Valkyrie Power

[samuraid]

I was wondering, which is the most powerful/efficient Valkyrie in the world of Macross? (including all: original, 7, plus, etc)

[David Hingtgen]

Aircraft power generally refers simply to engines, so that'd be the VF-19S.

[Angel's Fury]

Wouldn't the VF-19S and the VF-22 be equally matched? Btw, I see you went back to your old avatar.

[David Hingtgen]

I went by the stats in the compendium, and of all the -19/21/22 variants, the -19S had the most powerful engines.

A better measure (the one that really means something) is thrust/weight ratio. And at combat weight. Don't know if the compendium has those listed (I'll check, or maybe I can calculate it out myself, though I would need weight of the missiles).

PS--actually I don't think I've used this particular avatar before. If I have, it wasn't for long. My standard one is this:

[Radd]

It seems generally accepted that the VF-22 is the most powerful, combat-wise, though there's a lot of people that disagree with that. Still, the VF-19 is the replacement for the VF-11, where as the VF-22 is the replacement for the VF-17, and the VF-17 definitely seemed more powerful than the 11.

But if you do mean enginewise, I'd go with the compendium's engine stats, as previously stated.

[samuraid]

Thanx for the responses- then the VF-22 is clearly the most superior of all valks?

[Macross_Fanboy]

Oh no! Not this debate again!

[Mr March]

Whether the VF-22 is superior in all benchmarks is by no means certain. General consensus would be that as the generations go by, the newest variable fighters would invariably outperform past variable fighters, but to want extent? The VF-22 may fly faster, but what about its combat abilities? Manuverability? Range? Cost effectiveness? Maintenance? Reliability?

Good questions that would need good answers.

[azrael]

Unfortunately this debate can't really go anywhere since there are lots of things to factor in before we can say, which is a better fighter. It would probably be better to compare the engines (and performance as Mr. March said). But the problem with engines is that the engines got better as time passed. The engines on a VF-5000 (probably same size engines as those of the VF-1, if not a bit smaller) produce a good amount thrust. And the VF-5000 is only about 5 years younger than the VF-1. etc, etc. etc.

That's the problem with comparing VFs. As the timeframe changes, the technology gets better and it becomes harder to compare overall. The best way to compare is to group fighters into timeframes.

1. VF-0 vs. VF-1

2. VF-4 vs. VF-5000/VF-1X

3. VF-11 vs. VF-9/VF/VA-14/VF-4/VF-5000/VF-17/VA-3 etc....

4. VF-19 vs. VF-22

etc...

The problem with (3) is that during that stage of development, VFs were being developed for specialized roles. The VF-14 was a in-between to a bomber and a fighter. The VF-17 was designed for special ops. There were VFs for all kinds of roles. Then when we get to the VF-19/VF-22, obviously there is the intention of combining the roles of all the previous VFs into one package. I guess the best way to say it is, what do you want to compare by? And in which timeframe?

[David Hingtgen]

Absolute engine power is pointless, it's the power/weight ratio as I said. A 747-400 has more sheer power than just about any other plane on Earth, but it rates about a 2 on the agility scale... (747's are actually fairly agile for an airplane that big, which is why it's not a 1)

VF-19's have more power, AND less inherent weight. But a -22 has much larger wings. (relative wing size is a huge, huge factor in agility, especially relating to energy management in turns, though it's countered by an increased requirement in thrust) My vote: -19 can climb faster, and probably roll faster, but a -22 is sleeker (accelerate faster), and maintain a faster turn with more energy. All in all, pretty darn close to Spitfire vs Bf-109, or most any other "one plane vs its close rival". Some things never change, no plane can be the best at everything.

Getting close to a -19 vs -22 argument here.

[Zentrandude]

kicks this bad boy into the 19 vs 22 debate

in space the wings wouldnt matter well with a bigger wing guess you can add more verners to increase roll.

[Druna Skass]

Aircraft power generally refers simply to engines, so that'd be the VF-19S.

Is that inccluding that Varuta VFs or just the UN ones?

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah, but nearly all the -19 and -21/22 action we've ever seen took place in the atmosphere.

Druna Skass---all the Varuta ones have 55K kg engines. -19/22 still well above that.

[Anubis]

kicks this bad boy into the 19 vs 22 debate 

in space the wings wouldnt matter well with a bigger wing guess you can add more verners to increase roll.

That's why they added the vernier ring to the legs on the VF-19 F/S models. Still don't get why they shortened the wings though. In the atmoshpere/trench run the F/S's manuverability must have suffered quite a bit. Yeah they were optimized for space, but they knew they would have to used in the atmosphere some time. Or could they have been planning on eventually making some A-models for that, and just started with Emerald Force's F/S's.

Just how badly would the shortened wings affect it's atmosphere flight performance anyway?

Edited February 23, 2004 by Anubis

[JValk]

The GUndam BWee.

[David Hingtgen]

The general effect of wing clipping is to increase the roll rate, but decrease the sustained turn rate. Instantaneous rate of turn is also affected, but I honestly don't know enough to comment on that. Energy loss through a turn is increased, but there is less drag.

I'll bring up the Spitfire again. You could either have full wings, or clipped wings. Either good rate of turn, or good rate of roll. Pick one, not both. Fighting BF-109's? You want turn. Fighting FW-190's? You want roll. (And of course, there were also extended wings, for high-altitude optimization)

Edited February 23, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[imode]

VF-19's have more power, AND less inherent weight. But a -22 has much larger wings. (relative wing size is a huge, huge factor in agility, especially relating to energy management in turns, though it's countered by an increased requirement in thrust) My vote: -19 can climb faster, and probably roll faster, but a -22 is sleeker (accelerate faster), and maintain a faster turn with more energy.

