Valk Designs

[Kelsain]

We do see Alto putting it on his leg when he stabbed Temjin. Problem was he had to actively place it there, rather than keeping it in the fighter mount. I did think the arm mount always looked cool, though. The shoulder strap was kinda dumb, IMHO.

Mark brings up something interesting by extension... did you guys notice the 171EX's rifle DOES stay mounted to its arm? It just flips around for battroid use.

[azrael]

Mark brings up something interesting by extension... did you guys notice the 171EX's rifle DOES stay mounted to its arm? It just flips around for battroid use.

Yes. It's probably too tall or wide to mount below the fighter, so having it on the arm block is probably as good-a-place to put it.

[badboy00z]

The gunpod of the VF-25 has been shown to be stored on the leg in battroid.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I don't like the YF-21/VF-22, since it's got skinny, little legs. Not good enough for me. I like the solid design of all the others.

Super is not an acronym. It's just a word. FAST is, though.

Anyway, given, the Lucifer is a God Mech. (Pun intended.) However, it still shouldn't be too much better than the 25...

Starscream was like a VF-1 with an F-15's body.

I see what you mean about the Battroid thing, but about the airflow excuse: TNR engines don't need air. They're non-combustion engines.

Didn't Kakizaki say something about a fuel leak, and then say, "No, I can still fly, boss," to Hikaru? He then pulled the squadron back to the macross and Hikaru was shot down shortly later, much to Misa's chagrin... But why the nosecone? Fuel doesn't flow there unless you're in Battroid mode.

[anime52k8]

Yes. It's probably too tall or wide to mount below the fighter, so having it on the arm block is probably as good-a-place to put it.

the gunpod looks identical to the one the VF-17 used, I wonder why it isn't stored in the legs on the 171. not enough room now?

and as for putting the gun on the arm the problem with having the gun there is that it's probably a little difficult for the gun to get from the right arm facing backwards to in the right hand.

on the leg it's easier to draw and put away.

[daflip702]

Macross universe. Protoculture. Energy Converting Armor. At least do the basic research before calling people names and using terms like "kiddies".

Lmao hahaha....you're killing me chrono. I'm not even trying. Do me a favor and ask your mom what's the meaning of swagger, you will soon learn a entirely different perspective son.

P.s. Stick around and you might see more sh*t....

during the show while they were analyzing footage of the VF-27, they say that it performs maneuvers that a human pilot even with an EX-Gear couldn’t survive.

the line implies that the EX-Gear is doing something to help the pilot survive high G loads. and what they have today is G suits that keep blood at you head to prevent you from blacking out, EX-Gear (or whatever is working in these things) is making it so the pilot doesn't turn to Jelly do to high G load.

Well...like what dv3 said....the Ex-Gear refers to the whole thing, including the flight suit. G flight suit + EXtender components = Ex-Gear. Settled.

id doesn't remove the feeling of movment completely, just enough at the highest levels of acceleration/deceleration/turning, to keep you in one piece and not dead.

if thats what they'er using.

I said ZERO G.....

were talking about space though, no air in space. and the backpack thrusters are for propulsion.

What i forgot to mention...since it's divided....it has less to work with, space or atmosphere

it's the future, they (through the magic of OverTech©) Figured out how to make the valks strong enough to handle these sorts of things.

I recently viewed a cutout schematic of the VF-1. It does have fuel tanks in the wings and backpack.....Overtech doesn't explain everything that's why were here BSing. Macross timeline was before 2000.

but starscream doesn't have a pilot, he's a maniacal sentient robot from a planet that itself is a giant sentient robot. Valk design has alway's tried to be at least somewhat realistic (excpet in 7) and having the cocpit (with a human pilot in it) right in front of the chest with just glass and a thing shield in to protect them seems rather unsafe.

(they actually show this in MacII)

but it worked didn't it? Realistic you say? HUH? Transformers has a live action movie....not to mention a 2nd coming up (last time I checked)

the 21 is awsome, it's like a variable Q-Rau.

and yes their ar thrusters in the feet that suplament the rear engines. and it's no more redundant than how on the VF-0/VF-1/VF-19/other valks I can't think of off the top of my head the backpack thrusters (which provide aditional thrust for propulsion) can't be used durring fighter mode.

