Answer me this time please people..

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Viper61
(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).
Well, no... the fuel line was just the official explanation, which allowed them to pretend there was no traitor (at least until McGuffin died). Sparks said that there was no fuel lines in that part of the deck, however.
 

TCSTigersClaw

Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
Hey, I mentioned only the Wc1/Wc2 fighters that can Flight Successfully in Atmosphear.TopGun I know about Hellcat (ofcourse) and Dragon and Vindicator and every other ship in Wc3/Wc4.

As I said before I believe that every fighter can access atmosphear and flight in it but NOT SUCCESSFULLY.We see the Dralthis in WC1 ,in WC3 in the ending of Wc3 we also see Pakhtans etc.Also in Wc4 /Wc3 the Shuttles (they have no Wings) etc.
What IM trying to say is that every fighter (or at least most of them) can flight in atmosphear but not as good as other`s can.Other`s like Hellcat ,Schimitar etc are designed for it.Other`s not at all.....

About the original Topic I started ,I thank you guys it,Its OK now :)
 

Zor Prime

That guy.
During the losing engame video (of WC3), there are Pakhtans in the atmosphere. Go lose and see. It's a pretty cool video.
 
M

Millzy

Guest
i like that scene.... but one of my fav scenes in WC is from WC4 when Blair, Maniac, Vagabond and Catsratch are playing cards and you pick "this kid asks to many questions" (i think that's the one) and Maniac says: "Drink any? Just kidding"... it's something like that... always makes me laugh...

speaking of Catsratch, i just wanted to smack him....
 

TopGun

Vampire Ace
Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Hey, I mentioned only the Wc1/Wc2 fighters that can Flight Successfully in Atmosphear.TopGun I know about Hellcat (ofcourse) and Dragon and Vindicator and every other ship in Wc3/Wc4.

As I said before I believe that every fighter can access atmosphear and flight in it but NOT SUCCESSFULLY.We see the Dralthis in WC1 ,in WC3 in the ending of Wc3 we also see Pakhtans etc.Also in Wc4 /Wc3 the Shuttles (they have no Wings) etc.
What IM trying to say is that every fighter (or at least most of them) can flight in atmosphear but not as good as other`s can.Other`s like Hellcat ,Schimitar etc are designed for it.Other`s not at all.....

About the original Topic I started ,I thank you guys it,Its OK now :)

Sorry TigersClaw, I misread your post
 

TCSTigersClaw

Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
Dont sorry its OK.Im just curious how Loaf didnt post to this thread??

It doesnt matter now .Bye guys
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
My apologies. I was away for the weekend and didn't see the thread.

Back to the original topic: Yes, many Wing Commander fighters can take off and land vertically in an atmosphere (heck, they can even *hover* in one spot like a Harrier)... but this has no bearing on how they perform in space. In space, a fighter *must* (with the exception of the WCIV novel's elegant solution) be pushed very quickly out of a carrier.

Consider that a carrier has an atmosphere and an artificial gravity field (see the movie - heh). It's like a tiny planet, and a fighter must achieve escape velocity. The fighter has to somehow get up to eleven kps very, very quickly... without nuking everyone on the carrier with its engines (and without using up mass quantities of fuel, which would be hard to store). Consider also that the fighter must be thrown fully clear of the carrier's ramscoops... or it will never gather up enough hydrogen to maintain its normal speed. And it has to *outrun* a moving carrier... pushing your fighter off the deck of the carrier, even if it were possible, wouldn't be smart when the carrier is travelling towards you at a percentage of light-speed.

The carrier has to shoot your fighter out at a really really high speed without using its engines... so a catapult is necessary (Of course, in WC2 it was a damaged *elevator* that was preventing fighters from launching...).

