Jump to content

Macross Δ (Delta) Mecha/Technology Thread - READ 1st POST


azrael
 Share

Recommended Posts

And more energy to armor in battroid, yes?

In general yes, the engines put more power to the ECA in battroid in almost all models. 5th generation models though, seen in Frontier and Delta, are the first to employ ECA in all modes though due to the Stage II Thermonuclear Reaction Burst Turbine Engines. Apparently though there is still a limit in fighter and gerwalk though and Battroid still gets the most armor strength (since Fighter and Gerwalk both use more engine energy for actual flight). Theoretically the battroid can trade some armor energy for faster movement too, and likely does on a whim during high speed maneuvers, and it is likely automatically snapped back up to full armor power when it stops thrusting so much. Automatically controlled by the flight AI I'd expect to the point where the pilot doesn't even have to think about it, they just have to know the more they move, the less protected they might be, but they also are harder to hit due to moving. It's a rather genius compliment and frankly is likely the basis of Max's entire combat skill. He just knows when he is at his most defended and when is the best time to be moving or not.

For generation 1-4 this is mostly true of Battroid mode, and the other modes are best utilized primarily for movement or specific weapons (such as missiles) being better available. Gen 5 makes it a factor in all modes and technically adds a level of complexity to VF piloting that is pretty cool IMO. If anything it makes it even more appropriate to frequently mode change.

Also worth noting are the outliers like the YF-29, 30, and perhaps the 24 depending on how monstrously powerful it really is. The 29 and 30 have special systems, the Fold Wave and FDR, which add more power to them, such that they can have 100% ECA coverage in all 3 modes, which means no trade offs. No one knows if the 24 really has that capability, but since the 29 with the Fold Wave system is likely the closest to matching the 24's supposed capabilities one could surmise as much (for the record, that is not meant to imply the 24 has a fold wave system or anything similar, it likely doesn't... but then again who knows).

Edited by Master Dex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting are the outliers like the YF-29, 30, and perhaps the 24 depending on how monstrously powerful it really is. The 29 and 30 have special systems, the Fold Wave and FDR, which add more power to them, such that they can have 100% ECA coverage in all 3 modes, which means no trade offs. No one knows if the 24 really has that capability, but since the 29 with the Fold Wave system is likely the closest to matching the 24's supposed capabilities one could surmise as much (for the record, that is not meant to imply the 24 has a fold wave system or anything similar, it likely doesn't... but then again who knows).

100% in all three modes really? That's insane. Are these the only craft that can do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% in all three modes really? That's insane. Are these the only craft that can do this?

Not sure about a vanilla 24. VF-27, YF-29, and Oroboros' YF-30 (likely not a vanilla YF-30) can all do it. The VF-27 and YF-29 get the boost in power from having 4 engines. A YF-29 would still be able to do it if it didn't have a Fold Wave System. Alto's YF-29 was a modified version with the Fold Wave system so we should probably look at it in a vanilla flavor, without the Fold Wave system. The YF-30 with the FDR system can. Without it, the YF-30 would likely be a "No".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And more energy to armor in battroid, yes?

Yep... unless the fighter in question is outfitted with a fold wave system or fold dimensional resonance system, or a four-engine configuration using Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines.

5th generation models though, seen in Frontier and Delta, are the first to employ ECA in all modes though due to the Stage II Thermonuclear Reaction Burst Turbine Engines.

There's no "burst" in the name of the Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines. The thermonuclear reaction burst turbine engines were the previous generation engine model that replaced the initial thermonuclear reaction turbine engines and were in turn replaced by the Stage II thermonuclear reaction turbine engines.

Apparently though there is still a limit in fighter and gerwalk though and Battroid still gets the most armor strength (since Fighter and Gerwalk both use more engine energy for actual flight).

It's a lot more limited than that.

The stock 2-engine 5th Generation VF has enough surplus generator output to run only light energy conversion armor around vital areas like the cockpit and the engines. GERWALK mode and Battroid mode enjoy boosted armor strength for the entire airframe.

The VF-27's 4-engine configuration enabled it to optionally run its energy conversion armor and pin-point barrier in fighter mode, though it isn't clear if the generator surplus is sufficient to fully power the armor or if that all-around coverage is at a reduced level vs. battroid mode.

VFs like the YF-29, YF-30, and VF-31 Siegfried Custom are able to fully power their energy conversion armor in all modes because their generator output is supplemented by the fold wave system or fold dimensional resonance system providing energy directly from super dimension space. (This, of course, is bank-breakingly expensive and not widely applied.)

100% in all three modes really? That's insane. Are these the only craft that can do this?

Aye, 100% in all three modes if you've got a fold wave or fold dimensional resonance system supplementing (or outright replacing) generator output from the engines with energy drawn from super dimension space.

As noted above, the YF-29, YF-30, and the Siegfried version of the VF-31 can all do this by virtue of being equipped with either a fold wave system or a fold dimensional resonance system. Whether the Sv-262 is able to do this is unclear, since its reheat system is a sort of poor man's fold wave system to improve engine performance... it's not mentioned if it has dimensional energy conversion capabilities too.

VF-27, YF-29, and Oroboros' YF-30 (likely not a vanilla YF-30) can all do it. The VF-27 and YF-29 get the boost in power from having 4 engines.

At present, there is no indication of any YF-30 besides the one on Uroboros... which was apparently economized significantly to make the VF-31. (Curiously, the VF-4 Master File makes brief mention of a VF-30... so the original model may have made it into mass production after all.)

A YF-29 would still be able to do it if it didn't have a Fold Wave System.

See the above about the VF-27's armor... it could run the armor, certainly, but at full power without a fold wave system? That's not clear.

Alto's YF-29 was a modified version with the Fold Wave system so we should probably look at it in a vanilla flavor, without the Fold Wave system.

