Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur

[Vic Mancini]

The very light gray shaded area is "moveable/mobile panel"

medium gray is: "mounting plate"

dark gray is: "main wing part/side actuator mount"

The wing-glove upper and lower bulges are also described as "moveable/mobile panels".

So... it looks like both the wing AND the wing glove deform in order for the wing to swivel. Neat.

Hmmm, I still don't understand this wing. It doesn't look to me like the light gray panels move at all through the sequentail diagrams. Even if the light gray panels retracted and disappeared completely there is still too much "white wing" to fully swivel back without the wring root needing to de-hinge anyway.

Maybe the light gray panels have to do with what's going on in the bottom right diagram? The one that shows the wing swiveling in smaller increments.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Vic Mancini

[Seto Kaiba]

the original Macross Compendium has had the information all along (original thrust ratings highlighted)

Indeed it does... though you seem to be engaging in a bit of creative misreading to make the data there support your claim. In point of fact, the original VF-19 Compendium entry places the thrust rating of the VF-19F's two FF-2500F engines at 72,500kgf and the thrust rating of the VF-19S's two FF-2550J engines at 78,950kgf.

By contrast, the astonishingly unreliable writers at Macross Chronicle claim the VF-19F uses two VF-2550J engines (the engines originally identified as belonging to the VF-19S) at a new, lower thrust rating of 78,500kgf, and that the VF-19S uses two FF-2550X engines (an ass-pull if ever we saw one) rated for 68,950kgf.

- the max thrust for the VF-19S has gone full circle back to approximately where they started.

And your basis for this claim is? The Compendium gives the VF-19S a thrust rating of 78,950kgf to the VF-19F's 72,500kgf, which is consistent with the usual practice of giving "leader" models more powerful engines, the -S variant's higher top speed at altitude, and the -S variant's allegedly superior climb rate from sea level.

- The max thrust of the VF-19F/S are NOT given for in an atmosphere. Does the S have higher max thrust than the F in an atmosphere? Text in Macross Chronicle indicates it is so.

Not quite... the text in Macross Chronicle indicates that the VF-19F has greater engine thrust than the VF-19S, but for reasons unexplained has an inferior rate of climb and top speed compared to the VF-19S. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. I'm not an expert on aerodynamics, but I can spot bullshit just as easily as the next guy. When you have two aircraft that are virtually identical aerodynamically, the lighter one with the more powerful engines ought to be faster at altitude and have a greater climb rate than the heavier one with the significantly lower thrust-to-weight ratio.

For the VF-19F to have engines significantly more powerful than those of the VF-19S in space, and have those same engines be inferior to the VF-19S's in atmosphere (as you're positing) makes no sense... and crosses the line into absurdity when you consider that the VF-19F/S variants we see were supposedly optimized for space combat. Why would the U.N. Spacy give squad/force/team leaders a fighter inferior to the "grunt" model in its primary combat regime? Moreover, why would they do that when their usual practice is to do the exact opposite?

There is a noticeable drop in thrust after the VF-19F. Why is that? We know only one thing: the VF-19S and VF-19P have more functions (additional head lasers, speakers) than the VF-19F. Could the drop in max thrust in space be due to the requirement that power be used elsewhere?

Why is that? Let's go with the obvious answer... Macross Chronicle's writers screwed up and made no effort to correct it (not a new development by any means), and the guys who were writing the Master File blindly reiterated their harebrained mistake. On previous models, additional equipment on the leader variant didn't require any such decrease in performance. Thus far, there's no indication that the -S variant has any extra gear we could point the finger at.

Heck, as the VF-19P uses the exact same engines as the VF-19F (albiet a revision or two greater), isn't it interesting that they have significantly reduced max thrust in space? Hmmm

Um... what's your source for that? Chronicle or the Master File? Yep, it's Master File.

If it's the latter, I think simply pointing out that it's a successor to the MAT book says all that needs to be said about its supposed accuracy.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

Indeed it does... though you seem to be engaging in a bit of creative misreading to make the data there support your claim. In point of fact, the original VF-19 Compendium entry places the thrust rating of the VF-19F's two FF-2500F engines at 72,500kgf and the thrust rating of the VF-19S's two FF-2550J engines at 78,950kgf.

Let me help you comprehend the Macross Compendium:

See: http://macross.anime.net/feedback/index.html

Specifically in a November 2005 FAQ response:

Almost all the entries from Kawamori's first chronology over two decades ago still remain intact in the later ones. The main changes that Kawamori and Chiba made to previous entries were updates to reflect changes in the real world; for example, "Russia" and "St. Petersburg" replaced "Soviet Union" and "Leningrad." (These changes are noted in brackets and italics in the chronology on the Macross Compendium.)

Meaning: the original data is in [], the revised data is not.

