Valk Designs

[badboy00z]

An in-universe reason for the absence of the VF-19 Excalibur hasn't been provided. Production wise, Kawamori stated the VF-19 was too similar to the VF-25 Messiah and was substituted with the much more distinct VF-171 to avoid audience confusion.

The VF-19/22 was for elite forces while the VF-11 were cannon fodder and the VF-17 is between the two. That's what I get from M7. It has also been speculated that the VF-19/22 were too expensive and too advanced for cannon fodder pilots. So the VF-17 makes the obvious choice for the main line fighter.

[ChronoReverse]

New engines are both more powerful and more efficient. The VF-1 has enough power to achieve orbit, but it would expend its fuel before reaching that (this is even using jet power for as long as possible).

As for the VF-17, it was also an elite unit as well as seen in the beginning of M7. It was later superseded by the VF-19 and VF-22 though.

[d3v]

Hmm, talking about fuel I wonder how long a valk could operate without refueling. Now let see:

- DYRL: VF-1T, used by Hikaru and Minmay for joyriding, initially equipped with trainer pack, later was used by Hikaru and Misa to escape to Earth where they spent weeks (probably) without refueling (Trainer pack jettisoned when entering atmosphere).

- M:Plus : YF-19/YF-21, used by their test pilot, fold to Earth, and dogfight all around the Earth until the end of the movie.

- M:Frontier : VF-25 used by Alto to escort Sheryl, folded to Galia IV, used in a brief time for fighting the rogue zentran, escaping Dimension Eater blast, fold back to Frontier, briefly engaged the Vajra drone before landing in Quarter and re-armed (probably re-fuel as well). Super pack jettisoned when entering atmosphere and re-equipped in orbit during trip back to Frontier.

The advance valk (YF-19/21, VF-25) are using much more powerful engine compare to VF-1T so it could be the fuel consumption are larger (or is it more efficient?), but I think they also need to power the fold drive (which is not small IMO).

Well, all of the above examples have the valks spending alot of time in the atmosphere where - thanks to their thermonuclear (fusion) engines - their range is technically unlimited since they can suck in air and don't need to use their own on-board propellant.

[anime52k8]

*Takes an extremely deep breath*

Ok, first off, are you insulting me with the Barrel Roll/Aileron Roll poster? I was quoting Peppy! "Do a Barrel Roll! To do a barrel roll, press 'Z' or 'R' twice!"

no, I knew who you're quoting, and the pic I posted is something I got off /k/ that's regularly posted as a response to said quote. so it's not an insult it's more like responding to one (perceived) joke with another.

Second, who knows how the pedals split?

I think it's pritty clear form the animation how the pedals are set up.

Third, with that comment, you proved my point. The TVC is in the pedals. The flaperons are controlled by the stick. When he cobra'd, he pushed the pedals and pulled the stick, therefore shifting his flaperons and TV nozzles into a position to snap the plane up. You see how the pedals have 2 control axes? One is the Yaw Axis, controlled by how far from the seat the pedals are. Then, the TVC Axis, controlled by the angle on the pedals. It simplifies rookie pilot flight, since they're not stressed by a hyper-maneuverable fighter overwhelming their flight capabilities. This is essential, since so many pilots were lost in the Anti-unification War. However, it retains the ability to be hyper-maneuverable without modification, therefore cheaper.

only partially, the foot pedals do control pitch/role (through TVC only) but they do not as you suggested control pitch/role AND yaw at the same time.

also the pedals are NOT shown to have 2 control axes on shins valk, the foot pedals are on a bar connected to the seat, but that is so the foot pedals move with the seat during transformation. we have no indication that they move out at all in fighter mode. and both foot pedals are linked together, meaning that they can't be pushed forwards or back independently of each other.

Only Roy's 0S is shown to have the pedals capable of moving in and out independent of each other and in that case, they are being used as throttles in batroid mode.

