AVF Upgrade Candidates

[Sildani]

Nice design. The vertical stab might fold flat to the side in Battroid to keep it out of the way. The gunpod is faintly reminiscent of the YF-19's. It may well have internal missiles and wing hardpoints, otherwise it looks pretty light weight.

[Mommar]

The wings could easily be fixed in Battroid if they were to flip over like the SV-51/YF-30 or slide inward like the YF-29.

That cockpit section looks like the 2J in Battroid from Macross 2...

Edited March 31, 2015 by Mommar

[Valkyrie Driver]

This actually gave me some ideas for my single engine design.

[GuardianGrey]

I do not have the books, Seto Kaiba, so I will have to take your word on it.

Though the scale might be off, it seems you & I (mostly) agree that with the up-tick in all technologies do not remove the issues we have.

Faster & harder ballistic rounds can go through tougher armor, stronger frames can be weakened by heavier concussion waves from more potent bombs/explosives & the more powerful turbines also have a higher stress factor on the VFs bulkheads/parts.

--------------------------------------------------

True, Valkyrie Driver, though the XS-4 seems to be based loosely off the F-16, which originally was suppose to be carrier capable, though when General Dynamics could not easily deliver on that, the YF-17 ended up as the F/A-18.
Though, for the VF-17/VF-171, (remember, I have not seen M7 or MF) having a island (colony ship) as your base to operate from makes storage less an issue.

As for the helicopter comment, it was the joke in line of a "screen door on a submarine" for the dorsal intake.

I know of two behind the cockpit engine intake, one is the F-107 & the other is the Boeing Bird of Prey demonstrator; the back of XS-4 looks more like the BoP's intake.

----------------------------------------------------

That could be true, Sildani, on the tail. I personally feel the tail may do better reconfigured like the VF-11 (looking like the F-35's vertical stabilizers), though that is my opinion.

Considering the V.F.-Originals page, off the www.VR-Research.com site, being last updated in 2005, the gun-pod may have been inspired by the YF/VF-19's GU-15.

The missile bays could be in the legs (or elsewhere), though the XS-4 was in their 'Half-Done' area.

With no apparent updates since 2005, I do not think we will either any time soon (if ever).

-------------------------------------------------------

I do like the idea of the slide, Mommar, though I am guessing only half the length could be stowed that way due to the central engine, which would leave enough to possibly to interfere with the arms still.
The fold/flip back near the root of the wing would free up the space for arm movement, though could throw-off the center of gravity due to it being still a solid wing if it can not fold fully back (a reverse of the VF-22's wing storage).

Speaking of the VF-22, I just noticed that it's wings (even when folded) also limit the arms from free movement; though not as bad as the VF-4.

-------------------------------------------------------

If the posts have helped you with Ideas, Valkyrie Driver, then I am glad.

Right now I have multiple designs in my head, though I will have to get programs running in my system to help me bring them to you (namely a scanner & PaintShop Pro). The ideas, with a few lines of description, are (if the numbers are not taken:

• (ca. 2008) YV-43 is a VTOL VF (based loosely on the proposed Yak-43) with duel-fold wings (like the SV-51) with main powered by a single modified Kuznetsov NK-32 engine (cruise; 137 kN, w/afterburner; 245 kN) & a lift/vernier RKBM RD-41 turbines (41.7 kN),
  Transformation mechanics for the main body similar to the VF-22, with the wings & vernier turbine like the SV-51.
  
• (ca. 2035) VA-8 Harrier III is a single main turbine VA/VF design to be a more cost effective alternative to the VF-11 while utilizing some of the proposed AVF technologies such as Active Stealth, trans-orbital capable & the experimental (in 2035-2040) fold booster.
  One needs to remember, most Attacker aircraft go in with ordnance that they deliver & get out, they are not intended to 'dogfight' any.
  This is my VF concept of the idea that Valkyrie Driver & I seem to share based on a F-35 with VF-22 style transformation.
  
