Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur

[Graham]

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

The VF-19 Master File is a book.

We are presently discussing possible inaccuracies in the information presented in the book and as part of this discussion, we are referencing the stats found on various old toys and models, which might be why you are confused.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

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

Understandable... we got a bit off-topic while discussing the accuracy of the info that it's presenting. The Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur is a book.

Long story short, sketchley pointed out that Kawamori is credited as the book's "supervisor" (whatever that means) and that it might mean that unlike the MAT book that preceded it, the Master File series might be meant to be official. This prompted us to debate the accuracy of the contents, incl. its reiteration of an apparent typographical error (and subsequent nonsensical justification) in the VF-19F/S sheets in Macross Chronicle, pointing to the data in the Macross Compendium and how one digit was changed from the original number. sketchley suggested the opposite, that it was an intentional change. So, naturally, both azrael and sketchley asked if we were sure it was a typo, and suggested Egan's numbers, rather than Chronicle, could've been the typo, launching us onto our present tack of attempting to confirm where the original engine thrust numbers for the VF-19F/S in the Macross Compendium were obtained from... which we appear to have found courtesy of Graham.

In summation, it's looking like the Master File might've been delayed while they waited on Chronicle's writers to do the VF-19 sheets so they wouldn't contradict it, and in the process, copied the typos too.

The aforementioned suspected typo stated the VF-19S's engine thrust as 68,950kg, whereas the original number was 78,950kg, the new number being suspect because it's at odds with the VF-19S's greater rate of climb and higher top speed compared to the VF-19F, and that it's running counter to the usual Macross practice of giving "ace" machines more thrust than the grunt model. Chronicle also gave the -F a higher thrust rating of 78,500kg (the original we've had since 1997 was 72,500kg), which makes the VF-19S's supposedly superior performance with heavier weight and much less thrust that much harder to swallow.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[isamu]

Thanks for the explanation guys.

Oh and wow....topic notifications via email are now working again! Glad you guys fixed it, thanks!!!

[azrael]

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.

The Chronicle writers make it very clear in the VF-19S entry; 12 total, 6/leg.

Long story short, sketchley pointed out that Kawamori is credited as the book's "supervisor" (whatever that means) and that it might mean that unlike the MAT book that preceded it, the Master File series might be meant to be official.

I assume none of you looked at the contributor's page in the back and notice Kawamori never contributed any writings to the book.

So, naturally, both azrael and sketchley asked if we were sure it was a typo, and suggested Egan's numbers, rather than Chronicle, could've been the typo, launching us onto our present tack of attempting to confirm where the original engine thrust numbers for the VF-19F/S in the Macross Compendium were obtained from... which we appear to have found courtesy of Graham.

And I'll ask it yet again, are you sure it's an error. We have 3 values which are not consistent.

Chronicle also gave the -F a higher thrust rating of 78,500kg (the original we've had since 1997 was 72,500kg), which makes the VF-19S's supposedly superior performance with heavier weight and much less thrust that much harder to swallow.

And just because it's hard to swallow, doesn't make it wrong.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So just out of curiousity, is it entirely possible that the VF-19F/S models with the redesigned wings can maneuver better in the atmosphere compared to the VF-19A-E models? Just wondering, as it would make sense for the S to have the same wings as the F if that were the case. When I was younger I used to like the VF-19A/YF-19 wings/canards much better than the F/S but as I grew older, the F/S designs grew on me. They remind me a lot of the YF-23.

[David Hingtgen]

Depends on the verniers. 99% of real planes don't have them so most comparisons are done using aerodynamic-only controls, and we know the F/S's are better than the A's. Plus, it's possible the F/S have superior thrust vectoring as well.

[Seto Kaiba]

The Chronicle writers make it very clear in the VF-19S entry; 12 total, 6/leg.

