Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Although the SHP (?) ratting for the reactors is up only 25%, the kW output for the auxiliary generator of the one used by the ADR-04-Mk.XV is upped over 86% over the Mk.X

It sounds impressive up to the point where you realize that 86% is 440KW, which is peanuts by Macross's standards.

That's 0.067% the output of a first-generation thermonuclear reaction turbine engine.

Though, we are not given the kW for the VF-turbines after the VF-1 to make a comparision for electrical potental, or the reactors output.

Yes, but we can say with reasonable confidence that they're at least as good as the VF-1's engines.

How much better they are depends on if generator output scales linearly with engine thrust the way it does in the Macross II mecha stats.

Though considering that no one seems to really want to improve them (let us face it, the VF are cooler and how many UN ads show off the 'droids?).

There also has not been a need to upgrade the reactor as much as the VFs due to them not having as many energy draining systems added to them.

To be frank, there's not really a lot of tactical advantage to destroids after the First Space War.

They're cheaper than a VF, sure, but they don't really have any practical offensive application in space combat because they're not flight-capable... and, for most ships, what they offer in terms of defensive ability can be achieved a lot cheaper via beam CIWS and AA missile launcher systems. They've got a bit of a potential niche in supplementing the air defenses of the largest emigrant ships, but otherwise they don't really have much to offer.

That, or what the EW (Electronic Warfare) package is suppose to do... considering said unit (assumed) has a 3rd gen active stealth system...

Now that one is easier to guess at... presumably, the EW ordinance container would contain incorporate a fold-wave radar and the other sensors common to most AEW, ELINT, and reconnaissance VFs of the period (UHF and VHF antennae, LIDAR and various other sensors).

I know we have talked heavily on stealth; though has there ever been a unit in Macross that was made to look either bigger than it was, or more numberous (by manipulating sensor retuned for false positives)?

Some of the older VF's have been known to carry FOTD systems for missile evasion... but other than that, nothing is really coming to mind.

Though I do have doubts (on what I know at the moment) that the YF-29 & YF-30 (or derivatives from) will make main-line VF status for the NUNS. because of the (supposed) rarity of the fold quartz in quantity for.mass production (considering that the YF-29 development was haulted in 2057, becuase of the lack of).

The scarcity of fold quartz is a matter that's going to affect all 5th Generation VF's (YF-24 and all derivatives thereof) because they use fold quartz in the ISC and other systems... but then again, humanity has at least one or two planets in its possession which are relatively rich in the stuff, and it's only a problem until humanity figures out how to artificially recreate the process the Vajra queens use to refine fold quartz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very likely, yes... there is precedent for civilian-level destroid-type vehicles being able to operate military-grade weaponry, such as ... the ground-based counterparts using heavy bazookas that look oddly like the RX-78-2's.

One wonders what weapons locker they found THOSE in. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seto, is there a site that lists the MW output of the MII VF engines? I'm not seeing it on M3, Sketchley's, or Macross Compendium.

As far as official numbers, the only power rating ever given to a variable fighter was for the VF-1 Valkyrie (being 650 MW per engine). Sadly, none of the other valkyrie engines have featured a power generation figure, including the MII mecha. At best, fans might try to extrapolate the engine power rating by comparing any VF with a known engine "thrust" rating to the VF-1 engines and adjusting "proportionally". But that's making a lot of assumptions not the least of which is that there is a perfectly identical proportional relationship between power generation and thrust for all VF engines. At the very least, you could strongly argue that the VF engines in each successive generation all producte more power than the VF-1 Valkyrie engines :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seto, is there a site that lists the MW output of the MII VF engines? I'm not seeing it on M3, Sketchley's, or Macross Compendium.

It's not on M3 yet, I don't have much time to edit the Compendium, and IIRC Macross II isn't really within what sketchley normally covers... in Yoshino's absence, I'm pretty much the only one digging deep into the old Macross II publications.

As far as official numbers, the only power rating ever given to a variable fighter was for the VF-1 Valkyrie (being 650 MW per engine). Sadly, none of the other valkyrie engines have featured a power generation figure, including the MII mecha.

That's not exactly true, man... I know we've discussed this before.

They don't cite an exact figure for the VF-2SS, but they do say it has three times the generator output of a VF-1 Valkyrie. It's even one of the few technical tidbits from the OVA that reached the west in English courtesy of Mikimoto's Macross II promo interview in Animerica.

