VF-1D 'The Tired. Old Debate'

[Radd]

Ok, now we've heard it all time and again. 'The VF-1D being a trainer is a Robotech idea and there is nothing in Macross that explicitely states it's a trainer of any sort'.

Now, is there any source that says beyond any doubt that the VF-1D is not a trainer? The compendium offered nothing on this, simply mentioning that it had 2 headlasers, like the VF-1J, and mentioning it among all the other VF-1 varients that are two seaters.

Now one of the arguments I've heard that the VF-1D is a trainer even in the Macross universe is it's colour scheme as seen in SDF Macross being bright orange, and that it's colours are similar to the VT-1 from 'DYRL?'.

Another argument against is the VF-0D, which is probably a direct predecessor if the number/letter schemes mean anything like that, seeing as the VF-0S and VF-0A both have direct decendents in the VF-1S and the VF-1A.

All of this is circumstancial, though, is there any solid evidence pointing either way?

The VF-1D is a Dual seat version Variable Fighter which is used as a trainer, a forced recon unit and can be used as a combatant with live-fire rounds. The proof that it is used as a trainer is the fact that 'Stud Seat' (Student) and 'INST - CAPT - DAGGER" (Instructor) as well as VT-102 were written on the side of the cockpit.

That is a good argument, and has been mentioned in this thread, the problem with it is the circumstancial nature of the evidence. Not every VF-1D is going to have 'VT-102' stamped on it's side, is it? Also, unless 'Dagger' is some sort of airforce/naval term, is 'Capt. Dagger' going to be listed on all of the rear seats of every VF-1D?

I do believe it is a fair assessment that Hikaru's VF-1D, VT-102, was a trainer, but does that really mean that all VF-1Ds are trainers?

[David Hingtgen]

I'm thinking there's a Kawamori aviation allusion there.

VT-102. Capt Dagger. The F-102 is the Delta Dagger.

[connor99]

Radd Posted on Apr 17 2004, 02:04 AM

I do believe it is a fair assessment that Hikaru's VF-1D, VT-102, was a trainer, but does that really mean that all VF-1Ds are trainers?

I believe NANASHI already answered this question:"The VF-1D is a Dual seat version Variable Fighter which is used as a trainer, a forced recon unit and can be used as a combatant with live-fire rounds.'

[Radd]

Radd Posted on Apr 17 2004, 02:04 AM

I do believe it is a fair assessment that Hikaru's VF-1D, VT-102, was a trainer, but does that really mean that all VF-1Ds are trainers? 

  I believe NANASHI already answered this question:"The VF-1D is a Dual seat version Variable Fighter which is used as a trainer, a forced recon unit and can be used as a combatant with live-fire rounds.'

Yes, Nanashi did post that. He also cited his sources:

The proof that it is used as a trainer is the fact that 'Stud Seat' (Student) and 'INST - CAPT - DAGGER" (Instructor) as well as VT-102 were written on the side of the cockpit.

To which I replied:

That is a good argument, and has been mentioned in this thread, the problem with it is the circumstancial nature of the evidence. Not every VF-1D is going to have 'VT-102' stamped on it's side, is it? Also, unless 'Dagger' is some sort of airforce/naval term, is 'Capt. Dagger' going to be listed on all of the rear seats of every VF-1D?

I do believe it is a fair assessment that Hikaru's VF-1D, VT-102, was a trainer, but does that really mean that all VF-1Ds are trainers?

I don't doubt Nanashi or his sources, the problem is we're all working from that same source and the evidence of that source is purely circumstancial to that specific VF-1D, VT-102, a training Valkyrie assigned to the instructer Captain Dagger.

I believe I should reiterate that I'm asking if there is undisputable proof out there that the VF-1D series of VF-1 Valkyries was produced as a Training Valkyrie like the VT-1. Just because one VF-1D was shown to be a training valkyrie (as proven by sources Nanashi cited) does not mean that ALL VF-1D Valkyries are trainers. We do see an armed VF-1D in non-training roles in the series, but we do not see if those VF-1D's are trainers armed and sent out on non training missions, or if they are all assaigned to Captain Dagger.