As for the rest of the post -> check your facts first before venting.

Edited June 9, 2010 by sketchley

[sketchley]

That's not a retcon. It's always been like that.

This image has existed in the Macross Hobby Handbook and as part of the data card for the HCM VF-1 since 1983.

I agree that it's in the book. However, it was not drawn by Mr. Kawamori (see credits pg 41 of the Hobby Handbook). It doesn't look like Mr. Kawamori was even involved in the book, aside from the blanket "Direction: Studio Nue" and "Cooperation: Studio Nue".

It also begs the question of: if it was official, why was it not published in Macross Perfect Memory, published only 5 months later, on 1983.10.10?

Therefore, from the evidence, it's strongly indicated that it was a fan-fic creation that was later adopted officially. Ergo: an "official" revision.

Edited June 9, 2010 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

Meaning: the original data is in [], the revised data is not.

Let me point out another serious flaw in your reasoning... the data in brackets doesn't match what's in Chronicle and the Master File book either.

So, what we have here is one thrust rating which lines up with the performance data and general Macross conventions regarding the flight performance of "leader" variant fighters (78,950kgf), one thrust rating that was revised a good while ago and is simply no longer valid (68,500kgf), and one thrust rating that not only reeks of "typo" but fails to pass even the most basic common sense evaluation when taken in the context of the other data provided.

It hasn't "come full circle", it's a bloody typo. That it's two digits off from the old, revised thrust rating is just a coincidence. The difference from the "revised" number is far smaller. One and only one digit changed in each case. The leading 7 in the VF-19S's 78,950kgf was swapped with a 6, making it 68,950kgf, and either the original number was bumped up from a leading 6 to a leading 7 (68,500 to 78,500) or the VF-19F's original number's second digit (2) was changed to an 8 by mistake (72,500 to 78,500), or likely some combination of the two. Either way, the allegedly "new" numbers don't line up with the other data available.

(In both cases, you have a "nearest neighbor" key goof)

As for the rest of the post -> check your facts first before venting.

By the same token, I'd offer two pieces of advice... the first being that if a point of data doesn't make sense in context and runs counter to common sense, it's probably a mistake. The second is that if you're going to try and rationalize the disparity, it would be helpful to find a likely cause for the disparity first, to explain why they've suddenly started going against previously established convention.

(On the former note, the VF-19P doesn't have official thrust numbers in Chronicle, so I would be extremely reluctant to take something of the Master File writer's invention as accurate. On the latter note, they don't appear to have ever actually mentioned that the VF-19 had an atmospheric limitation on its engines the way the VF-22 does)

I agree that it's in the book. However, it was not drawn by Mr. Kawamori (see credits pg 41 of the Hobby Handbook). It doesn't look like Mr. Kawamori was even involved in the book, aside from the blanket "Direction: Studio Nue" and "Cooperation: Studio Nue".

This raises an awkward question... if you consider that book unreliable because there's no evidence that Shoji Kawamori was involved in it, why do you consider the VF-19 Master File reliable? There's no evidence that Kawamori had any actual involvement in creating that material either.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

TLDR.

Tone down the rhetoric, please and thank you.

VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 := difference +6,000

VF-19S 68,500 -> 68,950 := difference +450

Negligible increases (especially compared to the 1st revision's +10,450!), and it also goes to show that Mr. Kawamori is continually refining as new, RL technology is introduced.

[Seto Kaiba]

TLDR.

Tone down the rhetoric, please and thank you.

The temptation to respond to this post of yours with "Too arrogant, didn't read" is very strong. Do us all a favor and stop trying to handwave aside the opinions and thoughts of your fellow contributors here whenever they're inconvenient to your personal theories.

VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 := difference +6,000

VF-19S 68,500 -> 68,950 := difference +450

Or we could take the opposite route:

VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 = 1 digit difference

VF-19S 78,950 -> 68,950 = 1 digit difference

VF-19S 68,500 -> 68,950 = 2 digit difference

We can also illustrate that there's a major shift in thrust from the most recent set of figures:

VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 = +6,000kgf

VF-19S 78,950 -> 68,950 = -10,000kgf WTF!

We have a clearly established case for this being a simple typographical error on the part of whoever was doing data entry. One and only one digit was changed in each case, and there's a clear indication of how it went awry. I would very much like to hear your explanation for how with two aerodynamically identical aircraft, the heavier one with less thrust has a higher top speed at altitude and a greater rate of climb. I'd also be very interested to hear your reasons for why, if this "new" number is really official, the U.N. Spacy has suddenly reversed its previously established convention and started giving squadron leaders aircraft that are less capable than the grunt machine.

It doesn't hold water Sketchley, no matter how much you want it to.

Negligible increases (especially compared to the 1st revision's +10,450!), and it also goes to show that Mr. Kawamori is continually refining as new, RL technology is introduced.

