If companies send VF designs to colonies...

[Zinjo]

This is just a Dave Deitrich brainbug. If you do some digging for translations of official sources you'd find that the F & S versions were more optimized for cost than anything else. Hell when you look at the F & S and the A they have roughly the same amount of lifting surfaces (the wings on an F model 19 are much broader than the 19A even if they don't have the wingspan, and the lack of canards are made up for by the extended LERXs). Hell if you look at the line art for the VF-19A you'll see that same three vernier thrusters that supposedly replaced the canards on the VF-19F/S.

I tend to avoid Deitrich, so that doesn't apply.

You realize that you're supporting my assertion. Vernier thrusters are great "in space" not nearly as effective in an atmosphere. Canards offer extra control surfaces in an atmosphere and are really not effective in space. At no point did I say the F & S could not fly in an atmosphere, only that they flew best in space as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized. Similarly the "A"s flew best in an atmosphere as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized.

Optimization does not mean environmental exclusivity.

[Mr March]

I'd actually prefer it if the black VF from Macross 7 Spiritia Dreaming was the VA-14. It certainly would make classification that much easier, since we could marry the black VF line art to the VA-14. We could then leave the VF-14 Vampire married to the line art from the M3 Dreamcast video game. But alas, we're just the fans, not the creators

[Killer Robot]

I tend to avoid Deitrich, so that doesn't apply.

You realize that you're supporting my assertion. Vernier thrusters are great "in space" not nearly as effective in an atmosphere. Canards offer extra control surfaces in an atmosphere and are really not effective in space. At no point did I say the F & S could not fly in an atmosphere, only that they flew best in space as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized. Similarly the "A"s flew best in an atmosphere as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized.

Optimization does not mean environmental exclusivity.

You're misreading Nied's post. It said that the vernier thrusters are on all models of the VF-19, and that while the F and S models lack the forward canards they also have broader wings and leading edge extensions which can only be there to increase lift and maneuverability in atmosphere. If that's the case, there's no obvious reason any model would have superior space performance, and while it's still possible the canard model has an edge in atmosphere it's not because the broad-winged model doesn't have its own unique maneuverability-enhancing control surfaces. It doesn't look like a simple environmental give-and-take optimization.

[Nied]

I tend to avoid Deitrich, so that doesn't apply.

The idea that the F/S are space optimized seems to have originated with him though.

You realize that you're supporting my assertion. Vernier thrusters are great "in space" not nearly as effective in an atmosphere.

Right and the VF-19A has both while the F/S has (simpler) LERXs, if it were optimized for space it should have gotten rid of the mass of both the canards and the LERxs.

Canards offer extra control surfaces in an atmosphere and are really not effective in space.

Neither are LERxs but they are simpler to maintain and cheaper to build since they have no moving parts.

At no point did I say the F & S could not fly in an atmosphere, only that they flew best in space as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized. Similarly the "A"s flew best in an atmosphere as that is how their systems & designs have been optimized.

Optimization does not mean environmental exclusivity.

I never claimed it did, however so far the only evidence pointing to it being space optimized is that it doesn't have canards. However that doesn't explain the re-designed wings (the A models wider wingspan would actually be an advantage in space since it would allow the wingtip verniers a larger moment arm for a higher roll rate), or the less attention paid to RCS reduction (the F and S models have a few more right angles in their panels and the overall more bulbous styling would cause their radar cross section to balloon). However they are explained if the VF-19F/S are meant to be cheaper alternatives (if the wings don't need to swing in flight it greatly reduces the complexity of the hinge mechanism, careful shaping to reduce RCS drives the complexity/cost of manufacture up, the advantages of LERXs over canards I mentioned above).

[Nied]

Damn, beat me to it and put it better than I did.

You're misreading Nied's post. It said that the vernier thrusters are on all models of the VF-19, and that while the F and S models lack the forward canards they also have broader wings and leading edge extensions which can only be there to increase lift and maneuverability in atmosphere. If that's the case, there's no obvious reason any model would have superior space performance, and while it's still possible the canard model has an edge in atmosphere it's not because the broad-winged model doesn't have its own unique maneuverability-enhancing control surfaces. It doesn't look like a simple environmental give-and-take optimization.

^

What he said.