(It's possible that since the S model is meant to be higher performance and used by more experienced pilots, it's only on the S model that manual independent control of thrust from each leg is enabled, on the standard A models, you only have overall thrust control, and the flight computer controls specific thrust for balance.)

from what's shown in the show, the most reasonable conclusion is that TVC maneuvering is controlled through the foot pedals and aerodynamic maneuvering is done through the stick.

also, I don't see how putting yaw AND TVC control both on the foot pedal simplifies anything. the idea that separating the TVC control form the aerodynamic surface controls will be able to limit the maneuverability of the aircraft until absolutely necessary is dubious at best, and it would be much simpler and more practical to simply program limiters into the flight computer (writing a little bit of new coding is a lot easier than essentially reinventing the wheel)

the only real benefit of having TVC separate from aerodynamic control is so that the pilot has greater Fine control over the maneuvering of the aircraft, allowing said pilot to perform maneuvers that wouldn't be possible in a conventional plane.

now this is great for an experienced pilot, but rather than simplifying things for a rookie it would actually have the opposite effect. the rookie pilot is now burdened by multitasking even more because he has to remember to use two sets of controls in unison in order to perform even basic maneuvers effectively, and he won't be benefiting from that fine control because he probably lacks the skill necessary to execute what are probably very complex and taxing maneuvers.

Stealth. It was one of the main purposes of the YF/VF-19. Look at the F-22, our currently most advanced fighter. INTERNAL BAYS. It's a stealth fighter. Missiles mounted outside create a surface for a RaDAR Return Signal. With the design of the F-22, RaDAR Waves are bounced away from the plane that sent them. Adding missiles outside creates that surface, but having them inside adds no area for RaDAR to bounce back, and it reduces drag and weight. An empty space is lighter than one filled with avionics you don't need, since the ones you have are small enough to fit around that space.

Given, there are disadvantages, and it can mount them outside, you get my point, right?

I don't recal it ever being stated that the YF/VF-19's were designed to be passively stealthy. only the YF-21 and VF-17 are designed with passive stealth in mind. also the need for internal weapons bays to maintain stealth is negated by the fact that the YF-21 (and presumably the YF-19) had active stealth systems which can mask any non-stealthy features.

extra stealth may be a side benifit of internal bay's but I still feel that the main reason is to streamline the valk for transformation purposes.

I'm gonna get back to Thrust Vectoring for a moment. It could possibly be that in the shots, the pedals are together in Shin's VF-0A. However, they're separate in Roy's VF-0S. That could have importance later. You can't deny, though, that the pedals have some control over the TVC. You don't yaw when you Cobra. I'll tell you this much.

as I said before, the 0A's foot pedals are permanently connected together by a solid metal bar. they have no way of separating as shown in the animation.

the only conclusion is that A) one of them is an animation error, it should be one or the other, and we won't be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion until this is remedied with HFH approved cockpit diagram/line art. Or B) as I stated earlier in this post, the pedal's can be pushed in and out in batroid mode to control thrust. and on standard valks (like the 0A) the throttles are linked and the pilot only has control over overall thrust, but on the 0S (which is reserved for more experienced pilots only) the throttles are seperated so the pilot can control exactly how much thrust each engine puts out.

[sketchley]

120,000 m? That's pretty damn high, son.

Otherwise, I agree with everything other than the not hitting a low-Earth orbit. Even the compendium doesn't give it a maximum ceiling.

Now, just to be clear - once up there at a low-Earth orbit, the VF-1 can't do much of anything. That's why it needs rocket boosters to reach satellite orbit later in the series.

They couldn't hit orbit. They could reach extremely high atmospheric altitude unasissted, but doing so drains the fuel tanks. In SDFM, I'd assume we're seeing... 120, 150 thousand ASL. That's in the extreme upper atmosphere, and by that point, the valks were probably screaming for fuel.

[edwin3060]

Just to point out that if you have differential thrust control, as on the -0S, you can use it for yaw control in addition to the TVC, which would give you (pseudo-) 3D TVC versus the 2D TVC that most VFs have.

anime52k8--do the foot paddles on the VF-0S work to control thrust in fighter mode as well?

[Killer Robot]

It's important to remember that there's a pretty big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit. Space is traditionally defined as beginning 100km up, though satellites tend to be at least twice that high to lessen friction from the outer atmosphere. The atmosphere actually extends many times that high, but really by that point it's a technicality. So assuming we're talking "space" as in 100-200km, it really doesn't take too much energy to reach altitude, but that's just with a vertical climb, followed by a similarly vertical fall.

