The VF-9, the VF-X-10 and the VF-X-11

[Mr March]

Okay, so I get the whole history about the VF-9 Cutlass and VF-3000 Crusader created by Kawamori for a Bandai model product line that never came to be. So Kawamori reworked the designs and they became Valkyries for Macross video games. Wonderful. Which brings us to the VF-X-10, which as I understand it was the designation for the Cutlass fighter before it was moved over to Macross and became the VF-9. Am I still doing okay here so far?

So then, why does the 1986 line art of the VF-9 Cutlass have the designation "VF-X-11" written on the wing?

How does the VF-X-11 fit into this?

[Noyhauser]

Because it was part of the Advanced Valkyrie series before Kawamori decided to use the designs for macross.

Read more about it here

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/transl...cedvalkyrie.htm

Edit: errr. Well Just rereading your post I see you've made that point. Sorry for not reading more closely. I think its just an pre-production error. Whether or not its the VF-X-11 or the VF-X-10 for a series that was never produced seems a bit nitpicky... All thats important (and Canon) in the macross Universe is that it is the VF-9

I must say though I think the Cutlass is a gorgeous design. I wish someone made a model of it.

Quick edit #2 It seems as if there was already a VF-X-11 made for the series too;

Edited May 2, 2008 by Noyhauser

[Zinjo]

The VF-9 is a beautiful fighter and GERWAK, but the Battroid is fugly!

The transformation is awkward and the end result is pretty awful looking.

If it ever went to a vote, I'd vote for the SW-XAII as the VF-9. The design is far more closely related to the VF-11 in transformation sequence and style...

[azrael]

Kawamori probably had lots of ideas on what he wanted the VF-X-11 to be, which is why he scribbled it on the drawings.

[Mr March]

Well, looks like it's best just to ignore the VF-X-11 designation. Looks like a dead end, a concept designation that was tossed out, like you say. Cool. Thanks fellas.

[briscojr84]

Well, looks like it's best just to ignore the VF-X-11 designation. Looks like a dead end, a concept designation that was tossed out, like you say. Cool. Thanks fellas.

Maybe it's actually VF-X-II and not 11