And there is absolutely no evidence of any kind to indicate that this was intended as a revision, given that it runs counter to material on its own sheet in Macross Chronicle, and makes no sense when examined with even the most basic grasp of physics.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Attached is a scan of the VF-19S stats from the 1995 1/100 scale Bandai VF-19S plastic model kit.

Graham

[Graham]

- There is a noticeable drop in thrust after the VF-19F. Why is that? We know only one thing: the VF-19S and VF-19P have more functions (additional head lasers, speakers) than the VF-19F. Could the drop in max thrust in space be due to the requirement that power be used elsewhere? Could it be that despite any (relatively small) increases in thrust with the "more advanced" engines in the VF-19S and VF-19P, the increased power demands of the additional equipment effectively reduced the max thrust in space? Heck, as the VF-19P uses the exact same engines as the VF-19F (albiet a revision or two greater), isn't it interesting that they have significantly reduced max thrust in space? Hmmm

My personal theory regarding the VF-19P’s lower thrust is that it is supplied with de-tuned, or lower performing (if you like) engines.

There may well be export regulations/sales of arms regulations in place (similar to today’s ITAR), prohibiting anybody except from UN Spacy military, from purchasing the highest thrust engines.

So tier 2, or tier 3 allies or friendly states/planets may only be able to buy slightly downgraded versions of the latest military hardware.

This makes sense from the standpoint that if a conflict arose at a future point in time, between UN Spacy and their former ally, then UN Spacy would still have the superior hardware.

This would be analogous to the situation today with the F-35 JSF sales to US allies, in that there are still discussions whether allies are going to get full stealth capability and be allowed to maintain it themselves or be supplied with a downgraded stealth capability and/or only the US is allowed to maintain/repair stealth capability.

Graham

[sketchley]

Attached is a scan of the VF-19S stats from the 1995 1/100 scale Bandai VF-19S plastic model kit.

Graham

Thanks!

VF-19S,

Engine Thrust: 68,500 kg (max thrust in space) x2

[azrael]

We have a clearly established case for this being a simple typographical error on the part of whoever was doing data entry.

Again, how do you know it's an error? Are you sure Egan didn't make the error in typing that? Egan Loo, IIRC, is human and has made a few typographical mistakes here and there.

[Seto Kaiba]

Attached is a scan of the VF-19S stats from the 1995 1/100 scale Bandai VF-19S plastic model kit.

Thanks for that... that's a big help. Now we know where the VF-19S's original (pre-1st revision) thrust figure comes from. Still gotta figure out where the revised figure of 78,950 that preceded Chronicle's odd assertion of 68,950 came from.

My personal theory regarding the VF-19P’s lower thrust is that it is supplied with de-tuned, or lower performing (if you like) engines.

Putting aside the questions of the source's accuracy, that would be a highly plausible explanation for the VF-19P being sold with the same engines as the military model, but lower thrust ratings. Detuning the engines would lower the fighter's performance, but extend their operating lifespan... thus reducing the maintenance costs. Something that, given that in the official continuity sources reduced cost has been a major factor in colonial gov't decisions to adopt various models of VF.

Again, how do you know it's an error? Are you sure Egan didn't make the error in typing that? Egan Loo, IIRC, is human and has made a few typographical mistakes here and there.

The thrust ratings on Egan's site make sense and support the related assertions we're being asked to accept... IE that the VF-19S has a superior rate of climb and a higher top speed. The new numbers don't. That's a pretty clear indication that something's amiss.

I do wonder when the 78,950 figure came along... somehow I have a feeling it came along when they introduced the 72,500 figure for the VF-19F, to keep with the established convention that "leader" variants have more powerful engines than the grunt version.

EDIT: Gone back to the earliest editions of the Compendium (1997 version of the VF-19 article) and the amended numbers of 72,500 for the VF-19F and 78,950 for the VF-19S are still there. No indication of source, but that change was clearly made fairly soon after that model kit came out, no later than 4 October 1997. That it hasn't been altered in better than a decade of updates and maintenance seems like a fair indication that it's accurate, whatever the source was.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[anime52k8]

And there is absolutely no evidence of any kind to indicate that this was intended as a revision, given that it runs counter to material on its own sheet in Macross Chronicle, and makes no sense when examined with even the most basic grasp of physics.

You mean that science doesn't support the made up statistics for giant transforming robots? How shocking!

[Graham]

OK, so going back to Macross Compendium, which states that: -

Two 72500 kg [x g] class (maximum output in outer space) Shinnakasu Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2500F thermonuclear turbine engines in VF-19F. Two 78950 [68500] kg [x g] class (maximum output in outer space) Shinsei Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2550J in VF-19S

What if (and bear with me here please), the VF-19F's FF-2500F engines were designed to be balanced for all environments, so that they have the same maximum thrust in both space and atmosphere. Hence why the Compendium lists only one figure (72,500 kg) for the VF-19F. This presumes that the cooling issues with the YF-19's engines in atmosphere were overcome at some stage with the more advanced engines.

