2030s Era Valkyries and Beyond...

[Cyclone Trooper]

Looking over the VF-11 Thunderbolt thread, I've noticed a trend in just about every Valkyrie design rolled out since the VF-11 where the head unit's laser barrel is in a rear-facing position on the dorsal side of the mecha while in fighter mode, and is usually at a fixed 30 to 90 degree angle, depending on the type of Valkyrie. The older VF-1 series used the head unit as a kind of rotating laser turret in fighter mode, as evidenced during Max's aerial battle with Milia in DYRL. But it seems that the later generations of mecha simply abandoned that design idea. The head-mounted laser cannon(s) are simply sticking up out of the hull more because there was no other place for it to go, rather than it being functional in fighter mode. An enemy would have to be within a relatively small cone of fire to the rear of the Valkyrie for the laser to hit its mark. And that leads me to another question. Since Zentraedi technology has been incorporated into newer designs since Space War I, does this fixed rear-facing laser function in much the same way as the rear guns on a Regult? I, personally, would find it annoyingly difficult to manually fire a weapon like that to the rear of my Valkyrie at subsonic speeds without a dedicated gunner or the weapon being completely computer-controlled.

The other question I have is about the penchant for for all these newer Valkyries to have "talon-like" feet (again, everything from the VF-11 to the VF-25 feature this type of foot/thruster). Is there some feature about this pointy-toed design that would improve thrust or something? Or was this nothing more than an aesthetic choice on Kawamori's part? Later designs---especially with the Macross Plus/Macross 7 designs---are far more angular and blocky in some ways. Like with the YF-21/VF-22, the legs are hidden behind two huge slabs of paneling that comprise nearly the entire underbelly of the mecha in fighter mode. The VF-22's gunpod is a huge blocky affair that just seems out of place compared to the fighter's aerodynamic profile...at least that's MY opinion.

Just questions that I've had for years and just now decided to ask...

Edited May 2, 2009 by Cyclone Trooper

[Radd]

The had laser thing I'd chalk up to compromises made for a transformable fighter. Possibly Kawamori figured it made the head less visible in fighter mode, or there was simply no way to stow the head underneath the fighter in a useable turret position for the transformation to work.

As for the feet, I wouldn't call them "talon like", if anything I'd say that they're simply more "foot like" than the VF-1 era battroids and their blocky stub feet. Again, this is just aesthetic design evolution.

As for the angular/blockiness, I'd say that is limited to the point of making the fighters look "stealthy". Overall, I'd have to disagree with the comment, though. Some of the later designs look very angular (VF-19, VF-25) while others look more rounded and organic (VF-5000, VF-22) but with some "stealthy" looking aspects (the gunpod, and cut of the wings/fins on the VF-22 for instance).

[Cyclone Trooper]

That's the other thing about the VF-11 and the YF/VF-19 that's always bothered me is how the head unit sort of just sits out in the open at the rear of GERWALK mode. It just stares down at the ground, not really serving any function yet again. Talk about having your head up your...er, nevermind! But seriously, the strange positioning of the head unit in this mode looks like the design wasn't fully thought out or something...

[Cent]

? It stares into the backpack. The backpack still envelops most of the head.

I personally think that the old head position on VF-1s was deemed to be lacking in aerodynamics, so SK moved it to be stored more internally, and flush with the fighter mode body. The rear head lasers seem to be positionable, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was mostly computer controlled (M+ YF-19 vs 21). Considering how much forward firepower these planes already have, having a single rear-facing cannon might not be too bad. Remember that in MacZero, Ivanov had to switch to gerwalk mode to fire behind him. What a pain!

Edited May 2, 2009 by Cent

[Renato]

Kawamori specifically said in a recent interview (I think it was in either Macross Chronicle or Figure Oh) that the head position changed after the VF-1 because of the necessity of a weapon for the specific use of taking out an enemy behind the craft. You see it used this way in Macross Plus, which was the first anime to feature this design.

[Scream Man]

i think they use it the same way in frontier; It is a rear gun. While the toys dont use it, I think it can move a bit around. Sure, not a huge window, but better than nothing. If nothign else its one extra thing for the pursuing fighter to worry about.

Hell the 19s will ONLY fire backwards, even in battroid!