I'm also not asking for speculation based on the questionable or circumstancial evidence that has been provided, though by all means everyone is welcome to continue doing so.

Basically, what I want is a signed note from Kawamori specifying whether or not the D variant of the VF-1 is specifically designed and produced in a training role.

Edited April 18, 2004 by Radd

[Mechamaniac]

At this point, the only thing that will settle this thread a Personal Endorsement from THE MAN!!

[Coota0]

or if they are all assaigned to Captain Dagger.

I don't get. Why would they all be assigned to Captain Dagger? It seems obvious to me he was the instructor assigned to that aircraft.

Before I'm accused of saying all the 1D's are trainers I don't think they are, just that VT-102 is.

[Radd]

or if they are all assaigned to Captain Dagger.

I don't get. Why would they all be assigned to Captain Dagger? It seems obvious to me he was the instructor assigned to that aircraft.

Before I'm accused of saying all the 1D's are trainers I don't think they are, just that VT-102 is.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We have an example of ONE(1) VF-1D that is a training craft. It is assigned to an instructer by the name of Captain Dagger, and one student pilot. It is labeled VT-102. The proof is the VT-102 stamped on the side of the Valkyrie, and the names labled on the cockpit seats.

However, none of this is proof that the entire line of D variant VF-1 fighters are trainers, any more than it is proof that all VF-1D Valkyries have an instructor named Captain Dagger assigned to the back seat.

All this evidence only really applies to that one(1) specific VF-1D.

Not only that, but the only other VF-1D we see in the series is shown in a non-training role, and the only other training Valkyries we see are cannon fodders, including a cannon fodder VF-1J, and then the VT-1 from the movie.

[Aurel Tristen]

Ok, now we've heard it all time and again. 'The VF-1D being a trainer is a Robotech idea and there is nothing in Macross that explicitely states it's a trainer of any sort'.

Now, is there any source that says beyond any doubt that the VF-1D is not a trainer? The compendium offered nothing on this, simply mentioning that it had 2 headlasers, like the VF-1J, and mentioning it among all the other VF-1 varients that are two seaters.

Now one of the arguments I've heard that the VF-1D is a trainer even in the Macross universe is it's colour scheme as seen in SDF Macross being bright orange, and that it's colours are similar to the VT-1 from 'DYRL?'.

Another argument against is the VF-0D, which is probably a direct predecessor if the number/letter schemes mean anything like that, seeing as the VF-0S and VF-0A both have direct decendents in the VF-1S and the VF-1A.

All of this is circumstancial, though, is there any solid evidence pointing either way?

The VF-1D is a Dual seat version Variable Fighter which is used as a trainer, a forced recon unit and can be used as a combatant with live-fire rounds. The proof that it is used as a trainer is the fact that 'Stud Seat' (Student) and 'INST - CAPT - DAGGER" (Instructor) as well as VT-102 were written on the side of the cockpit.

That is a good argument, and has been mentioned in this thread, the problem with it is the circumstancial nature of the evidence. Not every VF-1D is going to have 'VT-102' stamped on it's side, is it? Also, unless 'Dagger' is some sort of airforce/naval term, is 'Capt. Dagger' going to be listed on all of the rear seats of every VF-1D?

I do believe it is a fair assessment that Hikaru's VF-1D, VT-102, was a trainer, but does that really mean that all VF-1Ds are trainers?

No. Not all VF-1Ds are trainers. It is not a dedicated training variable aircraft. That would be the VT-1 Ostrich. The VF-1D is a simply a two-seater version. That's what it is period. The VF-1D can and has been assigned roles including: trainer and forced reconnaissance. Of course it is a fighter as well.

[EganLoo]

The VF-1D can and has been assigned roles including: trainer and forced reconnaissance. Of course it is a fighter as well.

Shoji Kawamori did not say that the VF-1D "can and has been assigned" to "forced reconnaissance." This originates in the Macross Attack Team/"Multi-Configulation Analysis Team" unofficial fan doujinshi.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...s/variable/vf1/

[1st Border Red Devil]

At this point, the only thing that will settle this thread a Personal Endorsement from THE MAN!!

And if that dont settle this Mechamaniac....nothing will...

[Gui]

or if they are all assaigned to Captain Dagger.