Actually reaching orbit takes not just the energy needed to climb but also enough horizontal velocity to circle the Earth in a sustainable fashion without falling back to it, and this is far greater: reaching orbit takes a total velocity change on the order of 8km/s or greater (18,000+mph/Mach 25+). Reaching 100km requires 1.4km/s, by contrast. Both of these disregard atmospheric friction, but a variable fighter will be able to overcome much of this by virtue of being able to escape the thickest parts of the atmosphere with its engines in air ram mode, getting a good amount of altitude and velocity without using any significant amount of fuel: for a Valkyrie, the effective difference between reaching space and reaching orbit would thus be even greater.

As for the VF-171 issue brought up a bit ago: basing the new main-line fighter on the older VF-17 rather than the newer-generation VF-19 seemed a bit strange at first (out of universe explanations about "hero mech" looks aside), but it makes some sense on examination, depending. As I understand the VF-19 was not far superior in space performance to the VF-17: it was however much better in atmosphere and incorporated new technologies like active stealth and the pinpoint barrier system. Certainly it's better all-around and as an elite fighter, but especially if it's expensive, challenging to pilot, or otherwise finicky that muddies the issue of using it to replace the whole force of aging VF-11s. For space fleet defense, atmospheric performance is a secondary concern, and even there the sleeker looks and reduced passive stealth features of the VF-171 look like design revisions to improve on the original VF-17 there. Lighter armor would help to increase space performance as well, with defensive concerns minimized by the new PPB addition. Add other incremental improvements and efficiencies, and you have something more broadly capable than the old Nightmare and less expensive/more managable than the Excalibur: not truly the best of both worlds, but a solid fighter you can comfortably outfit a fleet with. Unless it's been officially said otherwise, I would expect there are a lot of VF-19s and VF-22s in atmospheric defense and special operations units, but for deep space fleet defense and workhorse fighter purposes, I can believe that a revised-and-updated VF-17 would be more attractive than the newer generation.

[d3v]

You mean satellite orbit, right? At the beginning of SDF:M the VF-1 is seen flying up to meet the SDF-1 at a low orbit (but what defines orbit? In this case it was after the blue of the sky fades and the stars are visible.)

The generally accepted boundary between space and the Earth is the Kármán line which is about 100km up in the atmosphere, the US limit before one receives astronaut wings is even lower, at 80km up.

Also, just breaching the Kármán line does not qualify as reaching orbit. Since the Earth's magnetic field goes way beyond the line, an object that simply passes the line vertically will still fall back down once it stops doing whatever it is that is moving it up. Acheiving orbit means moving fast enough forward that you neither fall nor fly out, a state wherein the forces of inertia (or whatever is moving you forward) and gravity are in equilibrium.

One final thing, LEO is defined as orbit at 200 to 2000km and orbital velocity at that altitude is around 24 to 28 thousand km/h.

As for the VF-171 issue brought up a bit ago: basing the new main-line fighter on the older VF-17 rather than the newer-generation VF-19 seemed a bit strange at first (out of universe explanations about "hero mech" looks aside), but it makes some sense on examination, depending. As I understand the VF-19 was not far superior in space performance to the VF-17: it was however much better in atmosphere and incorporated new technologies like active stealth and the pinpoint barrier system. Certainly it's better all-around and as an elite fighter, but especially if it's expensive, challenging to pilot, or otherwise finicky that muddies the issue of using it to replace the whole force of aging VF-11s. For space fleet defense, atmospheric performance is a secondary concern, and even there the sleeker looks and reduced passive stealth features of the VF-171 look like design revisions to improve on the original VF-17 there. Lighter armor would help to increase space performance as well, with defensive concerns minimized by the new PPB addition. Add other incremental improvements and efficiencies, and you have something more broadly capable than the old Nightmare and less expensive/more managable than the Excalibur: not truly the best of both worlds, but a solid fighter you can comfortably outfit a fleet with. Unless it's been officially said otherwise, I would expect there are a lot of VF-19s and VF-22s in atmospheric defense and special operations units, but for deep space fleet defense and workhorse fighter purposes, I can believe that a revised-and-updated VF-17 would be more attractive than the newer generation.