• (ca. 2055+) YF-26 Kestrel II is a single main engine VF with VG wings (similar to the VF-25) designed to be an alternative to the YF-24 Evolution for (frontier worlds/colony fleets), There are three design differences;
  • YF-24A which has the specifications for an improved version of the IVCS that was trialed in the YF-21
  • YF-24B that has an additional small reactor/turbine for extended fighter-mode VTOL operations and full time use of the PBS over its superstructure. A tell-tale sign of this variant is that the small turbine is moved externally from the main airframe in battriod-mode (like the SV-51).
  • YF-24C attempts to combine the aspects of both by utilizing the ISC of the YF-24 & a smaller main turbine. This has been the least successful variant of the program due to power consumption, space limitations & issues with ISC (read http://macross.anime.net/wiki/YF-24)
• (ca. 2060+) YF-33 is a triple turbine prototype to allow dissimilar actions of the YF-29 at a lower development/production cost.
  Fighter-mode airframe base is envisioned as a cross between the Lockheed CL-1200/X-27 & EWR VJ-101.
  
• (ca. 2060+) XB-7 is a four (might end up more) engine VB platform that utilizes many existing technologies in new ways.
  A SF-5G is a manned/drone unit that acts as a parasitic fighter to the XB-7, and is also the heavy quantum cannon for said (like the Macross cannon sip is to the New Macross Carrier class)

Tangent: If I can get them drawn out, though, would they go here or in the Fan-Art Topics?

-----------------------------------------------

Since we are talking technologies for VF I thought it might be note some things for the Macross continuum for this year;

1. Isamu Alva Dyson was born 27 March
2. VF-1 production will end.
3. Full production of the VF-5 (which we have yet to see) begins

[Valkyrie Driver]

The Single engine VF I have envisioned is kind of a combination of the VF-22 in the leg and arm storage, with SV-51 inspired wings, with an intake inspired by the X-32/F-16LOAN. The Nose/cockpit area would stow much like the VF-1/11/22, with the Head turret resembling a cross between the VF-4G and VF-25F. Now it's a matter of putting pencil to paper and making it look good.

On a related note, Who else thinks the SV-51 could be updated into a fantastic CAS/Anti-Ship platform? High output TN reaction engines, armed with anti ship missiles and a beam cannon like on the VF-27? I think that would make a hell of a great Special Forces mech...

[Andras]

Since we're talking advanced VFs here:

I've been looking at the SW-XAII and how to integrate it into my Mekton lists. The arms look like they have a large bore beam gun in each outer panel, in fact, they really look like they have a version of VF-1s arm mounted fast packs with beam cannon instead of missiles, and there is also a missile port in the back of the lower arm. (Also like the beam guns in the arm packs on the VF25Armored & Typhoon)

If it is a competitor/contemporary to the VF-17 then matching beam cannon in the arms makes a certain amount of sense. The failure is they point to the rear in F mode (ok for dogfighting perhaps). On the other hand, the missile ports in the legs do point forwards in F mode, but they also point straight up into the wings, body and arms in G and B modes.

So in F mode you can fire the leg missiles to the front, while in B&G mode you have forwards firing beamcannon.

The arm missiles (only 8 per arm, like the VF-5000) seem like they point backwards in Fighter, but would be all-around in B & G modes.

Since the VF17 can fire it's beam cannon forwards in F mode you now see why it was chosen as the strike VF and not the SW-XAII (aside from the fact it doesn't officially exist in M-universe)

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossga/sw-xaii-schneegans.htm

[GuardianGrey]

I seen two different intakes for the F-16LOAN, Valkyrie Driver, the traditional & the DSI (Divertless Supersonic Intake) which Boeing was using tech data of for the X-35.
I am assuming the DSI is what you are referring to; though with the nose-down transformation like the VF-1/11/22, would that not pinch/cut off intake to the turbine?

I would think a divided intake like the F-20/35/104/106 would be easier.

------------------------------

If you, Valkyrie Driver, are referring to as a 2038 AVF Update Candidate version of the SV-51;
I feel the frame could be remade to handle the newer turbines & FCS updated for the ordnance loads, though the big anti-ship gun might be pushing the tech of the era.

Now, 2055+, with the SV-52 (a rebuilt SV-51 to AVF specifications) from Macross R, I say it is more plausible.

With the Heavy Quantum Beam gunpod, I would suggest a set of fixed boosters like the SV-51 'Booster' (though intergraded into the wings) for higher power output for the beam cannon.