No source I am aware of has described the fold wave system as anything other than a standard feature of the YF-29 (and presumably YF-29B).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MID-POST EDIT: I began writing most of the below before Seto posted, so he covers a lot of this ground, and typically, a bit better than I, but I'm leaving most of my original writing that doesn't mistakenly contradict his, as he certainly knows more (and we are in agreement anyway). My writing below does imply that having 4 engines isn't as important, which is kinda debunked by Seto already, but my point was more that it was the fold wave and/or FDR that is what made the difference in the YF-29 and 30 and why they had 100% ECA in all modes, and that part I was correct on. I'll accept that I underestimated the advantage provided by the extra engines, but I agree that they might not be enough alone to provide full ECA.

And the burst thing was an honest mistake on my part, I simply was not as well versed in the nomenclature of the different engine versions. Thanks for the correction Seto.

Not sure about a vanilla 24. VF-27, YF-29, and Oroboros' YF-30 (likely not a vanilla YF-30) can all do it. The VF-27 and YF-29 get the boost in power from having 4 engines. A YF-29 would still be able to do it if it didn't have a Fold Wave System. Alto's YF-29 was a modified version with the Fold Wave system so we should probably look at it in a vanilla flavor, without the Fold Wave system. The YF-30 with the FDR system can. Without it, the YF-30 would likely be a "No".

There is no sense in talking about vanilla YF-29 and 30 as those don't even exist. The point of both models is that they are special variants and tech demonstrators for the fold wave and FDR respectively. The 29 isn't special because it has 4 engines, it is the fold wave system. Though having 4 engines does contribute to its massive power for sure. The only possible exception to that fact may be the YF-29B Rod Custom that NUNS Havamal built on Oroboros because we literally know next to nothing about it except that it is based on the Frontier YF-29 design and is supposedly an upgrade to the design, and thus is likely even a bit more powerful. This implies it still has a fold wave system too. Plus, it is operating on planet with so much fold quartz around, it wouldn't be hard to imagine they were able to get some for it.

The same goes for the YF-30, there isn't a vanilla YF-30 because it was developed to demonstrate the FDR, and there is only the one production unit of it. The VF-31 is based on the design, but it not a direct development from it. There may even be an as yet unrevealed YF-31 similar to how there was a YF-25 still yet based on the original YF-24 data. If there is a vanilla model to talk about, it would be a YF-31. That said, The VF-31 Kairos likely doesn't have fold wave and likely can't do full power ECA coverage, but the VF-31 Seigfried customs do and may be able to do that. They are simply just not as overpowered as the YF-29, and that is due to having less engines.

Additionally, the VF-27 isn't considered to be super powered due to having 4 engines.. more like it has 4 engines because it is an egregious power waster. It needs the extra engines just to supply the power for the heavy quantum beam rifle it uses, and to achieve performance that outclasses the VF-25, which it only can achieve because it was designed to by flown by cyborgs who are more resilient than your average meatbag pilot (and that is with ISC functionality even). On a sliding scale of power rating, the VF-27 sits somewhere in between the VF-25 (lower) and the YF-29 (notably higher). 29 and 30 also use the same type of beam rifle, and the 29 has 4 engines to help with it as well, but both models also use dimensional energy conversion as well which just makes it easier (and may be the only reason the 30 can). I'd imagine the beam gunpod on the VF-31 is less powerful overall, but since Seigfrieds do have fold wave it might be just as good. The Kairos is the real question there, heh.

Finally the note on the 24 is mostly just because it is implied that the Federal NUNS version might be as or more powerful than the YF-29, but we don't really know anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At present, there is no indication of any YF-30 besides the one on Uroboros... which was apparently economized significantly to make the VF-31. (Curiously, the VF-4 Master File makes brief mention of a VF-30... so the original model may have made it into mass production after all.)

That makes me really curious. I imagine the VF-31, being significantly pared down from the YF-30 design, likely had a YF-31 predecessor much like how there was a YF-25 based itself on the YF-24 data before a VF-25 was produced. As such it is not unreasonable to assume a production model based on the YF-30 directly would be VF-30. The only thing that begs to question is, does that mean there is a production VF with working FDR systems? Might that be a limited run like the VF-31 Seigfrieds, or perhaps Federal NUNS capitalizing on the design data of SMS's new toy?

I suppose we might find out some day, if a VF-30 is referenced in the VF-4 master file, which I heard also implies the next book will be about the VF-31, then that book may give us the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly agree, but have two objection:

a) It is not true the VF-31 is pared down from the YF-30. That is like saying the VF-0 is superior to the VF-1 because the later was simpler and way smaller. Side by side, FDR powered Siegfrieds have more thrust than YF-30 when counting the 15% increase, sitting both between VF-25 and VF-27 power. Even the Kairos doesn't fall so far behind. Engine technology of 2067 hasn't reached the point where two engines provide the thrust of four 2058 engines. But it will: just compare the output of a single VF-171EX engine with the total VF-11D output (662.18kN vs 2x310.98kN). It is a similar situation with real world F-35 engine having a dry thrust on par of the *two* F-15 engines.

b) If the FDR requires a fold quartz per engine, it makes sense to boost engine performance, as YF-30 and VF-31 Siegfried need half the crystals than YF-29. Wonder if out of universe SV-262 is Kawamori first attempt at a one engine Valkyrie. A F-35 like fodder valkyrie with VF-22 type legs, or something like that.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the burst thing was an honest mistake on my part, I simply was not as well versed in the nomenclature of the different engine versions. Thanks for the correction Seto.

No problemo... the "thermonuclear reaction burst turbine" isn't a term often used. Macross the Ride threw it around a lot, and Macross 30's voiceover actually did throw it out rather blatantly at one point, but it's usually a "blink and you'll miss it" kind of affair.

