Macross Frontier Mecha/Technology Thread IV *Read 1st Post*

[edwin3060]

You realise the 120 second figure is how long the ICS protecs the pilot for at 27.5G not how long the VF-25 can endure 27.5G.

Regardless, it doesn't detract from my point.

[DarkReaper]

It does because 27.5g is how many G the pilot can endure in the VF-25. We don't know how many G the airframe itself can endure.

So a VF-19 retrofitted with ICS can still not outmaneuver a VF-25 because it's engines are only half as strong as those in the VF-25. And in space engines are everything.

It's got a better chance in atmosphere because of the canards though. Also it's larger internal missile payload would give it the upper hand as long as the VF-25 doesn't get it's super pack.

[edwin3060]

It does because 27.5g is how many G the pilot can endure in the VF-25. We don't know how many G the airframe itself can endure.

So a VF-19 retrofitted with ICS can still not outmaneuver a VF-25 because it's engines are only half as strong as those in the VF-25. And in space engines are everything.

It's got a better chance in atmosphere because of the canards though. Also it's larger internal missile payload would give it the upper hand as long as the VF-25 doesn't get it's super pack.

You're wrong-- if you actually went to read the compendium entry, it says: "Maximum airframe design load: 27.5G at maximum acceleration for 120 seconds (When ISC operates, the cockpit is protected from high G.)"

So the Maximum airframe design load is 27.5G, regardless of whether the ISC is operational or not. And I've already stated that the VF-19 will not be able to reach it's design limits in space due to the engines so I've no idea why you're mentioning it again. Like I said, the only way the VF-19 can even possibly hit its +37.5G limit is in an atmosphere, but the fact still stands that the G limit is still higher than the VF-25.

Edited February 20, 2009 by edwin3060

[azrael]

I think he means "Macross F Official Fan Book".

Yep.

Just wait until you start including magazines that have MF articles. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it!

Good thing I'm avoiding those.

Concerning the airframe design load, that's on the airframe, not the pilot, hence the wording "Maximum airframe design load".

[David Hingtgen]

Point: They don't specify with what loading the G-limits are for. Maybe the VF-25's limit is set so as to take into account the frequent use of super packs and full armor.

Second point: A "G" is a measurement of force/stress. Not turning. Many modern day missiles can do well over 30Gs. Yet 6+G turns often "out-turn" them. Speed increases effective G's, yet also increases turn radius. Few modern military jets can make a circle quicker or smaller than an A-10, but it sure can't pull 9+Gs. And a WWII Zero pulling 4.5Gs will out-turn them all... Or hey---a modern Corvette can do a "mere" 1G lateral turn that'll be quicker and tighter than any plane will ever dream of.

(what we really need for valks are "sustained rate of turn" and "instantaneous rate of turn"---those are much better measurements, as those define how rapidly direction changes, not how much stress is on the frame)

[hobbes221]

"Maximum airframe design load: 27.5G at maximum acceleration for 120 seconds"

Okay I know we talked about this over and over but reading that again got me thinking. The way I'm looking at right now almost makes me think it can take more Gs than that for say it's instantaneous turn rate (David Hingtgen, got me thinking about that, thanks and good points too). Because now that make me think that the whole 27.5 thing is what it can take for 2 minutes strait with the engines wide open. I don't know if I'm making myself clear but what I'm trying to say is that if it were a human it's kinda like saying we can take 8 Gs for XX amount of seconds, we can go higher but just not as long.

What do you guys think? Am I just way off base with this or what?

[anime52k8]

"Maximum airframe design load: 27.5G at maximum acceleration for 120 seconds"

you know the way that's worded, it almost sounds like they're talking about the G load the plain can take while accelerating in a strait line.

[edwin3060]

Point: They don't specify with what loading the G-limits are for. Maybe the VF-25's limit is set so as to take into account the frequent use of super packs and full armor.

