Answer me this time please people..
- Thread starter TCSTigersClaw
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Every carrier in WC, with the exception of the Intrepid, has a catapult of some sort.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
erkle < the su-35 is the naval variant of the su-27. and it takes off with no catapult. the end of the deck is arched up like a ramp to pop it up a bit as it reaches the end of the deck. look it up, ther are some videos of it on the net. neat stuff.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/carriers/kuznetsov/kuznetsov2.jpg
those are su-35's on deck.
oh ya, and the su-33 is also a naval variant. if i remember right the 33 is dedicated naval, and the 35 serves maritime duty but not exclusively. or the 33 is the name for the 35 on carriers. its wierd. they got messy numbers. ex. 27MKIB = non-production 35 (upgraded to 35 stats).
hasselich < you got a point in the wc universe, but the original comment was a reality vs fantasy conflict. in which case reality mostly leans to there being no need for a catapult. most of hte events that take place in the wc universe are a bit far from physical reality.
-scheherazade
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/russia/carriers/kuznetsov/kuznetsov2.jpg
those are su-35's on deck.
oh ya, and the su-33 is also a naval variant. if i remember right the 33 is dedicated naval, and the 35 serves maritime duty but not exclusively. or the 33 is the name for the 35 on carriers. its wierd. they got messy numbers. ex. 27MKIB = non-production 35 (upgraded to 35 stats).
hasselich < you got a point in the wc universe, but the original comment was a reality vs fantasy conflict. in which case reality mostly leans to there being no need for a catapult. most of hte events that take place in the wc universe are a bit far from physical reality.
-scheherazade
In my understanding (coming from Jane's) the Su-33 is the navelized version of the Su-27 Flanker. The Su-35 is an updated verson of the Flanker incorporating a type of thrust vectoring. (Video of this was included with Janes ATF, and it's really cool, they flip that plane like it was a coin at the begining of a football game.) (American football)
Once again, in fighter combat, speed=life, whether that be in a WC style furball, or an Newtonian-style duel (as seen in Independence War). At bare minimum, catapults serve some very important functions. They help get the fighter's speed up so the fighter isn't a sitting duck on take-off. They help give the fighter a high relative velocity, so the fighter can reach a distant target faster without having to burn its own remass (and under Newtonian physics, it works even better, since the carrier can rotate toward the target without having to change its relative velocity). And finally, they help get the fighters clear of the carrier, which is important when you consider that if a fighter gets wrecked coming out of the launch bays, you've got a blocked bay.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
the su-27IB is a 27 + canards upgrade
take that and make it production and its the 35
take a naval variant of that and its the 33
then take the 35 and add vectoring and its the 37.
then there are a bunch of intermediate versiond and upgrades. i have heard of a vectoring upgrade to the 35, which gave the 35 some extension to its name, but i dont remember what it was. the 37 is the production run version of the 35 with that upgrade.
the 37 also has a bunch of electronics upgrades on it. i think the FLIR was upgraded, and some fuel tanks expanded, radar touched up, and some other things.
not sure if it was thie 37 or the mig29M, but one of them was also updated to be able to carry western weapons.
-scheherazade
oh ya, i did these names from memory. i dealt with this plane research-wise a bit cause i am making a radio control version of it. i may be off on the 27 extension. there are a good few tags for variants. i think : M, K, MK, IB, MKIB, etc. its like a king fu game, combos all over.
take that and make it production and its the 35
take a naval variant of that and its the 33
then take the 35 and add vectoring and its the 37.
then there are a bunch of intermediate versiond and upgrades. i have heard of a vectoring upgrade to the 35, which gave the 35 some extension to its name, but i dont remember what it was. the 37 is the production run version of the 35 with that upgrade.
the 37 also has a bunch of electronics upgrades on it. i think the FLIR was upgraded, and some fuel tanks expanded, radar touched up, and some other things.
not sure if it was thie 37 or the mig29M, but one of them was also updated to be able to carry western weapons.
-scheherazade
oh ya, i did these names from memory. i dealt with this plane research-wise a bit cause i am making a radio control version of it. i may be off on the 27 extension. there are a good few tags for variants. i think : M, K, MK, IB, MKIB, etc. its like a king fu game, combos all over.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
junior < todays fighters love speed cause engines aren't powerful (not for the weight of planes and what would be good to have). once you lose speed you dont get it back ez. catapult launches are needed only because of the low engine powers. planes for the most part just cant get going fast enough to stay up.
in space you dont have troule staying up. plus in the wc universe the fighters have oodles of power. its only 2 seconds or so to full afterburn speed anyways, so getting going is not an issue for them. just get off the carrier and hit the gas.