(As a fun note, it appears that the easiest way to tell the engine type apart is the model number. Each block of engine types seems to start with __99, the initial one being FF-1999 for the QF-3000 Ghost, while thermonuclear reaction burst turbines started at FF-2099 from the VF-16 and VF-11MAXL, and Stage II engines appear to have started with FF-2999, for which an upgraded model was used on the Sv-262.)

There is no sense in talking about vanilla YF-29 and 30 as those don't even exist.

If someone wanted to be a smartarse, the point could be made that Isamu's YF-29 from Macross 30 was a vanilla-colored YF-29.

The only possible exception to that fact may be the YF-29B Rod Custom that NUNS Havamal built on Oroboros because we literally know next to nothing about it except that it is based on the Frontier YF-29 design and is supposedly an upgrade to the design, and thus is likely even a bit more powerful.

IIRC didn't that one have the fold wave system as its Box 3 weapon in-game?

That said, The VF-31 Kairos likely doesn't have fold wave and likely can't do full power ECA coverage, but the VF-31 Seigfried customs do and may be able to do that.

We know for relatively certain (thanks Great Mechanics G) that the Kairos does not have a fold wave system or any fold quartz-based subsystems except its ISC.

a) It is not true the VF-31 is pared down from the YF-30. That is like saying the VF-0 is superior to the VF-1 because the later was simpler and way smaller.

Given the parts commonality between the two, I'd argue it is a fair statement since the Kairos and Siegfried are using detuned versions of YF-30 parts with performance differences in excess of 10%.

b) If the FDR requires a fold quartz per engine, it makes sense to boost engine performance, as YF-30 and VF-31 Siegfried need half the crystals than YF-29. Wonder if out of universe SV-262 is Kawamori first attempt at a one engine Valkyrie.

The Draken III only superficially looks like a single-engine VF... it does in fact have two FF-2999/FC2 engines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for making it appear I was stating the SV-262 is one engine only. I knew it is not, that is why I bothered to state `first attempt`. Anyway, it may be that I have not played the game, but stats on hand, unless the YF-30 have a similar 15% boost, the VF-31 Siegfried is capable of greater engine output than the YF-30, 2x2156.25kN vs 2x2110kN

Siegfried are using detuned versions of YF-30 parts with performance differences in excess of 10%.

Proof? Only point where the YF-30 is clearly superior to the Siegfrieds is weight. The YF-30 is lighter and have no cannon other than the pod.. Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, it may be that I have not played the game, but stats on hand, unless the YF-30 have a similar 15% boost, the VF-31 Siegfried is capable of greater engine output than the YF-30, 2x2156.25kN vs 2x2110kNProof?

The YF-30 Chronos and VF-31 Kairos/Siegfried use the same engine... but the version used by the Kairos and Siegfried has been detuned 12.5% (1,875kN vs 2,110kN). Given that one of the only stated details of the fold dimensional resonance system is that it outclasses the fold wave system of the YF-29, even if the increase in thrust provided by the overboost mode was the same 15% the YF-30 would be producing more thrust because of the greater capability the base engine offers. (The YF-30 is also capable of independently penetrating fold faults, an option no other fighter has.)

Only point where the YF-30 is clearly superior to the Siegfrieds is weight. The YF-30 is lighter and have no cannon other than the pod..

The YF-30 Chronos is only a technology demonstrator as seen in Macross 30, but with less mass, 12.5% more engine power, a superior version of the fold wave system that grants independent ability to penetrate fold fault barriers, and the heavy quantum beam rifle the fighter was equipped with for live combat was a MDE beam rifle (one megadeath nastier than what the VF-31 has.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The YF-30 Chronos and VF-31 Kairos/Siegfried use the same engine... ... Given that one of the only stated details of the fold dimensional resonance system is that it outclasses the fold wave system of the YF-29, even if the increase in thrust provided by the overboost mode was the same 15% the YF-30 would be producing more thrust because of the greater capability the base engine offers.

True, but you seem to be oblivious to the first words you used yourself: it is the same engine. It also uses a folding system. Given those two facts, when considered together, would hint that the YF-30 2110kN per engine, so similar to the VF-31 stats in overboost, would in fact point that those 2110kN already accounts for overboost. Further indirect proof is that the Kairos, without fold system but using the same engine, have no overboost capability.

The YF-30 Chronos is only a technology demonstrator as seen in Macross 30, but with less mass ,... a superior version of the fold wave system that grants independent ability to penetrate fold fault barriers, and the heavy quantum beam rifle the fighter was equipped with for live combat was a MDE beam rifle (one megadeath nastier than what the VF-31 has.)

It is no surprise, however. Almost every prototype in the Macross universe is lighter than its production version (VF-19 being the only exception so far). Even IRL that is no surprise: production model tend to use prototype stage to see what can be simplified or made with cheaper, less exotic, heavier materials without impacting performance too much. Also, prototypes are usually not fully militarized, using off the self equipment, not having the final radar system or avionics or no full weaponry capability. Unless you have a superb field engineer that cobbles all together and crosses fingers about the thing not disassembling mid-flight.

I have no objection over the special issue fold system, other than its usefulness being limited to a few unusual places in the galaxy. Unusual for the time being.

I have, however, about the rifle, as any other Valkyrie could use rifles made for other models (although not any ever issued). Your point here is that the YF-30 engines have a real peak power output of 2426.5 kN or greater to power such a rifle. I do not agree without further data.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but you seem to be oblivious to the first words you used yourself: it is the same engine. It also uses a folding system. Given those two facts, when considered together, would hint that the YF-30 2110kN per engine, so similar to the VF-31 stats in overboost, would in fact point that those 2110kN already accounts for overboost.

There are a few significant problems with your reasoning here.

The first is that, while it may be the same engine, the version the VF-31s are fitted with is a significantly detuned version... so it's the same engine, but the performance is not the same.

The second is that the YF-30's 2,110kN is NOT presented as being the engine's boosted output, but as the rated performance of the engine itself... the same as the VF-31's 1,875kN. The only logical interpretation of the stats is it is NOT accounting for the improvement provided by the fold dimensional resonance system.

