Super Macross Mecha Fun Time Discussion Thread!

[aurance]

Thanks everyone, that was very helpful.

[Seto Kaiba]

6 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

Would it also be fair to say that UN Spacy also revised the designs for the engines based upon the theatre which the craft would operate in (atmosphere vs deep space)? I've read that some fighters like the VF-17 Nightmare were intended for space ops primarily (also, the VF-2 SS, albeit a different Macross reality); would that have any impact on on the design of the engine thrust nozzles?

Maybe?  There hasn't been any direct mention of optimization of the engines themselves for space operations.  Being space-optimized seems to mainly involve removing reworking aerodynamics to eliminate various atmosphere-only features like replacing canards with verniers, shortening wings, and fitting thrust-diverting vernier collars to the engine mounts.  There is also mention of some other systems being exchanged for versions intended for extended space operations, but there is little in the way of specifics.

 

13 hours ago, aurance said:

That’s some great info, thanks! I wish I could read those Japanese labels.

I'll throw up a quick guide later.

 

5 hours ago, sketchley said:

I don't think it would have an impact on the choke (aka 'pinch') point just inside the nozzle.  On the other hand, the angle that the nozzle opens would have to change to be optimize for atmospheric or space operations.  However, as that's a standard feature in those nozzle (able to open wider or squeeze shut), there shouldn't be any drastic shape changes.

That said, this is where the fantasy of Valkyries slams head first into reality.  All the nozzles that we have seen are, frankly, extremely inefficient in space.  Truly space optimized Valkyries ought to have bell-shaped nozzles like the ones on the back of the Space Shuttle.

Eh... is it really slamming headfirst into reality if the problem is openly acknowledged as a design limitation in-universe?  

That thermonuclear reaction turbine engines are superefficient in atmosphere and have terrible efficiency in space has been a part of the setting pretty much from the outset, with the Super Pack being intended to address that specific deficiency in a brute force sort of way by adding more fuel and supplementary engines rather than addressing the defect in the engine concept.

Later generation engine designs do have some cheats to work around the problem like the variable C-D nozzle structures mentioned previously... but also the use of Gravity and Inertia Control technology to provide additional flow compression as part of plasma confinement without the need for moving parts.  The thermonuclear reaction burst turbines more innovative uses of gravity and inertia control are responsible for their far-greater efficiency and power compared to previous-generation engines.  Master File explains that partly as being the use of the GIC to create an artificial high-pressure area of gravitational compression in the exhaust flow that acts as a sort of choke in and of itself to increase exhaust pressures when exhaust inflow forces matter out of the gravitational envelope and it explosively expands.

 

 

4 hours ago, Master Dex said:

Man you guys talk about the stuff I actually got my degree in and researched when I was asleep or at work lol.

lol, they rolled my arse outta bed for that one!

 

4 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

In other words: they trade off efficiency for utility to some extent, right?

Bingo... the whole reason FAST Packs exist being to work around the problems caused by having to adopt a multipurpose engine design and then sticking it in an airframe too small to carry enough fuel to guarantee an adequate operating time.

 

4 hours ago, Master Dex said:

In a strictly true sense, though that isn't the intent I figure. More just what they end up with than what they are striving to get.

There are likely ways and methods they could use to improve both but without a doubt they'd increase complexity and cost and you'd end up with the YF-29 problem; everything is great but we can't make more than a few.

The New UN Forces gained some ground by playing with existing GIC technology to provide new and exciting ways to cheat up the exhaust pressure as a workaround, and fold quartz is only going to make those more potent when humanity finally figures out how to synthesize it.

[pengbuzz]

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Maybe?  There hasn't been any direct mention of optimization of the engines themselves for space operations.  Being space-optimized seems to mainly involve removing reworking aerodynamics to eliminate various atmosphere-only features like replacing canards with verniers, shortening wings, and fitting thrust-diverting vernier collars to the engine mounts.  There is also mention of some other systems being exchanged for versions intended for extended space operations, but there is little in the way of specifics.

I would tend to think that in the way of the engines, the thirst nozzles would be replaced with ones more suited for space (i.e. Sketchley and Master Dex's comments).

 

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

That thermonuclear reaction turbine engines are superefficient in atmosphere and have terrible efficiency in space has been a part of the setting pretty much from the outset, with the Super Pack being intended to address that specific deficiency in a brute force sort of way by adding more fuel and supplementary engines rather than addressing the defect in the engine concept.

A high-tech bandaid to bridge the gap in a desperate situation.