[geepogi]

That's the other thing about the VF-11 and the YF/VF-19 that's always bothered me is how the head unit sort of just sits out in the open at the rear of GERWALK mode. It just stares down at the ground, not really serving any function yet again. Talk about having your head up your...er, nevermind! But seriously, the strange positioning of the head unit in this mode looks like the design wasn't fully thought out or something...

same here.

i feel like the head was shoved up its behind.

would have been better if there was an overhead

panel that concealed it at least from the top. i think

that's why people also prefer the battroid and fighter

modes of the vf-11b and tend to display more of it

in these modes. if i ever get a vf-11b, i'll just pretend

that there is no gerwalk mode.

[edwin3060]

Well, at least SK has listened to your gripes, hence the VF-25 -- Backwards facing, but no butthead

[arrow]

I guess there isn't much you can do design-wise since it is in the future. And, doesn't make sense to make it look like current generation military jets.

[wolfx]

The head lasers I felt have always been more for aesthetics than for its practicality. The most functional headlaser turrets would be on the VF-1 and VF-0 since its able to rotate and fire at objects almost 360 arc around it. After the VF-1, the headlasers on top of the fighter fuselage are puny and hardly functional for reasons cyclone trooper have stated.

[SchizophrenicMC]

The head lasers I felt have always been more for aesthetics than for its practicality. The most functional headlaser turrets would be on the VF-1 and VF-0 since its able to rotate and fire at objects almost 360 arc around it. After the VF-1, the headlasers on top of the fighter fuselage are puny and hardly functional for reasons cyclone trooper have stated.

That said, it seems there's aim control on the 19's head laser, at the very leaast. Again, Isamu fired it.

And the lasers are still on rotating mounts, so they can definitely move to get targets above and behind the craft.

With the 2+ laser variants, such as the VF-25F or the VF-19S and the like, I would think they can even face full forward.

[Graham]

Moving this to the 'Movie & TV Series' forum, as it's a technology discussion and doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with toys.

My take on the rear pointing head lasers is that they are likely semi-autonomous. It would be very difficult in a dog fight siituation for a pilot to fly, aim and fire a rear firing weapon all at once.

Probably the pilot can select between 1) full manual control, where he does everything, i.e aims and fires. 2) Semi-autonomous, where the onboard A.I. does the aiming and just tells the pilot when to fire and 3) faull autonomous, where the onboard A.I. does everything, i.e. aims and fires.

Graham

[Seto Kaiba]

3) full autonomous, where the onboard A.I. does everything, i.e. aims and fires.

Semi-autonomous seems the most likely... full AI control is just asking for trouble...

[ntsan]

Well the big head poping on the bottom is surely going to produce more air drag and more radar detectable..

[Mr March]

Looking over the VF-11 Thunderbolt thread, I've noticed a trend in just about every Valkyrie design rolled out since the VF-11 where the head unit's laser barrel is in a rear-facing position on the dorsal side of the mecha while in fighter mode, and is usually at a fixed 30 to 90 degree angle, depending on the type of Valkyrie. The older VF-1 series used the head unit as a kind of rotating laser turret in fighter mode, as evidenced during Max's aerial battle with Milia in DYRL. But it seems that the later generations of mecha simply abandoned that design idea. The head-mounted laser cannon(s) are simply sticking up out of the hull more because there was no other place for it to go, rather than it being functional in fighter mode. An enemy would have to be within a relatively small cone of fire to the rear of the Valkyrie for the laser to hit its mark. And that leads me to another question. Since Zentraedi technology has been incorporated into newer designs since Space War I, does this fixed rear-facing laser function in much the same way as the rear guns on a Regult? I, personally, would find it annoyingly difficult to manually fire a weapon like that to the rear of my Valkyrie at subsonic speeds without a dedicated gunner or the weapon being completely computer-controlled.

The other question I have is about the penchant for for all these newer Valkyries to have "talon-like" feet (again, everything from the VF-11 to the VF-25 feature this type of foot/thruster). Is there some feature about this pointy-toed design that would improve thrust or something? Or was this nothing more than an aesthetic choice on Kawamori's part? Later designs---especially with the Macross Plus/Macross 7 designs---are far more angular and blocky in some ways. Like with the YF-21/VF-22, the legs are hidden behind two huge slabs of paneling that comprise nearly the entire underbelly of the mecha in fighter mode. The VF-22's gunpod is a huge blocky affair that just seems out of place compared to the fighter's aerodynamic profile...at least that's MY opinion.