*sigh* I really need to stop reading this thread when I have neither my copy of Master File nor my Chronicle binders on hand. It's sounding like they REALLY dropped the ball with the VF-19 sheet... we see them fire more than that pretty much every time Emerald Force is ordered to sortie. Sounds like another error introduced in Chronicle by using sections copied and pasted from other articles. I'll review those two model/toy sheets again to see what they have to say once I get home... it would explain a lot if one is saying 12 medium-range high-maneuver missiles, and the other's saying 48 micro-missiles.

Maybe I should just give the VF-19 up as a bad job and stick to working on translations for mecha where they don't keep playing silly frackers with the stats.

I assume none of you looked at the contributor's page in the back and notice Kawamori never contributed any writings to the book.

No, I didn't... of course my access to the VF-19 Master File book is limited since I'm mooching off Talos's while I wait for my copy to arrive. I'm guessing sketchley didn't either.

And I'll ask it yet again, are you sure it's an error. We have 3 values which are not consistent.

And just because it's hard to swallow, doesn't make it wrong.

We have one set of values that makes sense and has remained essentially unaltered for over 10 years (the version on the Compendium), one set of numbers that looks like it'd gotten itself retconned out right away, and one "new" set from a Chronicle sheet that becomes more and more nonsensical the deeper we dig into it. You do the math.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Depends on the verniers. 99% of real planes don't have them so most comparisons are done using aerodynamic-only controls, and we know the F/S's are better than the A's. Plus, it's possible the F/S have superior thrust vectoring as well.

Sorry for asking this but do you mean that the F/S have better aerodynamic controls than the A's or is it the other way around?

[EXO]

Man got to go to Kinokuniya soon!

[azrael]

We have one set of values that makes sense and has remained essentially unaltered for over 10 years (the version on the Compendium), one set of numbers that looks like it'd gotten itself retconned out right away, and one "new" set from a Chronicle sheet that becomes more and more nonsensical the deeper we dig into it. You do the math.

Considering we haven't had any real resurgence in Macross writings during those 10 years...

[David Hingtgen]

When it comes to aerodynamic controls, the -A wins hands-down. Thing is, valks (unlike most planes) can also have non-aerodynamic controls to move them around--namely verniers and thrust vectoring. Again, the Harrier (and now F-35B) are about the only planes comparable to a valkyrie in that sense.

Think about it--with the amount of verniers the average valk has, you could have no rudders and no ailerons, and still have full control/maneuverability.

[Graham]

Given that the tail fins (rudders?) on the E/F/S/P are spaced much wider apart than on the 'A', would this wider spacing make them more effective than the closer set tails on the A type?

Graham

[sketchley]

No, I didn't... of course my access to the VF-19 Master File book is limited since I'm mooching off Talos's while I wait for my copy to arrive. I'm guessing sketchley didn't either.

Will you STOP putting words in other people's mouths, misreading their posts, misquoting them and misrepresenting them on this and other forums.

[Graham]

Going by memory here, as don't have the book with me (I should really wait until I get home to post this :-P).

But anyway, I want to discuss the internal leg missile launchers some more.

IIRC, the Master File lists the internal leg missile launchers for the 19 series as being called 'HMMP-15' (see the page that has the head on pics of the old and nerwer style 19s' and lists out where the various hard points are and which waepons they can carry). These HMMP-15 launchers fire the HMM-20 (IRCC) missile. On another page CG pics are shown of two types of HMM-20 missile, a long and short type.

I presume the longer type of HMM-20 is the medium-range type carried by the Fire Valk and the shorter type shown is a short-range version, which would perhaps allow double the amount to be carried?

Sorry if I've got the designations wrong, but too impatient to wait until I go home.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

Considering we haven't had any real resurgence in Macross writings during those 10 years...

True... but there has to have been some reason for Egan to take the 78,950kg x 2 thrust figure and 48x high-maneuverability micro-missiles figures over the 68,500kg x 2 thrust figure and 12x missiles total. By the look of the model/toy packaging scans that Graham posted, it looks like at some point they made a deliberate decision to go with the more high-performance of the two options, and for them to suddenly represent it as being far less capable for no established reason is cause to suspect the alleged changes are just part of a slew of minor errors printed in Chronicle. That the VF-19 Master File appears to have reprinted them is just unfortunate, but it doesn't diminish the book's "cool factor" by any means.