I don't get. Why would they all be assigned to Captain Dagger? It seems obvious to me he was the instructor assigned to that aircraft.

Before I'm accused of saying all the 1D's are trainers I don't think they are, just that VT-102 is.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We have an example of ONE(1) VF-1D that is a training craft. It is assigned to an instructer by the name of Captain Dagger, and one student pilot. It is labeled VT-102. The proof is the VT-102 stamped on the side of the Valkyrie, and the names labled on the cockpit seats.

However, none of this is proof that the entire line of D variant VF-1 fighters are trainers, any more than it is proof that all VF-1D Valkyries have an instructor named Captain Dagger assigned to the back seat.

All this evidence only really applies to that one(1) specific VF-1D.

Not only that, but the only other VF-1D we see in the series is shown in a non-training role, and the only other training Valkyries we see are cannon fodders, including a cannon fodder VF-1J, and then the VT-1 from the movie.

Yes, but having only one trainer VF for the entire pilots crew of the fortress looks a bit weird aswell IMO: I mean it makes sense they train several pilot recruits simultaneously (all the more as we can clearly see in the show Hikaru training with several other persons...) hence the 'necessity' to have several trainer planes and of course several instructors too

As for the Cpt Dagger name thing: it's probably because the drawer had to put a name for the purpose of making his schema more realistical... I'd simply consider this as some sort of private joke -similar to a video-game easter egg- or even simply an 'error', something like that: it happens frequently in real-life with architecture or industrial plans so why not in an anime?

[KingNor]

I'm thinking there's a Kawamori aviation allusion there.

VT-102. Capt Dagger. The F-102 is the Delta Dagger.

how come we never see you on history channel when they're talking about planes?

[Radd]

or if they are all assaigned to Captain Dagger.

I don't get. Why would they all be assigned to Captain Dagger? It seems obvious to me he was the instructor assigned to that aircraft.

Before I'm accused of saying all the 1D's are trainers I don't think they are, just that VT-102 is.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We have an example of ONE(1) VF-1D that is a training craft. It is assigned to an instructer by the name of Captain Dagger, and one student pilot. It is labeled VT-102. The proof is the VT-102 stamped on the side of the Valkyrie, and the names labled on the cockpit seats.

However, none of this is proof that the entire line of D variant VF-1 fighters are trainers, any more than it is proof that all VF-1D Valkyries have an instructor named Captain Dagger assigned to the back seat.

All this evidence only really applies to that one(1) specific VF-1D.

Not only that, but the only other VF-1D we see in the series is shown in a non-training role, and the only other training Valkyries we see are cannon fodders, including a cannon fodder VF-1J, and then the VT-1 from the movie.

Yes, but having only one trainer VF for the entire pilots crew of the fortress looks a bit weird aswell IMO: I mean it makes sense they train several pilot recruits simultaneously (all the more as we can clearly see in the show Hikaru training with several other persons...) hence the 'necessity' to have several trainer planes and of course several instructors too

As for the Cpt Dagger name thing: it's probably because the drawer had to put a name for the purpose of making his schema more realistical... I'd simply consider this as some sort of private joke -similar to a video-game easter egg- or even simply an 'error', something like that: it happens frequently in real-life with architecture or industrial plans so why not in an anime?

Whoever said anything about only one trainer for the entire Macross fighter compliment?

Not only that, but the only other VF-1D we see in the series is shown in a non-training role, and the only other training Valkyries we see are cannon fodders, including a cannon fodder VF-1J, and then the VT-1 from the movie.

[Gui]

Well, check out your second sentence in my quote... You used caps + a number between brackets...

[Skull Leader]

oh, you guys SO did not resurrect this post.....

a 1000 reba west flashings on you for doing so

[Jasonc]

Some food for thought... The VF-1D is just a variant of the other valks with two seats. However, did anyone think that maybe just that one in the first episode happened to be a trainer? As in M0, it was probably set up for pilots who moved from the F-14 and dual seat fighters to the new Valks.

What this means is that the colors may have distinguished that particular plane as a trainer, but the type may not have been specifically designed for training. Thus, the reason the "Trainer" call sign on the side of the cockpit.

