Question about ship design

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bloodspray

Spaceman
I'm doing what I shouldn't do, I know, trying to rationalize WC, but I can't help myself. lol

I was just looking at the Fleet Tactics website and browsing the ship database there. It reminded me of something I had thought about before. These fighters, on both sides, seem to be designed with an atmospheric capability look to them. At least on the surface. Trouble is, most of them wouldn't fly except in space. In which case, what's the point of the atmospheric look? It's kinda like huge spoilers on Honda Civics (y'know, massive rear downforce on FWD cars. lol).

Take the Dralthi for example. It looks quite atmospheric capable, large wings, vertical wing area, centered cockpit and engines, etc. Trouble is, the wings are almost entirely in front of the cockpit. So the center of lift is way too far forward of the center of gravity. All stable planes are designed with a center of lift slightly ahead of the center of gravity so that they will have a tendency to nose up a bit rather than dive, but in the case of the Dralthi, it's too extreme. So what's the purpose of the wings?

The Raptor, you don't normally use anhedral and dihedral at the same time. And certainly not that excessively. They would have a rather low amount of lift. And the center of it is a bit too far back it seems. It looks to be behind the CoG. Not the best design, although it might not be as extreme as the Dralthi.

Then you have others, like the Ferret, the Epee, the Longbow, etc.


I'm fairly certain all the designs are done for looks alone, then incorporated into the game without much thought for real world applicability. But still, it could at least be BS'd a little, y'know? lol

I'm just wondering if there a technobabble/pseudo-engineering explanation or purpose for those things.
 
Three words for you: stabilizers and thrusters.

The Dralthi, as you've commented on, has large wings. These spread the stabilization systems out across a wide area, which results in a steadier ride at high velocities. They're also useful for putting thrusters on, since you've got all those edges to work with, allowing one to adjust turn radius as needed. This is commented on by Hunter in "Freedom Flight", pp 135-136. He calls them 'wing stabilizers' in that section.

Those wings aren't meant for atmospheric use, though they do affect flight in atmosphere, by virtue of their shape... but that's not their purpose.
 
Re: atmospheric capability of brick-shaped spacecraft (Longbow and such) - the WC3 Authorized Combat Guide talks about 'Star Wars'-style anti-gravity repulsors.
 
In a slightly similar fashion, Leonard Nemoy and Roger Ebert went back and forth over a number of years, arguing about the "uses" (or lack thereof, according to Ebert) the Klingon Bird Of Prey has with having wings.
 
Chiming in on what LOAF said, the atmospheric fighters in WCATV seem to have the ability to hover whenever they want to (Confed- Scim, Sabre, and Longbow. Kilrathi - Dralthi mk I, Sartha, Grikath, and Jalkehi. Some of which have some pretty non-aerodynamic qualities and Paz even says the Scimitar glides like a brick, even though a few seconds later its doing a pretty good job of gliding ;)). Even those planetary missions we go on in WC3 and WC4 in the Excal and 'Cat respectively, you can hover at any height. I'm more inclined to believe that the atmospheric capability of a fighter has more to do with its additional 'atmospheric capable options' (maybe a slightly different type of drive, actual control surfaces, 'symmetric' drive config, etc) and the fighters energy weapon allotment (some WC energy weapons don't function in atmosphere) than aerodynamics.
Everything we've seen weapon-wise is usually repeated on the later versions of atmospheric capable craft. The WC3 Hellcat, Sartha, and Grikath all use neutron guns in their loadout. The Scim and Sabre use Mass drivers. The Dralthi, Jalkehi, and IIRC most of the WCATV era fighters use lasers (though they lose effectiveness with range). Finally the Sabre, WC4 Hellcat and Jalkehi use particle cannons as an armament.

Anyway, I'll let the Aero-space/nautical engineer handle the aerodynamic questions, but with shields and the "repulsors" I don't know how much of an impact aerodynamics actually have on an atmospheric fighter.

C-ya
 
Haesslich said:
Three words for you: stabilizers and thrusters.

The Dralthi, as you've commented on, has large wings. These spread the stabilization systems out across a wide area, which results in a steadier ride at high velocities. They're also useful for putting thrusters on, since you've got all those edges to work with, allowing one to adjust turn radius as needed. This is commented on by Hunter in "Freedom Flight", pp 135-136. He calls them 'wing stabilizers' in that section.