(That's 3,900MW if you take the base VF-1 spec from the 90's on, or 10,200MW if you take the Sky Angels view that the 650MW of output on the VF-1 was nominal output and peak output was 1,700MW per engine1. The number should theoretically apply to the VF-XX, and possibly the Metal Siren as well, but not the VF-2JA due to the circumstances of its production.)

At best, fans might try to extrapolate the engine power rating by comparing any VF with a known engine "thrust" rating to the VF-1 engines and adjusting "proportionally". But that's making a lot of assumptions not the least of which is that there is a perfectly identical proportional relationship between power generation and thrust for all VF engines.

Considering how the engines function in space, there is actually some logical basis for assuming something like a linear trajectory in power-vs-performance... but as nothing is said about MHD efficiency on later craft, it's impossible to work backwards to a minimum-necessary generator output without assumptions2.

(This is one area where Chiba really shines... the VF-1's generator outputs actually are in the right range to produce the amount of thrust necessary to meet the design spec for engine output in space via the MHD. Instead of pulling a random number out of their butts, someone actually sat down and did the math to figure out what the generator requirements would be to plausibly create the amount of thrust in the stats. The efficiency is higher than the real world equivalent, but not unreasonably so, and the math still works.)

1. Macross Journal Extra: VF-1 Valkyrie Special Edition pg.41, FF-2001 engine diagram on lower half.

2. Just ballparking it, you'd need about 4,300MW per engine to produce the thrust the FF-3001 puts out in a "best case" condition... less if the efficiency has improved from the VF-1. The worst case is more like 32,400MW, so you see why we need to know the efficiency to get anywhere near a valid output.

Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not exactly true, man... I know we've discussed this before.

They don't cite an exact figure for the VF-2SS, but they do say it has three times the generator output of a VF-1 Valkyrie. It's even one of the few technical tidbits from the OVA that reached the west in English courtesy of Mikimoto's Macross II promo interview in Animerica.

(That's 3,900MW if you take the base VF-1 spec from the 90's on, or 10,200MW if you take the Sky Angels view that the 650MW of output on the VF-1 was nominal output and peak output was 1,700MW per engine1. The number should theoretically apply to the VF-XX, and possibly the Metal Siren as well, but not the VF-2JA due to the circumstances of its production.)

I think we talked about the Sky Angels stuff, but the VF-2SS engine power output is news to me. Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know. I've added this trivia (along with the citation for the sources) to the VF-2SS profiles. It will be in the next update for the M3.

Wish more official power ratings were given for the valkyries. I'd be curious to know how much power the newest engines generate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we talked about the Sky Angels stuff, but the VF-2SS engine power output is news to me. Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know. I've added this trivia (along with the citation for the sources) to the VF-2SS profiles. It will be in the next update for the M3.

There'll be more where that came from, I found a few more fun tidbits while I was looking up the citations for you.

I really do need to sit down and spend a weekend itemizing everything in all these books... seems like I spend more time looking for the right book than finding what I need in said book.

Wish more official power ratings were given for the valkyries. I'd be curious to know how much power the newest engines generate.

I wanna know how much power the VF-0 was getting out of those conventional turbines... that'd be the real measure of how energy-intensive some of the basic OTM used in VFs really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all this talk that I seemed to turned-up on power;
I did go looking for a real world formula to find out an answer for Seto Kaiba for the power generated from the EGF-127 conventional turbofan jet engines.

I know that 1 Hp = 0.746 kW, supposedly...

With simple equation1; I figured that the turbine were making about 9.280 kg (91.08 kN), 15180 kg (148.9 kN) w/ afterburner of thrust per... though after that point I got lost...

I found this atricle explaining the mathematics, though I do not underatnd the calulations to find the answer... frustates me to no-end considering I liked Algebra...

With the Shp (Shaft horsepower), it is easier to calculate the power from the reator turbines of the Destroids (assuing there is no gearbox between the turbine & magneto).
Although, that means the original series Four Destroids were barely producing more than 2 MW of power, with the MBR-07 generating nearly 2.4 MW & while the HWR-00 was cranking over a whopping 8.5 MW.
Even with the reactor upgrade, the ADR-04-Mk.XV is only producing roughly 2.6 MW of power. Comparing that to the reactor core of the FF-2001 (w/ 650 MW) seems vastly different, if my math is right...
That would also seem to imply that the auxillary generators are only strong enough to get the units off the battlefront in the event the main reactor goes down.

1. kg / kN = 101.93497621517221645981615937623
EDIT= corrected mW to MW, Thank you JBO :)

Edited by GuardianGrey
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Shp (Shaft horsepower), it is easier to calculate the power from the reator turbines of the Destroids (assuing there is no gearbox between the turbine & magneto).