Ever saw a plane crash because the pilot fell asleep? I think i would closing my eyes to pilot that 21. Besides the 21 can't do the infamous valk fighter to gerwalk move like the 0,1,171,19,25,27 can. Plus those damn chicken legs. Also the e-wok head and hood.....dang.

The backpack thrusters for the Vf-1 are for battroid and gerwalk modes only.

well I like Alto, he was cool so

So you're the one that voted for him.....

[d3v]

I recently viewed a cutout schematic of the VF-1. It does have fuel tanks in the wings and backpack.....Overtech doesn't explain everything that's why were here BSing. Macross timeline was before 2000.

Even thermonuclear engines will still need propellant when moving through space. The difference is that the propellant is used purely for thrust, unlike a modern day jet engine which burns fuel both for thrust as well as to provide power to the plane.

In an atmosphere, valks wouldn't need to burn propellant at all since they can just suck in air and use that.

[anime52k8]

So you're the one that voted for him.....

actually I voted for Sheryl.

[ChronoReverse]

Lmao hahaha....you're killing me chrono. I'm not even trying. Do me a favor and ask your mom what's the meaning of swagger, you will soon learn a entirely different perspective son.

Seems to me someone else here needs top grow up and maybe learn about etiquette.

I said ZERO G.....

Then you're the only one who decided an anti-gravity inertial DAMPENER will negate all forces. If that's not what you meant, then you missed the point even harder.

I recently viewed a cutout schematic of the VF-1. It does have fuel tanks in the wings and backpack.....Overtech doesn't explain everything that's why were here BSing. Macross timeline was before 2000.

Even the Zero had Overtechnology in it so it's not like there ever was a valkyrie without OT. And everyone knew that there was a propellant in valkyries. Even the official material mention propellant in passing. It's even been discussed how the engines in a valkyrie must be very different to what our physics allows since the fuel consumption is so minimal (in terms of mass and volume and ejection velocity).

but it worked didn't it? Realistic you say? HUH? Transformers has a live action movie....not to mention a 2nd coming up (last time I checked)

Are you talking about that (pretty good) movie that feature robots that had lots of whirly things when transforming as well as parts which disappeared and changed in size (the cellphone lol).

As for the VF-21, it can hover for the same reason the QRaus can. The rear thrusters provides enough downforce, the legs are tough enough to take any stray backwash because of ECA and the inertial vectoring system keeps the whole thing stable. Besides, we've already seen how valkyries can hover using JUST the verniers

Edited October 17, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[daflip702]

Seems to me someone else here needs top grow up and maybe learn about etiquette.

Who's the one getting offended with the word "kiddies"...It ain't even about you. Maybe you should sit back, relax, smoke a bowl, and grow some balls while you're at it.

Then you're the only one who decided an anti-gravity inertial DAMPENER will negate all forces. If that's not what you meant, then you missed the point even harder.

yeah i said it....so what? Exactlly, there was no evidence of me saying about a damper.....thats my point son. I'm flattered that you care so much though.

Even the Zero had Overtechnology in it so it's not like there ever was a valkyrie without OT. And everyone knew that there was a propellant in valkyries. Even the official material mention propellant in passing. It's even been discussed how the engines in a valkyrie must be very different to what our physics allows since the fuel consumption is so minimal (in terms of mass and volume and ejection velocity).

You're still on this? Like I said before, OT isn't explained that much. This is why we are here discussing it. I'm not here expecting any of my/other's theories to be considered canon/approved by SK. Like many others here, we would all agree to a point that OT is beyond this world....and the fun of it, is trying to rationalize it to make it seem more plausible. If it wasn't set in stone by SK/HFH/BigWest....then all theories are welcomed. Just like the the motion controll of the valk's arms...One person said "motion capture", I said "flight suit sensory".....It's all up in the air.

In short, were here trying to make "Unrealistic" to more "Physically Possible"

Are you talking about that (pretty good) movie that feature robots that had lots of whirly things when transforming as well as parts which disappeared and changed in size (the cellphone lol).

Pretty good movie for people who don't know transformers(I like Bay's work). Pretty Bad for fanboys.....OMG Prime has a mouth....yikes.

As for the VF-21, it can hover for the same reason the QRaus can. The rear thrusters provides enough downforce, the legs are tough enough to take any stray backwash because of ECA and the inertial vectoring system keeps the whole thing stable. Besides, we've already seen how valkyries can hover using JUST the verniers

Yeah but looking at the transformation process and schematics....the 21 wasn't designed well for gerwalk. having the main engines in the back calls for unbalancing towards the rear...TNR engines are one word...heavy.