Heck, the SV-51 with boosters looks like she could go orbital back then... & the purple on the nose almost look like fold crystals..

------------------------------

Since the SW-XAII is a non-cannon design, Andras, you won't find much. though this is my crack a the weapons;

• Dual Head Lasers (like VF-1D/J, VF-17D, VF-25F)
• Gunpod (other than the VF-4, which it is optional, all VF have at least one)
• internal missile bay in ventral-side fuselage/lower-legs (Like the VF-19P)
• Internal missile bay in ventral-aft fuselage/ arms (dissimilar to the VF-5000)
• Possible beam system (pointing aft in fighter mode/ Arms in GREWALK/Battriod)

The big bore Laser is the only issue I have, due to the ventral view.

The Missile ports in the Arms are farther back on the body than they should which would either mean it is a fluke, or the beam weapons at not internal and can not be used.

If they are rear facing it would be like the head lasers are on a lot of other VF units, to discourage tailing & be an anti-missile system.

Edited April 6, 2015 by GuardianGrey

[Andras]

sw-xaii: I'm certain the missile ports as shown all the way to the rear in F mode is an error. They are shown to be at the rear of the lower arm/elbow joint in B&G modes, so unless the upper arm can stretch all the way to the back of the fighter, the elbows should be towards the front, and the hands/beamguns pointed aft, as in most other VFs.

[anime52k8]

sw-xaii: I'm certain the missile ports as shown all the way to the rear in F mode is an error.

it's not an error, the arm unfolds

[Valkyrie Driver]

I seen two different intakes for the F-16LOAN, Valkyrie Driver, the traditional & the DSI (Divertless Supersonic Intake) which Boeing was using tech data of for the X-35.

I am assuming the DSI is what you are referring to; though with the nose-down transformation like the VF-1/11/22, would that not pinch/cut off intake to the turbine?

I would think a divided intake like the F-20/35/104/106 would be easier.

------------------------------

If you, Valkyrie Driver, are referring to as a 2038 AVF Update Candidate version of the SV-51;

I feel the frame could be remade to handle the newer turbines & FCS updated for the ordnance loads, though the big anti-ship gun might be pushing the tech of the era.

Now, 2055+, with the SV-52 (a rebuilt SV-51 to AVF specifications) from Macross R, I say it is more plausible.

With the Heavy Quantum Beam gunpod, I would suggest a set of fixed boosters like the SV-51 'Booster' (though intergraded into the wings) for higher power output for the beam cannon.

Heck, the SV-51 with boosters looks like she could go orbital back then... & the purple on the nose almost look like fold crystals..

I was actually thinking more like the intake on the X-32. Big, like the old F-8/A-7 where the nose section would essentially split the intake in battroid mode.

For the SV-51 upgrade, I would think the way to do it is to over engine it, but thrust limit it so that it can power the SWAG armor in fighter mode, or charge a gun. It wouldn't be as fast as, say, a VF-25, or even a VF-171, but it would be tough, and have a honking powerful gun. Think transforming A-10 in space. It wouldn't need the boosters then. I'd also add 2 more hardpoints under the wings for a total of 8.

That would be well within the real of technological possibility in the 2038 or 2055+ eras, especially if you used a dedicated gun with the output of the beam adapter and a recharge plug connected to the fighter's power systems...

[Andras]

it's not an error, the arm unfolds

Ok, I see in Picture E where the green part flips over, that would also block any beam gun in the flippy sections wouldn't it.

The green section on the model do appear to be thinner then the art depicts. There's also an extra set of missile ports on the now exposed dorsal surface of the green sections between the vertical tail fins.

It's also possible there is no beam gun there, and that is just a mating interface with the fixed part of the arm where the hand retracts in F mode.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Andras

[GuardianGrey]

Here is a twisted thought, Andras, the "new" ports on the aft/arm missile bays are blocked with the transformation to GEARWALK/Battroid, so the front ports (that you believed were beam weapons) are the new release area for...

------------------------------

I see your point on both the one engine & the SV-51 upgrade, Valkyrie Driver.

I was thinking that it would not be fully possible for the 2038 setting, because the Heavy quantum beam weapon would not be developed yet.

