Answer me this time please people..

TCSTigersClaw

TCSTigersClaw

Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
I wasnt around the chat this week cause I got my self a brand new machine, so I was playing all the time WC (no time for you :))
after 5 years YEAH.

Now , playing Wc2 in the first mission (Save Concordia cause the deck is damaged) reminded me my Thread I did some time ago about the CapShip`s flight decks.I really believe that they are useless cause most fighters (as we can see in Wc2 landing sequence and in Wc3 in the deleted scenes of the crafts) dont really use it.In the take off sequence the use a very small part too.

Now what stopped the Concordia`s fighters to take off? A damaged runway?They could land Vertically if they wanted.They had Atmosphear Accesable Fighers such as Rapier,Ferret,Sabre..
This means that they can land/take off vertically.We see that in the lading sequence all the fighters have Vertical landing,why not Take off ?
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
I wasnt around the chat this week cause I got my self a brand new machine, so I was playing all the time WC (no time for you :))
after 5 years YEAH.

Now , playing Wc2 in the first mission (Save Concordia cause the deck is damaged) reminded me my Thread I did some time ago about the CapShip`s flight decks.I really believe that they are useless cause most fighters (as we can see in Wc2 landing sequence and in Wc3 in the deleted scenes of the crafts) dont really use it.In the take off sequence the use a very small part too.

Now what stopped the Concordia`s fighters to take off? A damaged runway?They could land Vertically if they wanted.They had Atmosphear Accesable Fighers such as Rapier,Ferret,Sabre..
This means that they can land/take off vertically.We see that in the lading sequence all the fighters have Vertical landing,why not Take off ?
Click to expand...

According to the WC2 script, the fight deck was damaged... apparently by where the launch bays were. Remember that there were launch tubes on the Tiger's Claw as well as the Concordia, and those shot you out into space so you could be mobile in a huryr.
 
Ok let me put it this way.WHy do the fighters need a catapult in deep space ??? Besides, they can land as we know Vertically , why dont they take off like that ??They dont need a runway or a catapult......

Also in the Takeoff sequence (WC2) there is no catapult and the fighters Takeoff from the same point where they land
 
You see the smoke come out from the "tires" when the fighters take off? Thats the catapult. In WC2 they are very similar to modern ones. They attach to the landing gear, are under the deck plating, and launch fightersat high speeds. And I think Haesslich is right, it's so they are "ready" to fight sooner after launch, and are clear of the ship faster than if they accelerate unassisted.

As I recall it was an issue where the bomb had damaged doors or a lift (perhaps blast doors on the launch tubes so it's not always exposed to space?) or some other mechanical device essential to launching fighters.
 
Our nowdays Fighters dont have other options besides a "catapult" take off cause a Carrier`s Runway is too small for the Fighter to accelerate.But in deep space they just dont need one...

Remember the sequence in WC4 when Blair escaped from the Black Lance Carrier ?He took of Vertically with the Dragon.No need for a Runway.
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Our nowdays Fighters dont have other options besides a "catapult" take off cause a Carrier`s Runway is too small for the Fighter to accelerate.But in deep space they just dont need one...
Click to expand...
Unless you're in a hurry and want to have fighters off the ship any time soon...
 
I don't recall saying it was necissary for takeoff. Why don't you reread my post? It's not *needed*, but it makes things that much faster (and in combat time is as valuable as gold).

Would you rather:
A: Have fighters do a cold takeoff (without catapult), and spend 15 seconds accelerating and clearing the carrier .
B: Have fighters do a hot takeoff (with catapult), and spend 5 seconds accelerationg and clearing the carrier.

I would chose B, but some of you may like to take things easy while your carrier is getting torpedoed... :p
 
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Our nowdays Fighters dont have other options besides a "catapult" take off cause a Carrier`s Runway is too small for the Fighter to accelerate.But in deep space they just dont need one...

Remember the sequence in WC4 when Blair escaped from the Black Lance Carrier ?He took of Vertically with the Dragon.No need for a Runway.
Click to expand...

Here, let me quote you an example from the WC4 novel:

The Intrepid had to launch fighters from its hangar deck because it wasn't a dedicated carrier. As a result, there was usually a wait in line as fighters had to launch one or two at a time by getting up to speed and clearing the deck so they could be out of the ship's way as the Intrepid accelerated or maneuvered. Blair's T-bolt had problems getting clear without JATO assistance. The only way they could launch a lot of fighters at once was to literally eject everyone out of the hangar by explosive decompression and hope that nobody collided with the ship or each other in the process.