Second point: A "G" is a measurement of force/stress. Not turning. Many modern day missiles can do well over 30Gs. Yet 6+G turns often "out-turn" them. Speed increases effective G's, yet also increases turn radius. Few modern military jets can make a circle quicker or smaller than an A-10, but it sure can't pull 9+Gs. And a WWII Zero pulling 4.5Gs will out-turn them all... Or hey---a modern Corvette can do a "mere" 1G lateral turn that'll be quicker and tighter than any plane will ever dream of.

(what we really need for valks are "sustained rate of turn" and "instantaneous rate of turn"---those are much better measurements, as those define how rapidly direction changes, not how much stress is on the frame)

Point 1: They don't specify that for any of the other VFs as well.

Point 2: The in-atmosphere top speed of the VF-25 and the VF-19/22 are the same, around Mach 5+

I agree that for a proper comparison, we need the sustained and instantaneous turn rates, but in lieu of that, we can (and should) only make inferences based on hard facts, not what we want the VFs to be.

I remember when I first came on the forums and there was a debate raging on about the superiority of the VF-25, ending only when someone pointed out that the statement supposedly saying that the VF-25 surpassed the VF-19/22 actually said that they were (only) comparable in combat. There's this whole obsession with the latest being the greatest, when it (VF-25) might just be the cheapest, most economical solution to the problem (how to equip a colonial fleet).

Hobbes221: The whole accelerating in a straight line thing may well be right, it certainly sounds logical to me. But to jump from that to saying that it's instantaneous turn rate may be higher is just a ridiculous leap.

[Final Vegeta]

I remember when I first came on the forums and there was a debate raging on about the superiority of the VF-25, ending only when someone pointed out that the statement supposedly saying that the VF-25 surpassed the VF-19/22 actually said that they were (only) comparable in combat.

Actually, that statement (そのフォルムは名機ＶＦ－１を思わせるが、戦闘性能はＶＦ－１９およびＶＦ－２２シリーズの正統的な後継機といえる。) meant that as for battle abilities the VF-25 was the legitimate successor of the VF-19/22. Successor implies being superior, not "comparable".

There's this whole obsession with the latest being the greatest, when it (VF-25) might just be the cheapest, most economical solution to the problem (how to equip a colonial fleet).

Who'd want a main character that pilots an economic mecha? (well, with a Western audience there might be some nods )

Try to think in terms of anime logic. Well, actually even in real world terms it's like that. If we take the F-35 as example, it is cheaper and inferior compared to the F-22, but the requirements are: four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses. These capabilities are to be achieved while still having significantly better range and require less logistics support than legacy aircraft

Nobody is gonna build something new that is radically worse than previous models, or there wouldn't be any point in building it.

FV

[DarkReaper]

Something from the translated liner notes of ep. 13.

- The Macross which appears in the finale of this episode is a part of five replicas produced for the exploration fleets, as mentioned in the first cronology.

So there are five SDFs out there. SDFN-1 to 5.

I don't know what chronology they mean though.

Btw there is some more really juicy trivia in that thread: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php...779&page=85

I never knew Millia's nickname was "Witch craft" in Macross M3 for example.

Also the dimension eater is recovered protoculture tech.

[edit]Does anyone know if those Macross novels by Ohnogi were ever translated? A lot of storyline clues were taken from his books and they sound really interesting. They paint a more grim light on Macross.

Edited February 22, 2009 by DarkReaper

[sketchley]

More info on the Macross Class ship seen in MF: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/index.php?topic=2017.0

[edwin3060]

Actually, that statement (そのフォルムは名機ＶＦ－１を思わせるが、戦闘性能はＶＦ－１９およびＶＦ－２２シリーズの正統的な後継機といえる。) meant that as for battle abilities the VF-25 was the legitimate successor of the VF-19/22. Successor implies being superior, not "comparable".