Also, prototypes are usually not fully militarized, using off the self equipment, not having the final radar system or avionics or no full weaponry capability.

This is true of experimental and early prototype aircraft... but the ones that have featured in Macross stories have been pretty uniformly the late or final prototypes which were built to full or near-full military spec using the production-intent materials and hardware.

The VF-X-11 No.2 that was appropriated by the Dancing Skulls for a rescue op became the final production spec for the VF-11A. The YF-19 No.2 prototype in Project Super Nova was practically identical to the initial VF-19A Excalibur production model. The YF-21 No.2 didn't change a hell of a lot either, given that most of the changes were to the control system. The YF-25 Prophecy also was pretty much full military spec except for the special monitor turret for data recording.

The YF-27-5 probably doesn't count because even though it was nowhere near the military spec for the VF-27, it was still fully combat-ready and was made with an intention to mislead people about the capabilities of the true VF-27...

The YF-30 was, by all accounts, a full custom-fab job by the Uroboros AWDAP facility in partnership with Shinsei and LAI. The only part I'm aware of that was "off the shelf" was the Ariel II "Brunhilde" super-AI control package off the VF-25.

(It's a safe bet the VF-31 is also an Ariel II platform, but I wonder if it's also using the Brunhilde build or if Surya came up with their own software to drive the flight control system?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound rude or anything but this is driving me nuts as a an aircraft mechanic. Jet engines are trimmed not tuned. The engine performance is controlled by an engine computer. It most cases the computer is set at certain thrust settings but can be trimmed up or down if required to provide more thrust (usually at the engineers blessing and usually for testing purposes normally.) Anyway carry on with the thread.....

Edited by grigolosi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please be rude. One of the reasons my English is so bad and I am editing my posts so much is because fear of rudeness avoided pointing me mistakes that have thoroughly increased through the years in my posts. It happens even in my mother tongue as I slowly forget the teachings.

Auto-correction does not solve the issue if the mistakes are grammatical rather than typographical.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound rude or anything but this is driving me nuts as a an aircraft mechanic. Jet engines are trimmed not tuned. The engine performance is controlled by an engine computer. It most cases the computer is set at certain thrust settings but can be trimmed up or down if required to provide more thrust (usually at the engineers blessing and usually for testing purposes normally.) Anyway carry on with the thread.....

Now that's interesting. If the "detuning" or trimming is just a software thing, and the engines are the same, couldn't Chaos or whoever theoretically (legally or not) re-write the software so that the -31Sigs are back up to -30 specs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aires in no way was I implying your English. The term tuned has been used repeatedly in macross itself. Primarily because the producers of course don't have first hand knowledge. I wasn't aiming it at you or anyone in general. I was just trying to correct a long term miss use of the term.

The older engines actually have nechanical controls also that are adjusted simply through turns made with a small Allen stock key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's interesting. If the "detuning" or trimming is just a software thing, and the engines are the same, couldn't Chaos or whoever theoretically (legally or not) re-write the software so that the -31Sigs are back up to -30 specs?

Theoretically, yes. However there must be a reason they were trimmed down to their current spec in the first place. Perhaps the changes to the airframe in the 31 vs the 30 make the higher thrust less economical or efficient. Perhaps it is that the 30 simply needs a higher trim to run, which might mean the 31 is actually a better airframe (the 31A for sure, which is closest to the 30, does end up looking nicer but that is just an aesthetic thing). The reasons are unclear, but the effect is clear, the YF-30 has a higher thrust rating than the VF-31, despite having the same engines, and regardless of the FDR system on the 30.

I'm with you Grig, though. I am also a jet engine mechanic (when I am not being an aerospace engineer, long story) so the distinction is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound rude or anything but this is driving me nuts as a an aircraft mechanic.

There may be some method to their madness, I will elaborate below.

Jet engines are trimmed not tuned. The engine performance is controlled by an engine computer. It most cases the computer is set at certain thrust settings but can be trimmed up or down if required to provide more thrust (usually at the engineers blessing and usually for testing purposes normally.)

Granted, that's the case normally... but the choice of "tuning" carries a much broader set of implications than "trimming" does, and I don't think they're misusing the term. (This is coming from my work as a powertrain development engineer in the auto industry, mainly, but also a bit of my experience in robotics.)

What you call "trimming" is also commonly referred to in other applications as "chip tuning": changing the engine control software calibrations stored in the engine control unit's EEPROM. The engine itself isn't changed, but the way its software behaves can be altered by changing timings, pressure limits, etc. for improved or diminished performance.

The term "tuning" also encompasses "performance tuning" as well... in which an engine's hardware, software, and calibrations can all be modified to increase aspects of the engine's performance (usually at the expense of other areas of performance). It's this that I think they mean when they use "tuned" to refer to modified engines. Physically modifying the engine for increased power, for greater fuel efficiency, for greater generator output, etc. (or the reverse, like the VF-171's FF-2110X engines).

I think it's particularly likely that there are changes to the engine hardware and software in cases where they refer to tuning... especially given that many cases are engines of diminished performance intended for export, and the NUNG wouldn't want to make it so easy for the people buying the export engines to recal them for the same output as the federal NUNS fighters have. I wouldn't put it past them to write-protect the engine control software as well, so an engine couldn't be rebuilt to federal NUNS spec and still function normally.

Now that's interesting. If the "detuning" or trimming is just a software thing, and the engines are the same, couldn't Chaos or whoever theoretically (legally or not) re-write the software so that the -31Sigs are back up to -30 specs?

If it's just a calibrations thing, then the engine cals could be reprogrammed or reset to increase the performance of the detuned engine.

