Question on the Super/Strike packs

[KYQ]

I'm a real newbie to Macross, having only seen the DYRL movie and played the Dreamcast Macross M3 game (which sucked) and the new PS2 Macross game (which rocks) and in the PS2 game, I got to see the super and strike packs. What's the REAL difference between the 2 flavours in show? I know the strike pack has that kick ass laser cannon, but aside from that, why would a pilot say, use the Super pack over the strike pack? Also, why is it that I can't use the 'packs on earth missions? Anything to do with the show by any chance? Thanks for your time!

[Skippy438]

From what I can tell, Strike Packs are more expensive and are usually strictly for the use of squadron commanders (like Roy and Hikaru in DYRL). Other than that I'm not certain. The reason you can't use FAST packs on earth missions is due to earth's gravity. Those things would make the valk too heavy to fly in the atmosphere.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Here is my line of logic on this:

- Super packs contain all missles, Strike packs contain a mix of missles and cannon which gives a bit more versatility to the pilot

- That added versatility comes at a cost, not neccessarily money cost but it takes a certain skill level to use. Missles are sort of "fire and forget" whereas a fixed inline cannon requires a lot of skill to use propperly.

- I still think that the advanced avionics and equipment package the DYRL VF-1S is equipped with is the only thing the Strike cannon can mate to, hence you only see them on VF-1S models in the movie.

- who better to field an expensive piece of hardware that requires a skilled operator to use than a squad commander?

- one "drawback" to the Super packs is that when you are out of missles you are out of missles, the energy cannon on the Strike pack can recharge and fire several times.

(one last point of order KYQ is that the Strike packs only appear in the DYRL movie whereas the Super packs appear in both the movie and the TV series)

[Knight26]

The reason you don't see FAST PACKS in use on earth missions is not just due to weight but aerodynamics. The FAST PACKs are designed strictly for space use, therefore are not aerodynamically sound. A modifed version of the leg packs migth be able to be used, but not the backpacks.

[azrael]

There is a shot of the 1A using Strike packs on the 20th Anniversary disc. So I would say Strike packs are more dependent on mission specifics and or squad specifications (Similar to how M16's w/M203 grenade launchers are assigned to squads).

Also there are FAST packs which can be used in atmosphere (besides just the leg packs). These can be seen on the VF-11 in M7. Although those are much more streamlined compared to the normal VF-11 FAST packs.

[ArchVile]

They give the VF-11s atmostspheric FAST packs. Also the VF-11 puts out more thrust so it can handle them much like the VF-17, Y/VF-19, and the VF-22s(YF-21).

[Uxi]

It's just a rank thing. I think the M203/M16 analogy is great. I believe rather than being an incredible weapon the strike cannon simply allows the squadron leader to be able to mark targets instead of trying to communicate it verbally or graphically (in the HUD or something)...

[nathan]

The VF-1 can use FAST Packs in an atmosphere. The beginning of Dynamite 7 shows on on the ground.

[Knight26]

The VF-1 can use FAST Packs in an atmosphere. The beginning of Dynamite 7 shows on on the ground.

Key word there is on the ground, if you look at the area it is a training grounds, probably for a small backwater colonies militia. More then likely that one FAST Pack equiped valk was just there for maintenance training demonstrations and work. It would be after all much cheaper to train the ground crew planetside then send them into space to work on the real thing.

[Final Vegeta]

The VF-1 can use FAST Packs in an atmosphere. The beginning of Dynamite 7 shows on on the ground.

Older Valkyries cannot leave atmoshpere without them

[JELEINEN]

Older Valkyries cannot leave atmoshpere without them

I think that's a Palladium generated myth.

[Mechamaniac]

The VF-1 can use FAST Packs in an atmosphere. The beginning of Dynamite 7 shows on on the ground.

Realistically, a Fast Pack equipped VF-1 would become a very explosive lawn dart in atmosphere.

Take away the vertical stabilizers, and the fact that the VF-1 has no stabilators to begin with leaves you with a big heavy unsteerable lawn dart.