[ChronoReverse]

Who's the one getting offended with the word "kiddies"...It ain't even about you. Maybe you should sit back, relax, smoke a bowl, and grow some balls while you're at it.

My original post said to not do that (have an arrogant tone if you don't do the basic research). However, if it makes you feel bigger then you can carry on.

yeah i said it....so what? Exactlly, there was no evidence of me saying about a damper

You were responding to talk about anti-gravity being used as inertial dampeners. If you weren't then you shouldn't have even brought it up as you mentioned the (ostensibly new) idea and then tore it down immediately afterward. Since it wouldn't serve to support or counter anyone else's point, it would've just been silly.

You're still on this? Like I said before, OT isn't explained that much. This is why we are here discussing it. I'm not here expecting any of my/other's theories to be considered canon/approved by SK.

That's not the point. Some things ARE defined as OT. The stronger materials is explicitly mentioned. The engines of a valkyrie are also explicitly mentioned. There's wiggle room for a lot of things but these two points are stated and hence we have to extrapolate from that point on. Therefore, the way a VF-21 does gerwalk is completely plausible in the Macross universe and is indeed seen all over in places like the QRaus

Try to get past this mindblock and combine what's physically possible now and what's physically possible in the Macross universe. This is how someone decided that the OT engines didn't use propellant the normal way:

(1) With the kind of accelerations we see in Macross, the engines must either have extremely high propellent velocity or mass

(2) It can't be mass since the valkyrie would have to carry this propellant and we'd see the effects of such

(3) It can't be velocity since in space the jet would be as powerful as a weapon with no atmosphere to dissipate the stream yet we clearly see that the backwash isn't wrecking things more than a normal engine would (and in some cases it's even less than that)

(4) Therefore something about OT is overriding some physical property to allow this

(5) We don't know what this is

(6) ????

(7) Profit!

Yeah but looking at the transformation process and schematics....the 21 wasn't designed well for gerwalk. having the main engines in the back calls for unbalancing towards the rear...TNR engines are one word...heavy.

Mostly true but the 21 still can do gerwalk and that's all there is to it. With the inertial vectoring system, going to battroid does seem to be a better choice in most situations.

With that said, there's no indication that the engines of valkyries were particularly heavy. Especially when you consider that valkyries are lighter than our modern fighters. For instance, the twin-engined VF-19 is lighter than even the featherweight single engine F-16

Edited October 17, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

So...

(1) Build transforming Giant Robot Plane.

(2)Fight war with aliens.

(3)Shoot down SDF-1

(4)?????

(5) PROFIT!

I think GERWALK is only useful to pick up speed to take off from fighter mode. (Or vice versa, thanks to GERWALK-Braking.)

If engineers are smart (I think they are...) they designed the system to lower, not get rid of Gravitational Forces. (Red-outs are now, also, a thing of the past.) In which case, you would still feel acceleration, at least 1.5 Gs in high-G turns, etc.

I agree with what's-is-name on one point: The YF-21 is a bit lame. However, he knows very little about his valks, because of one thing:

The backpack thrusters for the Vf-1 are for battroid and gerwalk modes only

Y'ever see a Super Valkyrie or a Strike Valkyrie? The backpack thruster folds over, and PROVIDES THRUST. It's not a lot, comparatively, I'll give you that, and it can destabilize the plane in an atmosphere, but had I been Kakizaki, I'd've done that. (Was something wrong with his afterburners? Or was he just emo?)

D3V, you're incorrect. A TNR needs a certain type of fuel. It's more efficient than a CT, but it still uses it. In fact, that's the purpose of the AEBs. The VF-1 was not fuel-effiecient enough to reach a LEO. It needed a set of boosters to get it there. Later VFs had enough power and efficiency. It uses less fuel in space, due to the wonderful properties of drag. (Or lack, thereof.)

Transformers: More than meets the eye. Yes, way more. So much, I know not where it all comes from. (Transformers=WTF? Macross did this 4 years ago, and it was more realistic!)

[daflip702]

My original post said to not do that (have an arrogant tone if you don't do the basic research). However, if it makes you feel bigger then you can carry on.

Everyone here did reasearch. Opinions here are just opinions.