 

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Later generation engine designs do have some cheats to work around the problem like the variable C-D nozzle structures mentioned previously... but also the use of Gravity and Inertia Control technology to provide additional flow compression as part of plasma confinement without the need for moving parts.  The thermonuclear reaction burst turbines more innovative uses of gravity and inertia control are responsible for their far-greater efficiency and power compared to previous-generation engines.  Master File explains that partly as being the use of the GIC to create an artificial high-pressure area of gravitational compression in the exhaust flow that acts as a sort of choke in and of itself to increase exhaust pressures when exhaust inflow forces matter out of the gravitational envelope and it explosively expands.

Hmmm...wonder if they could have made larger fuel tanks for the VF-1?

 

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

lol, they rolled my arse outta bed for that one!

Well...someone had to!! I promise though: next time, we'll get you a McMuffin, hash brown and a coffee!

 

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Bingo... the whole reason FAST Packs exist being to work around the problems caused by having to adopt a multipurpose engine design and then sticking it in an airframe too small to carry enough fuel to guarantee an adequate operating time.

Like sticking a Lamborghini Countach engine in a Ford Pinto?

 

55 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The New UN Forces gained some ground by playing with existing GIC technology to provide new and exciting ways to cheat up the exhaust pressure as a workaround, and fold quartz is only going to make those more potent when humanity finally figures out how to synthesize it.

I'm looking forward to when they simply draw power from heavy quantum to operate the engines...

Edited February 11, 2022 by pengbuzz

[JB0]

1 hour ago, pengbuzz said:

Hmmm...wonder if they could have made larger fuel tanks for the VF-1?

And hung them on the sides of the legs? I think they did.

[Seto Kaiba]

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

I would tend to think that in the way of the engines, the thirst nozzles would be replaced with ones more suited for space (i.e. Sketchley and Master Dex's comments).

Considering how engine designs changed between generations (as described previously) that may not be necessary with the fighter's ability to apply non-mechanical chokes using the GIC and the reconfigurable nozzle already present on the aircraft.

Or, alternatively, since the choke moved outside the engine in subsequent designs it's possible that the conversion could simply be the installation of some optional hardware in the throat of the existing engine system, like how the VF-1 in Master File supposedly worked around its limited fuel initially by installing fuel bladders in the intakes.

 

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

A high-tech bandaid to bridge the gap in a desperate situation.

A pretty low-tech one, actually... the hybrid rocket motor's a technology that's been around since the 1930s, though Master File claims they're using an OTM-derived inert and non-toxic solid fuel instead of conventional solid fuels alongside their liquid oxygen oxidizer.  The rest is just big honking pressurized fuel tanks for cryogenic fuel slush, which is ~1970s technology.  Brute force solutions can be simple and effective as long as you're not overly concerned with efficiency.

 

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

Hmmm...wonder if they could have made larger fuel tanks for the VF-1?

Internal ones?  No.  Reality ensued in that a transforming fighter automatically has less room for fuel because of all the mechanical bits and bobs, and the VF-1's design being set up to produce a Battroid approximately the size of a Zentradi only made the problem worse by constraining the size of the airframe overall to make it one of the smallest modern fighter jets around.

External ones?  Sure... that's what the FAST Packs on the sides of the legs are.  Big honking fuel tanks.

 

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

Well...someone had to!! I promise though: next time, we'll get you a McMuffin, hash brown and a coffee!

I've been working from home for two years and I swear I've changed time zones twenty or thirty times without leaving the house.  

 

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

Like sticking a Lamborghini Countach engine in a Ford Pinto?

Like jamming a HEMI into a smart car... lots of grunty multirole power, comparatively awful fuel efficiency and not nearly enough fuel tank to make it work.

 

55 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

I'm looking forward to when they simply draw power from heavy quantum to operate the engines...

YF-29 what?

[pengbuzz]

20 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Considering how engine designs changed between generations (as described previously) that may not be necessary with the fighter's ability to apply non-mechanical chokes using the GIC and the reconfigurable nozzle already present on the aircraft.

Or, alternatively, since the choke moved outside the engine in subsequent designs it's possible that the conversion could simply be the installation of some optional hardware in the throat of the existing engine system, like how the VF-1 in Master File supposedly worked around its limited fuel initially by installing fuel bladders in the intakes.

 

A pretty low-tech one, actually... the hybrid rocket motor's a technology that's been around since the 1930s, though Master File claims they're using an OTM-derived inert and non-toxic solid fuel instead of conventional solid fuels alongside their liquid oxygen oxidizer.  The rest is just big honking pressurized fuel tanks for cryogenic fuel slush, which is ~1970s technology.  Brute force solutions can be simple and effective as long as you're not overly concerned with efficiency.