So, what if in theory, the VF-19S's FF-2550J engines were on purpose designed or tuned or whatever, to actually be more efficient in Atmosphere, but this comes at the expense of the being less efficient in space? This could explain the two quoted figures from the Compendium for the VF-19S. So 78,950kg is the VF-19's max thrust is atmosphere, while 68,500kg is the VF-19's max thrust in space. This would indeed give the VF-19S a better rate of climb in atmosphere than the VF-19F, but would put it at a performance disadvantage in space compared to the VF-19F.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the above theory, but it does offer an explanation as to why the Compendium only gives one thrust figure for the VF-19F, but provides both space and atmospheric thrust figures for the VF-19S.

It would also support the Macross Chronicles claim that the VF-19S has a higher top speed and rate of climb in atmosphere compared to the VF-19F.

Why a fighter which is supposedly optimised for space use (still not sure I buy that though), would require better performing engines in atmosphere at the expense of less performance in space is anybody's guess? Perhaps the engines where tuned that way on Docker's personal preference?

Food for thought.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

You mean that science doesn't support the made up statistics for giant transforming robots? How shocking!

Issues of giant robot feasibility aside, Kawamori and co. have at least a half-decent working grasp of the physics involved in powered flight and aerodynamics. It seems rather unfeasible that they intentionally generated an error that basic and obvious when they had a perfectly viable number that under which the other assertions about its flight performance (comparatively with the VF-19F) fit just fine.

[Seto Kaiba]

What if (and bear with me here please), the VF-19F's FF-2500F engines were designed to be balanced for all environments, so that they have the same maximum thrust in both space and atmosphere. [...] This could explain the two quoted figures from the Compendium for the VF-19S. So 78,950kg is the VF-19's max thrust is atmosphere, while 68,500kg is the VF-19's max thrust in space.

Okay... I see two problems with this, but you've already foreseen one of them. The key that Egan provided (and Sketchley pointed out, and then resolutely ignored as soon as he'd noticed it contradicted his own argument) indicates that the data in brackets is material that's been revised/retconned. For reasons we can only guess at, the original number you found (68,500 x 2) was revised/retconned to 78,950 x 2. This brought the -S variant's performance into line with what we'd expect from a "leader" model. The change was apparently made fairly soon after the original number came out... even the earliest iterations of the Compendium article I could recover (1997 October 04) list the revised thrust rating of 78,950kgf x 2.

Why a fighter which is supposedly optimised for space use (still not sure I buy that though), would require better performing engines in atmosphere at the expense of less performance in space is anybody's guess? Perhaps the engines where tuned that way on Docker's personal preference?

Why wouldn't they optimize it for space? If we take Chronicle at face value, that's not the first time that's happened either (in-universe). If memory serves, the VF-4 was the main space bird of its day, while the VF-5000 was for planetside shenanigans. It feels weird for me to read about that too... an odd case of Macross II-isms intruding onto the main continuity.

(Now if the linear actuator turns out to be Zentradi tech, you'll see what happens when my brain does the equivalent of a 4-to-1 downshift without the aid of a clutch)

Still, as you've pointed out the idea that they would sacrifice the VF-19S's performance in space in exchange for enhanced atmospheric performance makes no sense either. I guess we could take the approach Mr March did in our analysis of it on M3...

Second Lieutenant Docker, clearly the person to blame for all this

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Okay... I see two problems with this, but you've already foreseen one of them. The key that Egan provided (and Sketchley pointed out, and then resolutely ignored as soon as he'd noticed it contradicted his own argument) indicates that the data in brackets is material that's been revised/retconned. For reasons we can only guess at, the original number you found (68,500 x 2) was revised/retconned to 78,950 x 2. This brought the -S variant's performance into line with what we'd expect from a "leader" model. The change was apparently made fairly soon after the original number came out... even the earliest iterations of the Compendium article I could recover (1997 October 04) list the revised thrust rating of 78,950kgf x 2.

Ah, I somehow missed the earlier post regarding the Compendium's FAQ regarding changes.

Almost all the entries from Kawamori's first chronology over two decades ago still remain intact in the later ones. The main changes that Kawamori and Chiba made to previous entries were updates to reflect changes in the real world; for example, "Russia" and "St. Petersburg" replaced "Soviet Union" and "Leningrad." (These changes are noted in brackets and italics in the chronology on the Macross Compendium.)