1'400 kps in an arrow in 2 seconds
thats 5'040'000 kilometeres per hour in 2 seconds
thats 2'520'000 kilometeres per hour per second^2
or to look at it differently
1'400'000 metres per second in 2 seconds
700'000 metres per second^2
thats 71'428 TIMES EARTHS GRAVITY in accelleration.
what kind of catapult do you know of that would even help a vehicle with this much power get going? it would sooner slow it down than help it launch.
they basically just have to get the ship out of the door/energy lock and hit the gas. and they are gone. speed is not a problem.
the only time consuming factor is preparing ships. which will be the same for normal take off and for catapult launch. maybe more for catapult to take care of extra features.
then you gotta get one onto the catapult system, etc. whereas the ship could (quite quickly) take off on its own. even without full power.
then with the extra stuff it takes to get catapults ready, etc, you run a greater risk of screwing something up. meaning its more likely to damage your launching operation.
and for distant targets it wont matter how fast you took off. it'll be a while before you get there and the constant will become insignificant.
ex.
simple formula : energy wasted = X + 10
10 being the cost of taking off on your own.
then travel 1'000 units.
you only lost 1% doing a normal launch. thats for the most part insiginificant. and in real conditions today, the actual loss is much less. catapult launches save insignificant amounts of fuel.
it just doesnt add up. the whole launch system is more of a burden then a help.
i can see launch systems helping when the energy containment fields go down. then you cant use the hangar deck easilly and it would be slower.
the only solution i can see is that the catapults are not catapults. but merely a section accessible from the flight deck as a take-off tube where fighters can apply full power and not worry about exhaust fumes getting into the hangar, or damaging stuff.
-scheherazade
in space you dont have troule staying up. plus in the wc universe the fighters have oodles of power. its only 2 seconds or so to full afterburn speed anyways, so getting going is not an issue for them. just get off the carrier and hit the gas.
1'400 kps in an arrow in 2 seconds
thats 5'040'000 kilometeres per hour in 2 seconds
thats 2'520'000 kilometeres per hour per second^2
or to look at it differently
1'400'000 metres per second in 2 seconds
700'000 metres per second^2
thats 71'428 TIMES EARTHS GRAVITY in accelleration.
what kind of catapult do you know of that would even help a vehicle with this much power get going? it would sooner slow it down than help it launch.
they basically just have to get the ship out of the door/energy lock and hit the gas. and they are gone. speed is not a problem.
the only time consuming factor is preparing ships. which will be the same for normal take off and for catapult launch. maybe more for catapult to take care of extra features.
then you gotta get one onto the catapult system, etc. whereas the ship could (quite quickly) take off on its own. even without full power.
then with the extra stuff it takes to get catapults ready, etc, you run a greater risk of screwing something up. meaning its more likely to damage your launching operation.
and for distant targets it wont matter how fast you took off. it'll be a while before you get there and the constant will become insignificant.
ex.
simple formula : energy wasted = X + 10
10 being the cost of taking off on your own.
then travel 1'000 units.
you only lost 1% doing a normal launch. thats for the most part insiginificant. and in real conditions today, the actual loss is much less. catapult launches save insignificant amounts of fuel.
it just doesnt add up. the whole launch system is more of a burden then a help.
i can see launch systems helping when the energy containment fields go down. then you cant use the hangar deck easilly and it would be slower.
the only solution i can see is that the catapults are not catapults. but merely a section accessible from the flight deck as a take-off tube where fighters can apply full power and not worry about exhaust fumes getting into the hangar, or damaging stuff.
-scheherazade
*snip*
A few odds and ends...
First you tell hasselich to disregard WC and focus on Real World. Then you use WC to try and shoot down my point.
Make up your mind...
As for catapult acceleration, we may not have a catapult today that can launch a fighter that fast, but the Midway has a very nice one that gets fighters going at a very nice clip on launch. So if you're going to use the Arrow as an example, I suggest you refer to the catapults in the setting, not the type we can build with turn of the 21st Century tech.