You were responding to talk about anti-gravity being used as inertial dampeners. If you weren't then you shouldn't have even brought it up as you mentioned the (ostensibly new) idea and then tore it down immediately afterward. Since it wouldn't serve to support or counter anyone else's point, it would've just been silly.

i never tore it down...I said zero G that means nada zilch nothing....dampers just reduce the load.....Zero G is a statement....read it for all you like.

With that said, there's no indication that the engines of valkyries were particularly heavy. Especially when you consider that valkyries are lighter than our modern fighters. For instance, the twin-engined VF-19 is lighter than even the featherweight single engine F-16

Engines are still heavier that the cockpit. Ever seen a see-saw before?

@SchizophrenicMC

Watch it sucka.....I never mentioned the VF-1 with the pack on Mr.Multiple Perso......Well excuse me if forgot to mention that the situation I'm refering to was in a atmospheric condition. Jeez, I guess in a technology thread it pays to be technical. I'm taking you're not a TF fan huh?

Edited October 17, 2008 by daflip702

[ChronoReverse]

Everyone here did reasearch. Opinions here are just opinions.

Except you. Because stuff you were asking were either in the compendium or discussed before and sometimes even in this very thread.

i never tore it down...I said zero G that means nada zilch nothing....dampers just reduce the load.....Zero G is a statement....read it for all you like.

2. An anti-gravity zero G device in a valk would hinder a pilot's skill due to the lack of feedback the Valk gives the pilot.

So you imply using anti-gravity to remove all forces on the pilot. In fact, no one even said this until you did. Why did you mention it? You tore it down right afterward saying that such a system would be detrimental (something that is true).

Engines are still heavier that the cockpit. Ever seen a see-saw before?

What does that have to do with anything? Engines are heavier than the ejection seat too. We don't know if engines are the most massive components of the valkryie.

In any case, thinking about this, placing the engine at the rear of gerwalk, ASSUMING the engines weigh the most in a valkyrie, means that the center of mass is in a better position. Instead of being on one end of the "bent stick" of gerwalk, it's at the corner instead. With the primary thrusters still pointing rear, that means higher speed is possible which allows the lift surfaces to compensate for the lower downward thrust. Not that a huge amount of thrust is needed to hover with valkyries since they can VTOL with just verniers. Also if the weight were shifted that far back, the vents for the downforce works out well.

Edited October 17, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

i never tore it down...I said zero G that means nada zilch nothing....dampers just reduce the load.....Zero G is a statement....read it for all you like.

Engines are still heavier that the cockpit. Ever seen a see-saw before?

@SchizophrenicMC

Watch it sucka.....I never mentioned the VF-1 with the pack on Mr.Multiple Perso......Well excuse me if forgot to mention that the situation I'm refering to was in a atmospheric condition. Jeez, I guess in a technology thread it pays to be technical. I'm taking you're not a TF fan huh?

Firstly, you did. You went yammering on about how the lack of force feedback would fart the pilot, due to him not knowing how his plane is reacting.

Secondly: The engines are the single, heaviest component of any fighter. The wings can be made of aluminum and boron. The rest of the plane is so split up into tiny pieces, they're not very heavy. Take the F-16. Its engine runs along the whole fighter, not for size, but for balance. Only the rear of a fighter jet's turbine is necessary for use. The forward section usually contains extra compressing equipment. (Hell, in the VF-1, it contains a whole, second compressor.)

You never mentioned it? Your exact words: The backpack thrusters for the Vf-1 are for battroid and gerwalk modes only. The backpack thrusters for the VF-1... Yes, it does pay to be technical. However, you could still benefit from a short burst of speed given by "backpacking." That, combined with overboost, could get you out of trouble real fast.

Also, I like Transformers. Loved the movie, bought the special edition DVD, saw most of the different series, am going to see Bay-formers: Revenge of the Fallen. But, I think they're unrealistic. That's why I like Macross. There's as much pseudo-realism as you can get in transforming giant robot planes.

[ChronoReverse]

Haha, the heavy engines part was directed at me. While the engines are the heaviest in a modern fighter, we only know that they're relatively smaller in a valkyrie (compare the VF-0 to the VF-1).

[Mr March]

(compare the VF-0 to the VF-1).

