Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur

[azrael]

I'm starting to revise my opinion of the book - as in it's official. Main reason is that both books list Kawamori Shouji as the Supervisor.

Of course, what role a supervisor plays is an unanswered question. So too would be asking if his current busy schedule has inhibited his ability to recollect what information was released in previous publications about the two craft in question.

Nevertheless, ....

I'd rather not bring this back up but start from here and read the subsequent posts about it-> http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=29211&view=findpost&p=793783

And yes, I did ask Egan about it but he has yet to get back to me (let alone if he even knows himself).

[sketchley]

You forgot to mention that the YF-19 Galaxy Demonstration Tour one with the UNS Kites on it is painted in Roy Fokker's VF-1S colors.

3rd one down.

[Talos]

3rd one down.

Oh, I know you mentioned that it was there, but I meant you didn't mention it was in a retro SW1 paint scheme.

[sketchley]

[Roy Focker]

YF-19 Galaxy Demonstration Tour (the one with the UNS Kite, and names of planets/bases visited under each one. Selling the VF-19, hmmm?)

That would explain how the Zolans had one in Macross 7 Dynamite.

[Seto Kaiba]

Long and short -winged VF-19F/S

[...]

and a bunch of non-canonical ones like Macross Atlantis, Macross Endeavo(u)r, Macross Chal(l)enger, Macross Andromeda, and Macross Pioneer, as well as Planet Eden and some other planets.

Tell me, did you get the same weird feeling that we and the writers of this book seem to have been working from each other's notes?

I'm starting to revise my opinion of the book - as in it's official. Main reason is that both books list Kawamori Shouji as the Supervisor.

But that really does nothing to counteract the simple fact that the percentage of stuff that makes sense and is in line with other publications is utterly swamped by the sheer amount of stuff that isn't. The first volume in the series, the VF-1 Master File, had a few sections that were obviously reprinted from the old (and thoroughly unreliable) MAT book. When we find ourselves confronted with a host of sources that all generally agree on the details, and then one or two books that are out in left field contradicting just about everything else, determining which is correct ought to be a no-brainer. Consistency over flash every time.

The Master File books are damn pretty to look at, and might be based loosely on official info, but I don't think we should go labeling them official. (The Wiki writers seem to be of the same mind, lumping the new stuff from Master File in the same category as magazine variants like the VF-25VJ Vajra Aggressor and VF-19ES Mystery Ship II)

Edited June 5, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Very interested to hear if the book offers any explanation for the reason for the change from the forward swept wing of the A/B/C/D/E type to the F/S style wing?

Up until the E-type, the forward swept wing was standard, so what drove the change to the F/S style wing? Must be some perceived avantage?

I've actually got to the stage where I think the VF-19F/S looks far nicer than the other types.

Graham

[Graham]

Had a dream last night, that the next book in the series was the VF-17.

Although, given that they seem to be focusing on main hero mecha, I'm sure it will be the VF-25.

Graham

[Graham]

What thoughts are those?

The the ankle vernier ring on the 19 F/S/P/Kai can provide manoeuvring thrust at any point nearly 360 degrees around the circumference of the ankle (depending on mode), making it superior to the YF-19/VF-19A, which only circle-bar type verniers per leg.

Graham

[Graham]

I love the pics of the VF-19A with ventral and dorsal Fold Boosters and FAST Packs.

Grahm

[Graham]

No mention seems to be made of the prototype arm weapon shown in Macross Plus.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

Very interested to hear if the book offers any explanation for the reason for the change from the forward swept wing of the A/B/C/D/E type to the F/S style wing?

Didn't we already have an answer for that? It's been a while, but I remember reading an explanation that said that the reason the VF-19F/S had a redesigned main wing and had an extra bank of verniers in place of the canards was to maximize its performance in space, where it was decided it would see most if not all of its combat usage.

[Talos]

Very interested to hear if the book offers any explanation for the reason for the change from the forward swept wing of the A/B/C/D/E type to the F/S style wing?

Up until the E-type, the forward swept wing was standard, so what drove the change to the F/S style wing? Must be some perceived advantage?

I've actually got to the stage where I think the VF-19F/S looks far nicer than the other types.

Graham

I think it might be for space purposes, as well as increasing roll rate by keeping the mass closer to the center of gravity. I did a VF-19F a while ago and it really looks different then the VF-19A. This book really brings the two designs together, I think, and I like that a lot. I'm going to do a new one from scratch, based on my VF-19A.

