Mr March Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zinjo Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 2, 2008 Author Share Posted May 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briscojr84 Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 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 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.