Speed is still life in the WC setting. Fighters may have a better acceleration rate, but it still takes them a few seconds to get up to speed. I'm usually not going full speed when I clear the hanger bay of the Victory in WC3. That means that any fighter coming out of the Victory's hanger is a sitting duck for a few key critical seconds while it moves in more or less a predictable direction at a very low speed. Easy kill. Furthermore, if you do wreck a fighter on the way out of the hanger bay, then there's a nice big navigational hazard just hanging in space, right in the flight path of every last fighter that the carrier launches. Sure, the carrier can manuever so that the wreckage is out of the way, but that takes time.
I'll take a catapult, thank you very much.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
speed is hard to come by in reality, you can use a catapult for when you really need it fast, (takeoff)
speed is in ample amounts in WC.
someone saying they need speed in WC is like saying you need snow in the anarctic.
thats the point of going to WC for the argument.
sure the story line has its own tech. but its reasons are inconsistent. like with the catapult idea. if something can get going so fast so quick, what possible advantage would you have in getting out barely any faster. especially if its so much trouble to go through with all the systems needed for it, etc.
people were giving real works reasons for why catapults are needed, and they just dont apply here. real fighters may need help getting off a ship, but the WC fighters are a far cry from needing help getting out the ship. hence reality vs WC.
-scheherazade
speed is in ample amounts in WC.
someone saying they need speed in WC is like saying you need snow in the anarctic.
thats the point of going to WC for the argument.
sure the story line has its own tech. but its reasons are inconsistent. like with the catapult idea. if something can get going so fast so quick, what possible advantage would you have in getting out barely any faster. especially if its so much trouble to go through with all the systems needed for it, etc.
people were giving real works reasons for why catapults are needed, and they just dont apply here. real fighters may need help getting off a ship, but the WC fighters are a far cry from needing help getting out the ship. hence reality vs WC.
-scheherazade
TC
SubCrid
I would very much like to see you launch from a carrier that's running at scoops closed without the catapult... it gives you the little bit of extra speed you need to clear it before getting rammed up the ass as your scoops slow you down. Also, if your engines fail, it gets you the hell out of the way. These are the same reasons a clearing turn is executed as soon as you're launched...
Modern fighters can get off a ship under their own power, as well. Doesn't mean that catapults don't give them a huge advantage.
And have you played WCP? You jabber on and on about how catapults don't provide any speed advantage, but if you actually took the time to think about how they work on the Midway, you'd see that they provide exactly the benefits I specified.
And once again, on the speed front...
Maybe you afterburn out of the Victory's hanger.
I don't.
(and if WC were in any way real, anyone afterburning through the hanger would probably be stripped of his or her wings)
And because of that, I'm ALWAYS moving much slower than I could be moving when I fly out of the hanger. That makes me a sitting duck for the few critical moments when I'm still getting oriented on what's going on. If there's a fight going on right outside the carrier, then once again, I am a sitting duck, and worst of all, I'm in the exact worst spot to leave a wreck in.
Maybe catapults don't provide much of an advantage when you're performing a long distance strike.
But in a tactical situation involving a strike against the carrier, they're an invaluable tool in keeping the pilots alive long enough to make a difference in a fight.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
you're not getting my point.
you dont _need_ the catapult.
ok, so taking off at full burn rips your wings off.
so i am to assume then that the catapults must be launching you SLOWER than you would afterburn, to not rip your wings off.
that means that the catapult isn't actaully catapulting you, but more like pushing forwards and out, without great speed.
then if you're not using great speed, that means that you could easilly just take off on low power and be done with it. since then you wouldnt burn up the hangar with your engines. (notice how the wc3 takeoff videos showed NO exhaust flame or anything with fighters taking off? seems like standard power is pretty safe)
didnt someone say the books state that you can barely go over 1 kps before dissintegrating?
so 1kps of 1400kps max... thats .0714% of your power. to go so fast in an atmosphere that you'd dissintegrate.
carriers have atmosphere in them, so you cant launch faster than you would on a planet.
that means that you'd basically idle out of the ship at the fastest speed it allows, which is still insanely fast.
then when you clear the ship its less than 2 seconds to top speed anyways.
wtf would a catapult help... if stuff is taken into account its not launching you fast (at least not as fast as you could take off on your own if you so chose to). so it gives no speed advantage. you're still stuck accellerating on your own away from the ship.