That's my cue

VF-1A Valkyrie Fighter Mode Length = 14.23 meters

VF-0A Valkyrie Fighter Mode Length = 18.69 meters

Edited October 18, 2008 by Mr March

[SchizophrenicMC]

And that's my cue

F-14= 18.21 Meters in Fighter Mode

(It's the VF-1 Wolfpack Squadron F-14. GO TOMCAT!)

[anime52k8]

Y'ever see a Super Valkyrie or a Strike Valkyrie? The backpack thruster folds over, and PROVIDES THRUST. It's not a lot, comparatively, I'll give you that, and it can destabilize the plane in an atmosphere, but had I been Kakizaki, I'd've done that. (Was something wrong with his afterburners? Or was he just emo?)

I however was referring to the naked valk without FAST packs (which is how the VF-1 is seen for probably 3/4 of the series), in which case the backpack thrusters are tucked between the legs facing forwards, not were you can use them. also, weren't the FAST packs designed AFTER the VF-1 was already built? either way my point still stands that the VF-1 has an engine on it that is only being used some of the time.

and i don't think the backpack can be intentionally exposed during fighter mode. it would eliminate two of the aircraft's control surfaces (the tailplane's, or are they rudervators on the VF-1?)

create aerodynamic instability in the plane, increase drag, and probably wouldn't create that much more thrust anyways.

to me the backpack's main purpose is for stability in Batroid mode, providing thrust above the center of gravity, which is more stable than thrust cumming from bellow. it also serves as a limited source of supplemental propulsion in GERWALK mode sort of like the engines on some helicopters, they provide some forward propulsion, but the main source is the same as the one that provides primary lift.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I however was referring to the naked valk without FAST packs (which is how the VF-1 is seen for probably 3/4 of the series), in which case the backpack thrusters are tucked between the legs facing forwards, not were you can use them. also, weren't the FAST packs designed AFTER the VF-1 was already built? either way my point still stands that the VF-1 has an engine on it that is only being used some of the time.

and i don't think the backpack can be intentionally exposed during fighter mode. it would eliminate two of the aircraft's control surfaces (the tailplane's, or are they rudervators on the VF-1?)

create aerodynamic instability in the plane, increase drag, and probably wouldn't create that much more thrust anyways.

to me the backpack's main purpose is for stability in Batroid mode, providing thrust above the center of gravity, which is more stable than thrust cumming from bellow. it also serves as a limited source of supplemental propulsion in GERWALK mode sort of like the engines on some helicopters, they provide some forward propulsion, but the main source is the same as the one that provides primary lift.

Ok, coming has fewer letters than cumming, so can we use the former instead?

They only serve the purpose of rudders, so they're rudders. Elevator control is thrust vectoring and elevon.

It can be exposed during fighter mode. It would not destabilize it much, and would not provide a large source of drag or disturbance. Think about it. It's made of 3 tubes. It's hollow. In GERWALK, that is the only propulsive source, unless you point the legs back, but then, you lose VTOL and the entire point of the GERWALK mode. If it can push GERWALK to takeoff speed, and suspend a Battroid in the air, it's generating a lot of thrust, and could be effectively used as a booster.

Given, the control system probably isn't in the A and D models. And it's only a little more likely that it's in the J. However, the S would probably have it.

[d3v]

and i don't think the backpack can be intentionally exposed during fighter mode. it would eliminate two of the aircraft's control surfaces (the tailplane's, or are they rudervators on the VF-1?)

create aerodynamic instability in the plane, increase drag, and probably wouldn't create that much more thrust anyways.

A good fly by wire system can compensate for any change in control surfaces. With the tail folded up like that, the valk can possibly use thrust variations between both engines in place of he rudders and use the control surfaces on the wing to control stability (just like the B-2 Spirit does).

[anime52k8]

Ok, coming has fewer letters than cumming, so can we use the former instead?

blame Microsoft word spell check.

[d3v]

blame Microsoft word spell check.

Admit it, you've got hopes and dreams on the brain again.

[SchizophrenicMC]

It's no big deal, Anime. We've all dreamed of landing our Macross in Minmay's Global Lake!

[kanedaestes]

I saw this in another thread and its a good question. How exactly does the VF-25/27 convert to a 2 seater since there doesn't seem to be various seated versions and we have seen many times where people sit in the back seat like seconds after it was a one seater

[azrael]

I saw this in another thread and its a good question. How exactly does the VF-25/27 convert to a 2 seater since there doesn't seem to be various seated versions and we have seen many times where people sit in the back seat like seconds after it was a one seater

Not sure. DVD/Blu-ray vol. 2 has some line art, but it doesn't specify how they convert it.