 

Internal ones?  No.  Reality ensued in that a transforming fighter automatically has less room for fuel because of all the mechanical bits and bobs, and the VF-1's design being set up to produce a Battroid approximately the size of a Zentradi only made the problem worse by constraining the size of the airframe overall to make it one of the smallest modern fighter jets around.

External ones?  Sure... that's what the FAST Packs on the sides of the legs are.  Big honking fuel tanks.

 

I've been working from home for two years and I swear I've changed time zones twenty or thirty times without leaving the house.  

 

Like jamming a HEMI into a smart car... lots of grunty multirole power, comparatively awful fuel efficiency and not nearly enough fuel tank to make it work.

 

YF-29 what?

*turns in Macross fan card, hides in bushes and weeps*

[JB0]

50 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

A pretty low-tech one, actually... the hybrid rocket motor's a technology that's been around since the 1930s, though Master File claims they're using an OTM-derived inert and non-toxic solid fuel instead of conventional solid fuels alongside their liquid oxygen oxidizer. 

Wait, the FAST pack rockets use solid fuel?!

I have somehow never registered that until now.

[Seto Kaiba]

8 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Wait, the FAST pack rockets use solid fuel?!

I have somehow never registered that until now.

Yeah, they're hybrid rocket motors... solid fuel, liquid oxidizer.  

[Master Dex]

8 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Wait, the FAST pack rockets use solid fuel?!

I have somehow never registered that until now.

Yeah he told me a year or so ago they were just hybrid rockets, which are the kind of easy to use but hard to optimize modern tech that is so surprisingly simple I was floored that was all it was in there lol.

What gets me is this is likely true of all Super Part Engines up to even the VF-31... cause they are not all Thermonuclear Reaction Engines if they are so easily discarded.

[Seto Kaiba]

50 minutes ago, Master Dex said:

Yeah he told me a year or so ago they were just hybrid rockets, which are the kind of easy to use but hard to optimize modern tech that is so surprisingly simple I was floored that was all it was in there lol.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Hybrid rocket motors are mechanically simple and easy to manufacture, and they combine most of the advantages of both solid fuel rocket and liquid fuel rocket designs with few of the disadvantages, being able to burn a variety of different fuels with a variety of different liquid or gaseous oxidizers.  They can be throttled like a liquid fuel rocket, but with a much lower degree of mechanical complexity.  Simple enough to be easy to manufacture and cheap enough to throw away if the situation calls for it without breaking the bank.

(Master File gives them a bit of extra credit by indicating the OTM-derived solid fuel is a plastic explosive-like fuel putty that is inert and can be handled and installed without needing special protective equipment.)

The MythBusters made a bunch of different hybrid rockets.  Their first, for "Confederate Rocket", was a couple lengths of schedule 40 plumbing pipe, four endcaps, a stopcock with a one-way valve, and a milled-graphite nozzle - a couple hundred bucks in plumbing parts all told - with a paraffin wax fuel and nitrous oxide oxidizer stage.  Subsequent designs they tested used recycled paintball gun gas canisters full of nitrous and used fuels like dried salami, various kinds of processed gummy bears, and sun-dried dog feces.  It's an impressive series of demonstrations of how absurdly simple and versatile the design is.

[rematron]

Just gotta say I love this thread so much.  I love coming in here and reading all this awesome information and learning about the real and theoretical science that’s behind Macross and RL technology, civilian and military. So, thank you everyone. I don’t think I could ever contribute but I love soaking it up! 💡

[Master Dex]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Hybrid rocket motors are mechanically simple and easy to manufacture, and they combine most of the advantages of both solid fuel rocket and liquid fuel rocket designs with few of the disadvantages, being able to burn a variety of different fuels with a variety of different liquid or gaseous oxidizers.  They can be throttled like a liquid fuel rocket, but with a much lower degree of mechanical complexity.  Simple enough to be easy to manufacture and cheap enough to throw away if the situation calls for it without breaking the bank.

(Master File gives them a bit of extra credit by indicating the OTM-derived solid fuel is a plastic explosive-like fuel putty that is inert and can be handled and installed without needing special protective equipment.)

The MythBusters made a bunch of different hybrid rockets.  Their first, for "Confederate Rocket", was a couple lengths of schedule 40 plumbing pipe, four endcaps, a stopcock with a one-way valve, and a milled-graphite nozzle - a couple hundred bucks in plumbing parts all told - with a paraffin wax fuel and nitrous oxide oxidizer stage.  Subsequent designs they tested used recycled paintball gun gas canisters full of nitrous and used fuels like dried salami, various kinds of processed gummy bears, and sun-dried dog feces.  It's an impressive series of demonstrations of how absurdly simple and versatile the design is.