The the ankle vernier ring on the 19 F/S/P/Kai can provide manoeuvring thrust at any point nearly 360 degrees around the circumference of the ankle (depending on mode), making it superior to the YF-19/VF-19A, which only circle-bar type verniers per leg.

Graham

I love the art they have of that. I had no idea those were there.

I love the pics of the VF-19A with ventral and dorsal Fold Boosters and FAST Packs.

Grahm

Don't forget the RMS-5 reaction weapons and high maneuverability missiles.

[Graham]

Didn't we already have an answer for that? It's been a while, but I remember reading an explanation that said that the reason the VF-19F/S had a redesigned main wing and had an extra bank of verniers in place of the canards was to maximize its performance in space, where it was decided it would see most if not all of its combat usage.

Yeah, that's always been the conventionally accepted wisdom (which I don't 100% buy into), but I'd like to know if the book offers any new insight on this matter.

Graham

[sketchley]

But that really does nothing to counteract the simple fact that the percentage of stuff that makes sense and is in line with other publications is utterly swamped by the sheer amount of stuff that isn't.

And how much of that is recently published stuff? What I'm comparing is other recently published stuff, and there is consistency amongst the recently published stuff, and the stuff published years and decades ago.

Anyhow, didn't you hear what Azrael said? He didn't want to drag that debate into this thread.

[Seto Kaiba]

Anyhow, didn't you hear what Azrael said? He didn't want to drag that debate into this thread.

Then why did you respond? You could've just let it be instead of calling attention to it and trying to ensure you had the last word, and it would've gone away all on its own...

Courtesy of Talos, I've been reading the bit about the GU-15(A) gun pod, and it's looking like they couldn't decide on a caliber, but they gave us just about everything else we'd want to know... muzzle velocity, range, and magazine capacity. Surprisingly small on that last note (a mere 150 rounds, if I read it correctly on my brief glance-through), but as Talos brought to my attention the magazine looks like a similar setup to the one off the FN P90. A strange choice, but it makes sense given the way the gunpod's set up.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

In Macross Plus, the YF-19, is shown reloading twice (IIRC), using spare gunpod magazines stored in the shield, so that would give a total carried ammuntion capacity of 450rds.

And yeah, I wish the book had gone into some detail about exaactly how the spare magazines are stored.

Grahm

[Mr March]

Would have liked a caliber (at last), but I have to admit these other statistics on the GU-15 gun pod are far more interesting. Is that a muzzle velocity of 4,000 m/s? Yahoo!

[Graham]

Didn't we already have an answer for that? It's been a while, but I remember reading an explanation that said that the reason the VF-19F/S had a redesigned main wing and had an extra bank of verniers in place of the canards was to maximize its performance in space, where it was decided it would see most if not all of its combat usage.

Yes, back in the late 90's when we first started discussing this point, the lineart for the VF-19F/S did show the triple bank of verniers instead of canards, whereas most of the art for the VF-19Kai lacked the triple verniers and only had canards, hence the thinking at the time, that the verniers on the F/S where in lieu of canards and that the VF-19F/S was a space optimised version. This is still only a fan-theory though and I'm hoping the Master Files book would shed some definitive light on whether or not the F/S was Space Optimised and what is the exact reason/benefit of the redigned wings?

Of course, the fly in this ointment was always the YF-19/VF-19AS, which had both canards and the triple vernier bank immediaetly behind the canards, making it potentially more of a dual-role (space/atmosphere) VF.

Interestingly, the art in the new Master Files book shows the VF-19E on page 79 with the triple verniers and Basara's, Sound Force VF-19E(Kai) on page 125 as usual without the verniers.

Also, note that the VF-19C (pages 119 & 122) seem to lack the triple verniers, as do some of the specilalized variations (although the line art is a bit inconsistent on the triple vernier cluster thoughout the book.

Graham

[sketchley]

Then why did you respond?

To clarify my point/position, as your message indicated that aspect wasn't clearly understood. It wasn't intended as a continuation of the debate, and it definitely wasn't an attempt to get the last word.

Very interested to hear if the book offers any explanation for the reason for the change from the forward swept wing of the A/B/C/D/E type to the F/S style wing?

Up until the E-type, the forward swept wing was standard, so what drove the change to the F/S style wing? Must be some perceived avantage?

Glancing at the text, the only one that has anything relevant is on pg 080 (of course, this is just a cursory glance):

In short it says that the VF-19F is indeed a space specialized VF-19 planned off of the VF-19E model. Accompanying the change of the main wing's shape, the atmospheric high-speed flight form has been omitted. I think it also says that the positions of the 2 wing hardpoints has been changed. There's more, but it appears to be about atmospheric flight performance.

