Jump to content

YF-24: AM I THE ONLY ONE SEEING THIS


deadghost
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't keep up with the threads that this was already mentioned in, so thanks for posting this. I like the look of the 24 more than the 25. The wings actually look like they belong to a fighter, where as the overall shape of the 25 reminds me more of a lanky B-1 bomber than a modern fighter jet.

IIRC, SK has stated that his VF designs for MF won't be based on real world fighter concepts or something like that. Hence why swing-wings in the case of the VF-25 is the "IN" thing again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible or they were expecting a Cannon Fodder downgraded version of the YF-24. Why else would Galaxy chose its basic battroid design for the VF-27?

Remember the VF-171 is a downgraded version of the VF-17.

Like the YF-19 and YF-21, too fast, too furious, too awesome and too expensive that only ace pilots can use it.

Can you imagine Alto wrecking a VF-19A on a regular basis?

You seem to imply that VF-25 is inferior to both YF-19/21? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess untill we see otherwise, but I keep imagining to myself ^_^ alto screwing up his last vf-25 and SMS pulling off a dust cover off the prototype hidden all the way in some storage compartment. BUT the vf-25 does symbolize the anniversary and the series.

As much as I'd love to see even more new valks in the series... Given the facts that there are only 2 episodes left and that we have been introduced to the new VF-171 EX... I truly doubt we will see any VF-24 in action... Sorry. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible or they were expecting a Cannon Fodder downgraded version of the YF-24. Why else would Galaxy chose its basic battroid design for the VF-27?

From what I recall, it seems they weren't expecting the VF-25 to perform so well since the YF-24 didn't perform up to snuff.

Why it didn't perform is something we can only speculate on. However, based on what we've seen of the VF-25 and VF-27 possibly wing design and engine output may be some of the factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I recall, it seems they weren't expecting the VF-25 to perform so well since the YF-24 didn't perform up to snuff.

Why it didn't perform is something we can only speculate on. However, based on what we've seen of the VF-25 and VF-27 possibly wing design and engine output may be some of the factors.

Then upgrade the hardware and software like they did with VF-1X Plus and the VF-4G Lightning III.

Seems to me LAI's specialization is pimping somebody else's licensed fighter design.

Did General Galaxy get money for the VF-171EX?

If previous design lineage is anything I think the YF-24 is a Shinsei Industries pitch.

They built the VF-0, VF-1, VF-3000 (Prior to merger), VF-5000, VF-11, VF-19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it been officially stated that the VF-171 is a downgraded VF-17?

Yes it doesn't even have the cool pulse beam gun pod attachment.

Fortunately Macross 7 isn't as cheap as Macross Frontier as they have the VF-17 as their mainline fighter and the VF-22S as their special forces fighter in 2047.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it doesn't even have the cool pulse beam gun pod attachment.

Wasn't that an optional replacement for a second ammo clip?

Meaning only some people would carry it, and usually only for specialized missions. Haruhi knows why Gamlin took one out on every flight.

Edited by JB0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, SK has stated that his VF designs for MF won't be based on real world fighter concepts or something like that. Hence why swing-wings in the case of the VF-25 is the "IN" thing again. :)

Never the less...

One resembles the most modern fighter in our world today and the other resembles a high speed bomber from the 80s....ouch!

comparisonssm7.jpg

w504.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah that first one is majorly majorly similiar to the Raptor.

now the bomber......not so much. Doesn't really resemble it to much at all. Sometimes like on All that VF Frontier edition I thought the VF25's "slightly" resembled the SU27's or whatever but only from certain angles.

but yeah the YF24 is like spot on :blink:

Edited by Cybergig1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never the less...

One resembles the most modern fighter in our world today and the other resembles a high speed bomber from the 80s....ouch!

comparisonssm7.jpg

w504.png

Not sure about the B-1B Lancer reference, But the comparison of the F-22 Raptor & the YF-24 do resemble each other in some aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the B-1B Lancer reference, But the comparison of the F-22 Raptor & the YF-24 do resemble each other in some aspects.

Similar wings. Similar wing roots (just sort of backwards). Long fuselage.

Mainly it's the long/thin wings. You don't see wide/thin wing spans like that on most modern fighter jets.

The shape of the VF-25 just doesn't say "air superiority fighter" to me, personally. It looks more like a high speed bomber. I'm only bringing it up because the VF-24 does say "air superiority fighter" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take on the YF-24/VF-25 thing is that it's along the lines of the YF-17 and F/A-18. The VF-17 was intended to be a lightweight, daytime fighter with a pair of AIM-9s and a cannon to take on the hoard of Soviet fighters that NATO would have to face were there to be a war. Long story short the YF-17 lost to the YF-16 and the Navy came in and made it bigger, (and bigger still with the E/F models) stuffed more avionics in it, called it the Hornet, and called the whole thing good. So without having any numbers on the YF-24 it maybe could have been a try at a light VF, that could also be a reason behind not seeing -19s around as well, they turned out to cost too much to operate. (in money or man hours of maintenance) So they try a simple VF and it didn't work out the way they thought, play with the design and come up with a good multirole Valkyrie. That may also explain the reaction to the -25, if someone told me that I was going to go up against a YF-16 and it turns out to be a F-16 Block 60 with all the bells and whistles I'd be WTF as well.

I do like the look of the YF-24 and want to see more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes

I believe it was implied somewhere that EX-Gears allow for pilots to endure G-forces higher than what is humanly possible. Take into consideration that the AVF/Project Supernova planes were supposedly operating at the limit of what humans could take and the fact that a VF-25 with Super Parts can go toe to toe against a VF-27 (which can operate well beyond human endurance thanks to having a cyborg pilot), then I believe we can safely say that the VF-25 is superior to the AVF planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was implied somewhere that EX-Gears allow for pilots to endure G-forces higher than what is humanly possible. Take into consideration that the AVF/Project Supernova planes were supposedly operating at the limit of what humans could take and the fact that a VF-25 with Super Parts can go toe to toe against a VF-27 (which can operate well beyond human endurance thanks to having a cyborg pilot), then I believe we can safely say that the VF-25 is superior to the AVF planes.

Give EX-gear system to VF-19/22, it will be more superior even without FAST pack ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we get specs on the VF-25 and VF-27, I wouldn't strongly argue either way whether the 25/27 is better than the 19/21/22. It also depends on the pilots. And I'm very curious what made the YF-24 not perform so well...

Edited by Sumdumgai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we get specs on the VF-25 and VF-27, I wouldn't strongly argue either way whether the 25/27 is better than the 19/21/22. It also depends on the pilots. And I'm very curious what made the YF-24 not perform so well...

If Isamu Dyson wasn't flying it probably a couple of dead and maimed test pilots. Same thing happened with the YF-19.

It may have been too high spec that they had to downgrade it when LAI designed the VF-25.

For Galaxy the tech was good enough for them to play with creating the VF-27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Isamu Dyson wasn't flying it probably a couple of dead and maimed test pilots. Same thing happened with the YF-19.

It may have been too high spec that they had to downgrade it when LAI designed the VF-25.

For Galaxy the tech was good enough for them to play with creating the VF-27.

not a bad idea red wolf, the idea of a fighter being TOO GOOD sounds so awesome yet ominous. freakin sweet! B))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that the YF-24 is bad, it's that the VF-25 is so much better. Generally, production models are pretty comparable to prototypes---or often worse due to trying to cut costs/features for mass production. To be notably superior is very rare---and they didn't plan for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...