[Mr March]

It never showed how the YF-19 converted from single to double seating either.

It's not really all that important, just as long as the space realistically exists for a second seat (which it does in both the case of the YF-19 and the VF-25/VF-27).

[Sumdumgai]

Maybe the seat is folded over behind the pilot seat of the YF-19. As it is in the Design Works book, when looking at the cockpit sketches you can see that the co-pilot's monitor is already there.

I wonder about the VF-25 as well. It's a nice feature to have, especially for hostage rescue missions, or if there's the possibility you need to pick up a passenger.

[Mr March]

The second seat is totally plot driven. There's no practical reason for a combat variable fighter to have a second seat, especially since dedicated trainers are much better for pilot/passenger uses (and from a production/merchandising perspective, two-seaters mean more toy variants to sell). But a two-seater is extremely convenient when a second character is written into a scene. It saves the production from requiring a shuttle or other ship for the second character and it allows for a much more intimately personal interaction between characters, something very important in a Macross anime.

[David Hingtgen]

The vast majority of "single-seat" fighter jets have room for a second seat inherent to their design, it's just filled with "extra" electronics in most cases. (Fuel in the case of a Hornet) Take that stuff out, put a seat in the spot and you have the trainer version. ,

The YF-19 is the most realistic of the "convertible" valks. The two-seat version of most real planes do NOT have a longer nose/fuselage, unlike say the VF-1 and VF-0. (the canopy is often longer, but that's simply because it needs to taper down further back to clear the 2nd person's head---the two-seat F-15 canopy is like 2 inches longer, that's it---it's mainly just "taller" for headroom)

Here's a good shot of a single-seat F-15, you can see all the "extra room" behind the pilot:

[badboy00z]

Maybe the rear seat just rotates?

[Sumdumgai]

The second seat is totally plot driven. There's no practical reason for a combat variable fighter to have a second seat, especially since dedicated trainers are much better for pilot/passenger uses (and from a production/merchandising perspective, two-seaters mean more toy variants to sell). But a two-seater is extremely convenient when a second character is written into a scene. It saves the production from requiring a shuttle or other ship for the second character and it allows for a much more intimately personal interaction between characters, something very important in a Macross anime.

I had thought that it was designed that way from the way Millard was talking about the Super Nova Project. When he was talking about how the next generation fighter should be capable of getting in and out fast in a crisis and have the ability to rescue hostages. I figured that it would be better to have a second seat to put a rescued hostage in rather than have them sit on the pilots lap.

And post Macross 7, it would seem like a good idea to be able to make fighters capable of being quickly converted to two-seaters, especially if they needed to form a Jamming Birds type of outfit.

Not that I'm knocking that plot driven part, it's definitely plot driven.

[Mr March]

Well, one more seat isn't going to rescue that many hostages I think it's safe to say Millard was speaking in terms of operational role, not practical function since it's clear the YF-19 is a combat vehicle designed for optimal weapon delivery. Millard was specifically speaking about peace time function and avoiding strategic operations (read: reaction weapons).

I'm almost positive Kawamori and Co. embraced these quick convert passenger seats to handle the needs of the plot. As I said, they'd just convert an existing version to two-seater and that'd be enough. No reason to mass produce quick conversion seats in a main variable fighter where 99% of operational roles will see only a single person in the cockpit. Doesn't make sense otherwise, but they need us to suspend our disbelief so that these insta-passenger seats can serve the plot.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Mr March

[d3v]

Well, at least in the 25's case, the second seat is pretty much an afterthought. If the pilots forced to eject in hostile territory, the passenger in the back is pretty much screwed since he/she won't have an EX-gear.

[hobbes221]

Well, at least in the 25's case, the second seat is pretty much an afterthought. If the pilots forced to eject in hostile territory, the passenger in the back is pretty much screwed since he/she won't have an EX-gear.

We have seen that an EX-gear can carry a person so the pilot would be able to help the GIB out some.

Something about the EX-gear that I don't think has come up yet is what happens to the pilot if they are injured, knocked out or something else along those lines. Ejections are very hard on a person in the best cases, much less in combat. I'm thinking that the EX-gear would help some in that respect but still it makes me think about some poor, dumb guy falling to his death because he was unable to fly his EX-gear.