Who'd want a main character that pilots an economic mecha? (well, with a Western audience there might be some nods )

Try to think in terms of anime logic. Well, actually even in real world terms it's like that. If we take the F-35 as example, it is cheaper and inferior compared to the F-22, but the requirements are: four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses. These capabilities are to be achieved while still having significantly better range and require less logistics support than legacy aircraft

Nobody is gonna build something new that is radically worse than previous models, or there wouldn't be any point in building it.

FV

"Legitimate sucessor" is a subjective term. It could still be "legitimate" if it offered the same capabilities or was cheaper. Either way, it still doesn't mean that it has higher g-limits than the VF-19/22, because from all the data we have, it doesn't.

FV: Those are the stated goals of the F-35 programme. And it achieves superiority over current generation fighters through stealth and electronics-- the g-limits are still the same (+9 for AF, +7.5 for Navy/Marines), and the top speeds (<Mach 2.0) as well. The thrust to weight ratio, on the other hand, is lower than the legacy fighters (0.81 vs 0.95). Which just goes to show that newer doesn't mean better in each and every performance category.

[hobbes221]

I don't know if using the F-35 is a good example because it's main role is air to mud and the job requirements are different than those of an air to air bird. I think the whole VF-19 vs VF-25 is more along the lines of the F-15 and F-22. What we really need is hard numbers as everyone has said time and again.

And I'm not trying to jump to conclusions here, its just those stage IIs are driving me up a wall. Why so much power if it can't turn as well as burn? Otherwise we're looking at the Macross version of an F-105 or Mig-25, fast as anything but would take the whole state of Alaska in a turn at speed. If you don't agree that's fine, I do like to hear all the different ideas and views, that's why I'm here, it keeps my mind open and working.

I just really want a VF tech manual (with line art, tons of line art!)

Edited February 22, 2009 by hobbes221

[Final Vegeta]

"Legitimate sucessor" is a subjective term. It could still be "legitimate" if it offered the same capabilities or was cheaper.

But then it would be no "successor" If it had the same capabilities it would be "equivalent".

Either way, it still doesn't mean that it has higher g-limits than the VF-19/22, because from all the data we have, it doesn't.

Set aside that g-limits aren't a real measure of manouvrability, the data we have actually don't confirm that.

First of all, we don't know what "maximum airframe load" we are talking about, and since g's are calculated by weight times acceleration, we don't know if the two g-limit stats are comparable. We've seen a VF-25 with an armored pack on, plus 4 nuclear missiles. The maximum airframe load is likely to be double that of a VF-19. Without FAST Packs on the g-limit should be considerably higher.

Second thing, with the VF-25 we are given the number for a substained acceleration. Does that mean the with the other VFs the g-limit is supposed to be istantaneous?

In conclusion the numbers may not mean the same thing, so they are not comparable. And I suspect authors don't want to make them directly comparable.

FV: Those are the stated goals of the F-35 programme. And it achieves superiority over current generation fighters through stealth and electronics-- the g-limits are still the same (+9 for AF, +7.5 for Navy/Marines), and the top speeds (<Mach 2.0) as well. The thrust to weight ratio, on the other hand, is lower than the legacy fighters (0.81 vs 0.95). Which just goes to show that newer doesn't mean better in each and every performance category.

The F-35 is a single engine design, to have stats comparable to double engine designs is still a feat. And the g-limits are always the same, because that what a pilot can stand. For the newest fighters they will be always listed at 9g.

FV

[sketchley]

I just really want a VF tech manual (with line art, tons of line art!)

You just *may* be getting your wish. If I understand things correctly, a book dedicated to the VF-1, full of line art and stats, is en route to the publishers as I speak.

[edwin3060]

I don't know if using the F-35 is a good example because it's main role is air to mud and the job requirements are different than those of an air to air bird. I think the whole VF-19 vs VF-25 is more along the lines of the F-15 and F-22. What we really need is hard numbers as everyone has said time and again.

And I'm not trying to jump to conclusions here, its just those stage IIs are driving me up a wall. Why so much power if it can't turn as well as burn? Otherwise we're looking at the Macross version of an F-105 or Mig-25, fast as anything but would take the whole state of Alaska in a turn at speed. If you don't agree that's fine, I do like to hear all the different ideas and views, that's why I'm here, it keeps my mind open and working.