[Uxi]

Good point. It still has the flaps, and maybe a Super Valkyrie could act as a high powered rocket but without the tails (or an atmospheric addition to the FP), it probably wouldn't be pretty.

Course, a Valk would probably be ok as long as it just ditched the boosters. The leg and arm parts shoudln't affect aerodynamics much though would probably alter the in-flight characteristics due to all the mass. But you'd have to study the thrust output of them fusion engines and do some physics equations (and windtunnel testing) to be sure...

[azrael]

Good point. It still has the flaps, and maybe a Super Valkyrie could act as a high powered rocket but without the tails (or an atmospheric addition to the FP), it probably wouldn't be pretty.

Course, a Valk would probably be ok as long as it just ditched the boosters. The leg and arm parts shoudln't affect aerodynamics much though would probably alter the in-flight characteristics due to all the mass. But you'd have to study the thrust output of them fusion engines and do some physics equations (and windtunnel testing) to be sure...

Just a note, look at would be the VT-1C's packs in MD7 (or the lineart).

[muswp1]

A VF-1 with full FAST Packs in a planet's atmosphere would be able to fly up, down, and straight but that would be it. With the added weight of the boosters and no vertical stabilizers and rudders, the valk would never be able to turn or manuver.

[VF-19]

A VF-1 with full FAST Packs in a planet's atmosphere would be able to fly up, down, and straight but that would be it. With the added weight of the boosters and no vertical stabilizers and rudders, the valk would never be able to turn or manuver.

What about the control surfaces on the wings? At least you would be able to roll your aircraft. You'll be able to turn in that fashion.

As to the lack of a vertical stabilizer, you don't really need it to fly the aircraft. What I mean by "need" is that you could still be able to change your direction in which the plane is flying. If Il-2 is accurate, you can sheer off your rudder, and still be able to fly the plane (just a side note, using your rudder to chop off your opponent's wings is an effective way of downing an aircraft should you be out of ammo or your guns are jammed) Now if you get into a spin, that's when you really really need your vertical stabilizer.

[Mechamaniac]

See Muswp1's post.

You could roll, and climb or descend but turning would be a bitch. And it would be interesting to say the least to see what would happen to that Fast pack weighted backpack hinge under the G's induced if you were to roll.

And god forbid you kick in the pack boosters. You want to talk control surfaces?, see how spindly the wings on the VF-1 are?, as soon as you kicked in the boosters, anything short of flying directly straight and completely level (which would probably shear off the ailerons, and flaperons) would shear the wings clean off, giving you a one way ticket down.

The only way it would work would be if you just flew straight forward, and whenever you wanted to turn, you fire a vernier or three. But that would be if the valk was even aerodynamically sound with all that crap strapped to it.

[Nied]

There's also drag to consider. A Valkyrie with FAST packs attached would be about as aerodynamic as a barn door. Sure there would be added thrust from the boosters but as speed increases so does drag, and I doubt it would be long before the drag far outweighed the extra thrust of the FAST packs. I doubt a valk could get much past stall speed with FAST packs attached.

[KYQ]

Wow, that's alot of Food for thought there. Thanks guys, you've enriched this newbie

[nathan]

Well if a 747 can fly with a space shuttle on it's back I think a VF-1 can fly with FAST Packs. It's be like a flying brick but it could do it. And I think they would only be used in the upper upper atmosphere to boost the VF into true space.

[VF-19]

Well if a 747 can fly with a space shuttle on it's back I think a VF-1 can fly with FAST Packs. It's be like a flying brick but it could do it. And I think they would only be used in the upper upper atmosphere to boost the VF into true space.

But, while the space shuttle is a flying brick (litterally and figuratvely), it is a heck of a lot more areodynamic than a VF-1 with FAST packs on it. Plus the wings of the Space shuttle may lighten the load on the 747 while the 747 is in the air.

[nathan]

True but with enough thrust even bricks can fly and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

[Mechamaniac]

True but with enough thrust even bricks can fly and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

Yes, given sufficient thrust, a brick will fly. However, without control surfaces, that brick cannot maneuver. Additionally, if you add too much thrust to that brick, it will start to disintegrate at its' weakest points.