Although, that means the original series Four Destroids were barely producing more than 2 mW of power, with the MBR-07 generating nearly 2.4 mW & while the HWR-00 was cranking over a whopping 8.5 mW.

Even with the reactor upgrade, the ADR-04-Mk.XV is only producing roughly 2.6 mW of power. Comparing that to the reactor core of the FF-2001 (w/ 650 mW) seems vastly different, if my math is right...

That would also seem to imply that the auxillary generators are only strong enough to get the units off the battlefront in the event the main reactor goes down.

Ummmmm.... Not to be a nitpicker, but I'm gonna be a nitpicker.

Metric prefixes are case-sensitive, so mW and MW mean different things.

mW is milliwatts, and two milliwatts isn't enough to light an LED. A laser pointer is 500 mW.

Yes, it's a terrible standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did go looking for a real world formula to find out an answer for Seto Kaiba for the power generated from the EGF-127 conventional turbofan jet engines.

I know that 1 Hp = 0.746 kW, supposedly...

With simple equation1; I figured that the turbine were making about 9.280 kg (91.08 kN), 15180 kg (148.9 kN) w/ afterburner of thrust per... though after that point I got lost...

Unfortunately, there's not really a direct correlation between the VF-0's deliverable thrust and its generator output thanks to the use of over-tuned conventional turbofan engines.

Going balls-out at altitude, a VF-0A/S is pumping out 30,367.15 kilograms-force (297.8kN) of thrust to keep the airframe moving at 808.848 meters per second. So the P in the equation is equal to F (297.8kN) * d (808.848m) / t (1sec), which means the power of the engines under those conditions is 240,874,934N·m/s (or J/s). That's equivalent to 240.9MW, rounded up, but that's the motive power of the airframe at peak output. The generator power is going to be considerably less than that, because it's probably in the high-pressure compressor stage, and gas turbine generators tend to be less than 50% efficient.

Assuming the VF-0's EGF-127 turbofans are on a roughly equal footing to the modern Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofan used on the F-22A, that'd give us an approximate efficiency of 40% and therefore a peak output of about 48.175MW per engine. That's a heck of an assumption though, since the efficiency could be as low as 35% (42.153MW/engine) if the engine is not particularly well cooled... or it could even exceed the near-perfect-world 60% efficiency (72.262MW/engine) if there's OTM at play in the generator itself or its thermal system via room temperature superconductors and other supermaterials.

That's an awful lot of variance in the range... a delta of 41% means that any guess I made in that range would be little better than throwing darts at the wall while blindfolded, and three sheets to the wind on cheap tequila. Still, ~48MW/engine at peak output isn't that much to play with, and that means ECA alone could potentially be consuming anywhere from 76MW to 130MW to beef up that inch or so of composite armor into something equivalent to a meter-plus thickness of RHA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So Seto, Do you have any information on the XVF-19-1? The Airframe itself looks like a VF-11 with the YF-19's FSW's but what about the engines and other systems? I saw it in my master file book but I can't read it (yet), so I have no idea what it says. And would that be a valid idea to revisit for an AVF upgrade?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Seto, Do you have any information on the XVF-19-1? The Airframe itself looks like a VF-11 with the YF-19's FSW's but what about the engines and other systems? I saw it in my master file book but I can't read it (yet), so I have no idea what it says. And would that be a valid idea to revisit for an AVF upgrade?

A little, but then a little is really all there is.

The XVF-19-1 is a forward-swept wing evaluation/test plane made by retrofitting a VF-11 Thunderbolt airframe, which was used for CFD test verification and for data collection during the earliest phases of the YF-19's development using the ANGIRAS-GWF204 avionics package (the same one, IIRC, that was used in the YF-19-1, YF-19-2 and later used ARIEL-α). It was completed in September 2038, but as an ad-hoc machine it was unable to transform to battroid mode.

There were something like fourteen test builds done, to validate various features like the flight control system, the YF-19's APHS-94 radar, and a rather problematic test build of the FF-2200 engine the YF-19-1 used designated FF-2199.1.00 that experienced problems during test flights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little, but then a little is really all there is.

The XVF-19-1 is a forward-swept wing evaluation/test plane made by retrofitting a VF-11 Thunderbolt airframe, which was used for CFD test verification and for data collection during the earliest phases of the YF-19's development using the ANGIRAS-GWF204 avionics package (the same one, IIRC, that was used in the YF-19-1, YF-19-2 and later used ARIEL-α). It was completed in September 2038, but as an ad-hoc machine it was unable to transform to battroid mode.

