Phalanx Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I'm new to this forum but I've been attending this website for 4 years now and I've started this topic because I don't know if theres' alot of you Macross fans that like the VF-2SS valkyrie from Macross 2 but I really do. I'm a huge fan if this valkyrie and it looks way better than the VF-0 and VF-1. I used to have rare pics of this sexy looking fighter but they were destroyed with my laptop. I'm interested in anyone's feed back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeo-mare Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 hi i also love the design, i wish they made some real merchandise for it instead of the few kits that are out there. just to let you know that this thread is probably in the wrong section of the forum, hopefully someone will move it to the right section soon. by the way welcome to the site, chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaijin Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjenius81 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I like the VF-2SS in battloid mode it looks pretty slick. But it falls apart in any other mode. Im not too fond of it in fighter mode at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehPW Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I like the VF-2SS in battloid mode it looks pretty slick. But it falls apart in any other mode. Im not too fond of it in fighter mode at all. 376560[/snapback] i liked the design myself, even though it's clearly designed around fanboydom and not tried and true areonatical needs. it's not even capable of hand-to-hand combat inside a Zentran ship (Yeah, say otherwise but Battroid in a typical corridor is impossible with the SAP's Main Beam Cannon over head, since no decernable means of folding the stock was present) the shear volume of missles is nice but.... unrealistic, sadly. The Beam Rifle is nice, though no official not of how much ammo it has per E-clip, other than the 10k number concieved from the RPG... and the chest fenders on each side of the front in battroid mode.... sorta presents two large visual blind spots for the head camera and AMS guns.... Fanboy joys. Just as well M2 is considered non cannon in most circles... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Can't stand Macross II. Only liked the music and Ishtar's character design. The valkyries hurt my eyes they were so ugly. I regret ever spending money to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowe Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 (edited) I never managed to finish MacII no matter how hard I tried. Having said that, I'll dig for a 1/48 VF-2SS if yamato is up to it, I quite like its agressive line. Edited March 5, 2006 by Mowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaming Guantlet Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Ahh yes my favorite bastard child of a valk. I just love how sleek it looks plus I think it looks nice in all forms personaly. Thank goodness VF-2ss pics aren't hard to find anymore like it use to be many years back. Like my others on this board I'd love to see toy properly made for us who like the design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 Wow,SumDumGai, you really hate the Valkyrie 2? R U serious? I think the reason why you think they're ugly is because of the SAP packs on them. I admit, I really don't like them with the SAP's. They look much better with out them IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I've just always felt that the Valkyries in Macross II looked like knockoff designs of the VF-1. For the most part, they are a VF-1 with sleeker, more ergonomic lines. Like someone at Big West said, "Hey, let's redesign the VF-1 to make it look for sci-fi-ish." They have none of the real-world inspiration of the original, or the future VFs from the rest of Macross. Additionally. they aren't even as imaginative as later Kawamori VFs (or earlier Kawamori VFs for that matter, the VF-4 came out before these designs, and is a much more radical departure). Everything about Macross II reminds me of how the Gundam franchise has been handled. Similar designs, made more and more garish, with more and bigger guns on them. That said, I can see why Big West would go that route. It works for Gundam. Heck, there was a point in time when I thought the VF-2SS was splendid, and the Metal Siren was a high point in Valkyrie design, never to be topped. I would fill reams of paper with my own futuristic Valkyrie designs, based on the same ideas. Sleeker, more guns, more thrusters. Missles spewing out of the pinky fingers and cod pieces of these invincible, transforming death machines. I've always disliked the SAP packages though, and would draw FAST packs similar to those from the original tv series on mine, but as with the Valkyries, they'd be bigger, with more missles and engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 No, I just think they're ugly period. All of the valkyries in MII. Packs or no packs. There was no heart or soul in MII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samis Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I thought it was Okay, but i swear, it reminded me of Z Gundam (Or was it ZZ?) With that beam that it shot out of its head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishimaru Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 No, I just think they're ugly period. All of the valkyries in MII. Packs or no packs. There was no heart or soul in MII. 377707[/snapback] Hey take that back man the Metal Siren was something here ! Even though Shoji never approved of the series its still good, I think it would have been a great addition to Macross if Shoji approved it. Still the Metal Siren owns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 No, I just think they're ugly period. All of the valkyries in MII. Packs or no packs. There was no heart or soul in MII. 377707[/snapback] Hey take that back man the Metal Siren was something here ! 