The only way a valk with packs could fly would be by using the verniers on the leg armors to keep the tail level, and maneuver left and right, and create roll etc. There is no way that it could carry sufficient fuel in the packs to fire them constantly. So, the pilot would have to vector the feet nozzles down, but that would create forward roll that would need to be countered by flaps, or the nose verniers. Either way, it would be a big fuel consuming bitch.

But, the real killer for a valk with packs in atmosphere would be the structural integrity. The whole pack system connects to the backpack, and unless that hinge was immensely strong, it is likely that the whole backpack unit would shear off, and go shooting off in front of the Valk when the pilot kicked in the pack boosters. Sort of like that errant booster rocket that came off the Challenger all those years ago.

[VF-18S Hornet]

From what I can tell, Strike Packs are more expensive and are usually strictly for the use of squadron commanders (like Roy and Hikaru in DYRL). Other than that I'm not certain. The reason you can't use FAST packs on earth missions is due to earth's gravity. Those things would make the valk too heavy to fly in the atmosphere.

Tell me about my 1/48 got heavy from putting the fast packs on. Now I know why they weren't used for atmoshperic flights.

[Uxi]

Well, a brick COULD maneuver if it had vernier thrusters and thrust vectoring. A Super Valkyrie wouldn't be able to have very high maneuverability, no question... whether it's thrust could make it capable of doing so (and ripping wings and various pieces off) is a matter for the aeronautical engineers. But enough to take off, with slow and deliberate manevers, and reach space shoudln't be much in question, should it? Just hope the 1/1 Valkryie's "backpack hinge" is stronger than the Yamato 1/48.

I actually think the Space-Shuttle/747 analogy was pretty good.

[bsu legato]

Palladium

Shhh! You must not speak that word!

[Mechamaniac]

I actually think the Space-Shuttle/747 analogy was pretty good.

Yeah, but with one major difference.

The shuttle had wings, stabilators, and a tail. So it would at least provide some of it's own lift.

Now, if they added some wings or winglets to the Fast packs that could be jettisoned upon reaching space, then it might work.

Of course, that may even be a moot point since you would probably have to empty the packs fuel cells to escape gravity anyway, so you would probably end up jettisoning the whole shebang .

Oh well, Kawamori sama never claimed to be an aeronautical engineer, but he sure does draw a neat plane!.

[tom64ss]

I know these models might not be "canon", but I always liked the way the Strike Packs looked on the VF-1Js and the VF-1D:

[pfunk]

simple, no tail no fly, its imposible, on that style of jet, cant remember the tech name (instead of horizontal tails, it usses the 2 rudder style tails (tilted out on the tips) in the place of the horizontal tail ) anywho, those are folded up and wont work. Also, a F-14 has tail fins in addition to rudders

[Göönk]

True but with enough thrust even bricks can fly and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

Yes, given sufficient thrust, a brick will fly. However, without control surfaces, that brick cannot maneuver. Additionally, if you add too much thrust to that brick, it will start to disintegrate at its' weakest points.

The only way a valk with packs could fly would be by using the verniers on the leg armors to keep the tail level, and maneuver left and right, and create roll etc. There is no way that it could carry sufficient fuel in the packs to fire them constantly. So, the pilot would have to vector the feet nozzles down, but that would create forward roll that would need to be countered by flaps, or the nose verniers. Either way, it would be a big fuel consuming bitch.

But, the real killer for a valk with packs in atmosphere would be the structural integrity. The whole pack system connects to the backpack, and unless that hinge was immensely strong, it is likely that the whole backpack unit would shear off, and go shooting off in front of the Valk when the pilot kicked in the pack boosters. Sort of like that errant booster rocket that came off the Challenger all those years ago.

in real world, do you really think planes could transform into robots?

and about the fuel, they're using super fuel or some kind of it.

remember in DYRL when they fly the destroyed earth for 15 000 mile before they find the Protoculture city? I think that kind of fuel can be used for ages. Maybe it can regenerate itself 1000 times. Hey, why not?