Oh yeah, I'm no longer surprised. I knew a lot of this already, after all.. it's kinda my thing. What I didn't expect was a quasi-futuristic story with fancy alien-derived technology to have something so simple alongside it. It was more that I was surprised than I was disbelieving at the time. In analysis, it really is ideal.

The only reason hybrid motors are not very commercially used today is the advantages of either side have become ingrained in the production system. Solids are easy boosters to do, and liquids offer the precision needed for more things, and especially since we're in an era of reusable rocketry now.. it's less wasteful. That said for the intent and use of the FAST packs.. hybrids absolutely fit the bill.

[Seto Kaiba]

Master File's take on the VF-19 and VF-25 Super Packs is that they're using liquid fuel rocket motors... though the VF-19's is said to use hydrogen and oxygen stored as slush, while the VF-25's is said to use a gel monofuel that contains hydrogen and oxygen in high-density suspension that is decomposed using waste heat from the heat sequestration system inside the VF-25's wings to release the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen for combustion.

[JB0]

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

the VF-25's is said to use a gel monofuel that contains hydrogen and oxygen in high-density suspension that is decomposed using waste heat from the heat sequestration system inside the VF-25's wings to release the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen for combustion.

Well THAT doesn't sound dangerous at all!

 

I'd always sort of assumed the FAST packs used hydrogen-fueled rockets, if only because any facility operating Valkyries already has to have a ready supply of large quantities anyways. 

[marthf1]

On 2/10/2022 at 10:27 PM, sketchley said:

....

Wow, judging from that cutaway, how is there space in the engine bay / lower leg to house missiles, much less the larger diameter micro-missiles, along with the retracting launchers? The engines & their associated machinery seem to completely fill it. Different views of that area don't show the bay panels add that much width to bay. Am I not perceiving properly it properly? Actually, given this is probably an old image, is the discussion elsewhere in the thread already?

 

 

18 hours ago, sketchley said:

Yes it would be fair to say that.  Long story short: air intakes (the compressor stages) are less important in space, and the engines would take on more rocket-like aspects (larger fuel/gas inlets as they can't rely on an atmosphere for the gas that gets heated and shot out the rear end).  There'd likely be a greater emphasis on cooling, as well.

This is reflected in the engine output for the VF-19F and VF-19S.  Even though they are "all-regime" fighters, the VF-19F is more optimized for space.  And this is despite having essentially the exact same engines!

....

The engine output for the VF-19F & VF-19S commentary is a contrast to the position the macross mecha manual takes in their technical manual articles, which, in summary, is that's perhaps a series of transposition typos that's been repeated from Macross Chronicle issue #27 into issue #41 to the Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur (June 2010) rather than purposeful engine variants, backed up by various performance data & variant type inconsistencies.

Both the mecha manual & compendium state at the bottom of their pages of the last updates being in 2015. Does this mean there's been new information or has this also been discussed elsewhere, given the age of the information?

[sketchley]

1 hour ago, marthf1 said:

The engine output for the VF-19F & VF-19S commentary is a contrast to the position the macross mecha manual takes in their technical manual articles, which, in summary, is that's perhaps a series of transposition typos that's been repeated from Macross Chronicle issue #27 into issue #41 to the Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur (June 2010) rather than purposeful engine variants, backed up by various performance data & variant type inconsistencies.

Both the mecha manual & compendium state at the bottom of their pages of the last updates being in 2015. Does this mean there's been new information or has this also been discussed elsewhere, given the age of the information?

I can't comment on the Macross Mecha Manual or the opinion in their technical articles.

Nevertheless, the nice thing about the Macross Compendium, is that the old (pre-Wiki) version is still available: https://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nations/variable/vf19/index.html

That page has the same engine output numbers, and was apparently last updated "2006 October 17".  What the original source is for the Macross 7 VF-19 Valkyries' engine data is, I can't say.  The site gives a "partial list" of references here: https://macross.anime.net/endnotes/index.html , however among the books I have that are on that list, it's not in any of them—and that's all the M7/M+ books!  Perhaps it was from one of the model kits released around the time M7 was being broadcast?

The only thing that's clear is that the publishers of Macross Chronicle didn't change what had been previously published.

Edited February 12, 2022 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

11 hours ago, JB0 said:

Well THAT doesn't sound dangerous at all!

Supposedly the gel is inert until it's heated past a certain point, so it can't be ignited accidentally.