If the tuning extended to changes to the engine's hardware and software, that would be much, MUCH harder to reverse. As noted above, I suspect this is what was done to export model engines... and why, when aircraft that were using a detuned engine model were upgraded they outright replaced the engines with a new model. (The VF-171EX.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's particularly likely that there are changes to the engine hardware and software in cases where they refer to tuning...

And I disagree again, because we already have a case where the same engine is slightly different hardware wise: the FF-3001.

The variant the VF-25 uses is the FF-3001A Stage II, while the one mounted in *both* the YF-30 and VF-31 is the FF-3001/FC2 Stage II. There is obviously a performance difference between the VF-25 mounted one and the YF-30's, and the change in designation reflects something more than a mere change in FADEC software. However, both YF-30 and VF-31 engines have the *exact* same designation. Any difference is thus software only. And I provided already an alternative explanation: nowhere is stated that YF-30 figures are base figures for the engine. I do agree it isn't stated anywhere those power rating include a 15% boost increase either. *I* have not enough data to assure that you are right. And neither do you.

Kawamori also has a method to his madness, like doubling engine output every 15 years, give or take.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I disagree again, because we already have a case where the same engine is slightly different hardware wise: the FF-3001.

At the risk of pointing out a hole in your reasoning, you're assuming the FF-3001A and FF-3001/FC2 are only slightly different. That isn't a fact.

However, both YF-30 and VF-31 engines have the *exact* same designation. Any difference is thus software only.

That is an unfounded assumption as well... one of the more frustrating parts about the way the New UN Government and New UN Forces are presented in later Macross works is the existence of regional variations. This was first hinted at in Frontier and exploded into an ugly mess with the help of Macross the Ride, the fact that the vagaries of having the individual fleets and planets of the New UN Government having a choice between building their own VFs, buying export models, or locally building an existing fighter design under license led to a significant amount of local variation.

(Believe me, this next bit frustrates me to no end...)

So, starting at some as-of-yet unidentified point in the 2040's, you could have the same variant of VF built by three different local governments and all three could have different specs while retaining an identical operational designation for most purposes. A VF-171A built for the Brisingr NUNS could have a different set of capabilities and performance limits than a VF-171A built by, say, the Macross Frontier fleet... but they're both still VF-171A's as long as the base design isn't deviated from too heavily. (So, of course, now every time we go to document a fighter we have to stop and ask "Is this the base spec, or is this a local spec version?".)

It's perfectly possible that the FF-3001/FC2 engines built by Uroboros AWDAP for the YF-30 and the FF-3001/FC2 engines Surya Aerospace acquired for VF-31 trial production were the same design built to different standards based on budgetary constraints or issues of material quality. The Brisingr cluster is not a wealthy region, so they may have built the FF-3001/FC2 to lower design tolerances to save money or because the VF-31 lacked the structural strength for the full-strength engine as a model economized for mass production. They could have made minor design changes to reduce the thrust output in favor of greater generator output or more stability in a particular power band (since the VF-31s are mostly used for low-altitude combat).

The YF-30 was, after all, built by Aisha Blanchett and Uroboros AWDAP with the nearly unlimited wealth of Strategic Military Services and Bilra Transport Co., so it wouldn't be surprising if they could build the FF-3001/FC2 to a higher standard.

The teased VF-31 Master File may lend some help on this front... or it may do what the VF-25 book did and comment almost exclusively upon one of those local variations instead of the base design!

And I provided already an alternative explanation: nowhere is stated that YF-30 figures are base figures for the engine.

That's inconsistent with over thirty years of relatively consistent formatting of information... overboost performance is always given separately from normal engine operating maximums. That's why I don't buy that theory... it would mark a radical and pointless departure from their well-established stats publishing format. Even the VF-31 stats are presented in that consistent manner.

71454522.jpg

Word.

Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of pointing out a hole in your reasoning, you're assuming the FF-3001A and FF-3001/FC2 are only slightly different.

IRL engines with only a digit of difference tend to be the same engine with or without reheating. If that is a slight difference, yeah, it is. And it is not, at the same time, if you consider the whole difference in peak power. The /FC2 seems to have a whole new chamber. A slight difference that is anything buy slight in capabilities.

That [both YF-30 and VF-31 engines have the *exact* same designation. Any difference is thus software only] is an unfounded assumption as well...

Why? Supraluminal data network is down? We are not talking about japanese sub-delivered paper plans for a Me-163 copy here. We are talking about data transmission with error checking protocols. And you are mixing the concept of regional variations of the F-35 design (or more exactly, its planned mid-life updates) with error on copy.

All F-18C/D Plus regional variants have more in common than those have in differences, even when using locally made electronics. There is no point in nitpicking: commercial liners have even engine options. Even PW and GE engined F-16, which the pilots distinguish and even have preferences for, present similar performance. Being *entirely* different engines.

It's perfectly possible that the FF-3001/FC2 engines built by Uroboros AWDAP for the YF-30 and the FF-3001/FC2 engines Surya Aerospace acquired for VF-31 trial production were the same design built to different standards based on budgetary constraints or issues of material quality.

Only if using defective/counterfeit pieces. If you build up to spec, you build up to spec, whether the factory is in Europe or the United States, Ingalls or Bath Iron Works. If the performance deviates significantly, you have built a defective piece.

If the region is scarce in fuels, biofuels or whatever, then you use another engine. But never put the same designation. The parent company could even sue for trying to pass a different engine for one of its products (counterfeiting again).

The YF-30 was, after all, built by Aisha Blanchett and Uroboros AWDAP with the nearly unlimited wealth of Strategic Military Services and Bilra Transport Co., so it wouldn't be surprising if they could build the FF-3001/FC2 to a higher standard.

Now you pointed something solid. Not *to higher standard*, but beyond company sanctioned safety margins and with too much modifications made to the original engine to be considered the same. Like comparing an F-18C with the bigger F-18E. Visually similar, internally completely different. But then it is to be expected something along the lines 'heavily modified FF-3001/FC2'. And correct me if I am wrong: It doesn't say so either.