Just questions that I've had for years and just now decided to ask...

The rear-firing head cannons on the later model valkyries appear to be anything but fixed. They may be fixed "rearward" firing weapons, but they are still all described as "turrets." In both instances where we've seen the rear head cannons firing (YF-19 in Macross Plus, VF-25F Messiah in Macross Frontier) the cannons are clearly mobile and the line of fire can be seen to change angle rather dramatically. In Macross Plus, the YF-19 is shown as on a specific course but the head cannon tracks and fires upon the YF-21 at multiple angles. In Macross Frontier, the VF-25 Messiah is shown flying in a similar manner while the twin head cannons are clearly firing and tracking the VF-27 Lucifer independent of the position of the VF-25 fighter itself.

I think much of this fan perception of a static head cannon stems from the fact that they are rarely "shown" moving upon their mounts; the audience only observes the obvious multi-angled effects of the blasts of laser or beam fire. But these are not 18th century ball cannons of wagon wheels. It's clear from their firing patterns that the head cannons are built upon movable mounts that angle independently of the craft and that these head cannons aren't restricted to a single, horizontal articulation.

As for the placement of the head unit itself, clearly the VF-1 head unit would induce significant drag and would be less passively stealthy than the later valkyries. In a drive to achieve more efficient designs, the head unit was likely moved to a more favourable location on the mecha to improve aerodynamics and stealth. Also, the addition of a dedicated rear-firing (and apparently semi-autonomous) weapon would only be an advantage in combat. Most of the later valkyries simply replaced the lack of a forward firing head turret with supplemental laser/beam guns, often mounted in the wing roots. The YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II, VF-17 Nightmare, VF-171 Nightmare Plus, VF-25 Messiah and VF-27 Lucifer all feature such additional laser/beam cannons for forward firing.

As for the feet, it's likely just a stylistic choice in most cases. Although the 3-dimensional thrust vectoring of many later valkyries would likely require some kind of eggshell-design rather than a block-design found on the VF-1 Valkyrie. This may account for the curved and spire-like feet of the VF-11 Thunderbolt and later valkyries. Obviously, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II, SV-51 and VF-27 Lucifer have 3-dimensional thrust vectoring achieved via triple deflection paddles.

[SHMOGUN]

In Macross Plus it was really cool the way it fired and the sound it made--that was one way to get Guld off Isamu's back.

[MDP310]

In Macross Plus it was really cool the way it fired and the sound it made--that was one way to get Guld off Isamu's back.

I'm pretty sure the sound was exactly the same as one of the Rebel laser cannons in Star Wars.

Also about the feet. The soles of the VF-1's feet really don't look very substantial. It basically stands right on the edges of the exhaust ports. There is very little of the actual "foot" in contact with the ground. Later designs like the VF-11, VF-19, and so on, have feet that look more like ... feet. They are probably a lot better at spreading the VF's weight when it's standing on the ground.

Edited May 5, 2009 by MDP310

[azrael]

Having the head lasers pointing to the back would make it hard to get a gun-lock since you're being shot at and if you're too close for missiles.

[SchizophrenicMC]

My assumption is this:

AI-tracking, based on Radar, IFF, and sensor data from gun sensors allows the units to track trailing units. Even at great speed and maneuvers, it would be able to keep the gun on target rather effectively.

Pilot switches between guns like he would missiles. If he needs to fire on a trailing enemy, he switches from gunpod or forward lasers or the like to his rear laser and blasts.

As for feet, it's probably more effective to keep the thrust contained in a conical shape, instead of allowing it to expand in the squared nozzle of the VF-1. Not to mention it allows more surface area to be committed to weight distribution, although the progressive valks get lighter as they go.

This all said, I don't know why the super-complex transformation mechanisms are used, versus the simple VF-1's.

[Mr March]

This all said, I don't know why the super-complex transformation mechanisms are used, versus the simple VF-1's.

Because they aren't "super-complex." In fact, many of the later valkyries have transformation systems that are simpler than the VF-1 and require far fewer moving parts.