I'm kind of surprised that the toys show the line art for the VF-19F/S variant of the GU-15, but Master File doesn't. You'd think that sort of thing would be right up their alley, and that they might concoct a reason for why the five cooling vents on each side of the barrel vanished on the production model... (Mr March and I had a real head-scratcher moment when we first noticed that during color-checking on his VF-19F/S art)

Will you STOP putting words in other people's mouths, misreading their posts, misquoting them and misrepresenting them on this and other forums.

Were I actually doing any of that, I would happily oblige you... but I'm not. Not here, not elsewhere, and not in the quote you made from my post. There's a world of difference between what I said and what you're accusing me of saying. It's high time you set aside this prima donna routine of yours and stop throwing a hissy fit or ignoring others when they disagree with your theories.

Now can we please stop this sniping match and get back to talking about the book? Thank you.

But anyway, I want to discuss the internal leg missile launchers some more.

I'm game.

IIRC, the Master File lists the internal leg missile launchers for the 19 series as being called 'HMMP-15' (see the page that has the head on pics of the old and nerwer style 19s' and lists out where the various hard points are and which waepons they can carry). These HMMP-15 launchers fire the HMM-20 (IRCC) missile. On another page CG pics are shown of two types of HMM-20 missile, a long and short type.

I presume the longer type of HMM-20 is the medium-range type carried by the Fire Valk and the shorter type shown is a short-range version, which would perhaps allow double the amount to be carried?

Mooching off Talos's copy so I can give you a quick answer... you're right about the HMMP-15 designation, but the diagram appears to show two HMMP-15 launcher assemblies installed in each bay. It looks like (Talo's reckoning here) the "long" version is an extended and tapered version of the "short" version, which appears to be the model of missile installed in Basara's VF-19 Kai in Macross 7. So it's the "short" model that allows six missiles to fit into each leg launcher assembly.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[azrael]

True... but there has to have been some reason for Egan to take the 78,950kg x 2 thrust figure and 48x high-maneuverability micro-missiles figures over the 68,500kg x 2 thrust figure and 12x missiles total....

Maybe you should ask him because only he knows that answer. Cuz model goes with 68,500kg with 48 missiles. The toy goes with 78,950kg and 12 missiles. Then the Chronicle goes with 68,950kg and 12 missiles.

You said do the math. Why? That's not what I'm asking. It doesn't make sense. No kidding, but that's not what I'm asking. I am asking, how do you know if it's an error in print if we have 3 sources that don't agree with each other. Adding the Master File in there doesn't make it any clearer either.

[Graham]

Mooching off Talos's copy so I can give you a quick answer... you're right about the HMMP-15 designation, but the diagram appears to show two HMMP-15 launcher assemblies installed in each bay. It looks like (Talo's reckoning here) the "long" version is an extended and tapered version of the "short" version, which appears to be the model of missile installed in Basara's VF-19 Kai in Macross 7. So it's the "short" model that allows six missiles to fit into each leg launcher assembly.

Will need to look at the boook again tonight and compare against line-art of Basara's missiles, but I would have thought it is the opposite way and the longer missiles are the ones used by Basara.

Graham

[Graham]

Maybe you should ask him because only he knows that answer. Cuz model goes with 68,500kg with 48 missiles. The toy goes with 78,950kg and 12 missiles. Then the Chronicle goes with 68,950kg and 12 missiles.

You said do the math. Why? That's not what I'm asking. It doesn't make sense. No kidding, but that's not what I'm asking. I am asking, how do you know if it's an error in print if we have 3 sources that don't agree with each other. Adding the Master File in there doesn't make it any clearer either.

Unfortunately, with so many conflicting sources, I doubt we are ever going to know which information is correct, that is unless Big West or Kawamori-san read this thread and provide us with a definitive answer.