The GU-XS-06 (usually with the VF-11C APS-11) if usable in all modes would be a statement, and ratio size to the SV-51 like the VF-27's BGP-01B (I can't get the 'special' characters).

The engines, which at that point in time could do SWAG full time, though not enough for an all-time full-frame PPBS.

I think the YF-30 has full time on both systems (SWAG & full-frame PPBS) as well as a Heavy Quantum on two engines, so it is not impossible.
It would almost be offensively like the YF-27-5, though in a (IMHO) nicer looking airframe.

Personal feeling; the SV-51 was the superior VF in Macross Zero, though was flown by the losing side of the war.

[Mommar]

it's not an error, the arm unfolds

Too bad that isn't an official Macross fighter. An upgraded VF-1 with the forward swept wings looks good and I'd want a toy of it.

[JB0]

Too bad that isn't an official Macross fighter. An upgraded VF-1 with the forward swept wings looks good and I'd want a toy of it.

It's also got some interesting variations on the classic VF-1 transformation without getting particularly convoluted.

...

I dunno about those canards, though. They look like they're there for the sake of being there.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Canards do not always make things better...

Edited April 10, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, as an aside, I looked up the specs for the VF-171EX, and VF-19S, and the coding on the engines is the same, but the outputs are different. I would also assume that the vernier output is different. I know that in the real world engine ratings are not dependent on the fighter's mass, so I assume the same has to be true in Macross (because physics). I also know that the VF-171 is a heavier fighter than the VF-19, so it would naturally be slower even with the same engine output. If you up tuned the engines and verniers to compensate for the extra mass, would the resulting fighter have comparable performance, given that the fighter were constructed to handle the additional output?

Given their obvious design differences they would have different aerodynamic properties, and there would be a huge discrepancy in their atmospheric performance (given that the VF-17 produces greater lift, assuming that the proper camber is present on the dorsal section).

Both fighters would be inferior in performance to the VF-25's raw output, but how would they compare to it? Raw speed and maneuverability doesn't necessarily translate to being a superior machine.

What sort of weaknesses do the VF-19, VF-25, and VF-171 possess in relation to each other? What are the strengths of those machines in comparison to one another?

If this discussion is going to go anywhere from here we need to establish a good benchmark to which we should compare.

[Seto Kaiba]

The engines, which at that point in time could do SWAG full time, though not enough for an all-time full-frame PPBS.

I wouldn't be too sure of that...

As far as official sources go, the only VFs that've been described as being able to fully utilize their energy conversion armor and/or pin-point barrier system in all modes are those equipped with variants of the fold wave system... the YF-29 and YF-30.

The VF-25's FF-3001 Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines had just enough surplus power to run dedicated light energy conversion armor around vital areas (cockpit and engines) in fighter mode¹, and the VF-27 needed the surplus from FOUR Stage II engines to get whole-airframe ECA and/or pin-point barrier working in fighter mode.

I think the YF-30 has full time on both systems (SWAG & full-frame PPBS) as well as a Heavy Quantum on two engines, so it is not impossible.

The YF-30 can only achieve that because its Fold Dimension Resonance system, an improved version of the fold wave system on the YF-29. The material requirements to build one seem to be pretty expensive... the YF-29's needed 1,000 carats of fold quartz.

Personal feeling; the SV-51 was the superior VF in Macross Zero, though was flown by the losing side of the war.

Well, yes and no... the SV-51 had a couple of advantages over the VF-0, principally because it was intended for combat use from its inception, where the VF-0 was a technology evaluation and demonstration craft hastily pressed into training and combat service. It's said that it had greater stability in actual combat, and that its active stealth system was more powerful than the VF-0's, but it also had the drawback of being slower to transform and a shorter sortie range.

So, as an aside, I looked up the specs for the VF-171EX, and VF-19S, and the coding on the engines is the same, but the outputs are different.

Not quite? The VF-171EX is using the FF-2550F, apparently detuned to 67,500kg-f. The other plane that uses the FF-2550F is the VF-19 Custom, which had an output of 82,500kg-f (probably overtuned). The detuning of the FF-2550F for the VF-171EX is likely a constraint imposed by its airframe design tolerances, as the Nightmare Plus EX is said to be tuned all the way to the design limit.

