Valk Designs

[Sumdumgai]

Well with the VF-25 the only times we've seen the second seat in use, they weren't planning on carrying a passenger that necessarily knew how to use an EX-gear. Michel took Ranka to Galia IV, but in the event that they had to eject, she'd probably be more dangerous to herself with an EX-gear than without one. On Galia IV it seems doubtful that the zentraedi stationed there had any EX-gears for Michel to put in the back for Sheryl should there be an incident.

Just because we haven't seen an EX-gear in the back for a passenger/co-pilot, doesn't mean it can't be done. So far we've only seen civilians in that seat, oh which one probably doesn't know how to use an EX-gear, and the other probably has some training (but may still be dangerous to herself and others).

Good point on if the pilot is unconscious hobbes! Imagine if Sheryl and Michel had been shot down in an atmosphere! Sheryl goes flying and goes splat (unless she can fly with the boosters on her space suit), while Michel makes a bloody crater on the ground.

[anime52k8]

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.

the EX-Gear probably has some way of detecting if the pilot is incapacitated, or otherwise not piloting the thing, and will automatically descend slowly using it's thrusters.

and as for the person in back, they're probably sitting on a conventional ejection seat, so in the event of a bailout in hostile territory, they have to take care of themselves the old fashioned way.

[d3v]

the EX-Gear probably has some way of detecting if the pilot is incapacitated, or otherwise not piloting the thing, and will automatically descend slowly using it's thrusters.

and as for the person in back, they're probably sitting on a conventional ejection seat, so in the event of a bailout in hostile territory, they have to take care of themselves the old fashioned way.

Or it could be like in the old Avro Vulcan. Pilots had ejection seats, the 3 guys in the back were as good as dead.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Whatever happened to parachutes? I think the Ex-Gear has a parachute. (This is where anime magic comes in.)

The real problem with the Ex-Gear is how it would be so small, in-cockpit, but large enough to provide enough lifting surface for flight. Not to mention fuel.

[Morpheus]

Whatever happened to parachutes? I think the Ex-Gear has a parachute. (This is where anime magic comes in.)

The real problem with the Ex-Gear is how it would be so small, in-cockpit, but large enough to provide enough lifting surface for flight. Not to mention fuel.

Hmm, the EX-gear backpack could mount a mini particle accelerator along with a proton rifle for ghost catching you know .

Now I'm wondering WHAT Isamu could have done if he's wearing EX-gear......

[hobbes221]

Now I'm wondering WHAT Isamu could have done if he's wearing EX-gear......

I'm seeing something along the lines of him in an EX-gear in a Zentradi mall tearing the place apart. And quite possibly buzzing a few meltrandi, or hitting on them - your pick. (tossed that last bit in for MisaForever)

[Mr March]

I'm surprised something like the EX-Gear didn't occur sooner in Macross. Valkyrie concept artwork for the original SDF Macross series was basically a suit of transforming power armor. They've also had miniaturized robots of all kinds, from trash disposal bots and motorized cameras to Soda machines and idol singers. It's not like robotic augmentation is a stretch of any kind for the technology level shown in Macross.

[Morpheus]

I'm surprised something like the EX-Gear didn't occur sooner in Macross. Valkyrie concept artwork for the original SDF Macross series was basically a suit of transforming power armor. They've also had miniaturized robots of all kinds, from trash disposal bots and motorized cameras to Soda machines and idol singers. It's not like robotic augmentation is a stretch of any kind for the technology level shown in Macross.

Simple, they never imagine a mecha piloting a mecha (ref to GL). I guess the idea came abruptly when a VF-1 tried to manually pilot a regult.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Simple, they never imagine a mecha piloting a mecha (ref to GL). I guess the idea came abruptly when a VF-1 tried to manually pilot a regult.

I don't remember ever seeing a VF-1 attempt to pilot a Regult... They got out and were struggling to move all the controls... Did I miss something?

As for the Ex-Gear issue, it's simple: The technology for the Ex-Gear's control systems, structure, power supply, etcetera, weren't developed until some time in the late 2040's/early 2050's.

Now, I'm wondering what Guld could have done with an Ex-Gear!

[Zinjo]

Simple, they never imagine a mecha piloting a mecha (ref to GL). I guess the idea came abruptly when a VF-1 tried to manually pilot a regult.

I dunno, I wonder if it isn't a dig at HG and the Mospeada series...