 

 

8 hours ago, marthf1 said:

Wow, judging from that cutaway, how is there space in the engine bay / lower leg to house missiles, much less the larger diameter micro-missiles, along with the retracting launchers? The engines & their associated machinery seem to completely fill it. Different views of that area don't show the bay panels add that much width to bay. Am I not perceiving properly it properly? Actually, given this is probably an old image, is the discussion elsewhere in the thread already?

It's not a great angle, but remember these are artistic impressions meant to look cool... not necessarily be 100% technically accurate.

The bay in the VF-19's legs is actually quite shallow, and depends heavily on the concavity of the door.

 

8 hours ago, marthf1 said:

The engine output for the VF-19F & VF-19S commentary is a contrast to the position the macross mecha manual takes in their technical manual articles, which, in summary, is that's perhaps a series of transposition typos that's been repeated from Macross Chronicle issue #27 into issue #41 to the Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur (June 2010) rather than purposeful engine variants, backed up by various performance data & variant type inconsistencies.

Both the mecha manual & compendium state at the bottom of their pages of the last updates being in 2015. Does this mean there's been new information or has this also been discussed elsewhere, given the age of the information?

Nope, the topic has not been touched on since Macross Chronicle and Variable Fighter Master File came out... mainly because there haven't been any new publications covering the Macross 7-era variants since.  

When Mr March and I were working on that section, a transposition error is all we could come up with to explain the very very obvious discrepancies between what was written in the Macross Chronicle Mechanic sheets, what had previously been available, and common sense.  Not the only typographical error in Macross Chronicle by quite a ways either.

 

 

6 hours ago, sketchley said:

That page has the same engine output numbers, and was apparently last updated "2006 October 17".  What the original source is for the Macross 7 VF-19 Valkyries' engine data is, I can't say.  The site gives a "partial list" of references here: https://macross.anime.net/endnotes/index.html , however among the books I have that are on that list, it's not in any of them—and that's all the M7/M+ books!  Perhaps it was from one of the model kits released around the time M7 was being broadcast?

The only thing that's clear is that the publishers of Macross Chronicle didn't change what had been previously published.

For the record, it's the hobby magazines, model kits, and toys from the time Macross 7 was coming out.

The Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19S toy, for instance, lists the VF-19S as it appears on the old Compendium page, with a mass of 8,620kg and thrust of 2x78,950kg.

Macross Chronicle demonstrably did change what'd previously been published... though, given the nature of the error, we suspect it was unintentional.

[TMBounty_Hunter]

21 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

(Master File gives them a bit of extra credit by indicating the OTM-derived solid fuel is a plastic explosive-like fuel putty that is inert and can be handled and installed without needing special protective equipment.)

Does it also give any more detail as to the structure inside the super pack engines?

It's quite a revelation that those are hybrid and not liquid rockets. Ever since I got the PLAMAX Gerwalk I've been struggling to figure out what to put inside the two big nozzles because I hate the stock ones but not a single piece of DYRL lineart gives ANY detail for what's inside the nozzles besides a black void. I've been on and off hunting for the perfect greeblies to use as an injector plate deep past the throat but now that assumption is out the window.

[sketchley]

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Macross Chronicle demonstrably did change what'd previously been published... though, given the nature of the error, we suspect it was unintentional.

 

?  You'll have to explain that.

The old Macross Compendium states: "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."*

As indicated in Mr. March's opinion piece, Macross Chronicle (revised edition?) went with the lower number for the VF-19S when Macross Chronicle (original?) used the higher number.  Both versions use information that was available on the Macross Compendium years (a decade?) earlier.  I don't see a change.

* https://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nations/variable/vf19/index.html

 

 

I feel like I've been here done this, as I've had a similar discussion about this on a Macross RPG forum around 15–20 years ago... long before Macross Chronicle was published.  The only conclusion we had was that Macross Compendium was badly phrased, and the 2 numbers given for the VF-19S are for space and atmospheric use.  Ergo: engines more efficient in one regime, and less efficient in the other.

As an aside: Mr. March mentions the top speed.  However, that Mach 5 barrier has long been established as a materials-heat resistance barrier (due to friction at high speeds), and not entirely related to an engine's max output.

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

?  You'll have to explain that.

Look at those numbers again.

I'm going to highlight the bits that changed in red for reading convenience.

 

 

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

The old Macross Compendium states: "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."*

The old Macross Compendium value gives the VF-19S's engines a rated output of 78,950kg.  Macross Chronicle, for whatever reason, listed it as 68,950kg... which is different from both 78,950kg AND the 68,500kg value.

