Final Vegeta Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Kawamori also said he was going to make it look more retro, but he felt a plain F-14 wouldn't have worked as main mecha, so he chose the opposite way. Maybe the producers theirselves forbade VF-0 looking less stylish FV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 (edited) Jets use air for three (sometimes four or five) things: 1) The oxygen is needed to burn the fuel, thus releasing heat energy. 2) The heat expands compressed air in the engine, causing it to shoot out the back in a jet. 3) In addition to pushing the aircraft forward, the jet of hot air drives a turbine, which is connected to a compressor at the front of the engine. The compressor compresses the air for use in (2). 4) Sometimes, additional fuel is sprayed into the hot air as it exits the turbine. This combusts and makes the air hotter, so it expands and shoots out the back even faster. This pushes the aircraft faster. 5) Sometimes, part of the turbine mechanism is used to drive a fan in front of the compressor. This fan pushes air through ducts in the engine that bypass the combustion chamber. Said air then exits the engine at the back and provides additional thrust. In general, jets use air both as an oxydizer for the fuel, and as reaction mass to provide thrust. The reaction mass is dumped out the back of the engines, with total thrust being determined by the total reaction mass and its velocity. (The jet fuel is also a component of the reaction mass, but a relatively minor one.) Rockets use air for, well, nothing. Chemical rockets carry their fuel and oxydizer internally, and the chemical reaction product (e.g., water produced by mixing and burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen) is the reaction mass. Other types of rockets might separate the source of energy from the reaction mass, and require no oxydizer. For example, a nuclear rocket would use a nuclear reaction (fission or fusion) to produce heat energy which is then applied to an internally-carried reaction mass (such as water or pure hydrogen), causing it to expand and exit the rear of the rocket at high velocity, producing thrust. Another example is a toy water rocket--the energy is provided by compressed air, while the bulk of the reaction mass comes from water. Edited April 26, 2004 by ewilen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 VF 0 is certainly the ancestors to the VF series (but they look much cooler than VF1) .. but imho macross zero dun seem to be in line with the original macross series.. i'm pretty puzzled with macross zero timeline too it probably was way before the zentradii 'SDF' crashed on macross island.. but i remember in the macross saga, someone mentioned the VFs are made to battle the zentradii, which explains y the battroids are comparable to the alien size. so have they alredi encountered the zentradii and thus the VF series or?? Zero takes place after the Supervision Army's vessel crashed. The VF-0 was developed more or less concurrently with the VF-1. And the mech size was based on the presence of giant airlocks, doors, and hallways on present on the ASS-1, not actual bodies. And a battroid is a bit less than twice the size of a zentradi. Not the same size. coming back to macross zero, they already have VFs in the making? and these real futuristic looking planes (realised they are SV-51) which can flap their wings in gerwalk mode (and claims unity army stealing the veritech desgins from them) hmmzz? but still darn cool!! There are no veritechs in Macross. And as I said, the VF-0 is more or less concurrent with the VF-1. It's a limited production vehicle intended more to test new technologies than to replace an existing fighter(that's what the VF-1 was for). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connor99 Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 JB0 Posted on Apr 26 2004, 06:47 PM And as I said, the VF-0 is more or less concurrent with the VF-1. It's a limited production vehicle intended more to test new technologies than to replace an existing fighter(that's what the VF-1 was for). Ok, now I have a question. Doesn't the VF-1 already have a far more advanced engine than the VF-0? So, taking that into consideration, wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to use the VF-1 as a test bed as oppose to using the VF-0? (or have I just read yer post wrong?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanata67 Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 OH MY GOD!My head is going to explode. Jets need something to push against to operate!? Jets aren't as effective in space because there's no air to push against!? Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave. Jets don't have to push against anything to operate. If anything, the engine would be far more effective in space because there is no drag from the atmosphere. The only reason why we use rocket engines instead of jet engines is because rocket engines comes with a solid oxygen supply to burn, which jets need but space doesn't provide. The next person to insist that jets need to push against something to operate will be flamed by me. uhm... I insist that jets need to push against something to operate... Thats the whole lift process... having greater air density below the wing than above. Granted in space you wouldn't have to worry about plunging to the ground in a metal box... hopefully at least. So I guess it should be stated that jets need something to push against as long as they are exposed to gravity On the other side of the coin... wouldn't there be significantly less resistance in space so wouldn't any possible air/fuel mixture expand just like an o2 tank filled at say 200 feet below sea level? As such wouldn't significantly less fuel be required once "space" flight was achieved? I can't help but think that without directional thrusters steering wound be a bitch as I don't see alerons or verticle stabalizers being much help in vacume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 JB0 Posted on Apr 26 2004, 06:47 PM And as I said, the VF-0 is more or less concurrent with the VF-1. It's a limited production vehicle intended