However, it could be argued (not that I'm going to), that the FAQ entry only refers to changes in the Chronology, not the other sections of the Compendium, so the figures could be read two different ways 1) a revised figure and an out of date figure in brackets as per the FAQ, or 2) A seperate figure for space thust and atmospheric thrust, which to be honest is always how I read it.

I have a very old hard-copy print out of the Compendium at home, will have to go back and dig it out tonight.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

However, it could be argued (not that I'm going to), that the FAQ entry only refers to changes in the Chronology, not the other sections of the Compendium, so the figures could be read two different ways 1) a revised figure and an out of date figure in brackets as per the FAQ, or 2)

After a cursory review of the original Compendium articles, they're definitely intended to denote old data that's been revised/retconned. Atmospheric thrust ratings are, on the few times they're provided, noted explicitly and separately, as on the YF-19 article. It seems safe to say the FAQ statement about the use of brackets applies across the entire site. In any case, it appears that the VF-19S's original thrust figure of 68,500kgf x 2 was revised to 78,950kgf x 2 almost right away. If your old print-out of the Compendium doesn't have the VF-19F thrust figure of 72,500kgf x 2, then that might explain what the motivation for the change was... keeping it in line with the general practice of having officer units with slightly greater engine power than the standard variant.

What I think happened here is the Master File's writers decided to delay publication of the VF-19 book until they could make sure their numbers were in line with Chronicle, and as a result inadvertently duplicated the typos printed in Chronicle. It's not gonna stop me from buying the VF-19 Master File. Even if it isn't canon and it has a few mistakes, it's still wicked cool stuff.

A seperate figure for space thust and atmospheric thrust, which to be honest is always how I read it.

You're not alone in that... that's how I initially read it too.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Less relevant now, but I'm still interested to know where the Compendium's revised figure of 78,950kg for the VF-19S comes from. Definitely need to do some serious digging through my books and magazines.

Anyway, good discussion all round guys, really usefull.

You're not alone in that... that's how I initially read it too.

All these years and I never realized the Compendium material in '[ ]' was out of date material.

Show you are never too old to learn something new, which is why I love discussions like these.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

Less relevant now, but I'm still interested to know where the Compendium's revised figure of 78,950kg for the VF-19S comes from. Definitely need to do some serious digging through my books and magazines.

You and me both... unfortunately unless my buddy Greg writes me back quickly, I'm not likely to be the one who discovers it, since like 80% of my Macross collection (excl. Chronicle) is for Macross II and its related titles. At the very least, we've narrowed it down a bit to something published before October 1997.

Still waitin' on my copy of Master File to arrive, but from what I've seen it looks like the parts I was hoping they'd lavish detail on (the GU-15 and the munitions bays in the legs) didn't get nearly as much coverage as I would've liked.

[sketchley]

So, what if in theory, the VF-19S's FF-2550J engines were on purpose designed or tuned or whatever, to actually be more efficient in Atmosphere, but this comes at the expense of the being less efficient in space? This could explain the two quoted figures from the Compendium for the VF-19S. (...) This would indeed give the VF-19S a better rate of climb in atmosphere than the VF-19F, but would put it at a performance disadvantage in space compared to the VF-19F.

This makes sense, and is in-line with an elaboration I was thinking about all day at work:

The only parameters we have been presented for the VF-19E/F/S/P is in space. Therefore, we know that the listed thrust is the maximum that the engines can produce in ROCKET MODE.

MC has given additional performance info in text on the performance in atmosphere. Therefore, we know that the VF-19S has greater performance in TURBO-FANJET MODE, and the VF-19F has lesser performance.

As the reasons why it has better turbo-fanjet mode performance haven't been given, it's speculation as to why. The simplest, real-world sound explanation is that the VF-19S's engines have a higher bypass ratio. (For those that don't: an increased amount of air sent around the engine to mix with the exhaust to provide more thrust per unit of fuel (or less fuel to achieve the same amount of thrust.)

Back to fact and inferences:

It is most likey that whatever is increasing the turbo-fanjet mode performance has a detremental effect on how much propellant can be pumped into the engine in rocket mode (ie additional tubes and vents to achieve a high bypass ratio limit limit the volume of propellant that can reach the combustor).

Now back to the parameters:

We only know that the amount of thrust is for space. Do we know if that's sustained thrust or instantaneous thrust? Do we know if the max level of thrust damage the engine or if there is a performance loss the longer the engine is operating at max thrust? Perhaps the VF-19F cannot sustain their higher max thrust levels in rocket mode, but the VF-19S can.

Why a fighter which is supposedly optimised for space use (still not sure I buy that though), would require better performing engines in atmosphere at the expense of less performance in space is anybody's guess? Perhaps the engines where tuned that way on Docker's personal preference?

From what I've gleened from the text, it's the general issue VF-19S, and not the specs for Docker's VF-19S. Nevertheless, it does make sense that the command model would be required to have a more general-purpose engine performance.