However, how are we to know that the Spacy Marines haven't been using exo-suit power armor since after SW1? If ground pounders have to take on giants it would make sense to give them as much help as possible...

I like the fact that Macross doesn't give too much away. It gives us fans a lot of empty spaces to ponder in....

[Sumdumgai]

UN Spacy Marines with power armor: "We've got nukes, we've got knives, sharp sticks..." I like that idea.

What do you guys consider to be the most innovative valkyrie design? For me it's the YF-21, because it can function after having lost all its limbs. Plus it's a powerhouse. 2 gunpods, 2 lasers that can be used effectively in any mode (fired forwards or backwards), anti-aircraft beam weapon, internal missile pallets...

[daflip702]

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

And everyone else on this thread, including you, lack info somewhere. Now who's the arrogant one?. Even you can't explain everything.

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).

You know what I'm sitting back here laughing at you and Schitzo for actually arguing about that....I said that ZERO G is bad, like how an ejection seat for a helicopter pilot that goes off when the rotors are still spinning...that's BAD. and that's it. end of story. You actually made a mountain of it....and looked bad while doing it. LOL. Please by all means keep me laughing.

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.

Wow....what anime are you watching.

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.

Ever saw that 21....the fulcrum is at the middle(legs). whereas the nose section and cockpit is in the front. and the engines in the rear....you mean to tell me that's balanced? Give me a break. A well balanced Valk utilizes the thrust better than a rear heavy valk on gerwalk mode. I rather use my valks thrust to manuver it...not trying to keep it balanced.

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.

look above:

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.)

In Gerwalk mode, the engines are still in the rear.....not balanced and i believe Chrono...doesn't feel that way.

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.

Yeah for battorid and gerwalk only. I'm NOT saying some bonehead will try and do it that way(use the backpack to fly in fighter) Now would'nt that just defeat the purpose of the VF-1 design.

"vernier thrusters with chemical fuel tanks in backpack section in GERWALK and Battroid mode" This here came from the compendium.

sorry guys for the continuing arguments....now on with the show:

I think the 21 isnt aesthetically pleasing.

[anime52k8]

UN Spacy Marines with power armor: "We've got nukes, we've got knives, sharp sticks..." I like that idea.

What do you guys consider to be the most innovative valkyrie design? For me it's the YF-21, because it can function after having lost all its limbs. Plus it's a powerhouse. 2 gunpods, 2 lasers that can be used effectively in any mode (fired forwards or backwards), anti-aircraft beam weapon, internal missile pallets...

"that's it man, game over man! Game over!"

I do love the 21, the only problem with the no arms and legs thing is that without the arms/legs it's got no offensive weapons other than missiles.

for innovative valks I like the VA-3 family just because it was the only valk that was designed from the begining to be a variable attack valk.

[ChronoReverse]

And everyone else on this thread, including you, lack info somewhere. Now who's the arrogant one?. Even you can't explain everything.

Completely out of context reply to the point of absurdity. The information is in the threads. Just because SOMEBODY (including me) doesn't have the information has no bearing as to whether the information is there or not.

You know what I'm sitting back here laughing at you and Schitzo for actually arguing about that....I said that ZERO G is bad, like how an ejection seat for a helicopter pilot that goes off when the rotors are still spinning...that's BAD. and that's it. end of story. You actually made a mountain of it....and looked bad while doing it. LOL. Please by all means keep me laughing

Laugh as you like. You're the joker who brought it up out of nowhere and then tore it down and then acted all smug about it

Me: 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.

You: Wow....what anime are you watching.

Tell me then where it shows that the engines are the heaviest. The legs in general hold the engines yet we see valkyries swing their legs down without using thrusters to counter the rotation that would occur if the legs were massive. Now, there's a some reason to think the engines would be a massive component, but not absolutely so nor is there proof that they're the majority of the weight.

Ever saw that 21....the fulcrum is at the middle(legs). whereas the nose section and cockpit is in the front. and the engines in the rear....you mean to tell me that's balanced? Give me a break. A well balanced Valk utilizes the thrust better than a rear heavy valk on gerwalk mode. I rather use my valks thrust to manuver it...not trying to keep it balanced.

Even if the engines are the most massive component, it's still tucked closer to the legs than the front (torque). Furthermore, the "chicken walker" style legs in gerwalk is that it allows the center of gravity to be shifted from where the attach points are. Taking the thus modified fulcrum, we see that about a third of the engines are actually forward of that point. Add the front sections extending further than the rear engines do and it's not really any stretch.

