Vectored Thrust, Aerodynamics, Cloaking

Edfilho said:
I'd assume that all ships can FLY in atmosphere, but only a few can FIGHT in atmosphere. I can't see why would they be unable to slowly cruise and land. But sure, combat maneuvers are another thing entirely.

Actually, this is also true for real, current aircraft. No 767's can pull the same combat maneuvers that a F-16 does. It would simply fall apart.

That's not a very good analogy. We're not talking about Clydesdales, Cruise Liners or Free Traders doing atmospheric combat. We're just talking about combat fighters.
 
Well, at least on the games, only specific types of ships are used in atmospheric mission, there's a limited choice.
 
DyNaMiX said:
But see that's the thing. Aircraft face the same problem in the clouds as well. We face it. Always getting blocked ears etc. I'm assuming the pressure is set at a similar level on earth. If anything it'd make more sense that the closer you get inside an atmosphere, the easier it is on the ship. Because the planet's pressure and atmosphere would be similar to the ships, hence the force trying to cause the pressure to "explode" would dissappear the closer you get to sea level.

Here's an example of reversed forces: Buildings are made to handle gravity pulling down on them towards the Earth's center. However, if the building were to be lifted up and placed sideways or upside-down, so that gravity was pulling it in a different direction, it would collapse, since the arrangement of forces is now different from what it was designed to tolerate.

Here's an example closer to what we're actually dealing with when a space fighter goes into atmosphere: a soda can. Soda cans are made to handle up to a hundred pounds per square inch of internal gas pressure and not rupture, yet the slightest external pressure on an empty can will crush it completely--you can easily crush a can in your bare fingers.
 
Ijuin said:
Here's an example of reversed forces: Buildings are made to handle gravity pulling down on them towards the Earth's center. However, if the building were to be lifted up and placed sideways or upside-down, so that gravity was pulling it in a different direction, it would collapse, since the arrangement of forces is now different from what it was designed to tolerate.

Here's an example closer to what we're actually dealing with when a space fighter goes into atmosphere: a soda can. Soda cans are made to handle up to a hundred pounds per square inch of internal gas pressure and not rupture, yet the slightest external pressure on an empty can will crush it completely--you can easily crush a can in your bare fingers.

Hence why they also tell you not to puncture these things or put them in so much heat.
But why would a star fighter need such an immense amount of pressure? Full baloons pop easier than flat ones. You wouldn't want too much pressure inside the cabin. Not only is our pilot going to have a tough time keeping his eyes open but it introduces other problems.
 
Sea level Earth air is nearly fifteen pounds per square inch, and that would be the atmosphere used in the cabin of nearly any spacecraft. You could use as little as a third of this pressure by using a pure oxygen atmosphere (the American Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft did this), but the drawback is that the pilot has to "pre-breathe" pure oxygen for two hours before entering the low-pressure environment or else he/she will get the bends from nitrogen bubbles forming in the bloodstream due to the sudden pressure drop.
 
Chris, Maybe the analogy is not 100% equivalent, but I don't see why wouldn't it work. There is no reason why those heavily armored and shielded fighters equiped with very powerful engines and antigrav stuff, which also take off and land from fully pressurized flight decks with 1G gravity wouldn't be able to just take off and land. on any earth-like planet.

AFAIK, all we read about is how they are restriced in regards to fighting. Even HAlcyon's comment makes it pretty clear that the danger was in combat, not flying.
 
That might be true. The Ferret could land on planets, but there was no indication it was fit for atmospheric combat.
 
Delance said:
That might be true. The Ferret could land on planets, but there was no indication it was fit for atmospheric combat.

We see Ferrets fighting in the atmosphere in End Run.
 
In Privateer the Galaxy, Orion and Tarsus had no problem landing on planets with an atmosphere, and they look about as aerodynamic as a cow.
 
precisely. Atmospheric *flight* in WC has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Just stop your excal, hellcat or vindicator, they will just hang there in midair. You can even turn bellyside up. Of course, if you try that during combat, the enemy's ekapshi or vindicator or hellcat will really toast you.

I'd say that aerodynamics would be usefull for (relatively) high speed combat maneuvers. And that the pressure constraints would be a problem while being shot at.

But all WC fighters we see in games can survive a normal atmosphere and gravity fine. Because all hangars have those environmental characteristics.

Even dedicated space fighters in Action Stations are parked at a surface base. There is no mention of the need for shuttling them outside the planet's atmosphere. and there are also dedicated atmosphere fighters, right beside the space ones.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
We see Ferrets fighting in the atmosphere in End Run.

Ah, of course. So that means every single Ferret is capable of fighting in the atmosphere, or just the ones that are prepared for that?
 
Delance said:
Ah, of course. So that means every single Ferret is capable of fighting in the atmosphere, or just the ones that are prepared for that?