See, some people thought of it and know...

Edited June 22, 2004 by Jasonc

[JELEINEN]

oh, you guys SO did not resurrect this post.....

a 1000 reba west flashings on you for doing so

EganLoo should be given the title of Thread Necromancer.

[Radd]

Well, check out your second sentence in my quote... You used caps + a number between brackets...

I stand by that statement, read it altogether in context. The questions was, "Are all VF-1D Valkyries training aircraft?", the only proof anyone has brought up to say that all VF-1D Valkyries are training aircraft is in that VT-102 from the first episode of SDF Macross was, in fact, a training aircraft.

However, we see the VF-1D twice in the show. Once as a training aircraft, once in a non training role. Hence, my argument was that a single VF-1D shown in a training role does not at all prove that ALL VF-1D Valkyries are training craft, anymore than having Capt. Dagger's name on one of the seats proves that all VF-1D Valkyries are assigned to Capt. Dagger.

My argument is reinforced by the second apperance of the VF-1D in a non-training role.

Some food for thought... The VF-1D is just a variant of the other valks with two seats. However, did anyone think that maybe just that one in the first episode happened to be a trainer? As in M0, it was probably set up for pilots who moved from the F-14 and dual seat fighters to the new Valks.

What this means is that the colors may have distinguished that particular plane as a trainer, but the type may not have been specifically designed for training. Thus, the reason the "Trainer" call sign on the side of the cockpit.

See, some people thought of it and know...

That is my argument exactly.

[David Hingtgen]

Lots of "convertible" planes out there. F/A-18D and F/A-18F are best examples. The vast majority are set up for pilot/RIO, but they can be converted to be pilot/pilot for training duty. (The newbie is usually up front, actually). Removable control sticks are about the only thing you need to make it happen, and the right "mode" button for all the computer displays. And for planes like the F-15E, you don't need to do anything at all. Despite the back seat always being for a WSO, they all have controls and basic flight instruments in the back. Since the newbie goes up front, he's got all the instruments, as the experienced F-15 instructor in the back doesn't need anything besides stick+rudder, and the basic T of instruments.

PS:

[Skull Leader]

YES! that is officially the coolest thing I've seen all night....

[EganLoo]

oh, you guys SO did not resurrect this post.....

a 1000 reba west flashings on you for doing so

EganLoo should be given the title of Thread Necromancer.

I haven't been to this forum since March, so all things considered, a three-month wait might be worth the catching up on accurate information (and correcting misrepresentation).

[platypiman247]

This is probably as uninformed and misguided as anything ever, but the VF-1D appears to be slightly larger than the VF-1S when they are standing next to each other in episode 1. Perhaps the VF-1D was designed to be able to fill a different mission profile from the other VF-1 models, such as the delivery of heavier ordinance.

[Gui]

Well, check out your second sentence in my quote... You used caps + a number between brackets...

I stand by that statement, read it altogether in context. The questions was, "Are all VF-1D Valkyries training aircraft?", the only proof anyone has brought up to say that all VF-1D Valkyries are training aircraft is in that VT-102 from the first episode of SDF Macross was, in fact, a training aircraft.

Actually, your question in the very first post is the following:

All of this is circumstancial, though, is there any solid evidence pointing either way?

And apparently, the response is 'no'...

In all honnesty, if there's one trainer we can reasonably assume that there's several ones aswell, for the -obvious- reasons I stated previously, and yes these other trainers can be of a different model of VF (though this gives to me the feeling that such statement would be more fanfic material than anything else but whatever...), they also can be VF-1D too. And this doesn't prevent the possibility that VF-1D can also be used for different missions than pure training btw. Therefore the overall argument looks rather moot, for the simple and good reason that it seems there's no strict evidence at all in either way (that, to answer your very first question) but only speculations which all reasonably assume that there's several planes of this type serving the training purpose, as well as some others goals maybe...

Finally, and as a personal note, I don't think that development teams in charge of such anime serie project have enough time to lose into working on such 'details' therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

[RichterX]

I have the final answer!

The VF-1D is used for weddings, just like Max and Millia did!

[chukwong_jr]

...I don't think this argue will have a final answer.

Because the early mech-planing of Macross TV series is not so seriuos.