[Graham]

I've always thought that the lack of canards (which are pretty small anyway), would not adversely impact the VF-19/F/S's atmospheric manoeuvring performance by much, given that the size and shape of the other manoeuvring surfaces (flaps, rudders etc) are comparable to those on the swept-wing 19 variants. The only thing I'm not sure about is how the shape of the 19F/S's wing would effect manoeuvring ability, drag etc at different speeds.

Perhaps David could offer some insight on this?

The vernier ankle ring on the E/F/S/P should defintely offer an advantage over only the two verniers per lower-leg on the A/B/C/D.

Graham

[Renato]

I haven't come across that description, yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist (would you know the page number?) All I've found are the Mauler REB-30G adn Mauler-23 laser canons, which is consistant with information published elsewhere.

I just flipped through the book at a shop, so I couldn't tell you the page number, sorry. But I do remember that it had an illustration of just the gun on the top left-hand corner of a left page, with the description text below that, somewhere in the book. It should be in the big section where they describe the armaments of the craft one by one. Hope that helps. Maybe I'm confusing them with the laser cannons you described, if so, sorry for the confusion, they looked like the chest guns to me.

[sketchley]

Ah, thanks Renato. Know that page, it's titled "initial armaments". If I find the time, I'll take an in-depth look at it. Though, at present, I believe that it's referring to the wing-root beam guns. Mind you, on the YF-19, there could've been an extra pair of them in the chest area.

Anyhow, more on the VF-19F stubby wings:

pg 080 shows the VF-19F with two types:

Left (shorter, stubbier; not depicted with the airframe): space manueverability type: specialized for space employment, and designed with compact wings with the weight balance in mind.

Right (longer): improved atmospheric mobility type - for use by the defence force of emigrant planets, etc., as they are often used in atmospheric and space.

Interpretation: in addition to the better optimization for space use, I feel there is a bit of cost-saving and simplification going on in the VF-19F; which is consistant with the VF-11B -> VF-11C progression.

[sketchley]

I've always thought that the lack of canards (which are pretty small anyway), would not adversely impact the VF-19/F/S's atmospheric manoeuvring performance by much,

The removal of them would have a detrimental effect to atmospheric performance, especially in very high angle of attack maneuvers. Sure, the thurst band can compensate for the lack of canards, but the additional forward rotational thrust on the nose would have to be counterbalanced by control input elsewhere - in effect reducing the extremes of performance. Not to mention the added complication of running out of fuel and losing that control means...

So, yeah, in normal operations, the effect would be almost negligible, but there is a reduction in some aspects of stability.

[David Hingtgen]

Ok, is "VF-19E" some recently-introduced-designation for Basara's? I've never seen any official -19's other than YF, A, F, S, and Kai.

Anyways---there's 2 main ways to use canards.

1. As a direct control surface, basically a forward-mounted elevator.

2. To influence the airflow going over the wing. SAAB in particular likes to use them this way---by angling the canard, you alter the angle that the airflow hits the wing leading edge, thus allowing you to control the flow over the wing before the air encounters the---this really comes into play in high-alpha situations where you may otherwise encounter flow separation. Updraft and downdraft at the leading edge of the wing is often overlooked IMHO (as is the whole circulation theory of flight/lift overall).

All that said, the -19's canards really do look more like the former, as they are too high and forward to influence the wings---they'd barely influence the gloves. But of course--those are some tiny canards. True, they are mouted far forward, thus giving them a large moment arm, especially considering how far back the -19's center of gravity must be---but the -19 is just plain huge, with "massive amounts of mass" aft---frankly I fail to see how those tiny little fins could "move that ass around", frankly.

Now as for wings:

I'm always a fan of area. Big wings have a lower loading, and a lower loading means more turning for a given speed/energy etc. Look at the trend in fighter planes----you saw many skinny-winged planes in the 50's and 60's. But then wings started getting bigger---first the F-4, then the F-15, F-16, and then up to the F-22 with its huge wing, and the YF-23 with the biggest of them all. (Swing-wings are a different category, and when swept they behave much like a delta-wing, incorporating the gloves and even tailplanes into their effective area)

However---bigger wings are simply more mass, and more drag---generally they will turn quicker, and be able to sustain any given turn rate for longer. But they are slower to respond. The best example there will ever be is the Spitfire vs Fw190. The original Spitfire due to its large elliptical wing could out-turn an Fw190. But the 190's stubbier wing could respond faster and out-roll the Spitfire---it *changed* direction so fast that the Spitfire's better turn rate was useless. So, they clipped the Spitfire's wingtips. It could now roll faster, though it had to give up some raw turn-rate.