378309[/snapback] Nevaaaaaah! Just my opinioin. If you like it, go you! But then again I can't stand any form of Gundam either. Especially Gundam Wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent-GHQ Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) I think this mecha is everyone's fantasy!! It has been drooled, begged, and cried for. Bottom line it is da bomb, hands-down. Too bad there is no toy being made. Well, we never know for sure as Yamato loves to keep us on our toes. I'm new to this forum but I've been attending this website for 4 years now and I've started this topic because I don't know if theres' alot of you Macross fans that like the VF-2SS valkyrie from Macross 2 but I really do. I'm a huge fan if this valkyrie and it looks way better than the VF-0 and VF-1. I used to have rare pics of this sexy looking fighter but they were destroyed with my laptop. I'm interested in anyone's feed back 374771[/snapback] Edited March 9, 2006 by Agent-GHQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishimaru Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Yep a Yamato 1/48 VF-2SS would be nice but we might never see that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 While I do appreciate the design, it's not very "Macross" in it's visual aesthetics. Radd pretty much nailed it on the head in his earlier post- It's the VF-1 redefined in a sleaker form. For me, The VF-2 series is a step above the "valks with faces and/or boobs" atrocity that Kawamori gave us. While the Metal Siren wins the honor of the worst VF design ever seen in Macross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Ah, always nice to see another fan of the Valkyrie II running around. I'm a huge fan of it, personally. I've got somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-300 pics of it lying around my hard drive, which'll become part of my website soon, assuming I can make Photoshop cooperate with me. The Valkyrie II is just a joy to behold. Those lines just SCREAM dragster. The CEO of Indian motorcycles once said that streamlining was the art of making something look fast, even when it's standing still. That's what they did with the Valkyrie II. It harkens back to the good ol' reliable VF-1S Valkyrie, with a whole other attitude about it. Add to that it's hideously large armament with those FAST packs, even if they're not the prettiest thing in the world, and you've still got a mecha that kicks ass and looks good doing it. This, my friends, is the Porsche of Valkyries. The Metal Siren is a whole other story. It's from the same school of design as the XB-70 Valkyrie prototype that Kawamori loves so much. The XB-70 Valkyrie is UGLY. It's SINFULLY UGLY. But it's the meanest, fastest, most heavily armed son of a bitch in the air, and with firepower like that, who's really going to care if it's ugly? It moves like a bat outta hell, and carries enough payload to remove several cities from the map. It's the same with the Metal Siren. The design says it all: "This isn't a fighter for posing with at the airshow. This is a fighter for going out and making people dead. If that means sticking pointy bits and huge engines and lots of guns on it, SO BE IT. So long as it goes out there, blows lots of poo up, and brings it's pilot home safely, who's really going to care if it's the ugliest thing in the skies?" With firepower like the Metal Siren's, what enemy's really going to have time to do a detailed critique of the fighter's appearance? Nobody. They'll all be too busy dying or taking cover to care if it's ugly. When something that small can wipe out an entire Marduk battlecruiser some 4000m long, if I'm fighting alongside one, I don't really care if it's butt-ugly, it's one hell of a killing machine. You might say it's so ugly that it's beautiful. No matter what way you shake it, it's more aesthetically pleasing than that gods-awful set of Sound Force valkyries from Macross 7. Basara's VF-19 looks unnervingly too much like some mock-up of Ultraman in a Valkyrie costume, and I won't even get into the VF-11. Just DISGUSTINGLY bad. I've always contended that they were his revenge on Macross fans for Macross II. Still, their prototypes look excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) How can anybody NOT like the VF-2SS??? (WMCheng) Edited March 10, 2006 by ComicKaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Punch Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 How can anybody NOT like the VF-2SS??? 378765[/snapback] I think it has a run-of-the mill , outdated, pointy design to it. Basically it's ugly. I think SK should redesign it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) How can anybody NOT like the VF-2SS??? 378765[/snapback] I think it has a run-of-the mill , outdated, pointy design to it. Basically it's ugly. I think SK should redesign it. 378772[/snapback] I think pointed and outdated is good when outdated means mid 80s-mid 90s aesthetics. I hated Macross Zero's revisionist anachronistic VFs. Edited March 10, 2006 by ComicKaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Punch Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think pointed and outdated is good when outdated means mid 80s-mid 90s aesthetics. I hated Macross Zero's revisionist anachronistic VFs. 378775[/snapback] It was a joke, bro. You should check out this thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...opic=18042&st=0 It's a great read. Make sure you go through all of it. Then you'll understand what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think pointed and outdated is good when outdated means mid 80s-mid 90s aesthetics. I hated Macross Zero's revisionist anachronistic VFs. 378775[/snapback] It was a joke, bro. You should check out this thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...opic=18042&st=0 It's a great read. Make sure you go through all of it. Then you'll understand what I meant. 