The VF-19 engine numbers in Chronicle are all messed up... but there's a FAQ for that.

What sort of weaknesses do the VF-19, VF-25, and VF-171 possess in relation to each other? What are the strengths of those machines in comparison to one another?

If this discussion is going to go anywhere from here we need to establish a good benchmark to which we should compare.

Well... there's something to this effect in Macross Chronicle's Technology Sheets... but only for the VF-25 and VF-27, IIRC.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Seto, I was talking about the Alphanumeric code identifying the engines being the same, not necessarily the tuning (my bad for the confusion). So If the VF-171EX, is tuned to the airframe's maximum, It's performance is what it is.

So this begs the question, how would you employ this fighter against one of superior performance? Does the heavier internal weapon load make up for the decrease in performance? Is it's maneuverability superior to the the VF-19 or the VF-25? Or is it just supremely outclassed by those fighters?

[Seto Kaiba]

Seto, I was talking about the Alphanumeric code identifying the engines being the same, not necessarily the tuning (my bad for the confusion).

Eh... I was more on about that the VF-19S doesn't use the FF-2550F, that's the VF-19 Custom's bag.

So this begs the question, how would you employ this fighter against one of superior performance? Does the heavier internal weapon load make up for the decrease in performance? Is it's maneuverability superior to the the VF-19 or the VF-25? Or is it just supremely outclassed by those fighters?

Oh boy... now you're askin' the tough ones.

Well, generally speaking, the VF-171 is "outclassed by design". It was developed after the VF-19 but before the YF-24 Evolution as a sort of compromise plane that would incorporate many of the technological advances of the Project Super Nova prototypes but without the unnecessarily excessive performance that was their greatest weakness. The VF-19 and VF-22 were extremely unforgiving aircraft to fly, as their performance pushed (and exceeded) the limits of the human body's endurance. The Nightmare Plus was designed to be an aircraft that even average pilots could get the most out of.

Once you've got the same generation of weapons... the Anti-ECA shells in the gun pod and the warheads on the missiles... the difference becomes more one of individual skill and tactics than raw performance. We saw this in Frontier, when they gave the same ammo SMS was using to the regular New UN Forces, and suddenly they were having a much easier time against the Vajra. Alto, in a Nightmare Plus EX, was able to nearly rival Ozma in his VF-25S Armored Messiah... and that's pretty damn impressive right there. It's not an insurmountable difference in performance, and MDE weapons on the VF-171EX would definitely be an advantage.

[Valkyrie Driver]

One thing I don't think I have seen in any of the information I have seen (I'll admit my only two sources are Macross Mecha Manual, and Sketchley's Stats) give turning performance for the various fighters. If it's in there, please let me know.

[JB0]

Ooooh, that WOULD be interesting.

Notably different numbers for space and atmosphere, right off the bat. Heck, the fundamental concept of a turn in space is a bit different than in atmosphere.

I mean, heck, just look at the differences from a real airplane.

Can you use the Valk's attitude control thrusters in atmospheric flight? Is it a good idea?

I'm imagining possibilities here, and they are as amazing as they are ridiculous.

[Seto Kaiba]

One thing I don't think I have seen in any of the information I have seen (I'll admit my only two sources are Macross Mecha Manual, and Sketchley's Stats) give turning performance for the various fighters. If it's in there, please let me know.

Unfortunately, no... there are arbitrarily-scaled comparison-only numbers for maneuverability and so on, but only between the VF-25 and VF-27.

Can you use the Valk's attitude control thrusters in atmospheric flight? Is it a good idea?

I'm imagining possibilities here, and they are as amazing as they are ridiculous.

Survey says... "Yes, you absolutely can."

If a VF's verniers are powerful enough to get it airborne in fighter mode with 0 forward velocity, just imagine the crazy stuff that they could be used for... especially those full-circumferential verniers on fighters like the VF-14, VF-17, VF-19F/S type, etc. From the animation, it looks like UN Forces missiles routinely use verniers for their maneuvers in atmosphere.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Seto Kaiba

[JB0]

I actually thought of that scene while typing.