Anyway, what are we doing now, listing atmosphere-capable fighters?
 

scheherazade

Rear Admiral
it takes longer to catapult fighters than to launch normally

sure the first 2 or 3 or whatever can fit all toghether are out fast, but the rest have to be prepared to launch off the catapult. while if doing normal takeoff could go ahead and go. like russian su-35's taking off carriers without catapults. they go one after another BAM BAM BAM. out like wild fire. they launch 6 fighters and a U.S. carrier manages to just prepare the next 2 f-14's. catapults are just to get the fat and heavy stuff off the deck and up to speed. any time a plane can take off without a catapult, thats what it does.

also in space, there is nothing to escape from. you are travelling the speed of the carrier to start out with. unless the captain is a joker and wants to hit the gas as you take off to collide with you, you'll never actually hit the carrier. even if you took off at 1 foot an hour, you'd still not get run into, since you're going the carriers speed+ that one foot.

and the carrier is puny in mass, it would have no significant gravity well of its own.

as for escape velocity, the eleven ms^2 is relative to earths gravity well, which is a bit bigger than a little space ship. to understate.

the false gravity is pointed into the floor always. the only force a fighter would need is 'away from the floor', not forwards.

one of the books said , and i paraphrase, 'a fighter is not an atmospheric fighter when its guns are ineffective in atmospheric conditions. their shot out energy disperses/absorbs into the atmosphere'.

and i'm sure a fighter would have _some_ fuel in it when being sent out. i doubt it would be policy to send out a ship and say 'ok you got nothing in the tanks fend for yourself, gather what you can with ram scoops'. it makes much more sense for the scoops to be used to /maintain/ fuel in the tanks, not to provide it in the first place/

-scheherazade
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by scheherazade
it takes longer to catapult fighters than to launch normally

You're basing this on what data? Conjecture based on the number of launch tubes?

Look at how Prophecy did things - fighters get loaded into tubes, and then they shoot them all out one at a time. Plus, if you're shoving these fighters into catapults - are you assuming they're the steam catapults currently in use on sea-based carriers? That they function in a similar fashion? This is like saying that a WW1 fighter is comparible in every way with a modern jet-powered attack fighter because they're both called 'fighters'.

Yes, that's a limit on land-based carriers due to the technology. Except do these limits apply in WC? Judging by the way mass launches were done in the games - apparently not. Fighters were launched promptly, one craft every thirty seconds or so on the Tarawa which didn't even have a proper launch platform. Concordia, when it had its tubes functional, apparently did MUCH better than this. 'Better' being defined as 'being able to launch 120 fighters' in less than 30 minutes.

Besides, you could drop fighters into these things like you do bullets into an automatic. That'd speed up your launch significantly.

sure the first 2 or 3 or whatever can fit all toghether are out fast, but the rest have to be prepared to launch off the catapult. while if doing normal takeoff could go ahead and go. like russian su-35's taking off carriers without catapults. they go one after another BAM BAM BAM. out like wild fire. they launch 6 fighters and a U.S. carrier manages to just prepare the next 2 f-14's. catapults are just to get the fat and heavy stuff off the deck and up to speed. any time a plane can take off without a catapult, thats what it does.

Again, you're using present carrier data with a flight deck to determine what future technology does based on what we've already seen. There is one reason not to do full-power launches from your normal WC hangar deck - the engines would fry the deck itself, not to mention the support crews if there's atmosphere, and irradiate them if there's not. Remember that the WC1 fighters worked with nuclear batteries to power their engines, or at least some did.

also in space, there is nothing to escape from. you are travelling the speed of the carrier to start out with. unless the captain is a joker and wants to hit the gas as you take off to collide with you, you'll never actually hit the carrier. even if you took off at 1 foot an hour, you'd still not get run into, since you're going the carriers speed+ that one foot.

You may be travelling at a speed equal to the relative speed of the carrier, but does that mean you're not going to get hit by the carrier if it accelerates? Plus we've got the maneuvering scoop fields of WC fighters to consider, which let them maneuver without needing thrusters - but at the same time create 'drag' (noted in End Run). So you launch the fighter from the craft without thrust. Fine - then as soon as you turn on your engines, you slow down... and splat.