I just really want a VF tech manual (with line art, tons of line art!)

Of course we can-- the F-35 is the replacement to the F-16 and F-18 (A-D), and I was making a direct comparison to those. Even if you want to compare the F-15 with the F-22, the F-15 has a higher (stated) top speed (Mach 2.5 vs 2.0) and a higher thrust to weight ratio (1.3 vs 1.08). Leaving aside whatever secrecy is left around the F-22, by all publicly stated figures you can see that while the F-22 is better in some areas, it is not better in all areas-- which has been my point all along. The VF-25 may be better in some, but not all areas--like its lower g-limits.

Like sketchley has said, a VF-1 tech manual seems to be in the works: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?K...340&ref=myp so you may well get your wish!

[edwin3060]

But then it would be no "successor" If it had the same capabilities it would be "equivalent".

The very fact that it is a later (chronologically) design incorporating elements from the previous VFs means it can be called a 'successor' regardless of whether it actually is better or not.

Set aside that g-limits aren't a real measure of manouvrability, the data we have actually don't confirm that.

First of all, we don't know what "maximum airframe load" we are talking about, and since g's are calculated by weight times acceleration, we don't know if the two g-limit stats are comparable. We've seen a VF-25 with an armored pack on, plus 4 nuclear missiles. The maximum airframe load is likely to be double that of a VF-19. Without FAST Packs on the g-limit should be considerably higher.

Wrong. G is purely acceleration-- it is a measure of how fast you are accelerating relative to gravity on the earths surface. Also g-limits are the only objective measure of maneuverability we have in the show. You are arguing hypotheticals.

Second thing, with the VF-25 we are given the number for a substained acceleration. Does that mean the with the other VFs the g-limit is supposed to be istantaneous?

In conclusion the numbers may not mean the same thing, so they are not comparable. And I suspect authors don't want to make them directly comparable.

Again, hypotheticals. What proof do you have? None-- you want to believe it because you want to believe that the VF-25 is superior in every way compared to the VF-19/22. I've just proven that it's not.

The F-35 is a single engine design, to have stats comparable to double engine designs is still a feat. And the g-limits are always the same, because that what a pilot can stand. For the newest fighters they will be always listed at 9g.

FV

Actually, the F-16 has an even better thrust to weight ratio at 1.095 as compared to 0.81 for the F-35. People often have the misconception that single engined designs will have lower thrust than double engines-- the fact is that for the same amount of thrust, a single engined design is lighter, more efficient and (probably) cheaper. The difficulty is in getting that 1 engine to produce the same amount of thrust that two engines would.

[REbirth]

I don't want to break up this intense discussion, but can someone bring out all known infos about the Macross Quarter, aside from what's already in Macross Mecha Manual (kudo to Mr. March) anyway.

How is its Macross Cannon's power compare to a Normal Macross Cannon? And I wonder if it has better speed or agility?

About the VF 25 vs VF-19/22 discussion: I don't think it's superior in every way compares to 19/22, but the Ex-Gear system alone makes the 25 more user-friendly and allows the pilot to resist an extreme dose of Gs without getting Guld'd, so therefore it's superior. That and the fact you can remote control a 25 with the Ex-Gear, plus it can transform to 3 forms with Super/Armored Pack still intact.

Edited February 22, 2009 by REbirth

[Gubaba]

You just *may* be getting your wish. If I understand things correctly, a book dedicated to the VF-1, full of line art and stats, is en route to the publishers as I speak.

You know who's gonna love that? Azrael.

[Final Vegeta]

The very fact that it is a later (chronologically) design incorporating elements from the previous VFs means it can be called a 'successor' regardless of whether it actually is better or not.

