Macross Frontier Mecha/Technology Thread IV *Read 1st Post*

[ChronoReverse]

Best you can get is probably episode 24 at about 16:22. Except it says WDE lol but whatever.

Edited November 15, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[shadow3393]

Upon further research, I have discovered that I was wrong, the red vajira's long tail is appears retractable. This can be seen in episode 1. However funny thing is the tail by its self is about 2 to 3 times the length of the total length of the vajira with the tail retracted.

[guber143]

There is something I've always wondered about (well since Frontier started anyway) the VF-27. It's oversized gunpod aside, does it have any ordinance at all like micro missile or something.

Actually, the same thing could be apply to the 25, we've never seen it carry any missiles (ex:under it's wings, like the VF-1 or 0 or, more recently, the 171) without the super or armored pack.

[azrael]

There is something I've always wondered about (well since Frontier started anyway) the VF-27. It's oversized gunpod aside, does it have any ordinance at all like micro missile or something.

Actually, the same thing could be apply to the 25, we've never seen it carry any missiles (ex:under it's wings, like the VF-1 or 0 or, more recently, the 171) without the super or armored pack.

Yes, the specs do list internal micro-missile launchers on the VF-27.

The VF-25's specs doesn't list any internal ordnance. We have seen it carry wing-mounted equipment and we're pretty sure there are hardpoints on the wings (still waiting on the official nod to that).

[Morpheus]

There is something I've always wondered about (well since Frontier started anyway) the VF-27. It's oversized gunpod aside, does it have any ordinance at all like micro missile or something.

Actually, the same thing could be apply to the 25, we've never seen it carry any missiles (ex:under it's wings, like the VF-1 or 0 or, more recently, the 171) without the super or armored pack.

Here's your answer

Armament

Standard armament

* One ROV-20 20mm beam gun, mounted on head turret

* Two Sentinel HBC/HS-35B 35mm heavy beam machine gun

* Option of

o Two Remmington ES-25A 25 mm high-speed machine gun

or

o Two Mauler ROV-25 25 mm beam machine gun

* One new BGP-01β Heavy Quantum Reaction Beam Gun pod / Beam grenade

* Four Bifors BML-04B internal micro-missile launchers

* Note: The 25 mm high-speed machine gun and micro-missile warheads are later refit with the anti-Vajra MDE warhead specification. The beam gunpod is refit to MDE particle beam specifications.

As you can see, the VF-27 is heavily armed with beam cannons and missile launchers.

VF-25 are seen carrying nuclear missiles on its hard-point os one of the episodes. We also saw Michel VF25 carrying speaker pods on the wings.

[guber143]

Here's your answer

As you can see, the VF-27 is heavily armed with beam cannons and missile launchers.

VF-25 are seen carrying nuclear missiles on its hard-point os one of the episodes. We also saw Michel VF25 carrying speaker pods on the wings.

Thanks a lot. But we never saw the 27 use missile did we?

[RedWolf]

Thanks a lot. But we never saw the 27 use missile did we?

Episode 25 Alto-Brera combo on Grace.

[Graham]

Thanks a lot. But we never saw the 27 use missile did we?

VF-27 has two micro-missile launcher ports located on each outboard engine nacelle.

As mentioned, yes, we did see missiles being launched from them in at least one episode.

Graham

[Morpheus]

Is there any new information from VF-25S (1/72 model kit) instruction book?

[azrael]

Is there any new information from VF-25S (1/72 model kit) instruction book?

There a bit more. But unfortunately, mine is coming by SAL so I won't know for a while.

[Graham]

Here's the scan of the tech spec pages from the VF-25S model kit manuel.

Hope someone can translate this, as it looks like it may possibly be the most complete source of info so far on the VF-25.

I note the gunpod has a different designation if using MDE rounds, GU-17V (Vajra?) as opposed to GU-17A.

Graham

[josue]

Would it be new information the fact of the PPB knife?

it says is coated in PPB and is attached to the shield in the left arm. The shield of course is coated with PPB too.

then the fact of the EX-Gear coupled with something called ISC (Inertia Capacitor) helps protect the pilot of the high Gs.

reading the specifications of the VF-25s it can produce a maximum of 27.5Gs.