Here's a picture I found with Google of the Yamato 1/60 model

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gogdog/255266...57605442676161/

I think the 21 isnt aesthetically pleasing.

That's fine. I don't like the thin legs and bulky battroid that much myself.

As a sidenote, while I was examining the diagrams of the various valkyries to determine whether what you said had merit, I've noticed that my favorite valkyrie, the YF-19, has a truly unbalanced gerwalk mode. It's most evident with the figures where the nose has to be pointed quite low down to get it to balance. I believe this is can be an advantage however for the YF-19. Although a more balanced gerwalk would allow better agility, the forward heavy design of the YF-19 would allow for quicker dashes when on the ground only. The YF-21 would need to use its engines to simulate such an effect.

Edited October 21, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Morpheus]

"that's it man, game over man! Game over!"

I do love the 21, the only problem with the no arms and legs thing is that without the arms/legs it's got no offensive weapons other than missiles.

for innovative valks I like the VA-3 family just because it was the only valk that was designed from the begining to be a variable attack valk.

In the delimiter mode, YF-21 can still use the head laser (but in awkward position unless it can rotate to face the front) beside the missiles. But you forgot the the best offensive weapon on YF-21, special ramming attack (The guys who played Ace Frontier knows this well ).

VA-3 is more versatile, it got a freakin sub mode and also the fuselage shape is unique compare to other valk.

[ChronoReverse]

It still has the laser guns doesn't it? In the movie version Guld was blasting away with the lasers at the X-9

[hobbes221]

What do you guys consider to be the most innovative valkyrie design?

For me it has to be the VF-4, it is just so different from the VF-1 and I love the transformation design. It also kinda looks like the little brother of the SR-71 to me and I've always loved that bird as well. I now beg and pray for an 'All That VF' with the VF-4.

It still has the laser guns doesn't it? In the movie version Guld was blasting away with the lasers at the X-9

I think that the lasers were in the arms that were lost at the end, so it was ether the head laser some how firing forward or a mistake.

[d3v]

However, how are we to know that the Spacy Marines haven't been using exo-suit power armor since after SW1? If ground pounders have to take on giants it would make sense to give them as much help as possible...

They have, bigass suits called Queadluuns!

Edited October 21, 2008 by d3v

[ChronoReverse]

I think that the lasers were in the arms that were lost at the end, so it was ether the head laser some how firing forward or a mistake.

Hmm, yeah, they're definitely removed in the legless configuration diagrams and the head laser is said to point rear in fighter and gerwalk.

That legless configuration is pretty useless then, you don't even have a useful weapon in that mode outside of missiles. And one would probably try to expend the missiles before resorting to that mode.

Edited October 21, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[d3v]

Hmm, yeah, they're definitely removed in the legless configuration diagrams and the head laser is said to point rear in fighter and gerwalk.

That legless configuration is pretty useless then, you don't even have a useful weapon in that mode outside of missiles. And one would probably try to expend the missiles before resorting to that mode.

Based on the AVFs designated mission, it seems more or less to be a fast, escape craft in case a SNAFU occurred in one of their missions and the pilots had to abort (but didn't want to eject). Besides, they were probably thinking that it would be cheaper to replace arms and legs than a whole plane.

Edited October 21, 2008 by d3v

[Mr March]

What do you guys consider to be the most innovative valkyrie design? For me it's the YF-21, because it can function after having lost all its limbs. Plus it's a powerhouse. 2 gunpods, 2 lasers that can be used effectively in any mode (fired forwards or backwards), anti-aircraft beam weapon, internal missile pallets...

Hehehe, someone was reading my posts

Most innovative valkyrie design? Probably the most radically innovative valkyrie was the original VF-1 Valkyrie. It was certainly the biggest technological leap forward from previous non-variable designs and definitely stood as the benchmark for future variable fighter craft all the way up to (and including) the VF-25 Messiah.

After that, I'd choose the VF-5000 Star Mirage as a major innovative valkyrie design. The Star Mirage was the first variable fighter to use internal micro-missile launchers, a trend that would become popular in most of the variable fighters that followed. The VF-5000 also became the model in what was a new standard for lightweight variable fighter design. After the VF-5000, nearly every valkyrie was 8-10 tons in weight and any fighter around 13 tons was now considered a heavy variable fighter (like the VF-17D Nightmare).