There were something like fourteen test builds done, to validate various features like the flight control system, the YF-19's APHS-94 radar, and a rather problematic test build of the FF-2200 engine the YF-19-1 used designated FF-2199.1.00 that experienced problems during test flights.

Ah, ok. Thanks for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to bring some attention to the YF-29, and the fact that it is carrying a ton of missiles. How many exactly, and is that to be expected from Current Gen AVFs?

The YF-29 (and presumably YF-29B) has an internal micro-missile capacity of 100 micro-missiles, spread out across twelve Bifors MBL-02S launcher systems.

The YF-30 stats don't say how many missiles are in the ordinance container, but my educated guess based on the usual habits for micro-missile launchers in Macross is 3 missiles per launcher port for a total of 108.

As the YF-29 and, to a lesser extent, the YF-30 tentatively fall into the rough category of "Super Prototypes" (ala Gundam), I'm not sure if I could classify those missile counts as "expected" from a current-gen VF. The current (5th) generation's production-level platforms don't seem to carry nearly that much ordinance internally. The VF-25 has none at all (but stacks on hundreds of micro-missiles via its Super or Armored Packs), and the VF-27 only has the four launchers on those outer engine pods, but with its Super Pack it probably reaches the same territory as the YF-29.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 27's engine nacelles are kind of slender, but I'm willing to bet there's more than 12 micro-missiles in there. Perhaps 30 per nacelle. The engine can go in the bottom, where the intake is, and the missiles can be stored wrapped around the 35mm gun and its ammo. Sound reasonable?

Edit: the nacelles are also really long, more than half as long as the Lucifer itself.

Edited by Sildani
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the weirdest thing just happened reading Sildani's post; I some how thought there might be a correlation between the 35mm caliber of the VF-27 Lucifer Heavy Beam guns in those engine wing pods and the unknown caliber of "large beam guns" on the forward engine pods of the VF-4 Lightning III. We've never been provided with a caliber for those VF-4 weapons, but they look very similar in both position and design to the VF-27's weapons. Plus both are supposed to be major beam weapons for a valkyrie, either described as "heavy" or "large" respectively. So the VF-4 guns could very well be 35mm beam weapons.

Edited by Mr March
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 27's engine nacelles are kind of slender, but I'm willing to bet there's more than 12 micro-missiles in there. Perhaps 30 per nacelle. The engine can go in the bottom, where the intake is, and the missiles can be stored wrapped around the 35mm gun and its ammo. Sound reasonable?

Edit: the nacelles are also really long, more than half as long as the Lucifer itself.

Probably, yes... these airframes are much, MUCH larger than the original VF-1. Three and twelve are numbers that the creators of Macross seem to like to fall back on when micro-missiles and cramped spaces are involved. My guess would be there's likely a pallet's worth of micro-missiles in each engine nacelle, possibly two since it's a General Galaxy plane. (That's put 24 in each.)

Oh the weirdest thing just happened reading Sildani's post; I some how thought there might be a correlation between the 35mm caliber of the VF-27 Lucifer Heavy Beam guns in those engine wing pods and the unknown caliber of "large beam guns" on the forward engine pods of the VF-4 Lightning III. We've never been provided with a caliber for those VF-4 weapons, but they look very similar in both position and design to the VF-27's weapons. Plus both are supposed to be major beam weapons for a valkyrie, either described as "heavy" or "large" respectively. So the VF-4 guns could very well be 35mm beam weapons.

Once, a long time ago, I recall seeing the bore for the VF-4's particle beam cannons cited as 60mm... the number stuck with me, but I can't for the life of me remember the source. Sometimes, one source is all these numbers are ever cited in. B-Club Magazine #73, for instance, is the only source I know of that gives a bore for the RO-X2A double-action beam cannon used in the VF-1's Strike and Double Strike pack configurations... 180mm, mentioned almost as an afterthought on page 8 of the "Super Aircraft" featurette there.

How does calibre relate to an energy weapon again? That confuses me greatly.

It doesn't, really... except perhaps in that a larger bore usually means a larger, and therefore more powerful, weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Here's something else that was interesting on the fusion power front.

Stellerator Reactor.

Might provide some insight into how a Thermonuclear reaction engine might work, in addition to the information we have from the technical books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of disappointed in this video... they didn't even get 60 seconds in before accuracy went out the window.