Those wings aren't meant for atmospheric use, though they do affect flight in atmosphere, by virtue of their shape... but that's not their purpose.
Click to expand...

True enough I suppose, if you want to move a thruster out away from the CoG you need something to do it on, and a wing or edge would work for that. Doesn't explain why the Dralthi would have them all in front though. Or why the Epee has about 40 wings on it all in the same area. lol
 
Re: Klingon Bird of Prey... I'd imagine they're for flying around in atmospheres - which they've done since they first showed up (in Star Trek III).
 
I can try to think up of something to explain it but I'm kinda just braindead after Fleet Tactics. But if worse comes to worse . . . use the Bumblebee Theory. It is said as below.

Considering a bumblebee's aerodynamic shape, size of wings, weight, and thrust-to-weight ratio, it would be logical to say that a bumblebee cannot fly in proper 1-g atmospheric conditions. But it does . . . somehow.

And so do ships like Longbows :)
 
Viper61 said:
Chiming in on what LOAF said, the atmospheric fighters in WCATV seem to have the ability to hover whenever they want to (Confed- Scim, Sabre, and Longbow. Kilrathi - Dralthi mk I, Sartha, Grikath, and Jalkehi. Some of which have some pretty non-aerodynamic qualities and Paz even says the Scimitar glides like a brick, even though a few seconds later its doing a pretty good job of gliding ;)). Even those planetary missions we go on in WC3 and WC4 in the Excal and 'Cat respectively, you can hover at any height. I'm more inclined to believe that the atmospheric capability of a fighter has more to do with its additional 'atmospheric capable options' (maybe a slightly different type of drive, actual control surfaces, 'symmetric' drive config, etc) and the fighters energy weapon allotment (some WC energy weapons don't function in atmosphere) than aerodynamics.
Everything we've seen weapon-wise is usually repeated on the later versions of atmospheric capable craft. The WC3 Hellcat, Sartha, and Grikath all use neutron guns in their loadout. The Scim and Sabre use Mass drivers. The Dralthi, Jalkehi, and IIRC most of the WCATV era fighters use lasers (though they lose effectiveness with range). Finally the Sabre, WC4 Hellcat and Jalkehi use particle cannons as an armament.

Anyway, I'll let the Aero-space/nautical engineer handle the aerodynamic questions, but with shields and the "repulsors" I don't know how much of an impact aerodynamics actually have on an atmospheric fighter.

C-ya
Click to expand...

People said the Jug glided like a brick too, but it wasn't really all that bad either. lol

Depending on the tech type, a Ball, Tube, or Cube might be the purest functional shape for a space fighter. With the mass centered in the shape and the thrusters or what not, equally spaced around that mass.

The Star Fury is the next best design from the sphere. Centered engines and pilot (and weapons), with thrusters out away from the CoG to add lever arm components to the work they provide, and everything being equidistant and symmetrical. It gives an idea that atmospheric flight might be possible, but you can see other reasons for that design (and there is a version of the Star Fury that was made for atmospheric use, a good bit different from the standard one).

Which brings me back the initial question, if you aren't going to make use of aerodynamics, why give it that look?

The Hellcat V seems to be capable of atmospheric flight. I wouldn't recommend trying to fight in air with it, but, to get from one place to another it should work (ditto the Excalibur). The Hornet, Rapier, Sabre, Stiletto, Morning Star, and Strike Sabre all seem to be capable in atmospheres to varying degrees. Some might even be comfortable in a fight there. The Scim, looks like it'd be better than the Hellcat V and Excalibur, but not as good as the other group.
 
psych said:
I can try to think up of something to explain it but I'm kinda just braindead after Fleet Tactics. But if worse comes to worse . . . use the Bumblebee Theory. It is said as below.

Considering a bumblebee's aerodynamic shape, size of wings, weight, and thrust-to-weight ratio, it would be logical to say that a bumblebee cannot fly in proper 1-g atmospheric conditions. But it does . . . somehow.

And so do ships like Longbows :)
Click to expand...

lol

I was pretty sure that Aerodynamicists have resolved that and now understand how and why the bumblebee can fly.
 
In the case of both Dralthi and every other spacecraft powered by enormously explosive physical processes, there is sure to be a lot of excess energy development in the process of harnessing this energy. WHat's the possibility of heat sinks?

Gamewise I have to say however that they only designed them that way because 2001 A Space Odyssey maintenance flitters with guns would have looked extremely boring...
 