For the moment, I'm just going to accept that all answers are possible.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

Long post is long... bear with me, and my apologies for the length in advance. I wanted to make sure all my bases were covered.

Maybe you should ask him because only he knows that answer. Cuz model goes with 68,500kg with 48 missiles. The toy goes with 78,950kg and 12 missiles. Then the Chronicle goes with 68,950kg and 12 missiles.

Oh no, it's even screwier than that...

On the packaging of the Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19S toy, the thrust rating provided is the 78,950kg x 2 rating, but it lists the VF-19S as having the same twelve medium-range high maneuverability missiles as the VF-19 Kai. By the opposite token, the Bandai 1/100 model kit lists the thrust rating as 68,500kg x 2, and says that its leg bays take a total of 48 high-maneuverability micro-missiles instead. Egan's Macross Compendium article cites the 78,950kg x 2 thrust figure as being the correct one, and lists BOTH missile options as accurate (swappable pallets and all). Chronicle takes a bizarre approach and lists a totally unprecedented thrust figure (68,950kg x 2), and inexplicably lists the VF-19F/S as having room for only 12 high-maneuverability micro-missiles, while the VF-19 Kai is listed (correctly) as having 12 medium-range high-maneuverability missiles.

It doesn't make sense. No kidding, but that's not what I'm asking. I am asking, how do you know if it's an error in print if we have 3 sources that don't agree with each other. Adding the Master File in there doesn't make it any clearer either.

Actually, we have four sources... the 1/100 kit, the 1/65 toy, the Macross Compendium, and Macross Chronicle.

Insofar as the first three sources... the model and toy stats contradict each other on the subject of engine thrust, but not armaments (technically). Egan's Compendium piece lists the 78,950kg x 2 for reasons that are currently unclear, but the 78,950kg x 2 vs the VF-19F's 72,500kg x 2 is consistent with the established practice of giving leader variants greater engine power than the "grunt" model both in the same series (VF-17D/S) and Macross as a whole. The listing of both missile complements is fine, since it's been down since Plus that the leg bays can take a variety of ordinance. In the Compendium article's stats, we have something that supports both the animation and the other things the text is telling us about its performance.

Now, how can we be sure what's printed in Chronicle is an error?

• The error is immediately obvious, as is how it occurred.
  In the case of the engine thrust figures, we can clearly see how the 78,950kg thrust figure was mistyped as 68,950 due to the 6 and 7 keys being next to each other, and how the 72,500kg figure for the -F variant was mistyped as 78,500kg. In both cases, the new digit is immediately adjacent to the number it should've been or the last key used. For the missile complement, it looks like they copied material from a previous article and just changed the text, forgetting to change the number when they changed the missile's type. They've done this sort of copying and introduced similar errors before on other sheets.
  
• The "new" information in Chronicle does not support the other statements being made about the fighter's performance on the very same sheet and makes no logical sense.
  With the "new" numbers printed in Chronicle, it makes no sense for the VF-19S to have a higher rate-of-climb and greater speed at altitude than the VF-19F when the two planes are aerodynamically identical, and the -S has a much lower thrust-to-weight ratio (15.99 to the -F's 18.36) due to being 70kg heavier and having 19,100kg less thrust. Under the specs on the Compendium, it makes perfect sense for the -S to have the higher top speed and better rate-of-climb, as the VF-19S has a much higher T/W ratio (18.32 to the -F's 16.96).
  It also doesn't make any sense for micro-missiles to take up the same amount of space in the leg bay as a medium-range missile... they're like 1/3 the size, if that.
  
• The "new" information is inconsistent with the data provided in other sources, the depiction of the mecha in the animation, and contradicts established convention adhered to by other mecha in the same show and the universe as a whole.
  We've beaten this one to death, so I don't need to talk about how the new numbers for engine thrust and missile loadings don't come from any previous source. They don't match Emerald Force's combat scenes in the series itself either. Furthermore, it doesn't match the established convention adhered to by other mecha from the same series (VF-17D/S) and previous models, wherein the "leader" version has greater performance than the "grunt" unit. (See VF-0S, VF-1S, VF-17S, etc.)
  