One thing I've been wondering about on the VF-171 issue is whether or not all fleets carry the same craft or if the greater degree of autonomy and differentiation between fleets circa 2059 (wasn't it mentioned somewhere that the Galaxy fleet is armed mostly with V-9's, VF-14s and VF-27s?) means that not all fleets have the VF-171 as the mainline fighter and if maybe, some older fleets may have the VF-19 and/or VF-22.

Edited November 12, 2008 by d3v

[ChronoReverse]

Incidentally, the head tracking tech I was mentioning already exists in real life.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I can't reply to all of this, so only important things.

My dad has a TrackIR. I believe I mentioned it earlier.

I meant 120,000 FEET ASL. Not meters. I'm an American, and so accept the Imperial Standard Measurement system.

I don't recall reading/hearing that the VF-1's engines can use air as fuel... Where'd you get that idea?

It's the same as the F-4 and the F-14. Though the latter has bigger engines, it is slightly more fuel efficient, due to advances in the technology.

Can we get off the pedals? It's obvious that they control the TVC, but we don't have a good explanation as to how.

Orbit is as soon you're in the air, if you wanna get technical. The Magnetosphere ends way after anything we've got orbitting, currently. If it wasn't, anything above it would be screwed due to solar radiation. 100 Miles (Roughly 160 km) is accepted widely as the average ASL altitude for being in space. The US is no exception.

The VF-17's much cheaper than the VF-19, anyway. The VF-171, being an upgrade (As well as a downgrade, in certain areas) is still cheaper than the VF-19. Even then, the 171's only based on the 17's design.

Having outboard missiles still messes with Active Stealth. Also, there's drag, which is something the YF-19 needed to eliminate, since it was also pushed to be faster.

It was just a joke? I can't let you do that, Star Fox!

Remember, kids, there are no barrel rolls in Star Fox!

[ChronoReverse]

I don't recall reading/hearing that the VF-1's engines can use air as fuel... Where'd you get that idea?

Unless you mean proprellent, the VF-1 doesn't. Entries for other valkyries indicate the use of air as propellent and there's no reason to believe this isn't the case for the VF-1. This is further corroborated by Hikaru and Misa's long trip on Earth.

Orbit is as soon you're in the air, if you wanna get technical. The Magnetosphere ends way after anything we've got orbitting, currently. If it wasn't, anything above it would be screwed due to solar radiation. 100 Miles (Roughly 160 km) is accepted widely as the average ASL altitude for being in space. The US is no exception.

An orbit by definition involves revolving around the planet. A (relatively) stable orbit would mean an orbit that wouldn't require constant corrections. Neither definition would be satisfied by simply climbing to the point where space begins (by definition)

The VF-17's much cheaper than the VF-19, anyway.

We have no proof that it's _much_ cheaper. The VF-17 was a heavy battroid using passive stealth materials. So it required more material and more expensive material than the VF-19. The VF-19 in turn had more features like the PPB which would have driven the cost up. The engines were actually similarly rated at one point so that's fairly moot.

However, most of the "innovations" of the VF-19 actually made it into the ostensibly (and logically) cheaper VF-171...

Edited November 12, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Killer Robot]

I don't recall reading/hearing that the VF-1's engines can use air as fuel... Where'd you get that idea?

Not as fuel, but as propellant: In atmosphere, the thermonuclear engines on the VF-1 and all subsequent variable fighters operate in an air-ram mode where air from the engine intakes is superheated by the nuclear powerplant to expand it and generate thrust, consuming only the relatively tiny amount of whatever fuel(hydrogen?) the reactor uses. In space, the jet intakes are covered and it functions as a nuclear-powered rocket: the engines operate in the same way, but instead of using air they heat propellant(which could be anything in theory, it just needs to have mass) from an onboard tank, and this is limited. A qualifier to note is that vernier thrusters require propellant even in atmosphere, but IIRC the only VF designs that require vernier use in fighter mode are designed primarily as space fighters anyway.

Macross Compendium VF-1 article

Orbit is as soon you're in the air, if you wanna get technical. The Magnetosphere ends way after anything we've got orbitting, currently. If it wasn't, anything above it would be screwed due to solar radiation. 100 Miles (Roughly 160 km) is accepted widely as the average ASL altitude for being in space. The US is no exception.

Orbital flight requires making a complete orbit around the planet/larger body. A flight that reaches space but doesn't go all the way around the Earth, like that of a spaceplane or ICBM, is described as suborbital regardless of altitude.