Edited November 21, 2008 by josue

[sketchley]

There's a little bit more info on it's armaments.

Basically:

SWGA Energy Conversion System

PPB system

Active Stealth System

Chaff/Flare/Smoke Discharger System

along with the PPB coated knife that josue posted.

[josue]

It also talks about how the VF-25 was developed jointly between Shinsei Industries and LAI. Based on the data of the YF-24 Evolution that was a project of earth NUNS to replace the VF-171 currently in use.

Then it talks about the EX (Extender) Gear being part of the new cockpit system, this coupled with the ISC system that i wrote above enables the pilot to endure the high Gs.

[Graham]

Thanks for the translations so far guys.

I hope some kind soul can eventually translate all of both pages, as it seems like there is a lot of background info there.

Graham

[Morpheus]

There's a little bit more info on it's armaments.

Basically:

SWGA Energy Conversion System

PPB system

Active Stealth System

Chaff/Flare/Smoke Discharger System

along with the PPB coated knife that josue posted.

Is it SWGA or SWAG? The compendium mentioned SWAG on ECA entry, but never explained what is SWAG.

Apparently all new VF are equipped with active stealth system after YF-21/YF-19 with VF-17 as the only VF with passive stealth system.

PPB coated knife means there's a small power generator inside those knife or the power are transmitted via the batroid manipulator. Hmm, PPB knife vs progressive knife fight will be interesting.

[azrael]

The DVD liner notes already pointed out the PPB system and the PPB-reinforced knife. A good chunk of that stuff was copy/pasted from the VF-25F manual (I checked the VF-25S listing when the scans at HobbySearch when they showed up).

And I already noted the Active stealth system back here: http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?s=&a...st&p=681989

And the way the VF-25F manual describes it, it sounds like the EX-Gear only helps the pilot when connected to the fighter (they note it as "EX-Gear system"). By itself, an EX-Gear is just a powered suit. Seeing this on the VF-25S booklet seems to confirm that.

SWAG may only apply to the VF-0.

[Final Vegeta]

Is it SWGA or SWAG? The compendium mentioned SWAG on ECA entry, but never explained what is SWAG.

My speculation is that SWAG means Stealth Wing Armor Generator. In Macross 3D (cancelled project) there was an experimental VF named SW-X1 (SW = Stealth Wing); while the concept of superior armor for Battroid wasn't new, Kawamori hasn't got a name for it for years, and presumably kept the first name he conceived.

Apparently all new VF are equipped with active stealth system after YF-21/YF-19

Technically, since the VF-0 all VFs are equipped with an active stealth system.

FV

[sketchley]

Is it SWGA or SWAG? (...)

Just translating exactly what is written in the images provided by Graham. Could be a typo. Could be that SWAG is also a typo. Could be that SWGA and SWAG are different, but related systems.

Edited November 21, 2008 by sketchley

[RedWolf]

My speculation is that SWAG means Stealth Wing Armor Generator. In Macross 3D (cancelled project) there was an experimental VF named SW-X1 (SW = Stealth Wing)

Look to me like VF-5000G Star Mirage.

[sketchley]

SW-XA1 Schneeblume comes from a modeling magazine. http://macross.anime.net/wiki/SW-XA1_Schneeblume

[azrael]

I wonder if by listing the Active stealth antenna under the "Wing" section, then mean that those protrusions on the wing root are the stealth antennae for the fighter.

reading the specifications of the VF-25s it can produce a maximum of 27.5Gs.

The wording is "Maximum airframe design load" as in an aircraft's design load limit.

[Mr March]

Hmmm, interesting information. It's good to know more mecha trivia is on the way. Like many, I'm starved for new facts about the VF-25.

[edwin3060]

Looks like the VF-25 is less maneuverable than the Y/VF-19 and the YF-21/VF-22 then-- while it has more thrust, it can pull less G's?