Like any other form of power generation technology, fusion reactors require fuel... the reactants that are fused to produce the energy. Without reactants, you're not going to have a reaction, so the statement about "a next generation of airplanes that doesn't rely on fuel" is pure BS. Likewise, that bit about fusion engines offering "unlimited range, unlimited endurance" is also BS... the fusion reaction can only be sustained for as long as there is reactant to fuse to maintain critical temperature/pressure inside the reactor, after which point it will no longer be possible to sustain the reaction. The range might be long enough to be "effectively unlimited" for practical purposes, like multiple flights around the world, but eventually you WILL run out of reactant and have to refuel. You might get a couple of weeks of continuous flight time, but that's about it.

Lockheed Martin really ought to have someone proofread this stuff before they use it to shoot an informational video.

Here's something else that was interesting on the fusion power front.

Stellerator Reactor.

Might provide some insight into how a Thermonuclear reaction engine might work, in addition to the information we have from the technical books.

I'm not sure there's really a parallel there... the tokamak and stellerator are both thermally-catalyzed magnetic confinement reactors, the thermonuclear reaction overtechnology is moderated and catalyzed gravitationally... and, by design, they're not fussed about maintaining the temperature of the plasma stream past the reaction chamber because it's going to become engine exhaust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of disappointed in this video... they didn't even get 60 seconds in before accuracy went out the window.

Like any other form of power generation technology, fusion reactors require fuel... the reactants that are fused to produce the energy. Without reactants, you're not going to have a reaction, so the statement about "a next generation of airplanes that doesn't rely on fuel" is pure BS. Likewise, that bit about fusion engines offering "unlimited range, unlimited endurance" is also BS... the fusion reaction can only be sustained for as long as there is reactant to fuse to maintain critical temperature/pressure inside the reactor, after which point it will no longer be possible to sustain the reaction. The range might be long enough to be "effectively unlimited" for practical purposes, like multiple flights around the world, but eventually you WILL run out of reactant and have to refuel. You might get a couple of weeks of continuous flight time, but that's about it.

Lockheed Martin really ought to have someone proofread this stuff before they use it to shoot an informational video.

Remember this video was made for the layperson. Even Nuclear Submarines need to refuel eventually, so yeah.

I'm not sure there's really a parallel there... the tokamak and stellerator are both thermally-catalyzed magnetic confinement reactors, the thermonuclear reaction overtechnology is moderated and catalyzed gravitationally... and, by design, they're not fussed about maintaining the temperature of the plasma stream past the reaction chamber because it's going to become engine exhaust.

While true, gravity, much like magnetism, occurs in a field, and that might give us some insight into how the TN reaction in the Turbine is happening. And might help us understand it through some good old human know how.

Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember this video was made for the layperson. Even Nuclear Submarines need to refuel eventually, so yeah.

True, but I'm a layperson too... heck, I didn't even take physics in high school or college, and I saw the problem right away.

You'd think someone, somewhere along the line would've noticed they were describing something that was literally impossible to achieve... an engine that doesn't need fuel and has unlimited endurance means you've invented perpetual motion, and even grade school kids (or anyone who's watched Mythbusters) know that doesn't work.

While true, gravity, much like magnetism, occurs in a field, and that might give us some insight into how the TN reaction in the Turbine is happening. And might help us understand it through some good old human know how.

Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not valid.

Perhaps in the sense that it's a ring-topology reaction... but you'd probably get closer to the heart of the thermonuclear reaction turbine concept reading about stellar nucleosynthesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed he was exaggerating for effect. Especially as the whole thing had an advertisement feel to it.

That's kinda what I was getting at.

Perhaps in the sense that it's a ring-topology reaction... but you'd probably get closer to the heart of the thermonuclear reaction turbine concept reading about stellar nucleosynthesis.

That's kinda what I'm getting at, except that you have to remember that it is a turbine so you'd need the ring topology around the turbine shaft. Gravity might be the way the reaction is started and maintained, but don't get so hung up on that that you miss out on a good idea or possible explanation, just because it's not explicitly stated. There is a ton of vagueness in much of the technologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I've been on here, just moved into a new apartment and I started unpacking my Macross Collection. But I've always loved this community, so I'm back.

If you were to pick a design from any Macross product (Show, movie, game etc...) To bring up to Advanced Variable Fighter specs, which one would you choose?

I'll kick it off. I'd probably choose the VF-0, since it was the first, UN Varibale fighter to see deployment, It seems logical. That and the fact that it has the original feel with the more modern design cues, it kinda begs to be brought up to spec.

vf-5000

Link to post
Share on other sites

vf-5000

Ditto, VF-5000.

Just curious, why? And given space constraints, how? I've been on a bit of a battletech kick, so building loadouts has been my thing right now, so I'm just curious.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...