That would make it a "descendant", not a successor

As for incorporating previous elements, it is quite stated the contrary: we got ISC, EX-gear, new anti-optical weapon armor, new linear actuators for transformation... the VF-25 is clearly another generation compared to the VF-19/22.

Wrong. G is purely acceleration-- it is a measure of how fast you are accelerating relative to gravity on the earths surface.

Planes don't break because of acceleration, they break because the acceleration creates a force, a force that is acceleration times mass (F = m*a). This is elementary physics. It means that the same acceleration may produce a different force if the mass is different, which is what I am arguing here.

Also g-limits are the only objective measure of maneuverability we have in the show.

G-limits are not an objective measure of maneuvrability, it was already explained by David Hingten. A car can make tighter turns than the fastest planes. How do you explain that?

Again, hypotheticals. What proof do you have? None-- you want to believe it because you want to believe that the VF-25 is superior in every way compared to the VF-19/22. I've just proven that it's not.

You only proved that you are speaking hypotheticals and you are not knowledgeable of physic laws.

Actually, the F-16 has an even better thrust to weight ratio at 1.095 as compared to 0.81 for the F-35.

That's because the F-35 weights more. The engines of the F-35 is superior in terms of thrust.

You are straining my metaphor though. In real world there aren't crazy engineering escalations on one hand, and planes can't surpass the limits of the pilots on the other. The maneuverability of a plane is also dependent on its flight controls, which are dependent on the atmosphere (and usually the fastest planes are not very maneuverable). Fuel consumption is also a problem. On a one-on-one though the F-35 is designed to have a higher probability of winning over a fourth generation fighter though.

FV

[Final Vegeta]

I don't want to break up this intense discussion, but can someone bring out all known infos about the Macross Quarter, aside from what's already in Macross Mecha Manual (kudo to Mr. March) anyway.

Check the official Compendium.

How is its Macross Cannon's power compare to a Normal Macross Cannon?

Supposedly lower. If the Quarter had a superior technology they should have scaled it back on the Battles. The beam is graphically different, and the Quarter is able to fire smaller pulses as well. They are also described differently, the Quarter has a Heavy Quantum Reaction Cannon, while the SDF-1 had an Overtechnology Macross bow-firing super-dimension-energy cannon with beam polarizing converging system.

And I wonder if it has better speed or agility?

It boasts the of mobility and combat performance of a fighter even though it is the size of mid-scale warship.

About the VF 25 vs VF-19/22 discussion: I don't think it's superior in every way compares to 19/22, but the Ex-Gear system alone makes the 25 more user-friendly and allows the pilot to resist an extreme dose of Gs without getting Guld'd

That's the ISC (Inertia Store Converter), the EX-gear just has some kind of integrated Brainwave Direct Control System (Azrael found this in a booklet).

FV

[azrael]

Check the official Compendium.

And trust me, we don't have much info published on it right now.

Supposedly lower. If the Quarter had a superior technology they should have scaled it back on the Battles. The beam is graphically different, and the Quarter is able to fire smaller pulses as well. They are also described differently, the Quarter has a Heavy Quantum Reaction Cannon, while the SDF-1 had an Overtechnology Macross bow-firing super-dimension-energy cannon with beam polarizing converging system.

Considering the spread that Battle Frontier's main cannon had compared to Quarter's, I would say it's lower. Powerful for its size but definitely not a true Macross Cannon.

That's the ISC (Inertia Store Converter), the EX-gear just has some kind of integrated Brainwave Direct Control System (Azrael found this in a booklet).

I said that? Really? No I didn't. As I understand it, the EX-Gear's control system allows it to read muscle movements (or something of that nature) for more precise control of the EX-Gear.

[edwin3060]

That would make it a "descendant", not a successor

That's just arguing semantics

As for incorporating previous elements, it is quite stated the contrary: we got ISC, EX-gear, new anti-optical weapon armor, new linear actuators for transformation... the VF-25 is clearly another generation compared to the VF-19/22.