You can see Ichiijoe(Rick Hunter) use a white VF-1J as a trainer VF

Also, he use a VF-1J, which is a VF for team-leader, when he only a new soilder.

Very strange...

Edited June 23, 2004 by chukwong_jr

[Lt. Adamovic]

Howdy people

has it ever occured to you that you are wasting time writing abut astoundigly clear things?

I mean for pete's sake, the VT-1 is the dedicated trainer, it has an stepped-up cockpit for the instructor and is not capable of carring or employing any sort of weaponary. On the other hand, th VF-1D is just a VF-1A with a second seat, flight controls, a different head, no airbrake and different antennae arangement. The fact that it is orange has it's indications towards the training role, like the VT, but it's not conclusive having in mind the whole plethora of colours in Macross.

For the fact that Rick/Hikaru got his hands on a custom painted VF-1J right after his training is more of a "let's make the hero more visible" kind of a trick than anything else

[Lt. Adamovic]

Oh and another thing the fact that we see mister and misses M flying a blue VF-1D on the day of their wedding and very much fighting in it, I think that resolves the question about it's combat capabilites

[Radd]

Actually, your question in the very first post is the following:

All of this is circumstancial, though, is there any solid evidence pointing either way?

And apparently, the response is 'no'...

Basically the same question, worded differently.

However, as Egan himself has not settled the VF-1D debate himself, we are left to assume that at this time there is no official answer, one way or the other.

In all honnesty, if there's one trainer we can reasonably assume that there's several ones aswell, for the -obvious- reasons I stated previously

But that's not the issue. No on, no one in this entire thread has even hinted that there may be only a single craft for training in all of SDF Macross. We are specifically discussing the D variant of the VF-1 Valkyrie. Is it, or is it not a dedicated trainer variant, with proof to back up the belief.

Finally, and as a personal note, I don't think that development teams in charge of such anime serie project have enough time to lose into working on such 'details' therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

You'd be surprised at just how many little details have been worked out by the show creators. Check out http://www.anime.net/macross/ sometime.

[Gui]

Actually, your question in the very first post is the following:

All of this is circumstancial, though, is there any solid evidence pointing either way?

And apparently, the response is 'no'...

Basically the same question, worded differently.

However, as Egan himself has not settled the VF-1D debate himself, we are left to assume that at this time there is no official answer, one way or the other.

Exactly what I said at the very end of my previous post, with this:

therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

As for:

In all honnesty, if there's one trainer we can reasonably assume that there's several ones aswell, for the -obvious- reasons I stated previously

But that's not the issue. No on, no one in this entire thread has even hinted that there may be only a single craft for training in all of SDF Macross. We are specifically discussing the D variant of the VF-1 Valkyrie. Is it, or is it not a dedicated trainer variant, with proof to back up the belief.

Dude, I wrote a 6 lines paragraph to attempt to give an explanation to how this thread became a mess because of some sort of misreading and/or misinterpretation, if you pay attention to the first two ones only you'll obviously encounter difficulties to get the whole point

Finally, and as a personal note, I don't think that development teams in charge of such anime serie project have enough time to lose into working on such 'details' therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

You'd be surprised at just how many little details have been worked out by the show creators. Check out http://www.anime.net/macross/ sometime.

Unfortunately, I have more important things to do of my time and this doesn't change anything to the fact that the info you look for is not present into this documentation, which tends to demonstrates that the show creators themselves didn't consider this detail as that important in the end... More or less what I said... But whatever...

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I feel it is like the SU-30. Can be used as a trainer, key word is CAN, but can also be used for long range endurance missions where its helps if someone in the back does some of the work for you like navigation and the like. I dont think its strictly a trainer and not strictly a long range multirole either. bit of both worlds or what have you.

[Radd]

therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

I was agreeing with you, then pointing out that you came in, told me I was wrong about something, then reworded my own statement, changing none of the facts, and used it as your reasoning.

As for:

...

Dude, I wrote a 6 lines paragraph to attempt to give an explanation to how this thread became a mess because of some sort of misreading and/or misinterpretation, if you pay attention to the first two ones only you'll obviously encounter difficulties to get the whole point

The fact remains that no one in the entire thread, except for you, has brought up the idea that anyone was even arguing that there existed only a single training fighter shared amongst the entire Macross fighter compliment.