more to test new technologies than to replace an existing fighter(that's what the VF-1 was for). Ok, now I have a question. Doesn't the VF-1 already have a far more advanced engine than the VF-0? So, taking that into consideration, wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to use the VF-1 as a test bed as oppose to using the VF-0? (or have I just read yer post wrong?) VF-1 production was delayed for the same reason the VF-0 was using a jet engine. The microfusion drives weren't ready. I assume they built a new plane because they wanted to try some stuff they just couldn't do with the VF-1. ... Or to get a plane that could run on jet engines up in the air for testing purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 . . . the VF-0 looks and acts the way it does because it's cool, not because it makes sence. it has nothing to do with the level of animation, skill of the animators, which one has which engines, or which one existed first in the timeline. its a design choice, and thats all there is to it. Wow! Great post King Nor. I agree. But before this turns into another thread on whether the VF-0 is truly the prototype for the VF-1. . . or why the VF-0 seems more advanced than the VF-1. . . let's just point everyone to these threads, where just about everything that can be said on this topic has already been said. . . "Does it bug anyone else?, Macross Zero VF-0 and "Valkyrie Development History. . ." These topics are also touched upon in this thread before ewilen graciously redirects everyone to the two threads already mentioned above. Best Regards, H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Here is what I know from watching the show itself. The VF-0 is animatied prettier, but it does nothing, nothing at all that the VF-1 doesn't do. At least not that I've seen. The VF-1 is designed around the jet engines, it was built with these engines in mind. Now, inferring from what we know from the compendium, there were working VF-1 prototypes at this time, nuclear and everything. Problem seems that they had trouble mass producing the nuclear engines. Now, would the UN develope a jet engine based fighter, then make it otherwise more advanced than the nuclear counterpart? If so, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drad Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Hey guys I was wondering why did united forces bother to make the vf-1a? coz in macross zero it seems like the vf-0d or the vf-0s looks more advance The VF-0 Valkyries look more advanced because they were designed today and not 22 years ago, and are rendered using state-of-the-art cel and CG animation techniques. Yes, they're supposed to be the predecessors of our beloved VF-1. I suppose that makes their design a bit of an anachronism, but hey.. roll with it. Don't ask, don't get bogged down with the details. Just enjoy the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connor99 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Radd Posted on Apr 28 2004, 12:32 A.M. Now, inferring from what we know from the compendium, there were working VF-1 prototypes at this time, nuclear and everything. Problem seems that they had trouble mass producing the nuclear engines. Now, would the UN develope a jet engine based fighter, then make it otherwise more advanced than the nuclear counterpart? If so, why? Thank you, RADD, I too was asking this very same question. Can anyone please clarify this for the rest of us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Thanks Hurin, you saved me some trouble. Yes, we went over the issue with a fine-toothed comb, and although we didn't completely settle everything, it might be a good idea to have a look so as to see what points have already been made and/or refuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 (edited) uhm... I insist that jets need to push against something to operate... Jet engine operation and lift are two completely different things. Tell me this, how does the space shuttle's rocket engines, which work on the same principle as the jet engine, maneuver the shuttle around? There's no air in space. What's it pushing against? In any case, the VF-0 designs kick. Edited April 29, 2004 by Stamen0083 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-19 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 uhm... I insist that jets need to push against something to operate... Jet engine operation and lift are two completely different things. Tell me this, how does the space shuttle's rocket engines, which work on the same principle as the jet engine, maneuver the shuttle around? There's no air in space. What's it pushing against? In any case, the VF-0 designs kick. The thrusters are pushing against the shuttle. They're operating on the rapid expansion of gas which is released at the thruster nozzle. If an explosion happened in space, and you attached a steel plate (let's assume the plate has main character immunity), to the bomb (which has it's own oxidizer onboard, otherwise, there wouldn't be much of any explosion), the plate will be thrown outwards from the center of the explosion. Boiling it down, an explosion is a rapid expansion of gas, thus there's something to push the steel plate away from the center of the explosion. Thus, if there's no air for combustion, the jet engine will simply be spewing unburned fuel out the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 (edited) The thrusters are pushing against the shuttle. They're operating on the rapid expansion of gas which is released at the thruster nozzle. Haha. I think that was a given. Thus, if there's no air for combustion, the jet engine will simply be spewing unburned fuel out the back. I know. That's why rocket engines have their own oxygen supply on board. Still, it sure as hell ain't pushing the shuttle against the atmosphere. Edited April 29, 2004 by Stamen0083 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dna Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Still, it sure as hell ain't pushing the shuttle against the atmosphere. It's still pushing against itself. Goes back to the basic laws of physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.