378778[/snapback] LOL, didn't see that thread last week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 This VF is so sexy, and sleek. Anybody who thinks it's ugly needs a reality check. This fighter has an absolutley high fear factor which means that it looks as if it can kick some serious booty. The VF-2JA IMO, looks slightly boxy in Battroid mode but other than that, I like it as well. Also white drew carey, I agree with you saying that the Metal Siren is ugly. It has long and pointy nose and big ugly wings. IMO, it looks like a pointy dick with wings and jet engines and the head is the little ball sac riding along with the fighter.LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This VF is so sexy, and sleek. Anybody who thinks it's ugly needs a reality check. This fighter has an absolutley high fear factor which means that it looks as if it can kick some serious booty. The VF-2JA IMO, looks slightly boxy in Battroid mode but other than that, I like it as well. Also white drew carey, I agree with you saying that the Metal Siren is ugly. It has long and pointy nose and big ugly wings. IMO, it looks like a pointy dick with wings and jet engines and the head is the little ball sac riding along with the fighter.LOL 378781[/snapback] I think that the Metal Siren is a mechanical version of well... Goku. It's ugly because it's very human in it's proportions and all the extraneous spikes and odd shapes are there to put it into it's flying fireball mode which is basically some guys' idea of mecha flying around in a firey aura in robot mode smashing all before it like something out of Dragonball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 ComicKaze, you'd be right about the Metal Siren, by all accounts. Actually looking at Nexx's fighting style in it, it does give off the impression that it was made for battroid combat in a very DBZ-esque way. By all accounts, it was meant to be very much the "Super Saiyan" of Valkyries, and blast the living daylights out of large ships and large numbers of enemies with little-to-no harm to itself. Like I said earlier, it's like the XB-70, ugly but for a good reason. Look at the XB-70, cruising in the multi-mach range so fast that to a conventional radar it looks to be in two places at once. Add to that the fact that it's carrying several different nucelar missiles with the capability of wiping whole cities off the map. Suddenly aesthetic concerns take a back seat to functionality. I'll concede that the Metal Siren would've been better off if they'd left it like they had during the Moon Festival, without the enormous elongated nose that became part of the right arm, or the extra engine vents on the legs, and that fourth transformation wasn't really that useful. They could've also stood to use a more traditional design for the head, but hey, it was supposed to be a revolutionary fighter, and I suppose it is. But other than that it's a supremely functional aircraft, by Macross standards. Almost no ornimentation whatsoever. It doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to do the job. The VF-2JA, well, it's a slightly more aerodynamic version of the VF-2SS, sure battroid mode is a little on the boxy side, but you pay for those aerodynamics somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm not crazy about the VF-2SS at all. I think the design is too busy, more what you would find if Macross turned into Gundam, with protrusions and plyons added simply for flash. One of the things I've come to appreciate about Kawamori's Macross fighters is the effort made to keep the basic designs convincing for a series of craft that are still supposed to be air worthy. To me, the VF-2SS diverges from the best Macross into Yukikaze/Gundam conceptions which push mecha design towards a gaudy esthetic that hurts suspension of disbelief. Granted, I really like some of the eclectic Yukikaze designs, but that show is not Macross and I'd easily choose the Macross fighters in a contest. Most likely, my distaste for the VF-2SS design was a contributing factor to my dislike of Macross II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) It's the same with the Metal Siren. The design says it all: "This isn't a fighter for posing with at the airshow. This is a fighter for going out and making people dead. If that means sticking pointy bits and huge engines and lots of guns on it, SO BE IT. So long as it goes out there, blows lots of poo up, and brings it's pilot home safely, who's really going to care if it's the ugliest thing in the skies?" With firepower like the Metal Siren's, what enemy's really going to have time to do a detailed critique of the fighter's appearance? Nobody. They'll all be too busy dying or taking cover to care if it's ugly. When something that small can wipe out an entire Marduk battlecruiser some 4000m long, if I'm fighting alongside one, I don't really care if it's butt-ugly, it's one hell of a killing machine. You might say it's so ugly that it's beautiful. No matter what way you shake it, it's more aesthetically pleasing than that gods-awful set of Sound Force valkyries from Macross 7. Basara's VF-19 looks unnervingly too much like some mock-up of Ultraman in a Valkyrie costume, and I won't even get into the VF-11. Just DISGUSTINGLY bad. I've always contended that they were his revenge on Macross fans for Macross