In summation, we have one set of numbers (those on the Macross Compendium) that are consistent with EVERYTHING we're being told about the mecha's performance, and the depiction of the mecha in the series, and the setting in general. Then we have the data in Chronicle and the VF-19 Master File... which doesn't support the animation and makes no bloody sense.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[sketchley]

Were I actually doing any of that, I would happily oblige you... but I'm not. Not here, not elsewhere, and not in the quote you made from my post.

Seriously, dude.

It's gotten to the point that the sheer volume of falsehoods and mistruths you're posting about me has made me question the veracity of the rest of your posts. Which has begged the question: what's the point of trying to have a serious discussion with a liar? There's no point.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So in conclusion what makes the most logical sense is that the VF-19S Blazer as the highest thrust output therefore better performance than the VF-19F and the thrust compensates for the increased weight. The debate has been to determine whether this is true or not, correct?

[azrael]

Actually, we have four sources... the 1/100 kit, the 1/65 toy, the Macross Compendium, and Macross Chronicle.

And if Egan got his info from 2 of those sources, then we can get take out the Compendium as a middle man. But even he compromised between the 2 old figures.

Now, how can we be sure what's printed in Chronicle is an error?

• The error is immediately obvious, as is how it occurred.
  ...

Okay, but I have yet to see a retraction being published for this. In fact, another work was published which restate the new figures, namely the Master File. Even if it's origins are dubious. And if the Bandai Hi-Metal toy reprints this, what then? They're all wrong because it doesn't make sense to you?

• The "new" information in Chronicle does not support the other statements being made about the fighter's performance on the very same sheet and makes no logical sense.

As I said, I'm not asking if it doesn't make sense. I'm not asking you to make sense of it at all.

• The "new" information is inconsistent with the data provided in other sources, the depiction of the mecha in the animation, and contradicts established convention adhered to by other mecha in the same show and the universe as a whole. )[/i]
  

Gee gholly, it wouldn't be the first time writings haven't followed the animation. And the original sources are inconsistent. And if the new information is inconsistent with inconsistent old writings, then either everybody is wrong or everybody is right. (thank you Graham for getting this)

... which doesn't support the animation and makes no bloody sense.

Again, I'm not asking you or anybody to make "bloody sense" of it.

[David Hingtgen]

Given that the tail fins (rudders?) on the E/F/S/P are spaced much wider apart than on the 'A', would this wider spacing make them more effective than the closer set tails on the A type?

Yes it would---but aren't theirs a bit smaller, too? They are highly canted, which is unusual for a rudder---highly-canted dual-purpose fins tend to be of "slab" configuration where the entire structure moves, not just a hinged section---the YF-23 is like that. To me this says they're mainly angled out so as to reduce overall height with the large ventral fins making up the difference for yaw stability--not angled out to help with roll. A rudder that angled is more like an aileron--but the -19's not taking advantage of that fact--or is even being hampered by it. Yaw is the hardest thing to get from thrust vectoring, short of having each engine set at different power levels. (if you have the ability to directly move the nozzle sideways, which the -19 doesn't appear to, you will yaw, but it will be a sloppy, crabbing, non-aerodynamic turn---it'll be ugly) So you really should have a rudder of some sort, even with vectoring.

Being so angled out greatly reduces their effectiveness as a rudder--but as it appears that their only fuction is for yaw, that's just how it is.

It's quite possible the -19 has yaw-only control like a YF-23 does (differential aileron/flaperon deployment, to avoid rolling issues from using the angled tail surfaces--which is still aerodynamically ugly, but not so much as using raw engine thrust) but we've seen no evidence of this--still, IMHO any valk should be able to move any surface in any direction in any combination.