[David Hingtgen]

G is a force acting upon an aircraft. It is mainly dictated by the aircraft's speed. This is why an F-15 pulling 6G can "out-turn" a missile that is pulling 20G. G-limit is simply how much stress a plane can take without breaking. The faster you go, and the more weight you have, the more stress. An empty F-15 pulling 6G is under a LOT less stress than an F-15 with 5000lbs of stuff under each wing---at the same speed and turn rate, the loaded one is experiencing more stress, and thus has a lower G-limit at that moment. (because at 6G, that 5000lbs of stuff is then inducing a 30,000lb force on each wing)

The REAL way to measure a plane's turning capability is how many degrees per second--in other words, how long to make a full circle. Of course, that is then split up into instantaneous vs sustained turn rates. Which is why aircraft have maneuvering "envelopes" composed of multiple 2D graphs trying to explain life in 3D under varying conditions.

There is no simple number/stat/answer to describe a plane's agility. Classic example is WW2. Roll vs turn. Spitfire vs Fw190. Basic Spitfire turns rapidly, rolls slowly. Fw190 is the opposite. Then they clipped the Spitfire's wings to make it roll faster to match the Fw190's roll--but that made it turn slower so it lost its turning advantage. You can't have everything.

[josue]

The wording is "Maximum airframe design load" as in an aircraft's design load limit.

Thank you azrael. I sort of knew what it means but not the exact wording. And i know how much people in this boards like exact wording.

And about the EX-gear system it is a powered armor that helps the pilots when its connected to the ISC system. In japanese was written as innertial capacitor.

[edwin3060]

G is a force acting upon an aircraft. It is mainly dictated by the aircraft's speed. This is why an F-15 pulling 6G can "out-turn" a missile that is pulling 20G. G-limit is simply how much stress a plane can take without breaking. The faster you go, and the more weight you have, the more stress. An empty F-15 pulling 6G is under a LOT less stress than an F-15 with 5000lbs of stuff under each wing---at the same speed and turn rate, the loaded one is experiencing more stress, and thus has a lower G-limit at that moment. (because at 6G, that 5000lbs of stuff is then inducing a 30,000lb force on each wing)

The REAL way to measure a plane's turning capability is how many degrees per second--in other words, how long to make a full circle. Of course, that is then split up into instantaneous vs sustained turn rates. Which is why aircraft have maneuvering "envelopes" composed of multiple 2D graphs trying to explain life in 3D under varying conditions.

There is no simple number/stat/answer to describe a plane's agility. Classic example is WW2. Roll vs turn. Spitfire vs Fw190. Basic Spitfire turns rapidly, rolls slowly. Fw190 is the opposite. Then they clipped the Spitfire's wings to make it roll faster to match the Fw190's roll--but that made it turn slower so it lost its turning advantage. You can't have everything.

Yes, but for aircraft moving at the same velocity, the aircraft that can sustain a higher G will have a higher sustained turn rate and a lower turn radius. (Assuming pilots are not limiting) Further, since we are not going to get any data on the turn rates, we have to approximate with the G-loading. Given, nothing is said about roll though.

The F-15 analogy is flawed since the F-15 is moving much more slowly than then missile, hence the missile needs to sustain a much higher G to achieve the same turn radius. F= mv^2 /r so a= v^2 /r where a is the acceleration, v is the velocity and r is the turn radius. Comparing (at 40 kFt) an F-15 at Mach 1.5 pulling 6Gs against a missile at Mach 4.0, the missile would have to pull 42.7Gs to match the same turn radius-- hence the F-15 can out turn the missile while pulling far lower Gs.

[Graham]

Just because the YF-19, VF-19, YF-21 & VF-22 are stressed for higher (30 + ) G force ratings than the VF-25, doesn't necessarily equate to them being more manueverable, or being able to pull tighter turns than the VF-25.

The higher G rating is pretty meaningless anyway if the pilot is unable to withstand that amount of G force.

If the Ex-Gear in conjunction with the ICS lets the VF-25 pilot withstand higher G forces, up to or near to the planes limit, then the advantage is definitely going to be with the VF-25.

GrRaham

[Final Vegeta]

Looks like the VF-25 is less maneuverable than the Y/VF-19 and the YF-21/VF-22 then-- while it has more thrust, it can pull less G's?

I think you are doing it wrong There is another number to look out for other than the G's.