Unfortunately, I have more important things to do of my time and this doesn't change anything to the fact that the info you look for is not present into this documentation, which tends to demonstrates that the show creators themselves didn't consider this detail as that important in the end... More or less what I said... But whatever...

Yet you have time to argue a point that you freely admit you do not have the time to research. You are also still missing the entire point of the thread, which is asking if any such documentation exists, as for a long time now, many people on these boards and others would argue one way or the other as fact, with no proof to back their beliefs up. This thread was prompted by such a debate months ago.

[Gui]

therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

I was agreeing with you, then pointing out that you came in, told me I was wrong about something, then reworded my own statement, changing none of the facts, and used it as your reasoning.

I did not say you're wrong, I said that the statement there's only one trainer for the entire Macross looks weird, this was based on your post where you used the above-mentioned caps and number between brackets, the source of the 'misreading and/or misinterpretation' I already mentioned previously

As for:

...

Dude, I wrote a 6 lines paragraph to attempt to give an explanation to how this thread became a mess because of some sort of misreading and/or misinterpretation, if you pay attention to the first two ones only you'll obviously encounter difficulties to get the whole point

The fact remains that no one in the entire thread, except for you, has brought up the idea that anyone was even arguing that there existed only a single training fighter shared amongst the entire Macross fighter compliment.

I indeed examined this possibility -for the reason given immediately above, the 'misreading and/or misinterpretation' thing- and refuted it with a reason you seem to agree with: where is the problem?

Unfortunately, I have more important things to do of my time and this doesn't change anything to the fact that the info you look for is not present into this documentation, which tends to demonstrates that the show creators themselves didn't consider this detail as that important in the end... More or less what I said... But whatever...

Yet you have time to argue a point that you freely admit you do not have the time to research.

Huh? Writing a post takes 5 mins, researching into the compendium requires far much more time (no offense to Egan, I really think he does an excellent job...), on the other hand I don't understand why you open such thread if you already know that the proof you look for doesn't exist... Unless you want a discussion instead of a proof...

You are also still missing the entire point of the thread, which is asking if any such documentation exists, as for a long time now, many people on these boards and others would argue one way or the other as fact, with no proof to back their beliefs up. This thread was prompted by such a debate months ago.

I don't see how I missed the entire point of the thread: you said that you agreed with me when I said that you'll very probably never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'...

[Radd]

Huh? Writing a post takes 5 mins, researching into the compendium requires far much more time (no offense to Egan, I really think he does an excellent job...), on the other hand I don't understand why you open such thread if you already know that the proof you look for doesn't exist... Unless you want a discussion instead of a proof...

I don't see how I missed the entire point of the thread: you said that you agreed with me when I said that you'll very probably never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'...

You see no problem with debating something you don't know anything about, nor feel any inclination towards researching? That is what you have stated.

In a debate, you make a statement or pose a question. Others will then state their position on the statement or question, and back up their position with facts. If you don't know any facts about the position you are taking or the topic in question, you cannot back up your statements.

on the other hand I don't understand why you open such thread if you already know that the proof you look for doesn't exist...

I did not open this thread with the solid, unquestionable knowledge that the information I am seeking does not exist, and I have no clue where you get this idea from. My question, in fact, is asking whether or not such proof exists.

However, the fact that many of us are unaware of such proof, does not prove that this documentation does not exist. It simply means those of us who have not seen it, are unaware of where to find it.

The fact that this documentation is not on the Compendium lends credit to the belief that this documentation does not exist, but it is still not solid proof that the information itself does not exist.

I do still agree with you that I am unlikely to find such documentation, and that it probably does not exist, this point is not in contention, not just because the Compendium lacks the information I was asking about (and believe me, it was the first place I looked), but also because Egan himself has visited this thread and not shed any light either way on the topic. But Egan could not possibly have visited this thread if it didn't exist in the first place, and neither could anyone else.

