Runways

Dragon1

Dragon1

Rear Admiral
Whats with the long runways on Confed carriers? FMV sequences in WC3 and WC4 established that Confed fighters were all vertical take-off and landing. The dual runways on the TCS Concordia (WC2) made the least sense, over 3/4 of the strips were exposed to space.

The launch systems on the Tiger's Claw and the Midway would appear to be the most efficient and functional. So why abandon the concept introduced in the Bengal-class Strike Carriers (introduced in 2619) until the inception of the TCS Midway 60 years later?
 
Well the Ranger and Concordia class carriers both have designs predating the Bengal class, so they would not have any more recent innovations that would require a major structural redesign, such as the inclusion of launch tubes. The CVE escort carriers lacked the internal space to include launch tubes. I can't say about the Confederation class, however.
 
its a nod to the era which inspired wing commander. wwii, the pacific theater. it just looks cool as hell having actual flight decks visible on a space carrier.
 
It's not like the fighter's actually land on them, they seem more like markings on the structure of the carrier as a guide?
 
The Concordia-class doesn't predate the Bengal-class.

That said, all the carriers seem to have decks for *recovering* fighters rather than for launching them.
 
Interesting that the movie Tiger's Claw looks alot like a cross between a Ranger-class carrier and a submarine. In the movie, the launch and landing procedures were much like those on Ranger and Concordia-class carriers. All these ships mentioned have a flight deck that runs completely through.

The WC1 Tiger's Claw has a totally different design. Is it possible that the Tiger's Claw was refit or rebuilt between the events of the movie and the game?

Also, the "Wing Commander I & II: The Ultimate Strategy Guide" specifically states that the Tiger's Claw had her shakedown cruise in 2644. This would indicate that the Claw was launched sometime around 2643/2644 contradicting the Wing Commander Movie Guide book (I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head) that states that the Claw was active prior to these years.

Would it be feasable to say that even though the Bengal-class Carriers date from 2619? That the Claw was part of a 2nd block construction programme that began in 2643/2644. Then this programme received some form of service-life-extension refit in mid 2654 (to get the look from WC1). If we push the events stated in the movie guide up past 2644, we now have an unbroken continuity.
 
I think it's just different styles for different stories -- Super Wing Commander also redesigns the 'Claw.

The Tiger's Claw was launched in 2644, per Claw Marks. The Handbook doesn't say anything about the Tiger's Claw being in service before then -- it says the *Bengal class* (with a slightly lessened set of specifications) were in service starting in 2619 (clearly the TCS *Tiger's Claw* isn't the first *Bengal* class ship). The movie novel reconfirms the 2644 date for the 'Claws first cruise.
 
Bandit, do you think that the designers of the movie intended the Claw to look a little like the Victory, or was it unintentional?
 
Dragon1 said:
Whats with the long runways on Confed carriers? FMV sequences in WC3 and WC4 established that Confed fighters were all vertical take-off and landing.
Click to expand...

They were not VTOL on WC2, however. Just take a look at the cutscenes from that game.
 
With the kind of power that these ships put out, and the fact that the force of lift isn't needed in space, a catapult system would seem inneffective. Now - the WC4 novel does mention a booster rocket system that was used to launch fighters that couldn't accelerate fast enough to clear the carrier that was moving forward. In that aspect, I could understand using a catapult to accelerate the ship ahead of the forward-moving-carrier.
 
It always seemed to me that the fighters in WC2 were VTOL capable... or at least capable of sustained hovering. Just look at the way they land on the Concordia. At the very final bit they kind of hover in place and turn around and settle down.

If they were VTOL-capable, they just didn't take off that way because they either used catapults to launch ships at combat speeds or just because it looks neater.
 
Hmmm. If you vertically get out of a hangar, then have to start the main engines of a fighter and change the axis of movement, that will cost you some precious moments.

Being catapulted along your "normal" axis of movement saves those moments, saves some fuel, gets you to a pretty good speed, helps the pilot to get his orientation, and also gets you out of the way quick if something goes wrong with your fighter. Apart from looking cool.
 
If nothing else, there's 600-odd years of tradition behind catapulting down a carrier runway. :)

(And WC3/4 had catapult-analog launching mechanisms, too. Blair damages the Lexington's launchers, in the WC4 novelization, by detonating a torpedo in front of the launch bay, throwing the guides out of alignment. Just because the game doesn't simulate something due to code limitations doesn't mean it can't exist.)
 
Dragon1 said:
Are these magnetic or gravitic catapults that we are talking about?
Click to expand...

I would imagine that they'd be mag-rails .. . but I'm only guessing.
 
criticalmass said:
It's like the tractor beam, only the other way around. And don't ask me how a tractor beam works. :p
Click to expand...

Any self-respecting StarTrek nerd can pull out his copy of the NextGeneration Tech-Manual and explain it. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top