That's inconsistent with over thirty years of relatively consistent formatting of information... overboost performance is always given separately from normal engine operating maximums.

But we are talking about a game here. X-Wing specs are entirely different in WEG and LucasArts. The Q-Nona specs aren't complete either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRL engines with only a digit of difference tend to be the same engine with or without reheating. If that is a slight difference, yeah, it is. And it is not, at the same time, if you consider the whole difference in peak power. The /FC2 seems to have a whole new chamber. A slight difference that is anything buy slight in capabilities.

The point is that we don't know how similar the FF-3001A and FF-3001/FC2 are... we don't know what technological advances were made between those two models to produce that sizable jump in power.

Why? Supraluminal data network is down? We are not talking about japanese sub-delivered paper plans for a Me-163 copy here. We are talking about data transmission with error checking protocols.

No, it's a relatively well-established fact that not all fleets and planets possess the same levels of manufacturing capability. It depends on things like the age of the fleet or colony, the industrial presences there, whether or not they have factory satellites, etc. They have, for the most part, the same blueprints... but not all of them have the ability to build them to the same standard, and some choose not to build them to the same standard for their own reasons.

One example given is that the Macross Frontier fleet did not have the ability to produce the specific grade of hypercarbon armor used in the VF-25's wings, which had to be supplied from the Macross Olypmia fleet. Some of the initial batch of VF-25s had wings made with inferior materials as a result.

And you are mixing the concept of regional variations of the F-35 design (or more exactly, its planned mid-life updates) with error on copy.

No I'm not, you just don't appear to have understood me. I'm just stating the facts of the Macross universe here.

In the Macross universe, it's an established fact that a particular variant built in different locales will not necessarily be identical in terms of quality or performance. But they will, however, carry the same basic designation because they're local versions of that base variant spec adjusted either for the tactical demands and preferences of that regional military or the limitations of the local manufacturing capabilities.

The VF-171 is practically the poster child for this (and may be the original offender), but it's been mentioned in connection with the VF-19 and the VF-25 as well. The VF-25, however, wears that fact fairly openly...

There's even one case where a locally-produced VF-19C was made with adjusted specs for what I can honestly only characterize as "trolling". (Seriously, Macross Galaxy's corporate army really is THAT juvenile sometimes.)

Now you pointed something solid. Not *to higher standard*, but beyond company sanctioned safety margins and with too much modifications made to the original engine to be considered the same.

No, I really meant "to a higher standard"... see the above.

Though there are any number of other minor modifications or limiting factors that could also account for the VF-31's FF-3001/FC2 engine having inferior performance to the YF-30's... like cooling system issues, airframe structural limits, tuning changes to optimize the engine for a particular set of operating conditions or requirements, etc.

There is, however, no indication that the FF-3001/FC2 engines in the YF-30 were in anything other than factory condition when the fighter was put into combat service briefly in 2060.

But we are talking about a game here. X-Wing specs are entirely different in WEG and LucasArts. The Q-Nona specs aren't complete either

We're talking about a VF from a game, yes, but the stats are presented in the same format and in the same official publication (Macross Chronicle) as the stats for any VF that's shown up in animation. Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that we don't know how similar the FF-3001A and FF-3001/FC2 are... we don't know what technological advances were made between those two models to produce that sizable jump in power.

Yeah, we do. A revolutionary one, rather than evolutionary one. If not, the jump in power would have been minor.

In the Macross universe, it's an established fact that a particular variant built in different locales will not necessarily be identical in terms of quality or performance. But they will, however, carry the same basic designation because they're local versions of that base variant spec adjusted either for the tactical demands and preferences of that regional military or the limitations of the local manufacturing capabilities.

I hope they add a letter after the designation, like in that so named VF-19**C**. Just to avoid surprises and variable specs within the same Macross Chronicle sheet.

Though there are any number of other minor modifications or limiting factors that could also account for the VF-31's FF-3001/FC2 engine having inferior performance to the YF-30's... like cooling system issues, airframe structural limits, tuning changes to optimize the engine for a particular set of operating conditions or requirements, etc.

If that is the case, it is obviously a case of defective copy, however industrially understandable that may be in a given sector. The whole Alpha and Delta Squadron should be aware about the issue. Even Makina. And solve it at the first chance. Or via contractors providing goods from the core. Or if happy with the variant, designating it as a variant, adding a letter at least, maybe FF-3001/FC2/B. Because for you to be right, clearly the VF-31 are not using real FF-3001/FC2. Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tl;dr

As I see it, we are both providing explanations for YF-30's FF-3001/FC2 and VF-31's FF-3001/FC2 having huge different performance:

a) Macross Chronicle stats forgot to mention YF-30 power figure include 15% overboost via FDR, that would make differences with VF-31C/E/F/J/S figures evolutionary (2% variation) rather than revolutionary (12% variation). For comparison purposes, FF-3001/A and FF-3001/FC2 present at least a 15% improvement.

b) There are certain conditions were huge differences in performance are unworthy of a designation change of even a single number or letter, while at the same time other huge increases of performance do, for reasons. And reasons too.

Do you know about Occam's razor principle?

[Addendum]: Shinsei thought a 0.24% variation was worthy of designation change with the FF-3001/FC1 and FF-3001/FC2. If FC is something like Fold Chamber or Fold Capability, Fold assisted engines have a 30% increase of power over FF-3001A. Even without fold assistance, as in VF-31/A/B, performance is increased 15%.

c) This one supporting your hypothesis. Macross Chronicle made indeed a mistake and the engine mounted on VF-31 is the tentatively named FF-3001/FC3. Both FF-3001/FC1 and FF-3001/FC2 achieve 30% improvement over base FF-3001/A. For reasons (*), tentatively named FF-3001/FC3 settles in a more conservative 15% improvement if using FDR, performing about the same as base FF-3001/A if not present (implying VF-31A/B have exactly same power output as VF-25).