Macross Chronicle's number is neither the higher nor the lower number.  It's 10,000kg different from the higher value, and 450kg different from the lower value.

Likewise, for the VF-19F, they inexplicably seem to have transposed a digit from the lower value on the VF-19S's specs into the VF-19F's original listed rating.  The VF-19F was given an original listed thrust of 72,500kg, but Macross Chronicle listed it as 78,500kg.

 

 

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

As indicated in Mr. March's opinion piece, Macross Chronicle (revised edition?) went with the lower number for the VF-19S when Macross Chronicle (original?) used the higher number.  Both versions use information that was available on the Macross Compendium years (a decade?) earlier.  I don't see a change.

That's... not what it says at all.  I know the wording is confusing, but please look again.

Quote

The change of engine thrust rating can be easily explained as transposition errors on behalf of the writer of Chronicle issue #27. The Chronicle rating for the VF-19F engines previously rated at 72,500 kg become rated at 78,500 kg in the Macross Chronicle, which transposes the second digit of the VF-19S atmospheric thrust rating (68,500 kg). Further, the new VF-19S thrust rating of 68,950 kg listed in the Macross Chronicle appears to be the result of a transposition error of the first digit of the atmospheric thrust rating (again, 68,500 kg) with the old maximum thrust rating of the VF-19S (78,950 kg).

 

 

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

I feel like I've been here done this, as I've had a similar discussion about this on a Macross RPG forum around 15–20 years ago... long before Macross Chronicle was published.  The only conclusion we had was that Macross Compendium was badly phrased, and the 2 numbers given for the VF-19S are for space and atmospheric use.  Ergo: engines more efficient in one regime, and less efficient in the other.

As an aside: Mr. March mentions the top speed.  However, that Mach 5 barrier has long been established as a materials-heat resistance barrier (due to friction at high speeds), and not entirely related to an engine's max output.

So... funny story... I was doing some digging thru old boxes and such looking for the sources of some of these numbers and I think I found the actual answer.

Macross 7's artbooks didn't really print decent specs for the mecha, so the specs we have originally came with toy and model kit packaging.

The reason for the bracketry in the old Compendium article has nothing to do with space vs. atmospheric use... it's because the Bandai 1/100 VF-19 "Blazer Valkyrie" was originally a combo kit that could let you build the F type or S type.

The Bandai 1/100 scale kit packaging presents the performance specs thusly:

• VF-19S: 78,950kg
• VF-19F: 68,500kg
• VF-19 Kai: 72,500kg

This is repeated between the original 1994-1995 run and the 1997 reissue Bandai 1/100 plamodels, and on the Bandai 1/65 scale toys.

Now, you'll notice this is very different to the numbers that came along later on.  The VF-19S is unchanged, but the VF-19F has the bracketed number from the old Compendium's stats and the VF-19 Kai Fire Valkyrie has the 72,500kg figure we normally associate with the VF-19F.

Somewhere along the way, the VF-19 Kai's 72,500kg thrust got changed to 82,500kg of thrust and the VF-19F inherited the previous 72,500kg figure, leaving the 68,500kg figure it had previously had as a now-invalid value.  Presumably because, for most of the time, the VF-19F and VF-19 Kai were both listed as equipping the FF-2500F engine.

The reason it's listed 78,950kg [68,500kg] on the old Compendium is because that's how it was listed on the old kits, which were set up to let you make either a VF-19S or a VF-19F depending on which head you built and which decals you applied.

So it doesn't appear to be a space vs. atmosphere thing... more a lazy model kit manual writer trying to be as concise as possible with the printed stats so they wouldn't crowd out the printed art and product photos.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Seto Kaiba

[Seto Kaiba]

Looking at the above, that may explain why the official line in Chronicle is that the VF-19 Kai started life as a VF-19F...

[Seto Kaiba]

Further to the topic about nozzles... Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Battroid Valkyrie pg66 indicates the presence of a mechanical variable-aperture sub-nozzle just outside the VF-1's engine.  It's not a huge choke, but it's between the end of the engine and the thrust vectoring nozzle (almost on top of the back end of the engine) and can swing down into the space there to choke the exhaust flow.

 

4 hours ago, TMBounty_Hunter said:

Does it also give any more detail as to the structure inside the super pack engines?

It's quite a revelation that those are hybrid and not liquid rockets. Ever since I got the PLAMAX Gerwalk I've been struggling to figure out what to put inside the two big nozzles because I hate the stock ones but not a single piece of DYRL lineart gives ANY detail for what's inside the nozzles besides a black void. I've been on and off hunting for the perfect greeblies to use as an injector plate deep past the throat but now that assumption is out the window.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't offer any cutaways of the Super Pack itself.