So you've got to be travelling quite a bit faster than the carrier in the first place, so you can turn on your engines and maneuvering scoops without getting into the carrier's way.

and the carrier is puny in mass, it would have no significant gravity well of its own.

Ahem. Look at the WC movie LOAF referenced - the thing has artificial gravity. Or did you think the reason we could walk on decks in the WC games was due to the fact we all had velcroed feet? Ditto the drinks staying in the glasses in the bar was due to some sort of magical process that kept the scotch and beer in its container?

as for escape velocity, the eleven ms^2 is relative to earths gravity well, which is a bit bigger than a little space ship. to understate.

I'd ask how this is relative to this discussion, but I have a feeling you wouldn't understand the difference anyways. In this case, we're not dealing with a signficant escape velocity needed to get free of the carrier so much of the fact that we need to have a decent velocity when we leave the carrier so we can get out of the fucking way when it maneuvers to turn the fighter bay away from incoming attackers. Or do you LIKE the idea of being shot out into someone else's cannonfire? Or having the fighter cruising at the same velocity while torpedo bombers are moving in and you're being shot out?

the false gravity is pointed into the floor always. the only force a fighter would need is 'away from the floor', not forwards.

See above.

one of the books said , and i paraphrase, 'a fighter is not an atmospheric fighter when its guns are ineffective in atmospheric conditions. their shot out energy disperses/absorbs into the atmosphere'.

If you're talking about End Run, Bear complains about fighting in atmosphere because he can't move any faster than a 1k/s without burning up, and because lasers and most energy weapons have reduced ranges due to diffraction and absorption by the surrounding air. This is a different problem from 'launching into space from a carrier'.

and i'm sure a fighter would have _some_ fuel in it when being sent out. i doubt it would be policy to send out a ship and say 'ok you got nothing in the tanks fend for yourself, gather what you can with ram scoops'. it makes much more sense for the scoops to be used to /maintain/ fuel in the tanks, not to provide it in the first place/

-scheherazade

The fighter has fuel. That's afterburner fuel. HOWEVER, the fighter gains most of its fuel for its engines from surrounding space - the same scoops which let it maneuver also get it the hydrogen needed to maintain the engines. Yes, it likely has a reserve... but that reserve isn't going to help you if you've fried the techs and hangar deck behind you, and damaged the carrier you launched from using your nuclear engines.

Which is why we've got the damned catapult. Gets you out there quick, keeps you from goign splat on the carrier, AND keeps everyone in the hangar bays and launch areas alive.
 

junior

Spaceman
The only thing that could possibly be lengthy about a catapult launch would be due to time spent prepping the catapult and positioning the fighter for launch. The actual launch procedure, of course, goes slightly faster, due to the fact that the fighter is moving off the carrier at a much faster relative velocity.
But the single biggest reason to use a catapult, more important than any other reason listed here, (except possibly things such as frying the deck in bursts of radiation) is the fact that in fighter combat, speed equals life. He who goes slower is at a huge disadvantage, and tends to die first.
Two fighters already moving at high speed are easily equal to half a dozen fighters that are attempting to accelerate under their own power.
End of story.
 

Erkle

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by scheherazade


sure the first 2 or 3 or whatever can fit all toghether are out fast, but the rest have to be prepared to launch off the catapult. while if doing normal takeoff could go ahead and go. like russian su-35's taking off carriers without catapults. they go one after another BAM BAM BAM. out like wild fire. they launch 6 fighters and a U.S. carrier manages to just prepare the next 2 f-14's. catapults are just to get the fat and heavy stuff off the deck and up to speed. any time a plane can take off without a catapult, thats what it does.


I don't know where you learned that from but all aircraft that take off from any aircraft carrier ( US, Russian, UK, French, whatever) MUST use catapults. The only exceptions to this are VTOL and helicopters. The Russian Su-35 is not equipped as VTOL and I do not believe it is even a Navy aircraft. A US carrier always has scout planes out as well as huge radar sites to see everything in a 150 mile radius around the carrier. Also there is usually a BAR-CAP (BARrier Combat Air Patrol) around the carrier and finally there are 4 catapults that can be used at anytime. You may want to research your material before posting any technical information that some people may not take with a grain of salt. May I suggest at least reading Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy?
jim
 

Viper61

Spaceman
Haesslich, don't be so hostile man! He's talking physics, not insulting your mother.