Least innovative valkyrie design (technology-wise), I'd have to say the VF-3000 Crusader. It's basically an upscaled VF-1 Valkyrie; take the VF-1, double it in size, and you get the Crusader. Sounds pretty uninspired to me and the actual visual design isn't all that interesting either. Plus the official literature makes it sound like a lemon with those slipping joints. Only good thing to come of VF-3000 was it apparently served as partial design inspiration for the Star Mirage. Probably "inspired" the engineers not to screw up so badly next time

Most ambitious valkyrie design, definitely the YF-21. Everything about the YF-21 was pushing the edge of what was possible for a variable fighter craft. The unconventional brain direct control system, the unorthodox design and transformation, the dual gun pods and forward/rearward beam guns, the "morphing" composite material wing, etc. Can't think of any other Valkyrie that incorporated so many fringe technologies into one design.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Mr March

[Zinjo]

Most ambitious valkyrie design, definitely the YF-21. Everything about the YF-21 was pushing the edge of what was possible for a variable fighter craft. The unconventional brain direct control system, the unorthodox design and transformation, the dual gun pods and forward/rearward beam guns, the "morphing" composite material wing, etc. Can't think of any other Valkyrie that incorporated so many fringe technologies into one design.

True. Trying to emulate the Q-Rau battroid in a transforming fighter was definitely ambitious.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Zinjo

[SchizophrenicMC]

Most innovative: VF-1, for all of the above reasons, and for incorporating most of what was learned from the ASS-1 into the smallest fighter jet ever.

Least innovative: VF-4; it's explicitly stated that it had several of the VF-1's components. That, mixed with the fact that not much was added, only somewhat improved upon makes it less of an innovation.

Mr March, the VF-3000 was the F-15 lookin' one, right?

On a side note, would it be redundant to have a single-engine Valk?

Edited October 21, 2008 by SchizophrenicMC

[Mr March]

Mr March, the VF-3000 was the F-15 lookin' one, right?

This is the VF-3000 Crusader, my choice for least innovative design.

[SchizophrenicMC]

This is the VF-3000 Crusader, my choice for least innovative design.

Yeah, an F-15 fuselage combined with a VF-1's swing-wings.

Coincidentally, the F-15 is about twice as big as a VF-1.

[Morpheus]

This is the VF-3000 Crusader, my choice for least innovative design.

Darn seeing the size comparison pic makes me realize that this valk is huge . Wait, does this makes VF-3000 as the largest valk in the VF series?

[Mr March]

Depends upon what you're including in the comparison and what the official sizes are for some of the other valkyries. But based on what little we do know, the VF-3000 Crusader is the largest of the variable fighters. The VF-3000 Crusader should be somewhere around 19-21 meters tall based on the size comparison picture with the VF-1S Valkyrie.

Having said that, the SV-51 could possibly challenge the Crusader for Battroid height. In Fighter mode, the SV-51 is nearly 23 meters long, so it's Battroid mode could be anywhere between 16-20 meters tall. Comparing the VF-3000 to other mecha, the VB-6 Konig Monster (roughly 30 meters tall in Destroid mode, NOT including guns) would clearly dwarf the Crusader. The Varauta's FBz-99G Saubergeran (22.95 meters tall) would also be taller than the Crusader but more importantly, the Saubergeran Battroid would be more massive in width and length.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Mr March

[SchizophrenicMC]

Darn seeing the size comparison pic makes me realize that this valk is huge . Wait, does this makes VF-3000 as the largest valk in the VF series?

I think the SV-51 is still bigger. Hold on. I dunno. It could go either way. There are no stats, so... And the VF-1 was the smallest, anyway. The VF-0 was a whale. And I'm not saying that because it's the only one I remember going underwater.

[Mr March]

I think the SV-51 is still bigger. Hold on. I dunno. It could go either way. There are no stats, so... And the VF-1 was the smallest, anyway. The VF-0 was a whale. And I'm not saying that because it's the only one I remember going underwater.

Yes, I think it might go either way. It's hard to say without the official numbers. Personally, I think the Crusader is taller, because the SV-51 collapses significantly in Battroid mode.