The boundary of space is typically defined as 100km, not 100 miles: this is specifically the definition used by the FAI to distinguish between aeronautic and astronautic activities, but is used less formally to generally distingush where space begins. Important, since the atmosphere goes up some 10,000km, far above Low Earth Orbit - it just gets progessively thinner. Past roughly 100km, aerodynamic flight no longer possible so for purposes of flight you're out of the atmosphere, though orbits very close to that boundary still have enough atmospheric friction that they decay rapidly. In the US, you get gold astronaut's pins if you go higher than 50 miles, or 80 kilometers.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Well, you say so. I sometimes have a faulty memory when it comes to some things. For example, it was only thanks to a video game's release that I remembered my girlfriend's birthday. Since I'm no liar, I told her. I was severely beaten, only moments later. 0_0

I remember reading that 100 miles (160km) is considered the baseline for space. Have I been reading old material? Yes... I think they changed it since 1984... *whistles innocently*

And I'm going for the technical English definition. I never said "Orbital flight", per se. I only said orbit. An AC-130 orbits its target during an attack run. A tetherball orbits its pole. A fanblade orbits the mounting point. I'm very technical, you see.

Also, I never said it was making an orbital flight. I never said it would make a full orbit. If you're in the air, you're in orbit. Will you complete said orbit? Probably not.

Edited November 13, 2008 by SchizophrenicMC

[ChronoReverse]

Seems like a lot of fast talk to me =P

If that's really what you meant, then any valkyrie that's hovering is also in orbit (due to the earth's rotation). Man, even I'm orbiting right now. Just at zero altitude.

Edited November 13, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[d3v]

We're discussing spacecraft here, so we better be clear with our terms. Now orbit, when discussed with spacecraft, usually refers to orbital flight and the ability to reach that being the planes ability to reach orbital velocity (I mean, we don't say that the X-15 or Burt Rutan's Space Ship One is capable of orbit now do we). Now we know that the VF-1's top speed is around Mach 4 at higher altitudes and we've seen it need to use a booster to properly get up to an orbiting Nupetietz-Verginitz class ship, so we can be pretty sure that it cannot achieve orbital velocity. However, seeing as it was able to climb up along with the SDF-1, we know that it at least has the capability to breach the Karman Line, the only thing possibly keeping it from going any further is the fact that it'll have to switch to on-board propellant stores.

[sketchley]

The majority of the world isn't, and the majority of the world (including a number of companies from the USA) use metric. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system (or inverse: http://buzzfeed.com/scott/countries-that-dont-use-metric )

Next time, use an SI.

I meant 120,000 FEET ASL. Not meters. I'm an American, and so accept the Imperial Standard Measurement system.

(...)

[David Hingtgen]

Aviation is measured in English by international law/standards. That's why a German pilot flying a French plane in Italy, reports his altitude as 35,000ft, and flying 400 miles per hour.

Unless you used to be part of the USSR, and you carry around a bunch of conversion charts and have the occasional mid-air collision because of it...

[anime52k8]

Just to point out that if you have differential thrust control, as on the -0S, you can use it for yaw control in addition to the TVC, which would give you (pseudo-) 3D TVC versus the 2D TVC that most VFs have.

anime52k8--do the foot paddles on the VF-0S work to control thrust in fighter mode as well?

as far as one can tell form the animation, no. in fighter mode, thrust is controlled by the throttle (on the pilots left). the foot pedals don't apear to move in fighter mode, and the main reason they function as throttles in batroid mode is because the conventional throttle probably changes function after transformation

And I'm going for the technical English definition. I never said "Orbital flight", per se. I only said orbit. An AC-130 orbits its target during an attack run. A tetherball orbits its pole. A fanblade orbits the mounting point. I'm very technical, you see.

the English language definition of orbit is to circle around something. so just being in the air still doesn't put the plane "in orbit" by your choice of definition, because the plane isn't revolving around anything.

and since were talking about aerospace vehicles here, we're clearly going to be talking about planetary orbit. planetary orbit is defined as revolving around a planetary body with sufficient velocity such that the vehicle in question falls around the planetary body, rather than into it.

also reaching planetary orbit requires an acceleration of between 8km/s and 14km/s. Any slower and you'll eventually drop back down to earth, any faster and you'll actually escape earths gravity entirely and you'll fly away into space.