None of which has anything to do with the g-limits of the VF. Besides, SK has already said that the VF-25 is a VF-1 that transforms like a YF-19. If that isn't using elements from previous designs, I don't know what is.

Planes don't break because of acceleration, they break because the acceleration creates a force, a force that is acceleration times mass (F = m*a). This is elementary physics. It means that the same acceleration may produce a different force if the mass is different, which is what I am arguing here.

That's not what you are arguing at all. And that exposes your misunderstanding of what the g-limits of an aircraft mean.

G-limits are not an objective measure of maneuvrability, it was already explained by David Hingten. A car can make tighter turns than the fastest planes. How do you explain that?

Short answer: When velocity is the same, the Gs you can pull are an objective measure of maneuverability. David made a false analogy which I pointed out if you had taken the time to read my rebuttal.

Long answer:

I'm sure David understands this very well, it may just have slipped his mind-- basic physics, a=v^2 /r . That is to say, a car can make tighter turns (lower radius r) because its velocity is much lower than an aircrafts for a given acceleration (g). That's how an aircraft travelling at Mach 1 pulling 9Gs can out turn a missile travelling at Mach 4 pulling 40 Gs--- because to match the same turn radius as the aircraft the missile has to actually pull 144Gs.

But, like I pointed out already, the VF-25 and VF-19 have the same cruising speed in the atmosphere of Mach 5-- at the same velocity, your acceleration directly determines your turn radius and hence your maneuverability. Ultimately given what hard data we have on both aircraft, we can only ever make the inference that the VF-19 can outperform the VF-25 in atmosphere. Anything else is just useless conjecture and wishful thinking.

You only proved that you are speaking hypotheticals and you are not knowledgeable of physic laws.

I'm quite certain of my knowledge of physics, are you?

That's because the F-35 weights more. The engines of the F-35 is superior in terms of thrust.

Yea so?

You are straining my metaphor though. In real world there aren't crazy engineering escalations on one hand, and planes can't surpass the limits of the pilots on the other.

If you recall, the original point that was brought up was that, given ISC, could the VF-19 outperform the VF-25 in terms of maneuverability? We have quickly rejected that hypothesis in space, where the insane thrust of the VF-25 would give it the benefit (and the VF-19 couldn't even strain it's g limits), but, with the speed limitations in the atmosphere, and the additional factor of control surfaces, the VF-19's ability to pull higher Gs could give it the advantage.

The maneuverability of a plane is also dependent on its flight controls, which are dependent on the atmosphere (and usually the fastest planes are not very maneuverable). Fuel consumption is also a problem. On a one-on-one though the F-35 is designed to have a higher probability of winning over a fourth generation fighter though.

FV

None of which is relevant to the discussion-- you sought to prove that the F-35 was superior in every way to current generation fighters, and I've proved that it's not. It has a higher probability of winning not because it has higher thrust, or can pull greater gs. It wins because of its better radar and stealth.

Similarly, the VF-25 doesn't need to be superior in every way to the VF-19/22 in order to be a 'successor', even by your terms. It may win because it carries more missiles, for example. If you can't understand this simple point then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

On a separate note, SK said that the VF-25 is the first fighter to be able to transform with FAST pack attached, but in MacPlus the YF-19 and YF-21 are clearly able to do so as well. What gives?

[edwin3060]

I said that? Really? No I didn't. As I understand it, the EX-Gear's control system allows it to read muscle movements (or something of that nature) for more precise control of the EX-Gear.

Gubaba's translation of the VF-25S page in Mac Chronicles covered this. Basically the EX-Gear detects some electric field (which could either be due to muscle movement, or more likely nerve impulses) for precise control during operation of the EX-Gear, and also during operation of VFs, which has the benefit of allowing transformation of a single part without affecting other parts of the VF.

[hobbes221]

Good points from everyone, and I'm not trying to make the VF-25 to be better than the VF-19 in every way it's just when I read that part about the Gs again it got me thinking so I just wanted to hear what you guys thought and I was not disappointed.