(part of the problem of evaluating valk flight controls, is that FBW allows more and more complex interactions that traditional "stick and rudder"---the YF-23 could easily move EVERY control surface for even simple commands---even the F-18 will do this for a roll as its computers can calculate out "perfect" manuevers----just imagine what a valk can process, and then respond too) (a Hornet will execute a "perfect" roll if you hold the stick to the side---it's like an Airbus in that respect, not a Boeing---as in the stick is used to tell the computer what RESULT you want, not direct control of the flight surfaces)

[Seto Kaiba]

It's gotten to the point that the sheer volume of falsehoods and mistruths you're posting about me has made me question the veracity of the rest of your posts. Which has begged the question: what's the point of trying to have a serious discussion with a liar? There's no point.

Okay, this is just downright immature of you sketchley... trying to bait me into a fight and attack not only my credibility, but my extension Mr March's as well, by accusing me of something I haven't done. Both of the assertions I made about your position here are accurate. You did say that you were inclined to revise your opinion of the book towards it being official because it jived with what was in Chronicle and because Kawamori was listed as the supervisor (here), and you did question the veracity of the original numbers in the Compendium (here). Since you're dead-set on being disruptive, I really have no choice but to report your post.

So in conclusion what makes the most logical sense is that the VF-19S Blazer as the highest thrust output therefore better performance than the VF-19F and the thrust compensates for the increased weight. The debate has been to determine whether this is true or not, correct?

In a word, yes.

At present, the set of stats that makes the most logical sense is the set of numbers in the Macross Compendium. The initial discussion was to determine the veracity of the new numbers given in Chronicle, then turned to a discussion of the veracity of the numbers found in the Compendium and a concerted effort to determine what sources those stats'd been gleaned from... the ultimate goal being to determine whether the new numbers first printed in Macross Chronicle and copied into the Master File are intentional changes or typographical errors. At present, the majority seems to be leaning heavily towards the typo hypothesis.

And if Egan got his info from 2 of those sources, then we can get take out the Compendium as a middle man. But even he compromised between the 2 old figures.

Unless Egan had access to a third source that clarified the issue, and kept the 68,500kg figure as a relevant-but-discredited number just for completeness's sake. The material he printed was printed with express prior permission from Big West, so he may even have had contact and clarification from them. We just have to get in touch with him and find out, assuming he even remembers.

Okay, but I have yet to see a retraction being published for this. In fact, another work was published which restate the new figures, namely the Master File. Even if it's origins are dubious. And if the Bandai Hi-Metal toy reprints this, what then? They're all wrong because it doesn't make sense to you?

Um... at no point has ANY sheet had a retraction published for something like this. The only retractions/corrections we've gotten have been for when whole sheets have ended up with the wrong filing number and the errata section at the back of issue 50, which I'll say right now I very much doubt will correct more than a handful of the most obvious of the errors. Chronicle is not infallible... it's not even close. I could point to a good half-dozen unambiguously and demonstrably wrong pieces of information without having to take my binders off the shelf. That the error was reprinted in a book that, by all the evidence, is unofficial anyway doesn't mean anything.

If they provide some kind official rationale for the change, that's all well and good. But what we have here is a set of numbers that makes no sense and doesn't support the contents of the animation, the setting, and the other things that the same damn source has to say about the aircraft. The alleged correction comes from a source that has had plenty of errors in the past and corrected none of them, and is corroborated by a book that doesn't appear to have ever been intended to be reliable in the first place. It's not corroborated by a credible source.

Gee gholly, it wouldn't be the first time writings haven't followed the animation. And the original sources are inconsistent. And if the new information is inconsistent with inconsistent old writings, then either everybody is wrong or everybody is right. (thank you Graham for getting this)

No, it wouldn't be... but we have one set of data from a known, well-respected, credible source in contact with the franchise's owners (Egan Loo), for which we can establish the origins of the data, and the data supports what's shown in the animation, established conventions in the show's universe adhered to by other mecha in the same series, and all the other assertions we're being asked to accept about the craft.