[d3v]

Aviation is measured in English by international law/standards. That's why a German pilot flying a French plane in Italy, reports his altitude as 35,000ft, and flying 400 miles per hour.

Unless you used to be part of the USSR, and you carry around a bunch of conversion charts and have the occasional mid-air collision because of it...

But we're talking about the FAI defined limit of space (the Karman line) which is officially stated to be at 100km from the Earths surface.

Also, altitude in metric is used when calculating oirbital velocity from a certain altitude.

also reaching planetary orbit requires an acceleration of between 8km/s and 14km/s. Any slower and you'll eventually drop back down to earth, any faster and you'll actually escape earths gravity entirely and you'll fly away into space.

LEO at 200 to 2000km up is at 6.9 to 7.8 km/s and the speed goes lower the higher you go.

Edited November 13, 2008 by d3v

[ChronoReverse]

In any case, they're just units so can we just label the units and be done with it?

[Killer Robot]

LEO at 200 to 2000km up is at 6.9 to 7.8 km/s and the speed goes lower the higher you go.

Not exactly the same number. Velocity of an orbiting object gets lower with increasing altitude, but when launching a spacecraft or switching from one orbit to another the operative figure is delta-v, how much change in velocity you can apply. Much of that velocity is lost into gravitational potential energy - the pull of gravity slowing an object as it ascends. Objects in higher orbits are moving more slowly, but it took more change in velocity to get them there from the surface.

Orbit is sort of a state of moving horizontally just fast enough that the horizon of the Earth drops off just as fast as gravity pulls you down toward it, so that it becomes a fall where you keep the same average speed and the same average distance from Earth. Too little and you fall: too much and you keep going forever. The further you are from Earth's center of gravity, the less horizontal velocity you need, but the velocity change you need to launch that high in the first place is even greater: otherwise it would be easier to launch something to the moon than it is to LEO.

[taksraven]

It's important to remember that there's a pretty big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit. Space is traditionally defined as beginning 100km up, though satellites tend to be at least twice that high to lessen friction from the outer atmosphere. The atmosphere actually extends many times that high, but really by that point it's a technicality. So assuming we're talking "space" as in 100-200km, it really doesn't take too much energy to reach altitude, but that's just with a vertical climb, followed by a similarly vertical fall.

I liked the really dumb bit at the end of the live action TF movie where Starscream seemed to be going through the re-entry burn up as he launched and LEFT the Earth's atmosphere.

Dumb stuff.

Taksraven

[d3v]

Not exactly the same number. Velocity of an orbiting object gets lower with increasing altitude, but when launching a spacecraft or switching from one orbit to another the operative figure is delta-v, how much change in velocity you can apply. Much of that velocity is lost into gravitational potential energy - the pull of gravity slowing an object as it ascends. Objects in higher orbits are moving more slowly, but it took more change in velocity to get them there from the surface.

I'm just actually quoting numbers from a few sources, including Wikipedia. I'm not really familiar with the specific maths invloved.

[badboy00z]

I think the term we should be using is escape velocity. The minimum speed in which an object needs to break free from the gravitational force without it falling back to Earth. That happens to be about Mach 34 for Earth.

Edited November 13, 2008 by badboy00z

[daflip702]

I think the term we should be using is escape velocity. The minimum speed in which an object needs to break free from the gravitational force without it falling back to Earth. That happens to be about Mach 34 for Earth.

Mach 34? Human Pancakes....or should i say Human Pineapple Pancakes

[sketchley]

Great. Not only do you insult us fluent native speakers of English who don't use archaic imperial with your poorly worded post, you also missed my point entirely.

The point: no system of measurement = easy misunderstanding. (Is the -40 that was posted m? ft? cm? Kg? oz? F? stone? football fields? Ri? The name of a rock band???)

Aviation is measured in English by international law/standards. That's why a German pilot flying a French plane in Italy, reports his altitude as 35,000ft, and flying 400 miles per hour.

Unless you used to be part of the USSR, and you carry around a bunch of conversion charts and have the occasional mid-air collision because of it...

Edited November 13, 2008 by sketchley

[ChronoReverse]

Mach 34? Human Pancakes....or should i say Human Pineapple Pancakes

Speed doesn't do that. Acceleration does.