Bloodspray said:
People said the Jug glided like a brick too, but it wasn't really all that bad either. lol

Depending on the tech type, a Ball, Tube, or Cube might be the purest functional shape for a space fighter. With the mass centered in the shape and the thrusters or what not, equally spaced around that mass.

The Star Fury is the next best design from the sphere. Centered engines and pilot (and weapons), with thrusters out away from the CoG to add lever arm components to the work they provide, and everything being equidistant and symmetrical. It gives an idea that atmospheric flight might be possible, but you can see other reasons for that design (and there is a version of the Star Fury that was made for atmospheric use, a good bit different from the standard one).

Which brings me back the initial question, if you aren't going to make use of aerodynamics, why give it that look?
Click to expand...

Why not? Why not making something that has SOME aerodynamic qualities, given that you can put it into an atmosphere without having the same issues a flying sphere would have? On top of problems that sphere would provide regarding radar cross-section, weapons-mounting, etc? The maneuvering in WC depends on 'scoop' fields as much as anything, which allow us to use atmospheric-style maneuvering in space along with the standard thruster-based systems for fine control. They're going to have to enter atmosphere anyways, even if that's just in the landing bay of the carrier - Blair had to compensate for the lifting effects the shuttle's wings had when landing in the Independence's hangar. These craft do have to enter atmosphere at some point, and air resistance IS going to make a difference even if you're using antigravs to provide lift - it only makes sense to give these ships a design that at least does not create more drag than is absolutely necessary, if not one that is completely sound in atmosphere.

Bringing other universes' technology into here is questionable anyways - the Earth Alliance did not have gravitic technology, which is why the standard Aurora-class Starfury could not function in atmosphere - it didn't have the engines capable of keeping it flying in a gravity well, nor did it have control surfaces for atmospheric flight. The Thunderbolt-class Starfuries have some control surfaces (note the lengthened fuselage and more planar-style wing) along with better engines. Wing Commander's tech base (a good grasp of gravitic technology, scoop fields which allow atmospheric maneuvering in space) make the Aurora-style maneuvering system redundant. Notice that the Minbari gravitic drives allowed far better maneuverability for THEIR fighters without having to depend on the same designs you propose.

Bloodspray said:
The Hellcat V seems to be capable of atmospheric flight. I wouldn't recommend trying to fight in air with it, but, to get from one place to another it should work (ditto the Excalibur). The Hornet, Rapier, Sabre, Stiletto, Morning Star, and Strike Sabre all seem to be capable in atmospheres to varying degrees. Some might even be comfortable in a fight there. The Scim, looks like it'd be better than the Hellcat V and Excalibur, but not as good as the other group.
Click to expand...

You don't depend on the wing surfaces of these fighters, mostly - at least not outside of the Rapiers in End Run. The main purpose of the shape there is to avoid TOO much drag and instability, which a cube or sphere would create, simply because of the amount of area the wind would have to work on.

I'd hate to try to land a sphere in a pressurized hangar bay even if I -had- decelerated sharply...
 
Bloodspray said:
lol

I was pretty sure that Aerodynamicists have resolved that and now understand how and why the bumblebee can fly.
Click to expand...

No, they're still working on the problem as we speak - though the unstable nature of the bumblebee's form makes for great maneuverability. One reason we have unstable airframes for high-performance, high-maneuverability atmospheric fighters right now - it's a lot easier to bank when your craft's already inclined to tumble if you stop the control necessary to keep it level.
 
Back in my days of flying remote controlled airplanes (which is really fun, btw, and I would recommend it to anyone who can afford one), there was a certain type of plane called the "lazy bee". It wasn't very sleek, or fast, but you twist that thing in any direction on a dime. Then came me with my Tiger II :)

I eventually got banned from the local flying club for harrassing too many airborn craft.
 
re: atmospherics on a spacecraft... they have this really great advantage of making you really small from the front or the back because everything is laid out more or less lengthwise. Bigger from the top or bottom but thats why you dont sit still.

Re: starfuries, the newer model (Thunderbolt) has flipout wing surfaces for atmospheric flight as well as a sleeker look. The ability to slide in a plane perpendicular to your attacker comes in really handy until your opponent starts using instant-hit beam weapons.

and re: WC ships in atmosphere... all the ones Ive used seem to be just fine.
Damn IR spamming turrets.
 