Then we have the set of data in Chronicle, a publication that has printed and failed to publish retractions/corrections for dozens of errors and failures to do research already (and no doubt with more on the way in issue 50), where the information is completely and totally without precedent, contradicts what's in the animation, established conventions in the show's universe, and the other assertions that source is making about the mecha.

When one lines up perfectly with everything and the other is out in left field contradicting everything including itself, it ought to be a no-brainer which one is correct. Chronicle is NOT infallible.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[Graham]

Yes it would---but aren't theirs a bit smaller, too? They are highly canted, which is unusual for a rudder---highly-canted dual-purpose fins tend to be of "slab" configuration where the entire structure moves, not just a hinged section---the YF-23 is like that.

The Master Files lineart shows the tail fins of the A type and E/F/S type as being the same size and set at the same angle. The only difference being that the A type fins are mounted higher up and closer together and the E/F/S type are mounted lower and set further apart.

Kawamori's original lineart also shows the YF-19 and E/F/S type as being about the same size as well.

Graham

[sketchley]

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.

I believe I read somewhere that the VF-19F is the mass production variant of the VF-19 (might have been MC, VF-19 Master File, or a Japanese Wikipedia article). Being space optimised doesn't mean all-regimes optimised. Whereas the VF-19S is, from information presented in MC, an all-regimes optimised craft. In that sense, it has improved performance.

The VF-19 Master File also has images of the VF-19F with larger wings for atmosphere use. The associated text states that the VF-19F with those wings are used by emigrant planets where the craft are used pretty much equally in space and atmosphere. Therefore, the VF-19F and VF-19S are not limited to one regime.

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. (...)

I'm not disagreeing, as it was speculation. Nevertheless, the net effect of the improvements are increased atmospheric performance and lost space performance.

Size/weight issues aside, to me the increased bypass ratio makes sense. Nevertheless, no matter what real-world technology we discuss, it'll be wrong, as it's applying turbofan jet engine features onto a thermonuclear turobfan jet engine.

Edited June 12, 2010 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

Finally got confirmation that my copy of the VF-19 Master File book shipped today, it ought to arrive by this coming wednesday. Looking forward to having my own copy to examine instead of having to constantly borrow Talos's.

[azrael]

Seto, we agree to disagree. Now can we just just focus on the book? Thank you.

[Seto Kaiba]

Seto, we agree to disagree. Now can we just just focus on the book? Thank you.

Yeah, sure thing.

(Since the whole thing started from questioning the veracity of the information the VF-19 Master File copied from Chronicle, we probably should've moved the whole discussion to the Chronicle thread back on like page three anyway... the fun we have. )

[sketchley]

Yaw is the hardest thing to get from thrust vectoring, short of having each engine set at different power levels. (if you have the ability to directly move the nozzle sideways, which the -19 doesn't appear to, you will yaw, but it will be a sloppy, crabbing, non-aerodynamic turn---it'll be ugly) So you really should have a rudder of some sort, even with vectoring.

Great Mechanics.DX #9 states:

"the VF-1 employs a 2-dimension vertical thrust vectoring nozzle (they are also moveable to a degree to the left and right)*. 3 dimension (thrust vectoring) can be seen on later-made General Galaxy (Zentraadi-series) VFs.

[*translator's note: I believe the 3 dimension vectoring is related to the side-to-side movement of the ankle joint in battroid mode. However, as the parts are nestelled into the rear of the engine nacelle in fighter mode, the range of movement is restricted significantly.]"

Linky: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/index.php?topic=2252.msg33518#msg33518

Therefore, the VF-19 series also has a similar function. Nevertheless, it'd still be a "sloppy, crabbing, non-aerodynamic turn".

[Vic Mancini]

Therefore, the VF-19 series also has a similar function. Nevertheless, it'd still be a "sloppy, crabbing, non-aerodynamic turn".

I'm not so sure about that. The VF-1's foot/nozzle has sidewalls. The VF-19's doesn't. So I don't see how the 19 could vector the thrust/exhaust to the sides without any sidewalls on the nozzle.