and even if the launch tubes were in a vacuum, and open to space. you then would be free to take off on afterburner.
unlike in reality where planes are lumbering off the edge of a carrier, almost falling out of the sky, and ez targets casue they will spend 10 seconds just getting up to stable speed, in WC the fighters are going so fast that they are covering interplanetary distances in minutes.
plus i doubt scoops would be needed any time soon after takeoff. not unless you're taking off with nearly dry tanks and you need that fuel just to get going.
not sure about which wc universe to trust on fuel though.
books have fuel for afterburners and regular flight be the same thing, and in the games the afterburner fuel is separate and flight is on some sorta internal power.
but in either case
book - you got a full tank taking off
game - you never run outa gas anyways
so scoops wouldnt be a problem till later.
so to sum it up :
if the catapult launch tubes are with an atmosphere, it cant launch you fast anyways.
if the catapult launch tubes are in vacuum (meaning there wont be anyone around to get hurt anyways), you mught as well take off on full burn.
only possibility left is that the catapults in a vacuum launch faster than you at full burn.
what benefit would that have?
- you manage to get away from a missile that was locked on you while you were inside the ship while taking off. (wont matter any other time cause it takes longer to lock you than it does to get to full speed)
- it wont help you avoid gunfire, you were in the ship, enemy cant see you to shoot guns at you. and if they are close enough to shoot you coming out, they would just shoot the exit hole and trap you inside.
neither are good reasons.
so what does that leave?
1 possible advantage.
- there is someone waiting at the mouth of the launch area perched in a space suit with a missile that locks instantly waiting to shoot you as you come out around the corner. THEN if the catapult could get you to 1400 before you are out of the ship would you have a tiny advantage. (tiny cause the missiles are so fast they'd catch up to you anyways if launched at you as you take off with no distance between you and the missile).
but wait, this scenario of a launch stalker doesnt exist. oh well. so i guess there is no launch tube advantage.
so what if there is somone camping the carrier in a fighter trying to shoot down fighters as they take off.
a) he'd be dodging flak fire
b) there would be some distance between you and the enemy fighter, and he has to wait for a lock.
- either case you have room to maneuver.
- even if a catapult shot you at max speed out the ship, you'd be able to get to that speed without it in the time it takes a fighter pilot to look over and see you taking off and react.
its jus too ez to pick apart.
catapults make no sense.
launch tubes with a vacuum and no catapult, that might be good. but catapults are just senseless. you just dont _need_ them.
-scheherazade
you dont _need_ the catapult.
ok, so taking off at full burn rips your wings off.
so i am to assume then that the catapults must be launching you SLOWER than you would afterburn, to not rip your wings off.
that means that the catapult isn't actaully catapulting you, but more like pushing forwards and out, without great speed.
then if you're not using great speed, that means that you could easilly just take off on low power and be done with it. since then you wouldnt burn up the hangar with your engines. (notice how the wc3 takeoff videos showed NO exhaust flame or anything with fighters taking off? seems like standard power is pretty safe)
didnt someone say the books state that you can barely go over 1 kps before dissintegrating?
so 1kps of 1400kps max... thats .0714% of your power. to go so fast in an atmosphere that you'd dissintegrate.
carriers have atmosphere in them, so you cant launch faster than you would on a planet.
that means that you'd basically idle out of the ship at the fastest speed it allows, which is still insanely fast.
then when you clear the ship its less than 2 seconds to top speed anyways.
wtf would a catapult help... if stuff is taken into account its not launching you fast (at least not as fast as you could take off on your own if you so chose to). so it gives no speed advantage. you're still stuck accellerating on your own away from the ship.
and even if the launch tubes were in a vacuum, and open to space. you then would be free to take off on afterburner.
unlike in reality where planes are lumbering off the edge of a carrier, almost falling out of the sky, and ez targets casue they will spend 10 seconds just getting up to stable speed, in WC the fighters are going so fast that they are covering interplanetary distances in minutes.
plus i doubt scoops would be needed any time soon after takeoff. not unless you're taking off with nearly dry tanks and you need that fuel just to get going.
not sure about which wc universe to trust on fuel though.
books have fuel for afterburners and regular flight be the same thing, and in the games the afterburner fuel is separate and flight is on some sorta internal power.
but in either case
book - you got a full tank taking off
game - you never run outa gas anyways
so scoops wouldnt be a problem till later.
so to sum it up :
if the catapult launch tubes are with an atmosphere, it cant launch you fast anyways.
if the catapult launch tubes are in vacuum (meaning there wont be anyone around to get hurt anyways), you mught as well take off on full burn.
only possibility left is that the catapults in a vacuum launch faster than you at full burn.
what benefit would that have?