As for what should be inside of the large/main nozzles... a black void is about on brand, since the fuel grain of a hybrid rocket is basically just like a model rocket engine (a cylinder of fuel with a cylindrical hole down the middle) but without an oxidizer mixed into the fuel.  

[sketchley]

To stave off confusion, I'm going to refer to Macross Chronicle by publisher: We've (original), and Deagostini (revised).

 

VF-19F

• We've: 78,500 kg (max instantaneous thrust in space) x2
• Deagostini: 78,500 kg (max instantaneous thrust in space) x2

VF-19S

• We've: 68,950 kg x2
• Deagostini: 68,950 kg x2

 

We've: #27 Pg 02, #41 Pg 06;   Deagostini: #D27 Pg 02, #D39 Pg 06

 

Going back to Mr. March's site here http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrosstechman/tech-vf19engines.html , the numbers don't match for neither the "OLD" VF-19F and VF-19S, nor the "NEW" VF-19F (only the "NEW" VF-19S matches).

So, while you can argue that I was misreading the numbers on the Macross Compendium vs. both versions of Macross Chronicle (which I wasn't comparing), I was not misreading the numbers on Macross Compendium vs. Macross Mecha Manual's misleading information on the two versions of Macross Chronicle ("OLD" and "NEW"—the link is in the preceding paragraph).

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by sketchley

[sketchley]

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

So it doesn't appear to be a space vs. atmosphere thing... more a lazy model kit manual writer trying to be as concise as possible with the printed stats so they wouldn't crowd out the printed art and product photos.

Thanks for clarifying where those numbers come from.  As suspected, it's another example of confusion caused by poor writing, and why it's always good form to note one's source(s).

Edited February 13, 2022 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

16 minutes ago, sketchley said:

Going back to Mr. March's site here http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrosstechman/tech-vf19engines.html , the numbers don't match for neither the "OLD" VF-19F and VF-19S, nor the "NEW" VF-19F (only the "NEW" VF-19S matches).

So, while you can argue that I was misreading the numbers on the Macross Compendium vs. both versions of Macross Chronicle (which I wasn't comparing), I was not misreading the numbers on Macross Compendium vs. Macross Mecha Manual's misleading information on the two versions of Macross Chronicle ("OLD" and "NEW"—the link is in the preceding paragraph).

In short, the engine outputs given for the VF-19F and VF-19S in the original and revised editions of Macross Chronicle are aligned with each other... but not with any of the previously published official material.

That fact - combined with Chronicle's rather nonsensical attempt to justify it - is why the Mecha Manual opted to continue with the figures given in previous official publications that are logically more consistent with the rest of the VF-19F/S's stats and common sense.  It's not misleading, it's a deliberate (and annotated!) dismissal of an obvious error/inconsistency.

If you have two aircraft that are virtually identical in every way except one is slightly heavier and has a lot less engine power... the heavier one with less engine power is not going to be faster at altitude or climb faster from sea level.  That's some extremely basic physics.

 

 

7 minutes ago, sketchley said:

Thanks for clarifying where those numbers come from.  As suspected, it's another example of confusion caused by poor writing, and why it's always good form to note one's source(s).

Indeed.

I've added it to my notes for those mecha as well.

[sketchley]

30 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

That fact - combined with Chronicle's rather nonsensical attempt to justify it - is why the Mecha Manual opted to continue with the figures given in previous official publications that are logically more consistent with the rest of the VF-19F/S's stats and common sense.  It's not misleading, it's a deliberate (and annotated!) dismissal of an obvious error/inconsistency.

 

It's not indicated (or annotated) anywhere on the link provided* for the Macross Mecha Manual that the source(s) are anything but Macross Chronicle, you know.

 

* originally posted by Marvf1 in this topic: https://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/topic/45063-super-macross-mecha-fun-time-discussion-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1612051

Edited February 13, 2022 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

22 minutes ago, sketchley said:

It's not indicated (or annotated) anywhere on the link provided* for the Macross Mecha Manual that the source(s) are anything but Macross Chronicle, you know.

That whole page essentially IS the annotation... or perhaps it might be fairer to call it a lengthy footnote.  The main articles for the VF-19F and VF-19S direct the reader there to see the explanation for why the engine output is NOT derived from Macross Chronicle.

[sketchley]

1 minute ago, Seto Kaiba said:

That whole page essentially IS the annotation... or perhaps it might be fairer to call it a lengthy footnote.  The main articles for the VF-19F and VF-19S direct the reader there to see the explanation for why the engine output is NOT derived from Macross Chronicle.