But just to note, the VF-1 is not the smallest Battroid. The VF-11MAXL Custom (Mylene's valkyrie in Macross 7) in Battroid mode is smaller than the VF-1 Valkyrie Battroid. The VF-1 is 12.68 meters tall; the VF-11MAXL Custom is 11.24 meters tall. Also, the VF-5000 Star Mirage is only 14.03 meters long in Fighter mode, which is 0.20 meters shorter than the VF-1 Valkyrie Fighter at 14.23 meters. So the Star Mirage is very likely a touch shorter in Battroid mode, particularly since the VF-5000's Battroid torso is shorter than the VF-1's Battroid torso.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Mr March

[Sumdumgai]

When you put it like that Mr. March, I have to agree with you on the VF-5000 being the most innovative after the VF-1. And when I posed the question of most innovative, I meant most innovative after the VF-1 which is the benchmark for valkyrie design. I probably should have mentioned that, but I wasn't thinking.

In terms of Armor, the VF-25 and its armor packs is a nice step forward from the GBP and Protect Armor systems.

[d3v]

Yes, I think it might go either way. It's hard to say without the official numbers. Personally, I think the Crusader is taller, because the SV-51 collapses significantly in Battroid mode.

Specifically, the SV-51 positions the main part of it's fuselage horizontally while in battroid mode, eliminating whatever height it could gain from it.

[Mr March]

Sumdumgai

No worries; it's a great question.

I'm not sure the VF-25 Messiah is much of a technological innovation as it is a major performance innovation. Aside from integrating the Super systems much more extensively into the design philosophy of the valkyrie, the VF-25 includes all the technologies that have become standard on the previous generation valkyries, like pin-point barriers, wrap-around imagine monitors, beam cannons, etc. I agree the major innovation in the VF-25 is the new transformation system integrating a fully variable Armor mode.

d3v

The SV-51 torso is actually misleading in many ways. The SV-51 dorsal fuselage actually rests at about a 45 degree angle in Battroid, while the nose seems to rest at a 75 degree angle in Battroid. The nose does collapse, but you'll notice almost the entire forward nose of the SV-51 remains a single piece in Battroid mode, angled steeply upward. Look at the SV-51 Battroid rear view and one can see the nose and ventral fuselage up to the two lift fans extends vertically almost past the tip of the head unit in Battroid mode. It looks like a good 3/4 of the nose/ventral fuselage remains a single piece that extends upward at a 75 angle from the hips/intakes. That would add a lot of height to the Battroid, even if some of that height is lost in the angle.

Just guessing, I'd say the SV-51 engines/legs are around 14-16 meters long from the tip of the intake to the toe of the foot (which becomes height in Battroid mode). This leaves 7.77 meters of nose. Lose a meter of height for the folding nose cone, drop another meter of height for the position of the hips and then one last meter of height lost for the angle and you'd end up with roughly 4 or 5 meters beyond the leg height. So the SV-51 Battroid should be somewhere around 18-21 meters tall.

I'll try to build a color coded comparison picture later this evening, to show you what I mean.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Mr March

[Morpheus]

Just guessing, I'd say the SV-51 engines/legs are around 14-16 meters long from the tip of the intake to the toe of the foot (which becomes height in Battroid mode). This leaves 7.77 meters of nose. Lose a meter of height for the folding nose cone, drop another meter of height for the position of the hips and then one last meter of height lost for the angle and you'd end up with roughly 4 or 5 meters beyond the leg height. So the SV-51 Battroid should be somewhere around 18-21 meters tall.

I'll try to build a color coded comparison picture later this evening, to show you what I mean.

Would be easier if you're using 1/60 Yamato toy for scaling

[Mr March]

Wouldn't want to do that. The Yamato scaling is not exactly accurate.

Nonetheless, I came up with a range of 17.5 to 18.5 meters to the top of the engine block. I used the schematic profile of the SV-51, so it would be dependent upon the accuracy of that drawing. So it turns out somewhat shorter than my initial guesstimate above, but the height doesn't include the top of the wings or the top of the head unit.

Picture is attached below.

[d3v]

Wouldn't want to do that. The Yamato scaling is not exactly accurate.

Nonetheless, I came up with a range of 17.5 to 18.5 meters to the top of the engine block. I used the schematic profile of the SV-51, so it would be dependent upon the accuracy of that drawing. So it turns out somewhat shorter than my initial guesstimate above, but the height doesn't include the top of the wings or the top of the head unit.

Picture is attached below.

Well, the head unit should add a good 2 or so meters to the height, the wings should add a bit more. The question is if what should be considered in comparing battroid height.

On a different note, that illustration is a pretty good example of how different the SV-51's transformation is from any other VF.