II. Still, their prototypes look excellent. This is a good point. If you think about the zentradi and how outnumbered humans would be fighting armies of giants, (they use energy weapons too, but thank god they can't repair which is our saving grace) you would need a lot of power to take them on especially with how they like to fight up close. The strike cannon on the VF1 valks for example makes the vf1 look ugly (and they can't even be used in an atmopshere showing the limitations of this) but it is there for a reason, not to look good but as a way to adapt to the situation the valk is in. It is the same way I can still apreciate the dated boxy GBP because to me it HAS to look ugly (like a powerful tank or a mack truck over a high performance sleek sportcar) in keeping with the ground mecha like the destroids which sit on the spot unloading everything they have without much use for fancy manuevers. So long as the extra armor absorbs damage and increases survivability, who cares that it lacks beauty? The extra space and overall chunkiness means it can hold more. The first time you see hikaru walk about in the VF1j with GBP in the tv series as the hulking mass walks across the deck there is a sense that this thing has power. And because it is going to fight in an open environment having stuff all over its body makes sense (in the style of the Qrau where it doesn't rely on directed weapons so much as unleashing its hive of micromissiles - you can imagine the fright of a Qrau pilot accidentally killing it's own wingmates after using the missiles in the side covers ). The comment about stuff sticking out of the body: well in space it makes sense. If you look at the massive Giga launcher thingies in gundam, note how massive they are to a point they are like vehicles and that you only need to push these things around (like the equivalanet of a cannon that you wheel around) as opposed to 'carrying' them? And what about that massive mobile armor in Stardust memory with the long ass gun that looks like a stinger for an insect? True it wouldn't work in gravity but the size and all the poo and equipment and gadgets it carries allows for a sustained fight against many enemies. The only thing I disagree with though is the negative comment on VF11. I think this looks nice in fighter mode. The cannon fodders in macross 7 should be grateful for having the chance to fly this. Edited March 10, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 There are different kinds of ugly. There's utilitarian ugly, like the original Hummer, and then there's gaudy, like the H2 and the H3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdf-1 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 IMO, it looks like a pointy dick with wings and jet engines and the head is the little ball sac riding along with the fighter.LOL 378781[/snapback] Oh God... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacyAce2012 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Personally, I like the VFs from Macross II. The only exception is the VF-XX Zentraedi model. I dislike this model for the same reason I'm not crazy about the look of most VFs after the VF-1. It seems that many of the U.N. Spacy's Variable Fighters began to take on more of a gaudy Zentraedi look about them, even the ones not designed by General Galaxy in the official timeline. Even the VF-5000, which began development around the time of the VF-4's deployment, has a marked Zentraedi design influence like most later designs. The exceptions would be the Lightning III, Cutlass, Thunderbolt, and YF-19. And these are my faves among the post-Valkyrie designs in the official timeline for that reason. And while the VF-19's production models didn't go too far in outrageousness, I would have liked it better if Kawamori had stuck to the look of the "Alpha One" prototype. The YF-19, like the VF-1, VF-11,etc. had more of a "military" feel to them, IMO. The Valkyrie II might have been a logical progression of development from the VF-1 if Zentraedi "organic" look hadn't become the rage among Mr. Kawamori and crew. This design, along with the VF-2JA and Metal Siren, shows what "could have been" if a less "alien" look had remained the norm in the visuals for the VFs. These Macross II designs had a sleek, "uber-tech" look about them that just appeals to me. Just my two cents worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) Mr. March, I'd never really put it to compare the Yukikaze designs to the Macross II ones, but there is a similar school of thought there after all. Again, since it's science fiction, it doesn't really have to be practical looking, most people will be happy just that it looks great. Stuff sticking out of the body on a Valkyrie in space really is a non-issue, since little graviational and atmospheric foibles like drag, air friction, etc. no longer apply. That's why things like the NP-BP-01 FAST packs in DYRL or the SAP packs in Macross II are actually alarmingly practical. You're adding extra maneuvering jets, extra thrusters, and a bevy of additional weapons to enhance the functionality of the craft in space, and give it a little more weaponry, since the weight of the fighter is no longer an issue either. NO GRAVITY = NO DRAG, NO LIFT-WEIGHT RATIOS AND NO AIR FRICTION. Effectively once you got the fighter into orbit, it's no-holds-barred on arming it. It's the age-old sci-fi argument, "Why do we make aerodynamic space ships when aerodynamics is a non-entity in space?" With anime mecha, style is a big key to how it's supposed to perform. For example, let's take the RX-78B Gundam. It was big, plodding and powerful looking, and that's exactly how it moved. The original VF-1 Valkyrie was sturdy looking, utilitarian, and a little boxy, so it wasn't