?

We weren't talking about any other articles.  We were only talking about that page.

[TMBounty_Hunter]

9 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

No, I'm afraid it doesn't offer any cutaways of the Super Pack itself.

As for what should be inside of the large/main nozzles... a black void is about on brand, since the fuel grain of a hybrid rocket is basically just like a model rocket engine (a cylinder of fuel with a cylindrical hole down the middle) but without an oxidizer mixed into the fuel.  

Ok now I'm legitimately tempted to build the chamber behind the nozzle and paint it with one of those paints that Anish Kapoor is not allowed to have

On a less silly note it would probably have some kind of structure to the fuel grain, right? I don't know too much about hybrid rockets but aren't they usually on the longer side as far as aspect ratio of diameter vs length does? With how the Super packs's dimensions are the room for the combustion chamber is kinda wide and stubby, plus a pretty large throat and I assume that's not idea because it seems like it would let just oxidizer spill without fully interacting with the fuel grain? Maybe there is a need for a more elaborate injection structure after all.

[aurance]

47 minutes ago, TMBounty_Hunter said:

Ok now I'm legitimately tempted to build the chamber behind the nozzle and paint it with one of those paints that Anish Kapoor is not allowed to have

Haha I love this reference but so niche 😝😝

[Master Dex]

2 hours ago, TMBounty_Hunter said:

Ok now I'm legitimately tempted to build the chamber behind the nozzle and paint it with one of those paints that Anish Kapoor is not allowed to have

On a less silly note it would probably have some kind of structure to the fuel grain, right? I don't know too much about hybrid rockets but aren't they usually on the longer side as far as aspect ratio of diameter vs length does? With how the Super packs's dimensions are the room for the combustion chamber is kinda wide and stubby, plus a pretty large throat and I assume that's not idea because it seems like it would let just oxidizer spill without fully interacting with the fuel grain? Maybe there is a need for a more elaborate injection structure after all.

There are a lot of ways to structure solid fuel grains to change the burn profile and alter the burn rate and time of burn actually. This is of course a common trick in solid rockets and hybrids have the additional benefit of throttling the liquid oxidizer to affect this as well so the fuel grain doesn't have to be shaped, and a cylinder is an efficient form... But no reason you can't have both lol.

As for what they might make it.. I'd assume an endurance profile is better, cylindrical structures actually increase the burn rate as it goes along, but again you can throttle the oxidizer so.. when thinking about it, we can remember UN Spacy seems to love pragmatism and they mass produce these on big scales. It's probably just a cylinder grain.

As for the oxidizer just running through the center, that's why they make sure the igniter fires as they meet. There are always some losses likely but it's a pretty optimizable system given enough testing. Hybrids are very mechanically simple.

[Seto Kaiba]

13 hours ago, sketchley said:

We weren't talking about any other articles.  We were only talking about that page.

Yes, but that page exists for one and only one reason... to explain why the VF-19F and VF-19S pages did not update to use the Macross Chronicle numbers.

 

6 hours ago, aurance said:

Haha I love this reference but so niche 😝😝

It's a good one, sure as sure. 😂

[NightmarePlus]

How fast do you think Factory Satellites can pump out warships and smaller assuming they're in top condition? 

[sketchley]

  

12 minutes ago, NightmarePlus said:

How fast do you think Factory Satellites can pump out warships and smaller assuming they're in top condition? 

This is in no way official, but someone once created the following estimates for a captured Factory Satellite (while it can be considered to be in top condition, it *may* be also producing at a slower rate due to all the health & safety requirements that humans tend to add to workplaces).

 

Small Starship (E.g. Bolognese Stealth Frigate)	2 months	3,000 per year
Large Starship (E.g. Uraga Escort Carrier)	6 months	1000 per year
Transformable Starship (E.g. New Macross Battle Carrier)	12 months	500 per year
Emigrant Vessel (E.g. New Macross City Ship)	24 months	100 per year

 

Again, it's not official, but it gives a ballpark idea of the production time for a single ship (not just producing the shell, but also all the outfitting), as well as the mind-boggling quantity a single satellite can pump out.

 

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, NightmarePlus said:

How fast do you think Factory Satellites can pump out warships and smaller assuming they're in top condition? 

Given that the New UN Forces are using twenty or so factory satellites to produce hundreds of warships a year and not using anywhere near the full capacity of those facilities, I'd assume that the individual factory satellites set up to manufacture warships are likely producing them at a pretty respectable clip.  The rate probably goes down the larger and more complex the ships get, but I'd assume that warship factories are likely churning out hundreds of ships a year.