Carrier Landing Styles

Sorry, I wasn't thinking in terms of drag affecting the scoops on takeoff.

I don't think scoops would even be used during takeoff - since a carriers flight deck has an atmosphere, and since they're also probably hazardous to the health of anyone on said flight deck. More than likely, only low powered thrusters, coupled with the catapult, are used during takeoff (if they are active, it's certainly in a very limited fashion). The catapult exists for a couple reasons that I can imagine:

* To jet the fighter far enough away that it can open its scoops. If the fighter takes off and is just sitting in front of the carrier, it's not going to take in any fuel - the carriers own scoops will be using it all. You want to get your fighter into a position where its scoops can take in the hyrdogen it needs to fly around normally. (Especially important during scrambles - you don't want your fighters sitting defenselessly in space while you're under attack.)

* To give it enough thrust to escape the carriers artificial gravity. We don't know how artificial gravity works in Wing Commander, but we've certainly seen it affect fighters.

* Combat reasons. You want to launch as many fighters as possible as quickly - which is easier to do if they're farther away. If you launch an Arrow and there's a mechanical failure, you're better off if it's farther away from the carrier. If it's sitting right outside the airshield, you're screwed - you'll have to compeltely reorient your ship to continue launch operations. If it's a thousand kilometers away, you can just turn your carrier a degree... or decrease the power of the catapult.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
If you launch an Arrow and there's a mechanical failure, you're better off if it's farther away from the carrier. If it's sitting right outside the airshield, you're screwed - you'll have to compeltely reorient your ship to continue launch operations. If it's a thousand kilometers away, you can just turn your carrier a degree... or decrease the power of the catapult.
Click to expand...

Or just destroy the Arrow. Though, I'd instruct the pilot to pop out, first.

[EDIT] I was being silly, btw. I wouldn't really expect that to be considered a solution to anything other than an overpopulation of Arrows. No flaming. [/EDIT]
 
Well, I suppose I can't really stop you, but it wouldn't be very nice of you :(

That disclaimer was primarily to stop Jr Idiots and Ghost from making a big scene because they didn't understand it was a joke.
 
Of course, everyone forgets that WC follows physics about as well as SW and every other space sim out there. :)

But anyway, spacecraft really shouldn't need a landing strip for carrier operations. If you've got decent tractor beams, all you'd need for a carrier is a big box with a bunch of small doors to let stuff in and out. Landing operations would be a lot similar to those found in Vega Strike.
 
Sycorax said:
Of course, everyone forgets that WC follows physics about as well as SW and every other space sim out there. :)

But anyway, spacecraft really shouldn't need a landing strip for carrier operations. If you've got decent tractor beams, all you'd need for a carrier is a big box with a bunch of small doors to let stuff in and out. Landing operations would be a lot similar to those found in Vega Strike.
Click to expand...

We -do- use tractor beams and the ACLS as far back as WC1 - it's just the 'landing strip' there seems to serve a purpose more along the lines of 'giving the pilot a target' more than anything, and some space to decelerate before the beam catches him to draw him inside.

At least, this is true on the larger carriers. The early escort carriers may not have had this sort of system in place, given how they were not purpose-built ships but rather half-baked retrofits.
 
You probably want a landing 'area' to protect your fighter as the ACLS is slowing it down. If you're landing in the middle of a firefight, you don't want to be held helpless in space while being shot at. :)
 
Hmmm, here's a thought: Why not just have the fighters launch out of the stern of the carrier? It would allow them to take off without catapults, and not have to worry about getting rammed in the ass. Just something that occured to me...
 
A number of the same issues brought up earlier still apply - your fighter is still helpless in space until its far enough away from the carrier to start picking up fuel...

... and, of course, in this situation you're leaving it helpless in the carriers engine wash. :)
 
True enough I suppose.... :) Unless the fighters had a one time use only afterburner that would propel them away from their carrier without needing any extra hydrogen so that they could get that much closer to the fray where they could launch their super-polymer missiles and grappling hooks at the kilrathi while magically avoiding being hit and towing them back to the TCS George Washington where they would be loaded down with medals for their bravery!

uh.... LOL J/K! I was just reading some of Joshua's posts and got inspired..... :) lol that guy's gotta be on crack...

anyways, yeah I see what you're saying, for some reason I was forgetting that the carrier had already scooped the path behind them...
 
On the games it appears that on the "open" hangars of WC3 and WC4 they don't show any catapults, the fighter usually just "hover" slowly to space. That's the impression from the WC3 launch cutscenes and the CG Dragon taking off from Axius.

Yeah, it was a base, and bases used catapults on WC2 :) That's an interesting mix: on WC1 and WCP, when you launch you see the fighter come out of a "tube". But on WC2, it's a big hangar, with people around, where you can actually see the catapult.
 
Maybe naval architects still aren't sure whether they prefer fly-off or catapult launches, and so each individual design is created by an egotist with his own idea of what the best system is, thus creating an apparent contradiction in design choices. (Incidentally, maybe the Concordia had the landing strip as a compromise to get both worlds... or maybe they just needed the length for the PTC, and felt like sticking something useful on it.)

For example, back in the arms build-up to WW1, there was debate on whether one should sacrifice armor for speed (the battleship-battlecruiser debate). In the end, armor won (as speed turned out to be not as important as theoreticians thought), but not before the UK built a bunch of battlecruisers first.
 
In Prophecy, isnt the fighter lowered onto a conveyor belt looking thing from a crane during the launch cut screen? This yellow crane lowers the ship into a open hatch onto a conveyor belt which is probably the catapault...right? Or am I just delusional?
 
Mystral Hawk said:
In Prophecy, isnt the fighter lowered onto a conveyor belt looking thing from a crane during the launch cut screen? This yellow crane lowers the ship into a open hatch onto a conveyor belt which is probably the catapault...right? Or am I just delusional?
Click to expand...

You're delusional. ;) Actually, that's a correct description of the scene, except that the conveyor belt isn't the catapult... it just moves the ship from the hatch to the catapult. The EM catapult accelerates the ship to a few 100 kps, which would be hard to do with a moving carpet...

The reason behind that little scene is that the Midway has an "arterial" hangar system... instead of ships parked in bays, it has an overhead crane which moves them to any of the 6 catapult tubes (although I imagine they don't move ships across the split center very fast, so it's only really a choice of 3 tubes per side...). The idea is that any ship can launch from any tube, which seems reasonable enough (although the crane method does seem kinda slow).
 
overmortal said:
Hehehe . . don't feel too bad. I was just fussing for the fun of it. You're alright. :)
Click to expand...


heheh, ok, Ya gotta remember, I'm still kinda new on the forums, I haven't got a feel for when you're kidding or not. ;)
 
LOAF, I'm guessing that by vulnerable you mean parked and waiting for the doors to open, implying an attempt at landing.

I fail to see the usefulness of landing during a firefight around your carrier for two reasons: 1) it's a better idea to ditch rather than risk a crash in a craft that can't continue, and 2) since you're on defense you should probably stay up untill all attackers are cleared, unless the thought of death in the center of a giant fireball is appealing.

A safe landing area (an oxymoron, in my opinion) doesn't exist in a scramble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top