was involved. And the live-action TF film did nothing to improve it.

Taksraven

[Mr March]

This is one of the reasons why I like Macross much more than shows like transformers. The fact that they bothered to create a transformation system that at least looked like it could work, rather than the transformers transformation process which always looked like some sort of magic was involved. And the live-action TF film did nothing to improve it.

Taksraven

Hear, hear Taksraven!. I adore the grounded, this-could-work mechanical design of Kawamori's Valkyries. The magic comes from how real the mechanical designs feel; everything moves/turns/opens/flips like it would need to were transforming fighter jets a reality. Love Kawamori's work.

[SchizophrenicMC]

You know, it should be noted that every, single VF has the nose radar facing down. The VF-19 is a possible exclusion, but even the 25 and 27's noses point down in Battroid mode.

The whole leg mechanism of the VF-1 relies on perfect timing. If it's not timed within milliseconds of the exact optimum, it could end in the loss of: A leg, an engine, the landing gear on that side, the entire plane. I think the VF-1 should be considered to be less complex than the others; it was designed first, both in real-life and in-universe. Even the VF-0 was designed later in Macross Universe. It's the same for the F-4 versus the F-14. The latter was designed after the former, and had more technological advances, as well as more complexity.

As for the whole "Pilot Safety" thing, think about it: The VF-1 had a heatshield. Yes, it was ECA. However, the VF-25, for example, has the bottom of the nose section, the nose cone (Which should be considered to be 2 pieces, due to the fact that it's round), and the frame of the plane, made of space metal, which is a form of alloy, resistant to damage, apparently. This is much better than just a heatshield and your head being protected by part of the fuselage. All that said, I'd say if you have a weapon capable of getting through ECA, it won't matter much. Something powerful enough to get through one layer would be strong enough to get through 3.

Valkyries: It all comes from somewhere.

Transformers: Where. The Hell. Did that. Come from?

This is why I like Kawamori, he's at least somewhat realistic. You know, as realistic as transforming giant robot planes go... Hell, a VF would probably be the mech to make it in real life, since it's so versatile.

Damage, Transformation, and You: Well, there's not much to say except, for one, the variable nature of VFs simply increases its ability to absorb pressure damage from an explosion shockwave: Look at Kakizaki's valkyrie. It began to basically fold up into a GERWALK when the OD Barrier overloaded. This is an example of that power. However, it also makes it easier to cripple. Battroids are slower, larger targets than Fighters. If you destroy part of a Valk, it won't be there if it transforms. If you bend something, transforming could rip said component apart. If your entire transformation system jams for whatever reason, the whole thing could be lost as it rips itself apart. The benefits must outweigh the risks, though, because we've only seen a few do this, despite the thousands of Cannon-Fodders not taking any damage like this. There are thousands, yet none of them faces this. Strange, there are only so many ways to destroy a cannon-fodder, yet that never happens.

[Noyhauser]

Regarding transformation...

Yes, those piston plates for moving the VF-1's legs look really nasty. The whole leg system in the VF-1 is pretty damned inefficient. Just look at all the space those transfer mechanisms take up in the fuselage and imagine how much they have to weigh in order to move around the engines/legs, the heaviest parts of the variable fighter. From an in-universe context, I can see why the engineers wanted to come up with something better.

I've always thought the most convincing explanation for the VF-1 was that it was the first Variable fighter designed by UN SPACY against an enemy they only had a vague idea about. They didn't know whether they would have fighter type aircraft or their doctrine, but they knew they were giant aliens... which required a response. As a result, it seems as if Battroid is the main mode for which its designed for, at the expense of aerodynamics in fighter mode. The VF-0 (which required greater efficiency since it had conventional engines) was designed with a clear enemy and role in mind (the Anti-UN.) That meant it had to combat regular and transformational craft. The VF-1's successor, the VF-4 and almost every fighter afterwards returned to a more aerodynamic styling. But the VF-1 was more seen as an armored soldier that could take on a mysterious giant enemy, which could also transform, rather than a balanced variable fighter.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Noyhauser

[Mr March]

So the VF-1 Valkyrie was designed as a Battroid first and the fighter mode was a secondary priority? Hmmm, I suppose it's possible as a way to get around the old aging design of the VF-1 fighter mode and to somehow reconcile the obvious differences between the VF-1 and the VF-0. But it's somewhat anachronistic reasoning and even if we accepted it, why wouldn't the VF-1 have newer style VF-0-like wings? It doesn't quite work, but it is an interesting idea that somewhat attempts to resolve the continuity issue. I never thought about it like that.

[Zinjo]

well technically the VF-1's legs are never actually detached from the mech. the part that connects the the top of the leg to under the chest plate swings the legs down at which point the legs connect to the nose cone. once the legs connect to the nose, the other part retracts. so it's always connected

Fair enough I stand corrected, however I still stand by my assertion that a crafty opponent could easily disable the Valk during that phase of the transformation by simply firing at the hydraulics as the legs drop into place.

When one takes into account the VF-19 and most recently the VF-25 this vulnerability is substantially minimized.

[Zinjo]

I've always thought the most convincing explanation for the VF-1 was that it was the first Variable fighter designed by UN SPACY against an enemy they only had a vague idea about. They didn't know whether they would have fighter type aircraft or their doctrine, but they knew they were giant aliens... which required a response. As a result, it seems as if Battroid is the main mode for which its designed for, at the expense of aerodynamics in fighter mode. The VF-0 (which required greater efficiency since it had conventional engines) was designed with a clear enemy and role in mind (the Anti-UN.) That meant it had to combat regular and transformational craft. The VF-1's successor, the VF-4 and almost every fighter afterwards returned to a more aerodynamic styling. But the VF-1 was more seen as an armored soldier that could take on a mysterious giant enemy, which could also transform, rather than a balanced variable fighter.

Actually the VF-0 was designed as a test bed for the VF-1 systems, not to combat the AUN Army. It was pressed into combat service when the SV-51 was revealed by the AUN.

One could explain the rather plain look of the VF-1 to production concessions. The designers may have wanted to use the better VF-0 wing types, but budgets and the need for a quick production turnover may have prevented several "better" design elements to be included.

They needed transformable fighters and they needed them fast, as an imminent alien threat was expected at anytime. The VF-0 was a corvette, while the VF-1 was a chevelle. One expensive and advanced, while the other was a basic production line vehicle built to do a job in large numbers. The same type of vehicle, just not the same level of tech.