The point, the original point of contention that brought on the debate between the two of us was this line:

Yes, but having only one trainer VF for the entire pilots crew of the fortress looks a bit weird aswell IMO: I mean it makes sense they train several pilot recruits simultaneously (all the more as we can clearly see in the show Hikaru training with several other persons...) hence the 'necessity' to have several trainer planes and of course several instructors too

From which I percieve that you believed I had stated that VT-102 was the only training plane available to the Macross' entire air force. This belief was reinforced when I replied, saying that is not what I said and you replied:

Well, check out your second sentence in my quote... You used caps + a number between brackets...

Which referred to:

We have an example of ONE(1) VF-1D that is a training craft.

in which I was referring that any and all "proof" that ALL VF-1D craft which relied upon the callsign (VT-102) and the seat designations (Capt. Dagger and Trainee) only proved that this particular VF-1D shown in the first episode of SDF Macross was a trainer, and did NOT prove that ALL VF-1D craft were trainers. I even gave examples of other training craft that appear in SDF Macross that were not VF-1D Valkyries, and an example of a second VF-1D that appeared that was not a trainer, and someone else provided a third VF-1D that was also not used in a training role.

Then you dropped that argument entirely to argue semantics about how I worded the initial question of this thread when I had referred back to it.

You then told me, in no uncertain terms, that there was no proof either way, even though that itself cannot be proven without having access to all documentation that has ever existed on the series and your own personal Froating Head to tell you himself that there is no answer either way.

At this point you then stated:

Finally, and as a personal note, I don't think that development teams in charge of such anime serie project have enough time to lose into working on such 'details' therefore I tend to think that you'll never find any 'solid evidence pointing either way'

I replied by informing you of the existance of the Compendium, in which many such details the developement teams in charge of such an anime had enough time to lose in working out.

Then you stated:

Dude, I wrote a 6 lines paragraph to attempt to give an explanation to how this thread became a mess because of some sort of misreading and/or misinterpretation, if you pay attention to the first two ones only you'll obviously encounter difficulties to get the whole point

I have, to this point, been unable to find this 6 line paragraph you wrote that addresses how this thread "became a mess because of some sort of misreading and/or misinterpretation".

Was it this one?

n all honnesty, if there's one trainer we can reasonably assume that there's several ones aswell, for the -obvious- reasons I stated previously, and yes these other trainers can be of a different model of VF (though this gives to me the feeling that such statement would be more fanfic material than anything else but whatever...), they also can be VF-1D too. And this doesn't prevent the possibility that VF-1D can also be used for different missions than pure training btw. Therefore the overall argument looks rather moot, for the simple and good reason that it seems there's no strict evidence at all in either way (that, to answer your very first question) but only speculations which all reasonably assume that there's several planes of this type serving the training purpose, as well as some others goals maybe...

If so, I do not see where in the paragraph this particular point is addressed. I read it as you stating that there is obviously more than one training Valkyrie available to the Macross' forces, and then some speculation that this is not the VF-1D's only position and other varients might also be used as trainers.

I, again, pointed out that no one had questioned that there was more than a single training craft available.

So now, at this point, I believe that you misread my statement and refuted what you had previously thought I'd said, and that we agree there's undoubtedly more than one training craft available. If this is the case I was mislead by your own replies that seemed to indicate that it was others, and not yourself, who had made this mistake, and going over this thread I can see no others making these arguments.

That brings us to where we are now.

[McKlown]

I mean for pete's sake, the VT-1 is the dedicated trainer, it has an stepped-up cockpit for the instructor and is not capable of carring or employing any sort of weaponary.

The VT-1 didn't exist until after the events of SDF-Macross.

[Lt. Adamovic]

why McKlown of course it was after, but that's not the point...

The point is that people here are spilling their guts out about a simple fact: VF-1D is a combat capable trainer just like a F-16B or a F-18B, their D versions deffinetely going in other directions but what's important is that the VF-1D is just an A with second seat and of course there are more that one on board the fortress because we see at least three => First couple of episodes, Mars, and the wedding

I really don' get the poeple making such a fuss about this

a fully combat capable trainer....I mean, how else are you going to teach someone to fly an aerospace plane that is convertabble into a robot...and then you one must master the Battloid....I imagine that being the toughest part although the guardian is certainly no peace of cake either