And... well, it becomes a question of if ALL thrusters are the equal of the VTOL ones, you know.

I suppose if the missiles are using attitude thrusters, that's probably a good sign.

Of course, the "emergency reverse" half-GERWALK mode is probably a good sign they were thinking of novel augmentations to fighter jet maneuverability when designing the VF-1, so... probably.

Heck, GERWALK mode itself may have started as simply an extreme form of thrust vectoring before someone realized it made a pretty good assault hovercraft.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, since the VF-25 is shown to be far superior in performance to the VF-19, I must assume that the ISC makes the craft safe to fly and the EX-gear makes it easier to control, than the VF-19.

I remembered the scene in which Alto fights Ozma, and keeps up pretty well, but I remember the phrase "catch-up modded bird" (may not have been those exact words, but that was the gist of it) being thrown out there.

Would it be safe to assume that the VF-171 represents the pinnacle of conventional fighter designs (before adding things like the ISC and EX-gear, or superhuman output levels). After all, what good is a fighter that can't be flown by any pilot (speaking from real world perspective).

[Mr March]

I think technology, current understanding and design always play a big part in variable fighter control whenever there is a significant performance generation. The official trivia does make mention of the VF-19 Excalibur series and the VF-171 Nightmare Plus series having flight control that allows average pilots to easily fly the craft. So it makes sense that each time a major leap ahead in performance and capability is reached, there will be some lag time in building a FCS that will easily enable pilots to manage the newest craft. So the better pilots will always be the first and best suited to fly the next generation craft.

I think Macross universe does it this way; current generation VFs always benefit from existing service life and control refinement through pratical implementation. But once a new VF is made that vastly outperforms the current generation fighters, the engineers and pilots have yet to figure out the best way to control it. They have to spend time, see their new VFs in actualy flight and refine control over time. Then eventually, a new higher performing VF is built and the process starts all over again.

The ISC was a way to achieve performance, not necessarily improve control. The EX-Gear is a way to improve control for sure, but it's also a new advancement, like Linear Actuators or the ISC. So that changes the game even more.

[Valkyrie Driver]

So, Mr. March, the production model VF-19 can be flown by anyone, and it was just the YF-19 prototype that was nigh uncontrollable? That's the sense I get from your post anyway...

[Mr March]

That is correct. The Macross Plus anime (and the official trivia) describes the YF-19 as notoriously difficult to control, so much so that Shinsei went through several test pilots before landing Isamu Dyson. By contrast the official trivia describes the VF-19F/S Excalibur variable fighters as featuring engines with stablized output and a simplified airframe that allowed average pilots to control the craft (http://macross.anime.net/wiki/VF-19_Excalibur).

[Valkyrie Driver]

I wonder how much of the YF-19's maneuverability remains in the VF-19. The VF-19E/F/S all have far more available thrust that the Y/VF-19/A, coupled with the differences in the flight control computer, makes me wonder how that affects the performance.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valkyrie Driver

[Andras]

It might just be a matter of reducing the twitchyness of the controls. The YF might have been so sensitive that a less then stellar pilot gets caught in PIO and loses control. Dial down the twitch factor, the raw sustained performance remains, but it easier for a lesser skilled pilot of remain in control.

Here's a thought, should the AVF program been run out of a ship instead of on a planet? Lose control in space you are not likely to run into anything soon. Lose control in the air, well, the ground is waiting.

[Seto Kaiba]

So, since the VF-25 is shown to be far superior in performance to the VF-19, I must assume that the ISC makes the craft safe to fly and the EX-gear makes it easier to control, than the VF-19.

That's about the letter of it, yeah.

Would it be safe to assume that the VF-171 represents the pinnacle of conventional fighter designs (before adding things like the ISC and EX-gear, or superhuman output levels). After all, what good is a fighter that can't be flown by any pilot (speaking from real world perspective).

Well, I'm not sure if you'd call it the pinnacle of 4th generation variable fighter design... it's certainly the most successful design of its generation though.

So, Mr. March, the production model VF-19 can be flown by anyone, and it was just the YF-19 prototype that was nigh uncontrollable? That's the sense I get from your post anyway...