(*): Simplification, less wear on engines, maintainability, longer engine service life,...

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire assertion that two engines of the same model having different thrust values in two different aircraft is not only understandable it is practically an obvious condition. What's more that you have trouble believing it is surprising because that is how things work even in the real world.

I work on the GE F110-100C engine for the F-16 in my day job. The F-16 is not the only aircraft that uses the F110 engine (to wit, that isn't even the only engine F-16s can use, some versions use different ones). Depending on the aircraft or version of aircraft changes can be required in the engine (for example block 30 F-16s use my engine, but can also use the F110-129 it a PW engine. Block 50s typically use the -129). The differences in the engines are not always just thrust capacity though. Sometimes it is structural or mechanical changes (or a maintenence change). Further, changes and upgrades to the engine happen all the time without the engine changing model number (ECP and TCTO changes are minor usually but sometimes can have big differences).

So yes, it is entirely possible for two aircraft to use the same engine model and have different thrust ratings. The devil is in the details though, likely with no one simple explanation. My money would be the VF-31 frame needed less thrust but the same performance so they tweaked it down (most engines are capable of way more power than rated, the thrust listed is the set thrust by design, either for safety or physical constraints). That our the 30 needed more and they tweaked that engine up because it was the best they could get but is still within the operational margin of safety.

Either way, the idea that Chronicle listed that one VF thrust at non-base stats in contravention to all other publications is frankly a silly presumption. I hope that doesn't sound rude, that isn't the intent. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is entirely possible for two aircraft to use the same engine model and have different thrust ratings.

I even cited the same example about the F-16 using GE or PW. The opposite case, that you hinted, is the F-14, F-15, F-16 or Mitsubishi F-2 using the GE F110 (some also have PW options). You can even notice non-afterburning variants here. However, open some of the aircraft cited at the bottom of that page and search the engine within its specs. Notice something? *EVERY* one of them have a different designation. Because every one is a variant specifically tailored for that aircraft, as you said. The F-14 ones have extensions, even. The F-2 is even more different because it is built under license, as one would expect between a Shinshei variant and a Surya licensed copy. Differences are, however, minor, performance wise: F-16, F-16XL or even the bigger F-2 have all similar dry and wet power outputs. Major differences should be between models using one or two engines (surprisingly. not the case either: check yourself). But both YF-30 and VF-31A/B have two engines and about the same general configuration. Kawamori being an engineer himself can't commit such mistake.

Either way, the idea that Chronicle listed that one VF thrust at non-base stats in contravention to all other publications is frankly a silly presumption.

Perhaps. But putting the same engine for the first time ever in two different models, where every single variant of the VF-19 have different designations for its engines even, makes no sense either.

It is rather obvious there is a mistake in the Chronicle. We just do not agree where.

Bonus: just imagine being a Valkyrie engineer and asking Shinshei for a replacement engine. And then receiving the one tailored for the *other* plane. Seriously, that is something more dire than a silly mistake.

[Edit]: Actually, I am wrong. Just as I quoted the FF-3001/FC2 as the first time ever the same engine is put in two different valkyries, I remembered something. The VF-171EX is certainly the worst offender ever, with power values for the same engine (FF-2550F) differing 22%. I'd hate to be a VF-171EX engineer. Sorry guys: it was nice while it lasted.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, we do. A revolutionary one, rather than evolutionary one. If not, the jump in power would have been minor.

Not what I meant. We don't know what actually changed between those models of engine... and thus, why it went to a completely new form of designation that hasn't been used before now.

I hope they add a letter after the designation, like in that so named VF-19**C**.

Very rarely they do (VF-19EF Caliburn) but more often than not they don't... they're simply identified as local/regional versions of that variant.

You'd run out of letters pretty quick considering there are dozens of planets and fleets out there, each of which is technically at liberty to modify specs for whatever it's building. (Not everybody uses the same alphabet, but you'd still run out of letters right quick.)

If that is the case, it is obviously a case of defective copy, however industrially understandable that may be in a given sector.

Our resident aviation engineers would seem to disagree with that "it must be a defective model" on a real-world experience basis...

Because for you to be right, clearly the VF-31 are not using real FF-3001/FC2.

No, they're both using the "real" FF-3001/FC2. Just ones built or tuned to a different set of operating requirements or local build standards.

a) Macross Chronicle stats forgot to mention YF-30 power figure include 15% overboost via FDR, that would make differences with VF-31C/E/F/J/S figures evolutionary (2% variation) rather than revolutionary (12% variation). For comparison purposes, FF-3001/A and FF-3001/FC2 present at least a 15% improvement.

That would be because Macross Delta is the first title to start to put actual quantification of the engine performance improvement resulting from a fold wave system. Prior to that, the increase was simply "large".

It certainly appears that, when the fold wave system was conceived, Kawamori didn't anticipate it being included in aircraft intended for production.

(Also, no slash in the FF-3001A's designation.)

Do you know about Occam's razor principle?

Yes, I and everyone else here is very familiar with it... but the problem is that's for competing hypotheses on otherwise equal footings. What I'm pointing out (and others are as well) is that your premise isn't as realistic as you believe it to be... and that I'm not really debating here, I'm merely pointing out long-established trends and facts in the Macross universe.

c) This one supporting your hypothesis. Macross Chronicle made indeed a mistake and the engine mounted on VF-31 is the tentatively named FF-3001/FC3. Both FF-3001/FC1 and FF-3001/FC2 achieve 30% improvement over base FF-3001/A. For reasons (*), tentatively named FF-3001/FC3 settles in a more conservative 15% improvement if using FDR, performing about the same as base FF-3001/A if not present (implying VF-31A/B have exactly same power output as VF-25).

Macross Chronicle has not yet covered anything from Macross Delta. The stats come solely from model kit packaging and the liner notes for the Blu-Ray limited edition release.