In any case, we're looking at this completely wrong. Escape velocity is the speed needed to escape without any further thrust. Since we're not talking about guns and slingshots, it's possible to escape at even a snail's pace; it would just take tremendous amounts of energy in thrust.

[d3v]

I think the term we should be using is escape velocity. The minimum speed in which an object needs to break free from the gravitational force without it falling back to Earth. That happens to be about Mach 34 for Earth.

Technically, the surface escape velocity (Mach 34) is simply the speed an object needs to leave the planet if it is simply projected from the surface without additional kinetic input. The higher up you go, the the local escape velocity becomes lower - in fact, most spacecraft don't actually reach Mach 34 directly from the surface but rely on the lower local escape velocity at higher altitudes. With Macross where Overtech allows for almost infinite kinetic input (not restricted by conventional fuels), ships and planes can simply just keep moving up until they reach a point where the local escape velocity is almost zero.

Short version, what ChronoReverse said.

Edited November 13, 2008 by d3v

[azrael]

Just to chime in about the VF-19->VF-171. I don't think UN Spacy actually replaced the VF-11 as their main fighter. The Compendium notes that the UN Air Force was the primary consumer of the VF-19. UNS certainly bought a few, but it doesn't clearly state that the VF-19 actually became their (UNS) main-line fighter. The description for the YF-19 even says this:

YF-19 announced by UNAF as winning design 2041.

If anything, I think UNS went from VF-11->VF-171 for their main VF, not VF-11->VF-19->VF171.

[daflip702]

Speed doesn't do that. Acceleration does.

Chrono,why so serious?

Edited November 13, 2008 by daflip702

[ChronoReverse]

Just to chime in about the VF-19->VF-171. I don't think UN Spacy actually replaced the VF-11 as their main fighter. The Compendium notes that the UN Air Force was the primary consumer of the VF-19. UNS certainly bought a few, but it doesn't clearly state that the VF-19 actually became their (UNS) main-line fighter. The description for the YF-19 even says this:

If anything, I think UNS went from VF-11->VF-171 for their main VF, not VF-11->VF-19->VF171.

That actually makes some sense as the VF-19 in its original design had extreme atmospheric performance increases but only marginal increases in space.

@daflip702

Mecha tech is Serious Businesss

[Zinjo]

Just to chime in about the VF-19->VF-171. I don't think UN Spacy actually replaced the VF-11 as their main fighter. The Compendium notes that the UN Air Force was the primary consumer of the VF-19. UNS certainly bought a few, but it doesn't clearly state that the VF-19 actually became their (UNS) main-line fighter. The description for the YF-19 even says this:

If anything, I think UNS went from VF-11->VF-171 for their main VF, not VF-11->VF-19->VF171.

Good point.

Keep in mind that UNSpacy has an Airforce, Marines, and a Stellar Navy. So it is conceivable that Kawamori really hadn't considered that the VF-19 could be the mainline fighter for the UNAF and only a SOC fighter for the stellar navy, when explaining why (in universe) it didn't appear in Mac F.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Zinjo

[Mr March]

Just to chime in about the VF-19->VF-171. I don't think UN Spacy actually replaced the VF-11 as their main fighter. The Compendium notes that the UN Air Force was the primary consumer of the VF-19. UNS certainly bought a few, but it doesn't clearly state that the VF-19 actually became their (UNS) main-line fighter. The description for the YF-19 even says this:

If anything, I think UNS went from VF-11->VF-171 for their main VF, not VF-11->VF-19->VF171.

Good catch azrael. I'll have to make note of that and I think correct my site.

This discussion actually focuses upon an interesting need: we should build a chart (modifiable, of course) that visually tracks the progression of the variaous variable fighter through the various UN Forces branches (UNAF (U.N. Air Force), UNN (U.N. Navy), UNS (U.N. Spacy), UNSAF (U.N. Spacy Air Force) and the UNSM (U.N. Spacy Marines).

It would be quite useful.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Mr March

[Aurelin Hawk]

Definitely. I think we may see a pattern of assigned fighter types to specific branches of the Unity forces.

[sketchley]

Wasn't it that way from the very beginning? Ie all VFs after the VF-1.