- you manage to get away from a missile that was locked on you while you were inside the ship while taking off. (wont matter any other time cause it takes longer to lock you than it does to get to full speed)
- it wont help you avoid gunfire, you were in the ship, enemy cant see you to shoot guns at you. and if they are close enough to shoot you coming out, they would just shoot the exit hole and trap you inside.
neither are good reasons.
so what does that leave?
1 possible advantage.
- there is someone waiting at the mouth of the launch area perched in a space suit with a missile that locks instantly waiting to shoot you as you come out around the corner. THEN if the catapult could get you to 1400 before you are out of the ship would you have a tiny advantage. (tiny cause the missiles are so fast they'd catch up to you anyways if launched at you as you take off with no distance between you and the missile).
but wait, this scenario of a launch stalker doesnt exist. oh well. so i guess there is no launch tube advantage.
so what if there is somone camping the carrier in a fighter trying to shoot down fighters as they take off.
a) he'd be dodging flak fire
b) there would be some distance between you and the enemy fighter, and he has to wait for a lock.
- either case you have room to maneuver.
- even if a catapult shot you at max speed out the ship, you'd be able to get to that speed without it in the time it takes a fighter pilot to look over and see you taking off and react.
its jus too ez to pick apart.
catapults make no sense.
launch tubes with a vacuum and no catapult, that might be good. but catapults are just senseless. you just dont _need_ them.
-scheherazade
Frosty
a full fledged GF
Nobody is saying a catapult is absolutely necessary for taking off from a carrier in Wing Commander. Clearly this is not the case, since we do it all the time.
What everyone is saying, is that it's incredibly stupid to claim that catapults on WC carriers make no sense, because they make a whole lot of sense.
You're not very good at reading, are you?
Wow, isn't that what people have been discussing and explaining for a long time now? Nope, not very good at all...
Too bad the Midway's catapults are like fucking railguns. I doubt a ship could accelerate so fast under its own power.
Or if you wanted to, y'know, make a turn or something.
Except for all those reasons that everyone already explained to you, yeah.
You mean your anti-catapults argument? Yeah, it is.
Oh, so that was your point after all. Yeah, catapults don't make any sense at all, as long as you ignore all the good reasons for having them there, which we've been over twice each in this thread.
If by "sensless," you mean "sensible," then I agree. No, you don't need catapults to take off, but they're such a damn good idea it almost makes no difference.
Damn this is just getting more convoluded the further it goes. Ok, so catapults get you up to combat speeds quickly. So why don't we use them in WC3 on the Victory or WC4 on the Lex?
So under a cold launch your sitting at 400kps instead of 500kps as you clear the carrier deck, I'd love to try to hit something that was doing 400kps anyway (that outlandish speed argument is for another time and another post), but can you honestly tell me that you don't slow down to make manuevers in WC? I'd love to see you tail a Dralthi in an Arrow at full throttle and not either run up his tail or overshoot and make yourself the target. So what makes you more vulnerable when your leaving the ship at 400kps (which in another 1sec won't matter cause you'll be at top speed anyway) than it does in the case when your doing 430kps following a dralthi with his wingmen tearing you apart?
As for launching with the scoops closed, it would be pretty stupid to do so.
First of all if you were running from the target and didn't turn around, your fighters (considering they got out using catapults) would have to decelerate to a dead stop and go back the other way using their own thrust (which is about as bad as cold launching). Plus the Carrier is moving at 100's of 1000's of kilometers a second with scoops closed, do you think that by the time an engagement was over, you'd be anywhere near recovery distance for a fighter? Lets see, say the carrier is moving at 100,000 kilometers per second (which I think is what the Tarawa was moving at under battle damage in End Run) say we have a short engagement of 45 seconds. That puts the capship at 4.5 million kilometers away. The ship is still moving at that clip so by the time you acheive a full scoops closed speed your hella far from your carrier and probably not gonna catch it before you run out of fuel.