[Kyp Durron]

A little off topic but :

Looking at my 1/60 version two VF-1, I wonder if something like that would really be able to fly in fighter mode as it doesn't have tail planes...

-Kyp

[SchizophrenicMC]

A little off topic but :

Looking at my 1/60 version two VF-1, I wonder if something like that would really be able to fly in fighter mode as it doesn't have tail planes...

-Kyp

Well, you don't actually NEED them. Any Delta-Wing config shows this. Instead of using Fly-By-Cable, where such a thing would be needed, they use, Fly-By-Light (Fiber-optic Fly-By-Wire), so the flight computer constantly adjusts the thrust vectoring so it can fly without them.

The X-36 flies without a rudder. This is even harder to do, since flat spins can occur, instead of pitch rotations, which can be controlled through ailerons.

[VF5SS]

Because they aren't "super-complex." In fact, many of the later valkyries have transformation systems that are simpler than the VF-1 and require far fewer moving parts.

Just to add to this the VF-1 is the only Valkyrie where parts actually detach and reattach somewhere else.

[edwin3060]

The rear-firing head cannons on the later model valkyries appear to be anything but fixed. They may be fixed "rearward" firing weapons, but they are still all described as "turrets." In both instances where we've seen the rear head cannons firing (YF-19 in Macross Plus, VF-25F Messiah in Macross Frontier) the cannons are clearly mobile and the line of fire can be seen to change angle rather dramatically. In Macross Plus, the YF-19 is shown as on a specific course but the head cannon tracks and fires upon the YF-21 at multiple angles. In Macross Frontier, the VF-25 Messiah is shown flying in a similar manner while the twin head cannons are clearly firing and tracking the VF-27 Lucifer independent of the position of the VF-25 fighter itself.

I think much of this fan perception of a static head cannon stems from the fact that they are rarely "shown" moving upon their mounts; the audience only observes the obvious multi-angled effects of the blasts of laser or beam fire. But these are not 18th century ball cannons of wagon wheels. It's clear from their firing patterns that the head cannons are built upon movable mounts that angle independently of the craft and that these head cannons aren't restricted to a single, horizontal articulation.

As for the placement of the head unit itself, clearly the VF-1 head unit would induce significant drag and would be less passively stealthy than the later valkyries. In a drive to achieve more efficient designs, the head unit was likely moved to a more favourable location on the mecha to improve aerodynamics and stealth. Also, the addition of a dedicated rear-firing (and apparently semi-autonomous) weapon would only be an advantage in combat. Most of the later valkyries simply replaced the lack of a forward firing head turret with supplemental laser/beam guns, often mounted in the wing roots. The YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II, VF-17 Nightmare, VF-171 Nightmare Plus, VF-25 Messiah and VF-27 Lucifer all feature such additional laser/beam cannons for forward firing.

As for the feet, it's likely just a stylistic choice in most cases. Although the 3-dimensional thrust vectoring of many later valkyries would likely require some kind of eggshell-design rather than a block-design found on the VF-1 Valkyrie. This may account for the curved and spire-like feet of the VF-11 Thunderbolt and later valkyries. Obviously, the YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II, SV-51 and VF-27 Lucifer have 3-dimensional thrust vectoring achieved via triple deflection paddles.

Good explanation Small nitpick though, the thrust vectoring nozzles are 2D or even just 1D-- they can go up/down (always, except maybe VF-17), left/right (sometimes--the VF-1, VF-11, YF-19 etc probably can't do it) but not forward/back. Hence 2D thrust vectoring. Roll control is achieved by differential use of the up/down vectoring with each nozzle, and yaw control by differential thrust (for 1D nozzles i.e. YF-19)

Edited May 6, 2009 by edwin3060

[geepogi]

can an actual vf-0 or vf-1 transform to battroid in mid flight,

like in macross zero? i can imagine the large drag forces

and instability due to the legs swiveling downward, causing

the entire plane to veer off and the pilot to lose control.

Edited May 6, 2009 by geepogi

[peter]

can an actual vf-0 or vf-1 transform to battroid in mid flight,

like in macross zero? i can imagine the large drag forces

and instability due to the legs swiveling downward, causing

the entire plane to veer off and the pilot to lose control.

I thought that too, but isn't there some sort of transition period where the it slows down using the thrusters before full transformation?