When the Lexington had its launch tubes cooked by a torpedo, they too had problems getting fighters out - because they couldn't just shoot them out quickly, and in turn get the fighters up to speed to ward off attacks by Border Worlds forces.

If that's not enough, let's go back to End Run:

The Tarawa apparently did not have launch tubes, but sent them out of the hangar bay directly. Problems - they needed space for the runway, AND they could only launch one fighter at a time as a result, due to the size of the bay entrance and the fact they didn't have dedicated launching equipment. Doomsday notes that, during the first day of operations, Concordia could've launched its entire complement it took Tarawa to launch even a half of its much smaller fighter wing. Part of that's due to the series of launch tubes that run across the side of the ship.
 
Well, Ive read the books along time ago and I forgot these parts.Thank all of you , I understand what are you talking about and you are right....:D


Bye, TCSTigersClaw
 
i thought the excal was the first atmosphere fighter you got to fly? (was hellcat too?) im not sure but im pretty convinced that the wc1/2 ships that we saw were NOT atmosphere based (however the dralthi i think is, cos in wc1 when the kilrathi leave freikka their ships look like dralthis, mite not be tho since they are what? one man fighter (one cat???)
 
Schimitar,Rapier,Rapier2,Sabre,Ferret and others are Atmorsphear based Fighters.

Every fighter can flight in Atmosphear but the above can do that succesfully.
 
Originally posted by Madman
however the dralthi i think is, cos in wc1 when the kilrathi leave freikka their ships look like dralthis, mite not be tho since they are what? one man fighter (one cat???)
Click to expand...

Well, even if those aren't Dralthi, we definitely see them flying in the atmosphere of Port Hedland (I believe) during another scene in Wing Commander I.
 
Okay, back to the original question of the Connie's hanger bay. If I remember correctly (and with some help from the CIC's own picture gallery) the Concordia has the 2 catapults corresponding to the 2 launch bays on either side of the hanger. It wouldn't be too hard to picture a couple of torpedoes sneaking through or even those famous Kilrathi kamakazi runs that damaged those launch bays so badly that no ship could get through (even the bomb placed in the hanger later on could be explained away - I beleive it blew a fuel line didn't it? It could have caused enough damage to cease flight operations especially if it filled the hanger bay with burning fuel. It would be kindof hard to run to a fighter if there was a wall of flame between you and it). We see this in False Colors when Bear and Co. are trying to enter the Hakaga/Bhantkara (can't remember which one it was, I think it was a Bhantkara), they barely fit a shuttle in the hanger entrance and Bear says something to the effect that they will be defenseless until they get this entrance fixed. Yes the WC fighters can launch like a VTOL fighter but if one can't get to their ship or you can't get it out of the hanger, I'd say you'd be in just as much trouble as the Connie.

There's my 2 cents anyway :)

C-ya
 
Originally posted by Madman
The WC1/2 ships that we saw were NOT atmosphere based (however, the Dralthi I think is, cos in WC1 when the Kilrathi leave Firekka, their ships look like Dralthis...
Click to expand...
The fighters on the Tiger's Claw are not, at least, since Halcyon specifically forbids atmospheric combat.
Colonel Halcyon: And under no conditions are you to engage in combat in the planetary atmosphere. Our fighters aren’t equipped for planetary overpressure. One close call with an enemy missile, and the pressure differential will explode your ship.
Click to expand...
I assume the Scimitars flown in WCATV were a different model, since they obviously are atmosphere-capable.

The Kilrathi ships leaving Firekka are clearly not Dralthi - I'm guessing they're troop transports, their equivalent of Marine LCs. Have a looky here.

Originally posted by WildWeasel
Well, even if those aren't Dralthi, we definitely see them flying in the atmosphere of Port Hedland (I believe) during another scene in Wing Commander I.
Click to expand...
Fly, Dralthi, Fly! Die! Dralthi, Die!
 
Colonel Halcyon: And under no conditions are you to engage in combat in the planetary atmosphere. Our fighters aren’t equipped for planetary overpressure. One close call with an enemy missile, and the pressure differential will explode your ship.
Click to expand...

They just aren't set up to run in atmosphere at the time... they can, however, be equipped
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top