Second, you are running from the target and turn around to launch. Basically same story, even with a catapult launching you to 2000kps you still have several thousand kps to bleed off through your own power or scoops before you can accelerate in the direction of the attack. And again, you have the same "can I make it back to my ship" argument.
Third, you are running to a fight and you launch your ships in the direction you are traveling. Your fighters have to bleed off energy to engage the enemy but the carrier's still moving at 100's of thousands of kps. So the carrier blows on past you to the enemy where it gets slaughtered, so you need the fighters to do what exactly?
Conclusion - launching fighters with scoops closed is not a good idea anyway so why would you do it?
Alright I hate leaving a post, coming back to type some more, and someone else stole my points
. Anyway, Frosty why are you badgering him over something that Bear says about only going 1kps in an atmosphere before you start to burn up? This is a nice little discrepancy from novel to game, since we leave (and return to) an atmosphere in the hanger at much more than 1kps in WC3. I guess it could be explained away as a difference between WC2 and WC3 style shields (since I think End Run was set about WC2 time). If not that would mean that catapults are open to space, which is fine by me.
I'll agree that catapults make sense in launching fighters fast because of some 27th century reason (since Doomsday says so in End Run) other than accelerating fighters to more than combat speeds for that extra 'edge', but by 21st century know-how, why bother?
C-ya
So under a cold launch your sitting at 400kps instead of 500kps as you clear the carrier deck, I'd love to try to hit something that was doing 400kps anyway (that outlandish speed argument is for another time and another post), but can you honestly tell me that you don't slow down to make manuevers in WC? I'd love to see you tail a Dralthi in an Arrow at full throttle and not either run up his tail or overshoot and make yourself the target. So what makes you more vulnerable when your leaving the ship at 400kps (which in another 1sec won't matter cause you'll be at top speed anyway) than it does in the case when your doing 430kps following a dralthi with his wingmen tearing you apart?
As for launching with the scoops closed, it would be pretty stupid to do so.
First of all if you were running from the target and didn't turn around, your fighters (considering they got out using catapults) would have to decelerate to a dead stop and go back the other way using their own thrust (which is about as bad as cold launching). Plus the Carrier is moving at 100's of 1000's of kilometers a second with scoops closed, do you think that by the time an engagement was over, you'd be anywhere near recovery distance for a fighter? Lets see, say the carrier is moving at 100,000 kilometers per second (which I think is what the Tarawa was moving at under battle damage in End Run) say we have a short engagement of 45 seconds. That puts the capship at 4.5 million kilometers away. The ship is still moving at that clip so by the time you acheive a full scoops closed speed your hella far from your carrier and probably not gonna catch it before you run out of fuel.
Second, you are running from the target and turn around to launch. Basically same story, even with a catapult launching you to 2000kps you still have several thousand kps to bleed off through your own power or scoops before you can accelerate in the direction of the attack. And again, you have the same "can I make it back to my ship" argument.
Third, you are running to a fight and you launch your ships in the direction you are traveling. Your fighters have to bleed off energy to engage the enemy but the carrier's still moving at 100's of thousands of kps. So the carrier blows on past you to the enemy where it gets slaughtered, so you need the fighters to do what exactly?
Conclusion - launching fighters with scoops closed is not a good idea anyway so why would you do it?
Alright I hate leaving a post, coming back to type some more, and someone else stole my points
. Anyway, Frosty why are you badgering him over something that Bear says about only going 1kps in an atmosphere before you start to burn up? This is a nice little discrepancy from novel to game, since we leave (and return to) an atmosphere in the hanger at much more than 1kps in WC3. I guess it could be explained away as a difference between WC2 and WC3 style shields (since I think End Run was set about WC2 time). If not that would mean that catapults are open to space, which is fine by me.I'll agree that catapults make sense in launching fighters fast because of some 27th century reason (since Doomsday says so in End Run) other than accelerating fighters to more than combat speeds for that extra 'edge', but by 21st century know-how, why bother?
C-ya
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
frosty < plz read the whole content istead of the headers.
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, so taking off at full burn rips your wings off.
so i am to assume then that the catapults must be launching you SLOWER than you would afterburn, to not rip your wings off.
that means that the catapult isn't actaully catapulting you, but more like pushing forwards and out, without great speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not very good at reading, are you?