But the real question is---how does any of THIS matter in SPACE? With how thin the outer sections of the wings are, their mass is nothing compared to the rest of the valk, and with how verniers work, the wingtip-mounted ones now have a much smaller moment-arm, which I think would be a far greater detriment to manueverability than any mass-savings could help.

[Seto Kaiba]

Ok, is "VF-19E" some recently-introduced-designation for Basara's? I've never seen any official -19's other than YF, A, F, S, and Kai.

Not really, no... the "VF-19E" is something the Master File's writers invented to explain what Basara's VF-19 Kai was customized from. Prior to that, the only mentions of a "VF-19E" I'm aware of are fan-fiction... one from some Japanese fansite circa 2002 (where the author states it's a non-canon variant of his own invention, created by an attempt to Photoshop VF-19 Kai wings and canards onto a VF-19F/S frame), some coincidentally identical work I did while helping a friend develop a setting for Macross RPG he wanted to run, and a "VF-19ES" kitbashed model (also non-canon) that appeared in Model Graphix magazine, and had the backstory of being a custom VF developed to break the speed record over C on a flight from New Edwards AFB on Eden to Edwards AFB on Earth using a prototype enhanced fold booster.

To date, the only confirmed official variants of the VF-19 are the YF-19, VF-19A, VF-19F, VF-19S, VF-19 Kai, and VF-19P.

[Graham]

But the real question is---how does any of THIS matter in SPACE? With how thin the outer sections of the wings are, their mass is nothing compared to the rest of the valk, and with how verniers work, the wingtip-mounted ones now have a much smaller moment-arm, which I think would be a far greater detriment to manueverability than any mass-savings could help.

My question is more how do the VF-19F/S's wings and lack of canards affect performance in atmsphere compared to the fuly swept wings of the YF-19/VF-19A/Kai(E)/?

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Guess I should summarize my previous post:

I can't imagine those small, high-mounted, highly-canted canards (or lack of) having much effect in the atmosphere. I seriously wonder if they're like the Tu-144's---just there for landing (and a space-borne plane would thus have little need for them). Or maybe like a B-1B's, to help it be a smooth, stable bombing platform at high speeds---more like a gyration dampener than a directional control. As for the wings---the shorter wings should increase the roll rate/responsiveness, but decrease both instantaneous and sustained turn rate.

Instantaneous turn rate: how fast you can turn if you're willing to sacrifice all your speed/alt/energy for one heck of a turn. You will bleed speed/altitude quickly. You will never make a full 360 with this. Usually a quarter-turn or so before you run out of energy, MAYBE a 180. Generally a defensive turn, to break a missile lock etc (as you'll sacrifice your energy, so you won't be doing anything offensive for a while).

Sustained turn rate: fairly self-explanatory, compared to above. This will often be your "360 turn demo" by an F-15/16/18 at an airshow---the best full 360+ turn they can make, while remaining at constant speed/altitude.

[Graham]

pg 080 shows the VF-19F with two types:

Left (shorter, stubbier; not depicted with the airframe): space manueverability type: specialized for space employment, and designed with compact wings with the weight balance in mind.

Right (longer): improved atmospheric mobility type - for use by the defence force of emigrant planets, etc., as they are often used in atmospheric and space.

Well, spotted Sketchley! I hadn't noticed that VF-19F was shown with both a short and a long wing.

Graham

[Talos]

Ok, is "VF-19E" some recently-introduced-designation for Basara's? I've never seen any official -19's other than YF, A, F, S, and Kai.

Anyways---there's 2 main ways to use canards.

1. As a direct control surface, basically a forward-mounted elevator.

2. To influence the airflow going over the wing. SAAB in particular likes to use them this way---by angling the canard, you alter the angle that the airflow hits the wing leading edge, thus allowing you to control the flow over the wing before the air encounters the---this really comes into play in high-alpha situations where you may otherwise encounter flow separation. Updraft and downdraft at the leading edge of the wing is often overlooked IMHO (as is the whole circulation theory of flight/lift overall).