Since there are so many instances of atmospheric combat being joined on an impromptu basis, there's really no reason to go around second-guessing whether ships can do it or not. This is the exact reason that Halcyon makes the specific point of warning his pilots in WC1. This goes right back to what we were saying dozens of posts ago. If you normally couldn't go atmospheric without special modification, then there'd be no reason to make a special point of warning people away from the atmosphere that one time.
 
Edfilho said:
precisely. Atmospheric *flight* in WC has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Just stop your excal, hellcat or vindicator, they will just hang there in midair. You can even turn bellyside up. Of course, if you try that during combat, the enemy's ekapshi or vindicator or hellcat will really toast you.

I'd say that aerodynamics would be usefull for (relatively) high speed combat maneuvers. And that the pressure constraints would be a problem while being shot at.

But all WC fighters we see in games can survive a normal atmosphere and gravity fine. Because all hangars have those environmental characteristics.

Even dedicated space fighters in Action Stations are parked at a surface base. There is no mention of the need for shuttling them outside the planet's atmosphere. and there are also dedicated atmosphere fighters, right beside the space ones.


And that's why they used the term "sustained operations". It can fly but can't operate. They can hover fine, at slow speeds they can keep in the air but at high speeds they'll be forcing themselves through the air. Since they were designed for space they lack the aerodynamics aircraft have. They won't be as efficient.
 
DyNaMiX said:
And that's why they used the term "sustained operations". It can fly but can't operate. They can hover fine, at slow speeds they can keep in the air but at high speeds they'll be forcing themselves through the air. Since they were designed for space they lack the aerodynamics aircraft have. They won't be as efficient.

But that's my point. That all of the fighter craft can at leat take off and land from Earth-like planets. Even if just for shuttling purposes. But only a few can actually operate with any deegree of efficiency, as demonstrated by games and books.
 
But that's my point. That all of the fighter craft can at leat take off and land from Earth-like planets. Even if just for shuttling purposes. But only a few can actually operate with any deegree of efficiency, as demonstrated by games and books.

The point is that this *hasn't* been demonstrated at all. It's something the fandom likes to assume specifically because of the vauge and unusual quote from Halcyon.

Just because we see an Epee in an atmosphere but we have no story that's specifically about an Epee fighting in the atmosphere is not evidence that Epee's can't fight. It's a simply a weird conclusion for the sake of deciding a fact exists rather than anything based on... anything.

*All* we know is that the movie Rapier can't fly in an atmosphere at all (which discouts your 'all fighters can take off and land from Earth-like planets theory) and that the Rapier II in Secret Missions 2 can't fight in an atmosphere (but it can in End Run). There is no broad standard here that can be applied to every case - time and time again we see fighters that we never expected to be 'atmosphere capable' of engaging in combat - Scimitars, Ferrets, Sabres, Rapier IIs, Hellcats, etc.
 
Yes, that was the point of my original post, there's no compelling evidence one way or the other here.

Think about it: you play Wing Commander III in 1994, and you come to an atmosphere mission. The only ship you can select is the Excalibur. What was our assumption? The Excalibur was the only ship on the Victory that could fight in the atmosphere.

Two years later, Wing Commander IV says not so fast! Now the *Hellcat* is the ship for atmosphere missions. Didn't we have Hellcats on the Victory?

Not seeing something isn't evidence enough to prove that it can't do something.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
Think about it: you play Wing Commander III in 1994, and you come to an atmosphere mission. The only ship you can select is the Excalibur. What was our assumption? The Excalibur was the only ship on the Victory that could fight in the atmosphere.

Up until the mission where you have to rescue that doctor, anyway. IIRC Vagabond rode a Hellcat down to slug him in the face. And my memory may be really foggy, but I think a wing of Hellcats does a flyby over the Concordia in the intro.

I mean there were missions where you could only choose a couple fighter types, but I didn't jump to the conclusion that suddenly the Victory lost it's compliment of all the other types. I just figured that someone somewhere decided that I shouldn't be taking a Longbow out on that first patrol to scuttle a lowly transport with a full salvo of torps... but they'd let me do it later on, hopefully. :p

The only time a lack of an option is ever explained really, is in WCIV when you find out Pliers ate your Hellcats for lunch.
 
t.c.cgi said:
Up until the mission where you have to rescue that doctor, anyway. IIRC Vagabond rode a Hellcat down to slug him in the face. And my memory may be really foggy, but I think a wing of Hellcats does a flyby over the Concordia in the intro.

You're jumping into this half-way. We just spent a million posts going back and forth over the semantic between fighting and flying in the atmosphere. LOAF said that WC3 shows only the Excalibur fighting on a planet.

t.c.cgi said:
I mean there were missions where you could only choose a couple fighter types, but I didn't jump to the conclusion that suddenly the Victory lost it's compliment of all the other types. I just figured that someone somewhere decided that I shouldn't be taking a Longbow out on that first patrol to scuttle a lowly transport with a full salvo of torps... but they'd let me do it later on, hopefully. :p

That's different from the scenario loaf just described. The one he did is something that's going on here.
 
Back
Top