"
if you read you'd know that flying over 1 kps in an atmosphere damages you.
same goes for most your other comments.
so far the best arguments for acatapults are:
a)getting off the ship sooner
b)having higher speed at takeoff.
and i've shown neither to be the case with catapults.
a)your ship has to be loaded to the catapult, when it could go ahead and go already.
b)atmosphere in the ship keeps you to 1 kps anyways, without an atmosphere in the launch tube you'd be able to afterburn and be out perfectly fast.
-scheherazade
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok, so taking off at full burn rips your wings off.
so i am to assume then that the catapults must be launching you SLOWER than you would afterburn, to not rip your wings off.
that means that the catapult isn't actaully catapulting you, but more like pushing forwards and out, without great speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're not very good at reading, are you?
"
if you read you'd know that flying over 1 kps in an atmosphere damages you.
same goes for most your other comments.
so far the best arguments for acatapults are:
a)getting off the ship sooner
b)having higher speed at takeoff.
and i've shown neither to be the case with catapults.
a)your ship has to be loaded to the catapult, when it could go ahead and go already.
b)atmosphere in the ship keeps you to 1 kps anyways, without an atmosphere in the launch tube you'd be able to afterburn and be out perfectly fast.
-scheherazade
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
btw its pointless to argue about this.
there are 3 sets of references
books
game
physical reality
neither of which overlap very much :-/
-scheherazade
there are 3 sets of references
books
game
physical reality
neither of which overlap very much :-/
-scheherazade
Frosty
a full fledged GF
What in the world is that supposed to mean? You completely mis-read junior's statement to mean that one's ship would be physically stripped of its wings from using afterburners on the flight deck, but that's not what he meant at all. I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't realy your entire post because I corrected a stupid mistake you made, espeically since it's quite obvious from the rest of my post that I did read the whole thing.
You're not going to get away that easy. You can't simply make some vacant claim that you're somehow using a completely separate and yet equally valid system of evaluation from everyone else and expect us all to forget the discussion like that. You stated that catapults make no sense, so prove it. A lot of other people have already gone to the trouble of explaining why they do make sense, so perhaps a good place to start would be to disprove their reasons.
Either that or admit defeat, but don't try some flippant reference to your own personal opinions on how the books and the games relate to each other as a justification for your argument. "You're right... but I'm not wrong!" doesn't cut it here.
Who knows why we don'tuse them... nobody is claiming that they're a necessity, simply that they're very handy. And even though we don't use them, they're there.
Well, seeing as how you have no idea how fast 400kps is, exactly, I don't see how that argument can be made, anyway, nor how anyone could assume it'd be difficult to hit a target moving at that speed.
I don't see what how this is in any way relevent to the discussion. Whether or not one chooses to slow their craft down to maintain their relative position in a dogfight has absolutely no bearing on whether or not catapults make sense as an accessory on WC carriers.
Throughout that whole segment, I wasn't able to tell if you meant launching fighters with their scoops closed, or launching fighters from a carrier with its scoops closed.
Okay, everyone needs to listen very carefully here: This is not about a Bear quote, it's about mis-reading a junior quote.
Or just that the distance they travel when taking off is too short to have any effect.
How does that have anything to do with anything we're talking about here? We're not talking about 21st-century reality, we're talking about a completely fictional future universe.
You know, I'm just a little curious. I'm fairly certain that there's nothing in my piece that I wrote that can be inferred to mean that taking off under full afterburn will rip the wings off your fighter. However, since you obviously saw something along those lines, and bothered to reply to it, why don't you quote the spot and point it out to me.
What I stated was that if you took off under full afterburn from a hanger bay, you should lose your wings. There's a fairly simple reason for this. Your spewing hot afterburn exhaust all over an enclosed area in the inside of the ship. Even if you manage to avoid frying any of the hanger crew, you're putting huge scorch marks in the floor and/or ceiling of the hanger bay.
Now even though I didn't bother to spell the last bit out, I'm not sure how you arrived at the "wings tearing off" theory, so once again, enlighten me as to what part of the post mentions losing wings on take-off.
And Viper, I know I've certainly shot up plenty of fighters moving at 400 KPS or faster. After all, every last Darkhet and Dralthi has a top speed faster than that, and I've certainly slaughtered those by the bucketload, so yes, it is possible to shoot a fighter moving at 400 KPS.
Even when its evading.
And a fighter leaving a hanger bay isn't evading.