Edited June 9, 2010 by sketchley

[Talos]

This makes sense, and is in-line with an elaboration I was thinking about all day at work:

The only parameters we have been presented for the VF-19E/F/S/P is in space. Therefore, we know that the listed thrust is the maximum that the engines can produce in ROCKET MODE.

MC has given additional performance info in text on the performance in atmosphere. Therefore, we know that the VF-19S has greater performance in TURBO-FANJET MODE, and the VF-19F has lesser performance.

As the reasons why it has better turbo-fanjet mode performance haven't been given, it's speculation as to why. The simplest, real-world sound explanation is that the VF-19S's engines have a higher bypass ratio. (For those that don't: an increased amount of air sent around the engine to mix with the exhaust to provide more thrust per unit of fuel (or less fuel to achieve the same amount of thrust.)

Back to fact and inferences:

It is most likey that whatever is increasing the turbo-fanjet mode performance has a detremental effect on how much propellant can be pumped into the engine in rocket mode (ie additional tubes and vents to achieve a high bypass ratio limit limit the volume of propellant that can reach the combustor).

Now back to the parameters:

We only know that the amount of thrust is for space. Do we know if that's sustained thrust or instantaneous thrust? Do we know if the max level of thrust damage the engine or if there is a performance loss the longer the engine is operating at max thrust? Perhaps the VF-19F cannot sustain their higher max thrust levels in rocket mode, but the VF-19S can.

From what I've gleened from the text, it's the general issue VF-19S, and not the specs for Docker's VF-19S. Nevertheless, it does make sense that the command model would be required to have a more general-purpose engine performance.

Actually, that doesn't make sense to me at all, Sketchley. We have a command model of a /space/-optimized aircraft. Why degrade its performance there to give it better performance back in atmosphere again? What was the point of that model in the first place? They would just build more VF-19As instead. It's not that easy to change the bypass ratio of an internal engine like that, at least not majorly. You'd have to increase the size of the fan, which causes a weight increase along with the lower top speed. It's for efficiency, not speed. That's why modern fighter engines all have bypass ratios lower then 1:1, while airliner engines have it potentially much higher (about 9:1 on the GE90, for instance).

No, I'm sticking with the simple typo that got out of hand theory. I mean, a one digit mistake (78,950 to 68,950) and the two digits are one key apart? That smells like someone with a misplaced finger to me. YMMV of course, but it makes zero sense to me to have the command models have any lower performance period. The UNS has always been based on older Japanese styles of organization (three-man shotai, for instance) and the attitude of those organizations were to give the aces the best you can. The wingmen are there to support the ace. It's not like the US with the fluid wingman relationship.

You can even see it in Frontier. Ozma's the commander of the (now four-person) shotai with Alto and Michel providing direct support and Luca providing EW support. Ozma has the ace model, which is naturally the best performing. On that note, didn't the VF-0S have something about the limiters being removed so an ace pilot could bring out its full potential?

[Graham]

Actually, that doesn't make sense to me at all, Sketchley. We have a command model of a /space/-optimized aircraft. Why degrade its performance there to give it better performance back in atmosphere again? What was the point of that model in the first place? They would just build more VF-19As instead.

My feeling and it would be interesting to see if any of the text in the Master File or Chronicle backs this up, is that the VF-19F/S/E style airframe, which is pretty much an all-new airframe (more streamlined, more verniers), compared with the YF-19/VF-19A style, was designed to offer an improvement in overall performance over the older VF-19A and eventualy replace the VF-19A in service.

Just because the VF-19F/S is suposedly optimised for space, doesn't necessarily mean it's performance is going to be inferior in atmosphere to older versions (especially with the new longer F/S style wing fitted).

The above is just my personal theory, I have no evidence to back it up at all.

Graham

[Graham]

Had something of a rethink on the VF-19S thrust issue,since the discussion in this thread yesterday.

All my previous thinking on this subject had been based on the assumption that the VF-19S entry in the old non-Wiki Compendium had given 2 seperate and distinct figures for the VF-19S thrust, one for Space and one atmosphere.

I'd never realised that the information in the Compendium presented in "[]" was actually older information that was no longer valid, until it was pointed out to me yesterday.

I think I now agree with the side that thinks the revised lower VF-19S engine thrust first published in Macross Chronicles was actually a typo, which instead of correcting at a later date, the writers decided to come up with some nonsense theory to cover up the mistake.

Graham

[Talos]

My feeling and it would be interesting to see if any of the text in the Master File or Chronicle backs this up, is that the VF-19F/S/E style airframe, which is pretty much an all-new airframe (more streamlined, more verniers), compared with the YF-19/VF-19A style, was designed to offer an improvement in overall performance over the older VF-19A and eventualy replace the VF-19A in service.