Now the question is, does any of this really make any difference in space?

[Macross_Fanboy]

Not if you have a bunch of vernier thrusters says me!

[Aurel Tristen]

There is one Valkyrie that can 'beat' the VF-19 and VF-22....

^^; hehe

[Angel's Fury]

There is one Valkyrie that can 'beat' the VF-19 and VF-22....

^^; hehe

And what is it? You're not making this up, right?

[JELEINEN]

VF-19's have more power, AND less inherent weight.  But a -22 has much larger wings.    (relative wing size is a huge, huge factor in agility, especially relating to energy management in turns, though it's countered by an increased requirement in thrust)  My vote: -19 can climb faster, and probably roll faster, but a -22 is sleeker (accelerate faster), and maintain a faster turn with more energy.

Now the question is, does any of this really make any difference in space?

I'm no expert, but I think in space, Delta V would be the most important stat. You'd have to factor in fuel carried as well as mass and thrust to figure that out though.

[Prime]

Unfortunately the atmospheric and space environments are so different, and to be successful in each requires different requirements. I would think that less fuel is used in space, since thrust would only be required for speed and direction changes. Also, manouvers are quite different in space as compared to the atmosphere. In space the craft is not restricted by airflow over the control surfaces, and so on. Certain fighters could be dominante in one arena and not in the other, and one that is good in both will likely have to make sacrifices.

[Aurel Tristen]

There is one Valkyrie that can 'beat' the VF-19 and VF-22....

^^; hehe

And what is it? You're not making this up, right?

No. I don't make things up. Its in the numbers.

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...le_machine.html

Edited February 26, 2004 by Nanashi

[Agent ONE]

There is one Valkyrie that can 'beat' the VF-19 and VF-22....

^^; hehe

And what is it? You're not making this up, right?

No. I don't make things up. Its in the numbers.

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...le_machine.html

Where did that come from, is that a fan creation?

[Angel's Fury]

There is one Valkyrie that can 'beat' the VF-19 and VF-22....

^^; hehe

And what is it? You're not making this up, right?

No. I don't make things up. Its in the numbers.

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...le_machine.html

Thanks for the info Nanashi! Interesting to say the least!

"......the overwhelming performance of this valkyrie could not be defeated. This new-type combat device is called the Enemy Valkyrie(EVA) among pilots in U.N. Forces. However, there was almost no pilot who had actually saw it."

So, was this valkyrie ever used against the U.N. Forces in any of the conflicts during it's time? Did any of the major airplane manufacturers around that time, design and built a valkyrie that can rival this?

[Final Vegeta]

Where did that come from, is that a fan creation?

It was the final boss in Digital Mission VF-X, and showed up again in VF-X2.

FV

[Angel's Fury]

Where did that come from, is that a fan creation?

It was the final boss in Digital Mission VF-X, and showed up again in VF-X2.

FV

Thanks.

[hellohikaru]

Timoshie Daldathon's Pheyos Valk wasn't that hard to beat in VFX-2. The thing resembles a Manta Ray. Perhaps its a version of the VAB-2 ?

[Aurel Tristen]

Timoshie Daldathon's Pheyos Valk wasn't that hard to beat in VFX-2. The thing resembles a Manta Ray. Perhaps its a version of the VAB-2 ?

It is is not. It is a combination of stolen U.N. (VF-X-11 with a fold booster)/ Protoculture and Zjentohlauedy technologies and created by an agressive/renegade Zjentohlauen who lived on Earth but left. Nothing links it to the VAB-2....

[CaptRico]

Being a Macross 2 fan, I would go with the VF-2SS VALKYRIE II and the VF-1MS METALSIREN.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

VF-19's have more power, AND less inherent weight. But a -22 has much larger wings. (relative wing size is a huge, huge factor in agility, especially relating to energy management in turns, though it's countered by an increased requirement in thrust) My vote: -19 can climb faster, and probably roll faster, but a -22 is sleeker (accelerate faster), and maintain a faster turn with more energy. All in all, pretty darn close to Spitfire vs Bf-109, or most any other "one plane vs its close rival". Some things never change, no plane can be the best at everything.

Getting close to a -19 vs -22 argument here.

This sounds like YF-22 vs YF-23.....

[David Hingtgen]

Not really. YF-23 is basically superior in all aspects, whereas the YF-19/21 are 50/50, each superior in some categories, inferior in others.

[Aurel Tristen]

Being a Macross 2 fan, I would go with the VF-2SS VALKYRIE II and the VF-1MS METALSIREN.

There is no such thing as a "VF-1MS Metal Siren". It is just called the "Metal Siren". That is the official name. The VF-2SS Valkyrie replaced the VF-1 Valkyrie and the Metal Siren was developed after the VF-2SS. There is no justification to call it the VF-1MS-makes no sense.

[Noyhauser]

The Pheyos valkrie also supposed to have the Same BDI/BCS sensor as the yf-21

I think in light of the other thread, on the YF-21-YF19 discussion that hte YF-21 was more effective, but waaay too expensive. I'd put my lot in with the -21 being the most effective fighter of its 2040~50 timeframe... except that it was too expensive and a one off.

[bongcp45]

I would vote for the VB6 konig monster... with its 4 mounted artillery cannons, its has the most firepower than any of the other valks combine...