the fastest thing on it's feet in battroid mode. The FFR-44MR/D Mave was streamlined, aerodynamic and looked fast even sitting still, so naturally the animators made it fast as all-get-out in the animation. So it makes sense for the Valkyries to get progressively more streamlined, and generally more hot-rod-esque. This trend's clearly visible even in Macross Plus and 7, where they move from chunky designs like the Valkyrie and Lightning III, towards the more streamlined and revolutionary looking Excalibur and Sturmvogel. To clear up an earlier statement about the VF-11... I actually rather like the standard VF-11 Thunderbolt. It's got nice lines, and is a superbly functional mecha. Can't say I care for it's battroid mode so much, but it looks generally good. The VF-11 sound force variant flown by Mylene was just HIDEOUS. It was a felonious crime committed against the eyes of the entire audience. Radd, true assertion there. But sometimes the line isn't as clear as we'd like it to be. True, the XB-70 is utilitarian-ugly. But there were some who thought that revolutionary craft like the Bell X-1 supersonic prototype were just plain gaudy, without the consideration that the gaudiness of the plane was largely a side effect of functionality. Like the fact that the X-1 looked like a sci-fi rocket ship, and was really designed to look like a flying bullet for aerodynamic reasons. Ugly as sin, true. Gaudy? Possibly. Gets the job done? Hell yes. IMO, it looks like a pointy dick with wings and jet engines and the head is the little ball sac riding along with the fighter.LOL Phalanx, you're scaring me. The Valkyrie II might have been a logical progression of development from the VF-1 if Zentraedi "organic" look hadn't become the rage among Mr. Kawamori and crew. This design, along with the VF-2JA and Metal Siren, shows what "could have been" if a less "alien" look had remained the norm in the visuals for the VFs.These Macross II designs had a sleek, "uber-tech" look about them that just appeals to me. Just my two cents worth. SpaceAce, you took the words right outta my mouth. Edited March 10, 2006 by Seto Kaiba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyrox Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Stuff sticking out of the body on a Valkyrie in space really is a non-issue, since little graviational and atmospheric foibles like drag, air friction, etc. no longer apply. Mostly true, but remember that the more mass an object has, the more difficult it becomes to alter said objects velocity and trajectory. So, sticking a bunch of extra weapons on does have some deliterious effects. ...there were some who thought that revolutionary craft like the Bell X-1 supersonic prototype were just plain gaudy, without the consideration that the gaudiness of the plane was largely a side effect of functionality...Ugly as sin, true. Gaudy? Possibly. Gets the job done? Hell yes. I think you are misusing the word. Gaudy means exceptionally showy, to the point of tastelessness. This might apply to the MII and Yukikaze stuff, but certainly not to the X-1. Plenty of negative adjectives could be used to describe the X-1's appearance, but gaudy isn't really one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishimaru Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 But how can you not like the Metal Siren man. Its so cool, even though it has little relations with the VFs this is porbaly how the makers would think of future Macross valks. So I love it plainly as it is but not for Macross though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Stuff sticking out of the body on a Valkyrie in space really is a non-issue, since little graviational and atmospheric foibles like drag, air friction, etc. no longer apply. That's why things like the NP-BP-01 FAST packs in DYRL or the SAP packs in Macross II are actually alarmingly practical. You're adding extra maneuvering jets, extra thrusters, and a bevy of additional weapons to enhance the functionality of the craft in space, and give it a little more weaponry, since the weight of the fighter is no longer an issue either. NO GRAVITY = NO DRAG, NO LIFT-WEIGHT RATIOS AND NO AIR FRICTION. Effectively once you got the fighter into orbit, it's no-holds-barred on arming it. It's the age-old sci-fi argument, "Why do we make aerodynamic space ships when aerodynamics is a non-entity in space?" A few major faults here... 1. Mass is still an issue. While not, strictly speaking, weight, it's closely related. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. To accelerate a 10-ton mass at a given rate takes 10x the energy that it requires to accelerate a 1-ton mass at the same rate. Practical application to the situation: The more stuff is on your fighter, the more mass it has, and the more reaction mass it has to carry(which in itself makes the ship more massive). What this means, in short, is that yes, how "heavy" your plane is DOES matter. In fact, since you lack any way of maneuvering without thrusting, this is even worse in space. In an atmospheric situation, you have all sorts of nifty control surfaces that enable you to change direction without engines. When you run out of fuel in space, you're dead in the water. You'll just coast in your last direction until you're captured by a gravity well or the slight effect of solar/interstellar wind affects you emough to cause a signifigant velocity change. 2. No gravity does NOT elminate drag or air friction. Lack of atmosphere does that. Lack of gravity DOES eliminate lift-weight ratios. But lift-mass ratios are still an issue(more lift for a given mass = greater ascent speed. Though you can never be too heavy to fly, you CAN be too slow to be worth it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.