Just because the VF-19F/S is suposedly optimised for space, doesn't necessarily mean it's performance is going to be inferior in atmosphere to older versions (especially with the new longer F/S style wing fitted).

The above is just my personal theory, I have no evidence to back it up at all.

Graham

It's not so much the idea that they would or would not both be better or worse then the VF-19A in atmosphere so much as the idea that the ace fighter would sacrifice combat ability in it's primary area and make it less capable then the -grunt- unit.

Or, as an anonymous VF-19F pilot on the Endeavour said, "What? You want me to be an ace and fly that? No way, I'll stick with this. Why would they call that a 'reward'??? I'll pretend I'm not getting any kills instead. Maybe they'll pass me over!"

[sketchley]

(...) that the ace fighter would sacrifice combat ability in it's primary area and make it less capable then the -grunt- unit.

But where does it say that a lower maximum thrust in space equates to a sacrifice of combat ability? In space, VFs are primarily mobile platforms to fire ordinance at targets at long range. Combat in this regime would require manuevering, which relies mostly on the vernier thrusters - which have been indicated as being the same. The lower max thrust would only inhibit the ability to catch-up/run away and would be negated by FAST packs/super parts anyways.

Nevertheless, Graham is right in that this discussion should be put on the backburner into further material is translated. This discussion is based on only three lines of text out of two publications that have tens of thousands of lines of text. It may just be a molehill being blown up to epic proportions.

Edited June 10, 2010 by sketchley

[VF5SS]

did you guys see that VF-1 and VF-11 with forward swept wings

hella tight

[Graham]

did you guys see that VF-1 and VF-11 with forward swept wings

hella tight

Thought the VF-11 looked OK, but the VF-1 was fugly IMO.

Graham

Text mentions that it's for attacks against terrorists and aliens. In addition to the dual laser turret (REB-33D), the wing-glove lasers have greater output (REB-35), and it has the FF-2550J/rev.2 engines (same as the VF-19E/F/P). And because of those engines, it has a lot more power (electricity), thus it can use the PPB in fighter mode, and can use it on the wings and nose, and something about hyper concrete shelters (ram attacks? Slices with the wings? Don't have the time to do a proper translation).

But I agree, it's hokey.

I wonder if the writer/creator of the Assault Calibur is a Gundam fan? It certainly sounds like something very silly and Gundam-ish.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

But where does it say that a lower maximum thrust in space equates to a sacrifice of combat ability? In space, VFs are primarily mobile platforms to fire ordinance at targets at long range.

Wait, WHAT? Are you serious?

(You sure we're talking about the same show here?)

When was the last time we even saw a VF engaging targets at long range using long range ordinance? The ONLY example that I can think of is the opening fight scene in DYRL! Like 99.9999% of combat in Macross occurs at EXTREMELY short ranges, and usually with micro-missiles! Excluding Operation Stargazer and the opening bit of the battle between the YF-19 and YF-21 in Macross Plus, I don't think we've ever even seen the VF-19 or VF-22 equipped with long range ordinance, and in both cases it was either used not at all or used at extremely short ranges.

Nevertheless, Graham is right in that this discussion should be put on the backburner into further material is translated. This discussion is based on only three lines of text out of two publications that have tens of thousands of lines of text. It may just be a molehill being blown up to epic proportions.

That's not even close to what Graham said... what he actually DID say was that it would be interesting to see if Chronicle or other sources backed up his theory that the more streamlined VF-19F/S was meant to be a design with improved overall performance that would eventually replace the VF-19A.

He also had this to say about the alleged retcon thrust figures that form the core of your theory:

I think I now agree with the side that thinks the revised lower VF-19S engine thrust first published in Macross Chronicles was actually a typo, which instead of correcting at a later date, the writers decided to come up with some nonsense theory to cover up the mistake.

Thought the VF-11 looked OK, but the VF-1 was fugly IMO.

I'm retching a little just thinking about it... gonna have to have Talos show me that one later.

I wonder if the writer/creator of the Assault Calibur is a Gundam fan? It certainly sounds like something very silly and Gundam-ish.

Yeah, I'm getting that vibe too... I vaguely remember some fighter from Gundam doing something along those lines... I think it was from the UC, but I can't remember which show.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Found one source for the 78,950kg thrust figure for the VF-19S. It's on the back of the box of the Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19S toy from 1995. See attached pic.

Now I need to check which was released first, the 1/100 Bandai plamodel, which has the 68,500kg thrust figure, or the 1/65 Bandai toy, which has the 78,950kg thrust figure.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

Found one source for the 78,950kg thrust figure for the VF-19S. It's on the back of the box of the Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19S toy from 1995. See attached pic.