VF-25:

P&W HMM-9 High maneuverability thrusters

VF-22:

P&W HMM-6J high-maneuverability vernier thrusters

VF-19:

P&W HMM-7 high-maneuverability vernier thrusters

VF-19 custom:

P&W HMM-6R high-maneuverability vernier thrusters

YF-21:

P&W HMM-6J high-maneuverability vernier thrusters

YF-19:

P&W HMM-6J high-maneuverability vernier thrusters

FV

[sketchley]

Erm... more advanced manuevering thrusters doesn't necessarily equate higher mobility, and they are a negligible factor when in air.

More advanced thrusters could simply mean more efficient, meaning that for the same thruster fuel load, they can be used longer or less fuel is needed to power them, freeing up room inside the fuselage, or allowing it to be smaller, as well as lightening the weight.

[edwin3060]

Just because the YF-19, VF-19, YF-21 & VF-22 are stressed for higher (30 + ) G force ratings than the VF-25, doesn't necessarily equate to them being more manueverable, or being able to pull tighter turns than the VF-25.

The higher G rating is pretty meaningless anyway if the pilot is unable to withstand that amount of G force.

If the Ex-Gear in conjunction with the ICS lets the VF-25 pilot withstand higher G forces, up to or near to the planes limit, then the advantage is definitely going to be with the VF-25.

GrRaham

Hence my caveat, pilots not being the limiting factor. As long as the pilots can take it, the airframe being able to generate and endure a higher G rating would actually equate to a tighter sustained turn rate/radius, since your turn radius is simply proportional to the square of your velocity and the inverse of your acceleration (i.e. the G's that you pull).

Actually, this whole thing fits in pretty well with the VF-25 being a cheaper, more controllable and more mass-production friendly aircraft as compared to the YF-19/-21 and their derivatives. By limiting your airframe to a lower G rating and with better G compensating mechanisms, you run less risk of your pilots being Gulded, after all. There is a real-world parallel in the new liquid filled G-compensating flight suits which allow pilots to endure 12Gs, vs the 9Gs that the 1980's aircraft were limited to.

Interestingly, though, given the insane thrust that the VF-25 has, it can actually run itself to pieces-- the thrust to weight ratio can potentially be greater than the G-limits, so even acceleration in a straight line can compromise the structural integrity of the airframe-- something that the YF-19/21 series couldn't do

[Final Vegeta]

Erm... more advanced manuevering thrusters doesn't necessarily equate higher mobility, and they are a negligible factor when in air.

Technically vernier thrusters can be used even when manuevering in air, like in the VF-17, but you are not seeing the point. Authors are not constrained to real world laws of physics. Kawamori designs new fighters without the need to think which shape of the wings and ailerons is more manueverable. He simply states the new fighter is the most manueverable thing ever and that's all. As such, what is the statistic that he would choose to point out that the degre of manueverability? Exactly, the type of vernier thrusters.

Another example:

VF-19 Custom:

P&W HMM-6R

VF-11MAXL Custom:

P&W HMM-7Y

VF-11D Custom:

P&W HMM-7

VF-17T Custom:

P&W HMM-6D

VF-17:

P&W HMM-6B

VF-11:

P&W HMM-5B

See that each Valkyrie got vernier thrusters rated directly from their appearances. The VF-11 is a grunt, so it got the lousiest vernier thrusters. The VF-17 is better, but still under the YF-19 and YF-21. Sturdiest looking Valkyries such as the VF-17 and the VF-22 never reached 7. The VF-11D Custom is thinner than the VF-19 Custom, so it got better verniers. The VF-11 MAXL Custom is a thin hero unit, so it is rated even better than a VF-19. Sleeker units have higher numbers.

It would be normal if unit built later have better vernier thrusters, but note that it isn't always like that. The VF-17T Custom came out later than the VF-19 Custom, but it has worse thrusters, ditto for the VF-11D Custom which came out later than the VF-11MAXL Custom. Simply stated, performance and appearance are the same thing.

More advanced thrusters could simply mean more efficient, meaning that for the same thruster fuel load, they can be used longer or less fuel is needed to power them, freeing up room inside the fuselage, or allowing it to be smaller, as well as lightening the weight.