All that said, the -19's canards really do look more like the former, as they are too high and forward to influence the wings---they'd barely influence the gloves. But of course--those are some tiny canards. True, they are mouted far forward, thus giving them a large moment arm, especially considering how far back the -19's center of gravity must be---but the -19 is just plain huge, with "massive amounts of mass" aft---frankly I fail to see how those tiny little fins could "move that ass around", frankly.

Now as for wings:

I'm always a fan of area. Big wings have a lower loading, and a lower loading means more turning for a given speed/energy etc. Look at the trend in fighter planes----you saw many skinny-winged planes in the 50's and 60's. But then wings started getting bigger---first the F-4, then the F-15, F-16, and then up to the F-22 with its huge wing, and the YF-23 with the biggest of them all. (Swing-wings are a different category, and when swept they behave much like a delta-wing, incorporating the gloves and even tailplanes into their effective area)

However---bigger wings are simply more mass, and more drag---generally they will turn quicker, and be able to sustain any given turn rate for longer. But they are slower to respond. The best example there will ever be is the Spitfire vs Fw190. The original Spitfire due to its large elliptical wing could out-turn an Fw190. But the 190's stubbier wing could respond faster and out-roll the Spitfire---it *changed* direction so fast that the Spitfire's better turn rate was useless. So, they clipped the Spitfire's wingtips. It could now roll faster, though it had to give up some raw turn-rate.

But the real question is---how does any of THIS matter in SPACE? With how thin the outer sections of the wings are, their mass is nothing compared to the rest of the valk, and with how verniers work, the wingtip-mounted ones now have a much smaller moment-arm, which I think would be a far greater detriment to manueverability than any mass-savings could help.

Great reply, Dave, I hadn't thought to look back at the 190 and Spitfire comparison, it's a good point. On the other hand, though, I don't know if they have any verniers on the wingtips. The ones in Macross always seem to be fairly large (case in point, the smallest ones I can think of on a VF are the ones in the ankles of the VF-19F/S, really). The VF-19F/S adds another large one on the side of the leg near the knee and some on the wing roots, which would affect space roll motions.

I wonder, though, how would the canards on the VF-19A affect high-AoA maneuvers? With the thrust vectoring the VF-19 has, it could easily put its nose pretty far up there. There's a picture of a CG model doing just that in the book.

Speaking of wing area, you might enjoy this. The shorter VF-19F/S wings have a larger inner-wing area, so they don't lose nearly as much as you would think in comparison to the longer "medium" wing. It's longer, but also has a higher aspect ratio closer to the fuselage.

[Graham]

Guess I should summarize my previous post:

I can't imagine those small, high-mounted, highly-canted canards (or lack of) having much effect in the atmosphere. I seriously wonder if they're like the Tu-144's---just there for landing (and a space-borne plane would thus have little need for them). Or maybe like a B-1B's, to help it be a smooth, stable bombing platform at high speeds---more like a gyration dampener than a directional control. As for the wings---the shorter wings should increase the roll rate/responsiveness, but decrease both instantaneous and sustained turn rate.

Instantaneous turn rate: how fast you can turn if you're willing to sacrifice all your speed/alt/energy for one heck of a turn. You will bleed speed/altitude quickly. You will never make a full 360 with this. Usually a quarter-turn or so before you run out of energy, MAYBE a 180. Generally a defensive turn, to break a missile lock etc (as you'll sacrifice your energy, so you won't be doing anything offensive for a while).

Sustained turn rate: fairly self-explanatory, compared to above. This will often be your "360 turn demo" by an F-15/16/18 at an airshow---the best full 360+ turn they can make, while remaining at constant speed/altitude.

Thanks David. So basically a VF-19F, especially with the longer type 'atmospheric' wings shown on page 80, is likely not going to be giving anything up in the way of atmospheric performance to the VF-19A, especially as the VF-19F has far greater thrust (VF-19F = 78,500kg x 2 vs. VF-19A = 66,200kg x 2)and the VF-19F has the added advantage of the thust vernier ankle rings. In fact, it would seem to me that the VF-19F may even be the superior overall machine.

Wondering if the book mentions anthing about the VF-19F being an overall replacement for the VF-19A, or is it still the same old VF-19A is for planet use, VF-19F is for space use.

Graham

[Graham]

Here's a quick scan of page 80, showing the long and short type VF-19F wing, so those who don't yet have the book know what we are talking about.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Graham---Thrust is a big factor when it comes to turning performance. Like most things when it comes to flight---raw power can often substitute for fancy aerodynamics.