On the catapult question, I've always assumed that there was something in the 27th century that we found out that catapults are a good option (that reminds me, I think this has been answered before, but did the Victory have catapults? We always cold launched in the game). I too have never found a convincing argument that was in favor of catapults in the WC universe, so I just assume that there is a reason.

Now, not assuming that there isn't a reason sometime in teh next 600 years for the rest of this post, I'll put my 2 cents in with comments to both Haesslich and scheherazade :).
1st - Where did 11 m/s^2 (or in Loafs case 11kps) come from? All your doing by that is barely overcoming the acceleration due to gravity, which is sitting at about 10 m/s^2. And escape velocity depends on the mass of the object trying to escape. Everything is drawn to everything else by a force equal to F=G*m1* m2/r^2, where G is a gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of athe object trying to escape, m2 is the mass of the object being escaped form and r is the distance in between (actually I think one of the terms in the numerator is squared, but you get the idea. All an escaping ship has to do is to exert a little more force than the answer to this equation, which is going to be much greater for the earth or other planet than it is for a carrier.
2nd - Sorry Haesslich, he's mostly right when it comes to gravity. Even if you had artificial gravity the force exerted by it would be the same as that exerted by the earth, a normal force straight down. So all a ship has to do is acheive a hover by overcoming the acceleration due to gravity and then overcome the friction caused by the air in the hanger bay to move forward.
3rd- we don't cook ground crews with our engines or eat up alot of fuel without catapults, we cold launch all the time (scoops/no scoops?) in WC3/WC4.
4th- 'Atmospheric capable' is different from 'atmospheric fighter'. An atmospheric fighter would have to have at least one energy weapon that would work in the atmosphere. Any ship could be atmospheric capable if it can fly in an atmosphere.

Anyway, the only reason I see to use catapults if we use our 21st century understanding is to get fighters up to combat speeds quickly. That's why I assume there's a 27th century reason - it makes things alot cleaner :).

C-ya
 

TC

SubCrid
He may be right about artificial gravity (he may not be... we know very little about it...), that has no bearing on what Haess was talking about. Haess was correct in nearly all aspects of what we've been told in Wing Commander...
 

Templar

Spaceman
No, the Victory did not have catapaults. I think the Tiger's Claw might have. In WC1 you are in your fighter, and then you're just shot out into space. I have no idea why a space carrier would need a catapult. An sea carrier needs one to provide enough thrust to propel thier fighters into the air as a counter to gravity's pull, and seing how there is no gravity in space (well, in the strictist sense, that isn't true) the catapult seems to be without use except as a dramatic effect.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
I think the WC3 novel shows the Victory having catapaults. And catapaults can be useful for hurling fighters off the flight deck faster. Think about when the Midway launched fighters into an oncoming horde of attackers - that short period of 2000+ kps certainly helps. Of course, the problem is when the Midway is retreating from the enemy, sometimes you need to pull a 180. But the only time I remember that happening is when you're in a Wasp. Mmm, booster...
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Originally posted by Templar
No, the Victory did not have catapaults. I think the Tiger's Claw might have. In WC1 you are in your fighter, and then you're just shot out into space. I have no idea why a space carrier would need a catapult. An sea carrier needs one to provide enough thrust to propel thier fighters into the air as a counter to gravity's pull, and seing how there is no gravity in space (well, in the strictist sense, that isn't true) the catapult seems to be without use except as a dramatic effect.

I'd suggest reading the previous posts in the thread for the answer. WC novels as far back as "Freedom Flight" note the catapults as being useful for sending fighters out at speed quickly so that they're out of the carrier's way and able to engage in combat immediately without having to tool up to speed.
 
Top