Well, sort of... the initial mass production type (VF-19A/C/E?) had the same set of problems as the YF-19, and the VF-19F/S had a more stable engine and refined airframe that made it something an average pilot could fly without losing control. My interpretation would be that there's a subtle nuance of "anyone can fly" vs. "anyone can fly well" where the VF-19F/S vs. VF-171 thing goes.

* The record is sketchy (and contradictory) on the nature of the VF-19E. The VF-19's Variable Fighter Master File book presents a VF-19E as the first variant of the second mass production type (the VF-19F/P/S), but the VF-19E in Macross 30: Voices Across the Galaxy is a first mass production type (ala VF-19A/YF-19). The derivative VF-19EF is shown looking like the F/S type in Macross the Ride, but the A/C type in Macross Frontier: Sayonara no Tsubasa. The one thing we CAN say with certainty about that one is that it is not the VF-19 Kai "Fire Valkyrie" base model... Chronicle identified that as the VF-19F on Mechanic Sheet ALL 01B.

Here's a thought, should the AVF program been run out of a ship instead of on a planet? Lose control in space you are not likely to run into anything soon. Lose control in the air, well, the ground is waiting.

This is gonna drive me nuts... I know I read something about the Project Super Nova space testing arrangements, but I just can't remember where.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Thanks for clearing that up for m Seto. I think that the elimination of the canards probably had a lot to do with the increase in stability, though The wing design on the VF-19F/S would likely have the same issues as a tailless delta wing would it not? That would make it less than ideal for atmospheric operations, since it would have higher landing speeds, unless they somehow figured out how to make ele-flap-erons...

[JB0]

Here's a thought, should the AVF program been run out of a ship instead of on a planet? Lose control in space you are not likely to run into anything soon. Lose control in the air, well, the ground is waiting.

If it's still an all-environ craft, you have to test it in a planetary atmosphere at some point.

[Valkyrie Driver]

Not to mention, a planetary environment poses it's own set of challenges that space does not. In space all you have to do to increase corner speed, is increase the output on the vernier, but in atmo, you have to look at the aerodynamic properties of the craft. You can't just put a bigger thruster on it and solve the problem. In space you also don't have to deal with aerodynamic effects. You'd need to know if there was going to be airframe flutter at low levels, and what the transsonic performance is. Is it going to suffer from localized mach effects? What's the max speed at a given altitude? What's the overspeed for the airframe? What's the Corner speed (the speed at which the turn rate is the greatest)?

You have all of those challenges to contend with, that don't exist in space.

[Mr March]

At least for humans, the vacuum of space will ALWAYS be far more dangerous than an Earth-like planet. So testing the variable fighters planetside would make more sense.

And I think it's obvious to most of us just by looking at the designs of the Macross variable fighters, these are aerospace craft, not straight up space vessels. So the aerodynamics would have to be a big part of the design and require extensive testing in a practical fluid medium (atmosphere).

I'd say in the annals of science fiction history, few have created fictional aerospace designs with more consideration for aerodynamics than Kawamori has for Macross. There are cheats and flaws in the Macross valkyries to be sure, but proportionally they are far more plausible than most fictional creations. The vast majority of sci-fi space craft designs - however sleek or styled - are flying bricks when critiquing them for aerodynamics.

[Valkyrie Driver]

At least for humans, the vacuum of space will ALWAYS be far more dangerous than an Earth-like planet. So testing the variable fighters planetside would make more sense.

And I think it's obvious to most of us just by looking at the designs of the Macross variable fighters, these are aerospace craft, not straight up space vessels. So the aerodynamics would have to be a big part of the design and require extensive testing in a practical fluid medium (atmosphere).

I'd say in the annals of science fiction history, few have created fictional aerospace designs with more consideration for aerodynamics than Kawamori has for Macross. There are cheats and flaws in the Macross valkyries to be sure, but proportionally they are far more plausible than most fictional creations. The vast majority of sci-fi space craft designs - however sleek or styled - are flying bricks when critiquing them for aerodynamics.

I agree, space is a very harsh and unforgiving environment, more so than an earth type planet's harshest zone. I was merely pointing out that from a mechanical standpoint, an atmosphere is a far more complex and difficult environment for which to design.