Talos---hmmn. As FSW tends to inherently be used for VERY high alpha, I'm wondering if the highly-canted canards may be acting more like rudders in that situation, and actually used for roll control at like 50 AOA---generally you don't want to try to use ailerons to roll when at very high alpha, you'll just spin---adverse yaw in the extreme. So you use the rudders, to intentionally create proverse roll. With how back-heavy/unstable the -19 is, plus FSW, maybe it was intended to be flown with as high an alpha as possible, spend a lot of time there for pure dogfighting and have such an advantage in that area, that nothing could compete with it in certain situations? Kind of a one-trick-pony, but if it's that good of a trick...

Re: stubby wings having more root area/chord---if the gloves have a decent camber, they could make a lot of lift, but this is a fighter, not an airliner----a big root wouldn't be nearly as adaptable as a YF-19's wing---I'll just assume a YF-19 wing naturally has very little, symmetrical camber like an F-16, and mainly uses computer-controlled leading and trailing edge flaps to create camber as needed, instantly. A fixed glove could conceivably create just as much lift at certain angles, but couldn't be adjusted like a wing could.

Re: wingtip verniers. Frankly---it just has to have some. I'm thinking they're slots, like a Harrier's. There is just no way you're going to design a plane that uses verniers for primary roll control in space, and NOT put some on the wingtips! Plus, the VF-1 clearly has them there as we see them used in the opening DYRL fight, even if they're not canonically shown on the lineart AFAIK. (at best, there's a panel line in the right place, but it's not even a proper slot)

[Talos]

Graham---Thrust is a big factor when it comes to turning performance. Like most things when it comes to flight---raw power can often substitute for fancy aerodynamics.

I think that was the first line in the F-4 Phantom's flight manual!

Talos---hmmn. As FSW tends to inherently be used for VERY high alpha, I'm wondering if the highly-canted canards may be acting more like rudders in that situation, and actually used for roll control at like 50 AOA---generally you don't want to try to use ailerons to roll when at very high alpha, you'll just spin---adverse yaw in the extreme. So you use the rudders, to intentionally create proverse roll. With how back-heavy/unstable the -19 is, plus FSW, maybe it was intended to be flown with as high an alpha as possible, spend a lot of time there for pure dogfighting and have such an advantage in that area, that nothing could compete with it in certain situations? Kind of a one-trick-pony, but if it's that good of a trick...

Hmm, that brings to mind the maneuvers Isamu was doing when he first got the YF-19. Remember, when he's doing the aerial skywriting? He spends a huge chunk of that time over a 50 AOA, usually closer to 90 degrees. Maybe it was designed to be hyper-maneuverable in that regime.

Re: stubby wings having more root area/chord---if the gloves have a decent camber, they could make a lot of lift, but this is a fighter, not an airliner----a big root wouldn't be nearly as adaptable as a YF-19's wing---I'll just assume a YF-19 wing naturally has very little, symmetrical camber like an F-16, and mainly uses computer-controlled leading and trailing edge flaps to create camber as needed, instantly. A fixed glove could conceivably create just as much lift at certain angles, but couldn't be adjusted like a wing could.

In an interesting twist, the VF-19F/S has a much larger wing glove then the VF-19A. Coupled with a lower aspect inner wing, it has to be creating a lot of lift in certain areas. Maybe compensation for making the wing overall smaller?

Re: wingtip verniers. Frankly---it just has to have some. I'm thinking they're slots, like a Harrier's. There is just no way you're going to design a plane that uses verniers for primary roll control in space, and NOT put some on the wingtips! Plus, the VF-1 clearly has them there as we see them used in the opening DYRL fight, even if they're not canonically shown on the lineart AFAIK. (at best, there's a panel line in the right place, but it's not even a proper slot)

I've always been a proponent of those too, so it's been frustrating when we haven't seen them in any of the line art or even the cutaways. Puffers in the Harrier style would work just fine there, I think.

[Mr March]

Just some miscellaneous errata about the current discussions...

- the YF-19 does NOT use the common "circle-bar type" verniers at the back/bottom of the engines/legs; if one looks closely those six verniers (2 outside/1 inside per engine/leg) are not the standard arresting-hook style found on many other valkyries. They have no cross bar and appear to be larger, more dedicated thrusters.

- the Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur unfortunately repeats the now infamous VF-19F/S engine errors found within Macross Chronicle issues #27 and #41. We had a thread about that and I even created a dedicated page on my website to document the nature of that error. So the VF-19F does NOT have 78,500 kg of thrust, but 72,500 kg of thrust per engine.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Mr March