I'm sure that, some day in the not-too-distant future Macross Chronicle will receive a 3rd Edition to cover Macross Delta and any newer titles released in the interim with an even greater page count than the 1,600 page 1st Edition or bookshelf-straining 2,560 page 2nd Edition. I won't look forward to that day without at least a little worry, since it's not a cheap undertaking when it's ~$7 a volume (not counting shipping) and the number of volumes gets close to 100. (1st Ed. was 50, 2nd Ed. was 81.)

As previously explained, it is not uncommon for two VFs to have the same model engine tuned to different performance levels... so I doubt the VF-31's engine is a typo. It was meant to be a derivative of the YF-30 (per Kawamori), so it seems highly unlikely that citing the FF-3001/FC2 engine was an error. Esp. given that it's been cited consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Macross Chronicle has not yet covered anything from Macross Delta, and the stats come solely from model kit packaging and the liner notes for the Blu-Ray limited edition release, then nothing about VF-31 true engine or real power output could be taken for granted still.

Even our resident aviation engineers here would shudder to the idea of mating a F110-GE-400 to an F-16. So I hope this is not a repeat of VF-19 engine nightmare or aforementioned VF-171EX case, which happens in Macross Universe but hopefully not IRL.

Edited by Aries Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm feeling a bit iffy by the statement that Kawamori can't make such a mistake because he is an engineer. Firstly, I'm also an engineer (I am both an engineer and a jet engine mechanic, yes, it is a long story), so is Seto if I recall. My degree is in aerospace engineering even. If engineers can't make such a mistake, why do you think we are? Though I don't want you to answer that because the fact is, engineers are not infallible, I know many that screw up all the time. More to the point though... there is no mistake to be made. Kawamori did not make a mistake, the stats are likely not a mistake. It's the same engine, just set up differently.

I for one would prefer to design an engine that had the versatility to be altered to better fit the RFP requirements of an airframe. Would save money over having to redesign an engine every time. It isn't very practical though, but neither are fighter planes that transform into robots anywhere but the universe of this story. It's nice to get this level of detail, but sometimes, it is just better to go with it.

Besides, if the mechanics (cause engineers don't actually order parts and assemble the planes, they just design them) were ordering engines for the plane they are building up and can't figure out how to specify the exact VF they are getting their engine for they shouldn't be working. There is no way the wrong engine would get connected. However the case here is not even that dire as it is the same engine, it would be the mechanics job to make sure it is properly tuned/trimmed to the correct spec for their aircraft. If they have a VF-31, they will be setting it up with the lower thrust rating the 31 requires. If it were the 30 (though there is only one production unit so this case is somewhat moot) they'd be setting it up to go nuts with the design cause the 30 can handle it apparently.

I also wouldn't put an F110-400 on an F-16 either.. but mostly because it wouldn't fit, lol. Plus it is an older variant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Macross Chronicle has not yet covered anything from Macross Delta, and the stats come solely from model kit packaging and the liner notes for the Blu-Ray limited edition release, then nothing about VF-31 true engine or real power output could be taken for granted still.

The Blu-Ray Limited Edition's liner notes are an official publication for the series, vetted by the show's creators, so it's an extremely safe bet that the stats are accurate.

Macross Chronicle is by no means the only source of official stats or an exhaustively complete resource, but it is an excellent centralized information source spanning all of the main Macross titles produced prior to its time of publication.

It's certainly not unheard-of for there to be errors when a magazine is the source doing the "big reveal" of the stats due to editorial cockups, but by the time they've made it to stuff like art books or liner notes they're pretty well vetted and official... so I wouldn't start holding my breath for a correction at this point.

Even our resident aviation engineers here would shudder to the idea of mating a F110-GE-400 to an F-16. So I hope this is not a repeat of VF-19 engine nightmare or aforementioned VF-171EX case, which happens in Macross Universe but hopefully not IRL.

As I've said several times already, this is not an uncommon thing for Macross to do... having the same model engine tuned differently installed in two different variants, or two of the same variant built to different local specifications.

(The VF-19 Master File has, IIRC, presented the same model engine used in a half dozen VF-19 variants tuned at least four different ways... but even the VF-1 has examples of this.)

I'm feeling a bit iffy by the statement that Kawamori can't make such a mistake because he is an engineer. Firstly, I'm also an engineer (I am both an engineer and a jet engine mechanic, yes, it is a long story), so is Seto if I recall.

Aye... I'm a powertrain development engineer working in vehicle electrification and alt-fuel systems. Edited by Seto Kaiba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It wouldn't fit. It is the same engine... but it is not. That is why it had a slightly different designation: because in the end, it is not the same engine nor is interchangeable. This point reached, I don't care if you call it FF-3001/FC2 in both cases just for unraveling chaos and confusion within maintenance crew if you are at the same time implying those are in fact FF-3001/FC2-CHR and FF-3001/FC2-KAI or whatever.

Got me about human fallibility, though. As fallible as the ones putting the numbers on paper.

I for one would prefer to design an engine that had the versatility to be altered to better fit the RFP requirements of an airframe. Would save money over having to redesign an engine every time.

Agreed. That way you could scale to Cargo planes or hyperfast couriers. However, the VF-31A is no cargo plane: has almost same weight, same dimensions and same shape as YF-30. Nerfing it for the shake of it is like having octacores in the minimum die size of a given chip and disabling seven just to market it as single core (done IRL, though): "Try the VF-31! We tried to put there a simpler engine, but had surplus YF-30 engines and decided to nerf it to mach the expected simpler engine at zero cost. Until replaced, that is, when we will be paying triple the expected amount just to nerf them again". True marketing genius. I can almost see Rei-Rei hacking those back to full spec. Illegally, of course.

Even the VF-171EX had an excuse: its shape and weight is nowhere near Basara's ride.

Edited by Aries Turner
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...