Huh... well, you're certainly on top of things. I hadn't even gotten around to looking and you've already found it. I think I can answer your question though.

Now I need to check which was released first, the 1/100 Bandai plamodel, which has the 68,500kg thrust figure, or the 1/65 Bandai toy, which has the 78,950kg thrust figure.

According to the model number printed on that box scan you posted, the Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19 Special DX "Blazer Valkyrie" was released in May 1995, and the Bandai 1/100 scale Valkyrie VF-19S Emerald Force plastic model (which I think is the one to which you are referring) was released in August 1995. Based on that, it's looking like the 78,950kg x 2 figure was actually the original, and the 68,500kg x 2 was an error or something.

Just in case anyone wants to doublecheck, I found the release date info here. You can search by the code over the UPC and that should take you right to the data you want.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

I just checked the Compendium and the release dates listed there are also the same:

• Bandai 1/100 scale VF-19S plastic model kit - released in August 1995.
  
• Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19S DX toy - released in May 1995.
  

I wonder if the model kit and toy were Egan's sole source of data for the VF-19S stats?

I do find it interesting that the model kit manual which lists the lower thrust stats of 68,500kg was released several months after the toy, which lists the higher thrust of 78,950kg! Really makes you wonder which is correct! I'm gonna have to dig up the Bandai VF-19Kai model and toy stats now to see if there is any discrepency with those.

It's also interesting that the VF-19S 1/100 model kit stats are the only Japanese source that I've seen from the 90s' that lists the 24 micro-missiles per leg (48 total) for the VF-19F/S. Note that the DX toy lists 12 missiles total. The Macross Chronicle seems to have retconned the 48 micro-missiles out of existence and now lists the VF-19F/S with the more familiar 12 missiles in total. I wonder were the 48 micro-missiles a mistake?

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

I wonder if the model kit and toy were Egan's sole source of data for the VF-19S stats?

It's possible... but I suspect there were probably others as well. There had to be some kind of motivation for him to cite 78,950kg as the correct number and 68,500kg as being no longer valid. I don't have any evidence to back it up right now, by I have a nagging feeling that if we do find out, it'll have to do with the VF-19F's 72,500kg rating.

The Macross Chronicle seems to have retconned the 48 micro-missiles out of existence and now lists the VF-19F/S with the more familiar 12 missiles in total. I wonder were the 48 micro-missiles a mistake?

Seems that way... and I have a pretty good idea how it happened. It wouldn't be all that hard for someone to mistake the more familiar 24 missiles total to mean 24 missiles per leg instead, thus doubling the number from 24 to 48. That Chronicle's writers cited the 12-per-side and appear to have typo'd the 78,950kg figure does point to the 1/65 toy as the more accurate of the two, stats-wise. Which figure did Master File cite, or did it even try?

(Possibly coincidental, but 12-per-side figures gives the VF-19F/S the same missile count, sans-hardpoints, as the VF-1 Super Valkyrie, as per the official cutaways which were reprinted in Chronicle)

I also find it somewhat interesting that the writers of Chronicle used the same ventless GU-15 line art on the 1/65 box rather than version the YF-19 used that had the vents over the barrel assembly. The GU-15A stuff that Talos showed me in Master File had the gunpod down as having the cooling vents.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[isamu]

I'm confused. Is this a book, a toy or both?

[Graham]

Seems that way... and I have a pretty good idea how it happened. It wouldn't be all that hard for someone to mistake the more familiar 24 missiles total to mean 24 missiles per leg instead, thus doubling the number from 24 to 48. That Chronicle's writers cited the 12-per-side and appear to have typo'd the 78,950kg figure does point to the 1/65 toy as the more accurate of the two, stats-wise. Which figure did Master File cite, or did it even try?

But did Chronicle's writers actually cite 12 per leg for the VF-19F/S or 12 total, i.e. 6 per leg like the Fire Valk? Need to check on this. Interesting that the upcoming Bandai 1/100 Hi-Metal VF-19S, has the toy with 6 missiles per leg.

Not sure what figure (if any) the VF-19 Master File gives for the number of leg missiles on the VF-19F/S. Don't have the book with me to look at the moment.

(Possibly coincidental, but 12-per-side figures gives the VF-19F/S the same missile count, sans-hardpoints, as the VF-1 Super Valkyrie, as per the official cutaways which were reprinted in Chronicle)

These days, I tend to believe that the 20 micro-missile count per HMMP-02 launcher on the NP-BP-01 FAST Packs is correct, ala Yamato's 1/48 and 1/60 scale toys, which were designed with Kawamori's input. The cutaway drawing, originally from the Gold Book (is this what was reprinted in Chonicle? - not at home can't check), while nice always seemed to me hold far too few missiles in the HMMP-02 launcher, given its external size. Anyway, better keep VF-1 discussions out of this thread.

Graham