And why no fast pack in atmosphere? My mind is not opposed to that idea. It even likes it and i decide it is possible! I won't change my mind!!

Edited November 13, 2003 by Göönk

[pfunk]

True but with enough thrust even bricks can fly and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

Yes, given sufficient thrust, a brick will fly. However, without control surfaces, that brick cannot maneuver. Additionally, if you add too much thrust to that brick, it will start to disintegrate at its' weakest points.

The only way a valk with packs could fly would be by using the verniers on the leg armors to keep the tail level, and maneuver left and right, and create roll etc. There is no way that it could carry sufficient fuel in the packs to fire them constantly. So, the pilot would have to vector the feet nozzles down, but that would create forward roll that would need to be countered by flaps, or the nose verniers. Either way, it would be a big fuel consuming bitch.

But, the real killer for a valk with packs in atmosphere would be the structural integrity. The whole pack system connects to the backpack, and unless that hinge was immensely strong, it is likely that the whole backpack unit would shear off, and go shooting off in front of the Valk when the pilot kicked in the pack boosters. Sort of like that errant booster rocket that came off the Challenger all those years ago.

in real world, do you really think planes could transform into robots?

and about the fuel, they're using super fuel or some kind of it.

remember in DYRL when they fly the destroyed earth for 15 000 mile before they find the Protoculture city? I think that kind of fuel can be used for ages. Maybe it can regenerate itself 1000 times. Hey, why not?

And why no fast pack in atmosphere? My mind is not opposed to that idea. It even likes it and i decide it is possible! I won't change my mind!!

its a question of lift and stabalization, not power

[Coota0]

I know these models might not be "canon", but I always liked the way the Strike Packs looked on the VF-1Js and the VF-1D:

Actually a VF-1D or a 2 seat variant of some sort would be really cool, the backseater could control the strike cannon, and the pilot could worry about flying.

[Noyhauser]

and about the fuel, they're using super fuel or some kind of it.

remember in DYRL when they fly the destroyed earth for 15 000 mile before they find the Protoculture city? I think that kind of fuel can be used for ages. Maybe it can regenerate itself 1000 times. Hey, why not?

And why no fast pack in atmosphere? My mind is not opposed to that idea. It even likes it and i decide it is possible! I won't change my mind!!

in atmosphere a thermonuclear engine doesnt really need fuel, as it can use the enormous energy potential of fusion power to heat air as a propellant. If you could transfer the raw energy from the reaction, while keeping the reaction mass (helium 3) for later reaction, you essentially have a limitless energy source. And if you do need fuel all you need to crack is water to get hydrogen to run your fighter. But you would not be using the hydrogen as reaction mass anyways so its not needed very often. I'm guessing though that a overtechnology thermonuclear turbine can run off any light element to run the fighter, no matter the temperature/pressure needed to get it to fuse.

In space on the other hand fighters run into a major problem because there is no reaction mass for the fighters to use like air in an atmosphere. Either the engines use some of the mass released by the energy reaction to propell themselves (which doesn't do much because the molecules released are so light) or they carry a secondary propellent that is heavier and is excited through the thermonuclear reaction released out the back as thrust.

[Nied]

Well if a 747 can fly with a space shuttle on it's back I think a VF-1 can fly with FAST Packs. It's be like a flying brick but it could do it. And I think they would only be used in the upper upper atmosphere to boost the VF into true space.

Ah but a space shuttle is an aircraft designed to fly at high speeds within an atmosphere. It is shaped reletively aerodynamicaly and thus would imppose only a small amount of drag on the 747. A FAST pack is shaped like a very big box, it is in no way aerodynamic and thus would create an imense amount of drag.

[Nied]

True but with enough thrust even bricks can fly and the VF-1 has plenty of thrust.

But the very nature of drag is that the harder you push the harder it pushes back. If an aircraft tries to go faster it will just be hitting more air to slow it down, eventually there's no amount of thrust that could overcome the drag induced. That's why all aerospace research hasn't been just thrown into engine development, because like most things brute force doesn't take you very far.