While it could be true, there is no point in inventing a statistic if it doesn't mean anything at all.

Personally, I would think of the G limits more as an indirect sign of armor strength than a sign of manueverability.

FV

[edwin3060]

Technically vernier thrusters can be used even when manuevering in air, like in the VF-17, but you are not seeing the point. Authors are not constrained to real world laws of physics. Kawamori designs new fighters without the need to think which shape of the wings and ailerons is more manueverable. He simply states the new fighter is the most manueverable thing ever and that's all. As such, what is the statistic that he would choose to point out that the degre of manueverability? Exactly, the type of vernier thrusters.

Another example:

VF-19 Custom:

P&W HMM-6R

VF-11MAXL Custom:

P&W HMM-7Y

VF-11D Custom:

P&W HMM-7

VF-17T Custom:

P&W HMM-6D

VF-17:

P&W HMM-6B

VF-11:

P&W HMM-5B

See that each Valkyrie got vernier thrusters rated directly from their appearances. The VF-11 is a grunt, so it got the lousiest vernier thrusters. The VF-17 is better, but still under the YF-19 and YF-21. Sturdiest looking Valkyries such as the VF-17 and the VF-22 never reached 7. The VF-11D Custom is thinner than the VF-19 Custom, so it got better verniers. The VF-11 MAXL Custom is a thin hero unit, so it is rated even better than a VF-19. Sleeker units have higher numbers.

It would be normal if unit built later have better vernier thrusters, but note that it isn't always like that. The VF-17T Custom came out later than the VF-19 Custom, but it has worse thrusters, ditto for the VF-11D Custom which came out later than the VF-11MAXL Custom. Simply stated, performance and appearance are the same thing.

While it could be true, there is no point in inventing a statistic if it doesn't mean anything at all.

Personally, I would think of the G limits more as an indirect sign of armor strength than a sign of manueverability.

FV

Nice theory about the thruster designations FV. It would help if we could make certain comparisons within the anime about the maneuvers that the valkyries could perform in order to support it with some evidence-- otherwise, sketchley's assertion about efficiency would hold just as much water. However since the thrusters control the battroid in the atmosphere, so clearly they have enough thrust to make a significant difference in GERWALK and fighter modes as well-- we see this in the last OVA for MacPlus when Isamu and Guld are maneuvering in the stratosphere just after re-entry-- the YF-19's ventral nose thruster fired to help it achieve a tighter barrel loop.

About the G limits, on the other hand, they would only indicate armour strength if the valkyrie was of monocoque construction. Since we know that it has a space metal frame, that cannot be the answer.

[Mr March]

I'm not sure whether the number in the designation for the vernier thrusters means anything. They've never been described, so they could mean something as simple as a new model number. To say they denote some kind of increased rating or number of Gs is a real stretch IMO.

Also, vernier thrusters have been used within an atmosphere many times to achieve higher mobility not possible with control surfaces/thrust vectoring. Macross Plus stands out as the most vivid example, where we have seen the High-Maneuver Missiles, the YF-19, the YF-21 and the X-9 Ghost all utilizing verniers within the atmosphere. They are an obvious advantage for a variable fighter over a traditional fighter craft, so I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be used in extreme situations.

At any rate, I agree with Graham; the absolute g limit for the VF-25 is not as important since it's well beyond human tolerance. Guld Bowman died in his YF-21 long before reaching the g limit of the YF-21. The YF-21 hull began to melt from atmosphere sheering but the frame itself remained in tact. In the case of the VF-25, new technologies like the ISC (Inertia Store Converter) are allowing pilots to sustain far more gs than previous era pilots anyway.

[azrael]

I'm not sure whether the number in the designation for the vernier thrusters means anything. They've never been described, so they could mean something as simple as a new model number. To say they denote some kind of increased rating or number of Gs is a real stretch IMO.

Agreed. Companies do have a habit for re-numbering a product which corrects a slight issue with the previous model or just numbering a different product when it is structurally and internally the same as a similar model. A Glock 17 is just a larger model pistol than the Glock 19. Just because it has a higher number doesn't make it any different than the Glock 17, it's just a smaller variant.