My question about post VF1 Valks is why do all subsequent valks have pointed feet and heels.......almost as if they're wearing.....heels? I suppose the old Frankenstein looking blocked toes had to be changed for a more futuristic design......

Edited May 6, 2009 by peter

[edwin3060]

can an actual vf-0 or vf-1 transform to battroid in mid flight,

like in macross zero? i can imagine the large drag forces

and instability due to the legs swiveling downward, causing

the entire plane to veer off and the pilot to lose control.

Well, an actual VF-0 couldn't be built in the first place given our current technology, but I'd think that if we had the technology to build one, we would also be able to program the control software so that transformation wouldn't cause it to stall and crash into the ground immediately

[SchizophrenicMC]

Remember there was a speed limit on the VF-0. It couldn't transform at that speed, so Shin had to slow down.

Thinking about it, transformation would probably work, especially considering that it is possible to perform Pugachev's Cobra. Add to that precise thrust control, and...

Anyway, that's what I didn't like about the VF-1, was its lack of swing bar.

However, the VF-1 folds in half, drops its engines to vertical, retracts the nose, deploys the arms, and swings the wings to maximum.

The VF-25 is beyond me.

[Beltane70]

The VF-25's transformation isn't all that complex when you actually look at the process.

[anime52k8]

Anyway, that's what I didn't like about the VF-1, was its lack of swing bar.

However, the VF-1 folds in half, drops its engines to vertical, retracts the nose, deploys the arms, and swings the wings to maximum.

The VF-25 is beyond me.

the VF-25 is actually quite simple (excluding the arms). legs drop down and crotch folds over, nose folds over, swing bars pivit 180 degrees behind the cockpit then the backpack and chest fold in half and the wings fold back. really it's almost all simple hinges excpet for the sing arms which just rotate on a fixed axis.

[Mr March]

Watch akt_m's animation and you'll find the VF-25 transformation ridiculously simple. Watch it several times. It's amazing.

[edwin3060]

In fact the VF-25's transformation seems more sturdy to me than the VF-1 or YF-19, for example. But less sturdy than the VF-11, VF-17 or YF-21.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Even in Akt_M's animation, you see parts going through each other. While I guess you could chalk that up to a modelling error, it shows how little the margin for error is in it.

Moving from there, it has more hinges. Fewer moving parts, but more hinges. Those hinges can jam, and then, it's just a matter of which is stronger: ECA or the "Linear Actuators"

[VF5SS]

ECA doesn't have anything to do with the transformation.

[Mr March]

Agreed, energy conversion armor has nothing to do with transformation. And it's already been officially stated that linear actuators are faster, more reliable and result in a stronger battroid that traditional transformation systems. Linear actuators also reduce reliance on fragile mechanisms to transform. But all this was never in question.

As for akt_m's animation, it shows the transformation, nothing more. Clipping errors of the animation itself don't impact the VF-25 transformation anymore than the VF-1's amazing shrinking wings. We're still talking transformation simplicity and we can still count the articulating mechanisms, just like we do without benefit of animation when we examine the line art. Since we don't have transformation line art for the VF-25, it makes absolute accuracy impossible. For my part, I've come up with this:

Number of articulated mechanisms required to transform

VF-1 Valkyrie (total 26)

Head – angle and rotate (2)

Backpack (1)

Vertical Stabilizers (2)

Legs – displacement mechanisms (2)

Legs – upper leg joints (2)

Legs – hip joints (2)

Arms – sliding rails (2)

Arms – repositioning mechanisms (2)

Arms – rotation joints (2)

Fuselage – Slide (1)

Fuselage – Dorsal hatch for head (1)

Fuselage – fold over (2)

Fuselage – heat shield (1)

Nose – hip joint inserts (2)

Wings (2)

VF-25 Messiah (total 18)

Head (1)

Fuselage – forks/leading edge extensions (3)

Fuselage – nose (3)

Fuselage – rear (1)

Arms – shoulders (2)

Arms – rotation joints (2)

Legs – Hips (2)

Wings – fold down (2)

Wings – fold back (2)

Note, these are the bare minimum articulating mechanisms required to change modes. These lists do not include hands, feet, antenna, flaps, stabilizers or cosmetic articulating mechanisms not related to what is absolutely necessary to transform the variable fighter between modes.