And on the top speed of the F-15 and F-22, planes today almost never get to their max speed so right now it's more about highest practical or useful speed and super cruise. I think I said before that VF-19 and YF-21/VF-22 were perhaps overbuilt and may have never gotten close to their max Gs in use. Even at the end M+ after everything that Guld put the -21 through the main body of the airframe was still in one peace, more or less. They could have lowered the G limits because they just did not need to be that high and reducing it would allow the airframe to be lighter and maybe a little cheaper.

-edit- oh and thanks for the heads up on that VF-1 book and the link to it (maybe I can bribe someone to translate some, because we just have not gotten enough on the -1 in the Macross Chronicles )

Edited February 22, 2009 by hobbes221

[azrael]

On a separate note, SK said that the VF-25 is the first fighter to be able to transform with FAST pack attached, but in MacPlus the YF-19 and YF-21 are clearly able to do so as well. What gives?

No, he said it's the first one the transform with an Armored pack, not Super parts.

[hobbes221]

And I forgot one thing, when I said that I felt the max Gs may be higher I also meant to say that they did not have to be higher than the -19 just higher than 27.5, it could max out at 30, 40 or 51.127834 Gs. It just felt than the way it was worded was the max Gs for a specific area of it's performance envelope not the max the airframe could withstand.

Edited February 22, 2009 by hobbes221

[David Hingtgen]

There is NO reason to compare the VF-19 and VF-25 "at Mach 5". Top speed is never, ever, anywhere near where max G, best turn rate, or corner velocity is.

Look at F-15 vs F-16. Very different top speeds, very different corner velocities, same G-rating. And very different overall turn capabilities.

VF-19 and VF-25 both max out at Mach 5? Big whoop. The F-16, MiG-23, F-104, and Tornado all max out around Mach 2, yet have VERY different manueverability. Heck, most jets from 1960 to today are right around Mach 2. Anything slower than 1.9 or faster than 2.1 is uncommon. "Mach 5" seems to be the valk equivalent of today's Mach 2---"the speed most fighters can go, with only a few being notably faster or slower".

Top speed and handling have NOTHING to do with each other. It's just stupid to try to base a comparison using Mach 5 as some sort of basis for G's, turn rate, etc on achieving their best at that speed.

PS---missiles do not need to match a turn radius to intercept, they must match the rate of turn in degrees. (same as dogfighting--you do not need to turn TIGHTER, you need to turn FASTER to draw lead or get behind them to fire) You can have a pretty big turn radius, but if your "degrees per second" is better, you will come around first.

For a plane, G is a measure of how much stress it'll take before its damaged--or really, how much it can take without voiding the warranty. Did you know G-rating is adjustable? Increase it, and you can either pay more to the manufacturer for the increased warranty/service costs, or you can not pay them extra and void any "stress-induced" warranty claims. Engines work the same way. As does max weight. It's mostly paperwork and software, not inherent to the design. Only when planes get old :coughF-14cough: do the limits start really becoming "physically based". F-16s have pulled 12-13Gs several times, sustained for several seconds, and are fine. Heck, the 707, 727, and 747 have all done 6Gs (double their rating) and lived to tell the tale. Boeing basically disowned the planes after that, but they were all checked/repaired and flew many more years.

[sketchley]

(...)

For a plane, G is a measure of how much stress it'll take before its damaged--or really, how much it can take without voiding the warranty. (...)

So, what everyone is *really* debating is whether the "inflated" G rating of a plane being marketed for special ops use (the VF-19) is superior to the "deflated" G rating of a plane being marketed for general fighter use (the VF-25)? With the inflating and deflating being done by the sales teams to either maximize sales or minimize long-term costs.

[sketchley]

That's just arguing semantics

Not necessarily.

Successor: a thing or person that immediately replaces something or someone http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&l...on&ct=title

Descendant: a person considered as descended from some ancestor or race http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&l...on&ct=title

It would be possible for a descendant to become a successor (VF-1 > VF-1X; or VF-11A > VF-11B), but not a successor to become a descendant.