But I'm just nitpicking here. The VF-19 is a hyper advanced (and most importantly fictional) aircraft. I'm sure it has all kinds of highly effective maneuvering techniques and laughs in the face of any yaw issues.

[Mr March]

Wow, what a thread. Just gonna post some final thoughts as an FYI to anyone that cares.

There’s been some interesting points made by all, but I’m not sure I agree with any one opinion about the Master Files. I will say this: ultimately, I don’t think we fans have much choice regarding the status of ANY Macross publication. I know the topic of a Macross “canon policy” has come up before on MW and there’s never been an answer. Without one, we’re kinda forced to accept and rationalize. Of course, that doesn’t mean should cease due diligence. I think fellas like azrael, Graham and Seta Kaiba are definitely on the right track harboring a healthy skepticism of the Master Files (especially the VF-1 book, given it’s use of Sky Angels material).

However, I very much subscribe to the idea of the fan as “end user” only. We’re here to facilitate or conduct damage control and our mandate can’t really go beyond that. I believe we can’t ignore trivia in the Master File that doesn’t contradict anything previously published (perhaps, even if it does!). Unless word comes down from Egan Loo or an authority at Big West (is Tenjin an authority?), we fans are probably stuck with the Master Files. Yes, these books might cause us frustration, but again it’s only our place to rationalize, not to prioritize.

Some may disagree with me, but my own website will follow a policy of UNIFIED CANON. All published materials will be considered worth inclusion. Contradictory trivia will follow the lead of the Macross Compendium, posting both trivia sources to note differences. For those rare but highly visible PROBABLE publication errors (unconfirmed) such as the VF-19F/S engines I’ll build dedicated documentation pages so everyone can be happy with a fact trail. Again, there may be disagreements, but I feel Macross fansites should serve fans, not confuse them. IMO, the practice of some wherewithal is an expected responsibility.

The wing <magically> folds straight back into the leg on it's original hinge in the line art, and it seems to unhinge and slide outward before retracting against the leg in what I've seen from the Master File.

I thought I would post this up for discussion about the high-speed mode on the YF-19 versus the original Macross Plus line art. At least this one has a place for the entire wing to go.

Ah, thanks Vic. I actually never noticed the magic wings on the YF-19 high speed mode until examining them just now. The hinge within the wing root is a good idea. Actually, that hinge makes the Battroid transformation better too, since the wings seem to retract into the wing roots. Thanks for posting the pics.

[Graham]

Wondering exactly how and where the new FAST packs for the VF-19A attach? Looking at the pics, they don't seem to attach to the shoulders like the VF-19F/S FAST Packs. Looks more like they attach to the chest plate some how? Makes me wonder if they are for fighter mode only and have to be jetisoned if the VF-19A transforms to Battroid or Gerwalk mode.

Also, it looks like the new FAST Packs can be fitted with two different types of missile launcher. I see mention and lineart of an HMMP-15 and an HMMP-12.

Interesting that the missile launcher for the internal leg bays is also listed as HMMP-15.

Graham

I'm hoping that the pages on the block numbers will clarify whether the VF-19E/F/S/P types were indeed meant as more advanced replacements for the earlier VF-19A/B/C/D types.

Graham

[Roy Focker]

I hope my copy comes soon.

[sketchley]

I'm not so sure about that. The VF-1's foot/nozzle has sidewalls. The VF-19's doesn't. So I don't see how the 19 could vector the thrust/exhaust to the sides without any sidewalls on the nozzle.

But I'm just nitpicking here. The VF-19 is a hyper advanced (and most importantly fictional) aircraft. I'm sure it has all kinds of highly effective maneuvering techniques and laughs in the face of any yaw issues.

True, true (nods). Though the thrust vectoring plates (the feet) can move, the thrust won't (unless PPB technology is employed, but there's no indication of that).

Nevertheless, the VF-19 does have a visible alternate - the manuevering thrusters near the rear of the craft can compensate for any lack of horizontal thrust vectoring. Therefore allowing it to laugh in the face of any yaw issues.