Haesslich said:
No, they're still working on the problem as we speak - though the unstable nature of the bumblebee's form makes for great maneuverability. One reason we have unstable airframes for high-performance, high-maneuverability atmospheric fighters right now - it's a lot easier to bank when your craft's already inclined to tumble if you stop the control necessary to keep it level.
Click to expand...

This was known by Anthony Fokker and his contemporaries. Which is why the Dr.1 and Camel were so dangerous to new pilots, but deadly in the hands of aces. :)

Of course, the most agile fighters aren't always the best turners and the best turners aren't always the most agile. Even Yak3s and Zeros are not going to keep up with a 190 when it comes to jinking and quick direction changes and reversals, but, no 190 will keep up with either plane in a steady turn, pretty much regardless of relative E states.
 
Haesslich said:
Why not? Why not making something that has SOME aerodynamic qualities, given that you can put it into an atmosphere without having the same issues a flying sphere would have? On top of problems that sphere would provide regarding radar cross-section, weapons-mounting, etc? The maneuvering in WC depends on 'scoop' fields as much as anything, which allow us to use atmospheric-style maneuvering in space along with the standard thruster-based systems for fine control. They're going to have to enter atmosphere anyways, even if that's just in the landing bay of the carrier - Blair had to compensate for the lifting effects the shuttle's wings had when landing in the Independence's hangar. These craft do have to enter atmosphere at some point, and air resistance IS going to make a difference even if you're using antigravs to provide lift - it only makes sense to give these ships a design that at least does not create more drag than is absolutely necessary, if not one that is completely sound in atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Good points. The RADAR one in particular, but, you could just make it bumpy like the F-117F. lol But yeah, I can see going for drag reduction as well. I would just assume that it would be taken to one extreme or another, something that would work well in air, or, something that couldn't go near it.

Either way, an interesting conversation point. :)


Bringing other universes' technology into here is questionable anyways - the Earth Alliance did not have gravitic technology, which is why the standard Aurora-class Starfury could not function in atmosphere - it didn't have the engines capable of keeping it flying in a gravity well, nor did it have control surfaces for atmospheric flight. The Thunderbolt-class Starfuries have some control surfaces (note the lengthened fuselage and more planar-style wing) along with better engines. Wing Commander's tech base (a good grasp of gravitic technology, scoop fields which allow atmospheric maneuvering in space) make the Aurora-style maneuvering system redundant. Notice that the Minbari gravitic drives allowed far better maneuverability for THEIR fighters without having to depend on the same designs you propose.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it only because it was a design that put control "surfaces" (mechanisms in this case) out away from the CoG, bunched everything else up tight together and still had a cool shape that the average joe might think could work in air, but was really done for reasons far different from air travel.

As for the other stuff there, yeah, the other night I had sort of an epiphany and realized that WC is "realistic" afterall (well, plausible, if one can accept arty-grav, inertial damping, and shield tech, the way WC fighters behave is easily acceptible as well, and there is a lot more "physics" going on then I had ever noticed before.... enh, long digression, I'll stop here. lol)


You don't depend on the wing surfaces of these fighters, mostly - at least not outside of the Rapiers in End Run. The main purpose of the shape there is to avoid TOO much drag and instability, which a cube or sphere would create, simply because of the amount of area the wind would have to work on.

I'd hate to try to land a sphere in a pressurized hangar bay even if I -had- decelerated sharply...
Click to expand...

Well, a Broad Sword might as well be a cube. lol And you could just dimple the sphere and make it like a golf ball. Although they spin and that could cause problems with thrust..... But, on the other hand, why not just make it a true aerospace fighter and be done with it? :p lol ;)

TIE fighters don't seem to have too much trouble landing. ;) lol
 
I could have sworn you see Dralthi fly in atmosphere during the Port Hedland cutscene during WC1.

Mark IVs fly in atmosphere, they are hovering "escort", over the Emperor and Thrakhath, when they are speaking with Angel in WC3.

Repulserlifts do help the problem of non aerodynamic craft in atmosphere, mainly to hold it aloft. I think that scoops and shieds are just as important, even so much as to have a "shield wing", even though that would be pretty energy intensive and not practical.

TIE fighters have racks that they dock on, they don't have any landing gear, or ejection seats, and not even life support. Quantity over quality I guess. I hated the regular TIE in X-wing vs TIE fighter lol, the goal is not to get hit EVER.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top