Nevertheless, this is probably highly irrelevant to the discussion...

[edwin3060]

No, he said it's the first one the transform with an Armored pack, not Super parts.

Ahh that clears it up then.

[edwin3060]

So, what everyone is *really* debating is whether the "inflated" G rating of a plane being marketed for special ops use (the VF-19) is superior to the "deflated" G rating of a plane being marketed for general fighter use (the VF-25)? With the inflating and deflating being done by the sales teams to either maximize sales or minimize long-term costs.

Not at all-- these data are provided from a more or less objective point of view so there's no reason to suspect inflation or deflation? It's not like we are reading sales brochures after all, all these data are equivalent to the technical manuals for the aircraft (less detailed, to be sure).

[edwin3060]

Good points from everyone, and I'm not trying to make the VF-25 to be better than the VF-19 in every way it's just when I read that part about the Gs again it got me thinking so I just wanted to hear what you guys thought and I was not disappointed.

And on the top speed of the F-15 and F-22, planes today almost never get to their max speed so right now it's more about highest practical or useful speed and super cruise. I think I said before that VF-19 and YF-21/VF-22 were perhaps overbuilt and may have never gotten close to their max Gs in use. Even at the end M+ after everything that Guld put the -21 through the main body of the airframe was still in one peace, more or less. They could have lowered the G limits because they just did not need to be that high and reducing it would allow the airframe to be lighter and maybe a little cheaper.

-edit- oh and thanks for the heads up on that VF-1 book and the link to it (maybe I can bribe someone to translate some, because we just have not gotten enough on the -1 in the Macross Chronicles )

Depends on what your definition of Max speed is-- for the F-22 I suspect max speed is more materials limited than drag limited, but I digress.

[Morpheus]

I got a question, but its not related with valk.

Which company design and built the Quarter? Is it under LAI?

[edwin3060]

There is NO reason to compare the VF-19 and VF-25 "at Mach 5". Top speed is never, ever, anywhere near where max G, best turn rate, or corner velocity is.

Look at F-15 vs F-16. Very different top speeds, very different corner velocities, same G-rating. And very different overall turn capabilities.

VF-19 and VF-25 both max out at Mach 5? Big whoop. The F-16, MiG-23, F-104, and Tornado all max out around Mach 2, yet have VERY different manueverability. Heck, most jets from 1960 to today are right around Mach 2. Anything slower than 1.9 or faster than 2.1 is uncommon. "Mach 5" seems to be the valk equivalent of today's Mach 2---"the speed most fighters can go, with only a few being notably faster or slower".

Except that Mach 5 is the cruise speed of the VFs.

PS---missiles do not need to match a turn radius to intercept, they must match the rate of turn in degrees. (same as dogfighting--you do not need to turn TIGHTER, you need to turn FASTER to draw lead or get behind them to fire) You can have a pretty big turn radius, but if your "degrees per second" is better, you will come around first.

And your rate of turn in degrees is related to....? Thats right, your turn radius!

For a plane, G is a measure of how much stress it'll take before its damaged--or really, how much it can take without voiding the warranty. Did you know G-rating is adjustable? Increase it, and you can either pay more to the manufacturer for the increased warranty/service costs, or you can not pay them extra and void any "stress-induced" warranty claims. Engines work the same way. As does max weight. It's mostly paperwork and software, not inherent to the design. Only when planes get old :coughF-14cough: do the limits start really becoming "physically based". F-16s have pulled 12-13Gs several times, sustained for several seconds, and are fine. Heck, the 707, 727, and 747 have all done 6Gs (double their rating) and lived to tell the tale. Boeing basically disowned the planes after that, but they were all checked/repaired and flew many more years.

I know that. I've already stated that many many times over. But in the absence of any other data, the g-limits are clearly meant to illustrate the maneuverability of the vfs. Else we wouldn't have a standard of measurement at all.

Edited February 23, 2009 by edwin3060