Wolfs Shipyard Forum

The new forum for Wolf's Shipyard
It is currently Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:52 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Two new TOS designs
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:00 am
Posts: 913
Location: Saukville, Wisconsin
Let me know what you think.
http://marcusstarkiller.deviantart.com/art/Britannia-Class-Battlestar-356631327?q=gallery%3Amarcusstarkiller&qo=1

http://marcusstarkiller.deviantart.com/#/art/Queenstown-Bay-Class-Carrier-TOS-re-design-by-me-356961397?_sid=3b38fc89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two new TOS designs
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:00 am
Posts: 5509
Location: Battlestar Hecate BSG-94
Marcus Starkiller wrote:



Both look good, however I'd be concerned about the Britannia and landing on it if the pod is slung under the center of the ship. It would require a straight in approach with very little room for error.

_________________
Kurt

Click the link to read Lady Hecate off line in PDF, .epub, or Kindle formats: http://www.bsg94.org/downloads/index.html
Click here for the Colonial Warbook for Lady H: http://www.photobucket.com/colonial_warbook


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Two new TOS designs
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:00 am
Posts: 913
Location: Saukville, Wisconsin
kfeltenberger wrote:
Marcus Starkiller wrote:



Both look good, however I'd be concerned about the Britannia and landing on it if the pod is slung under the center of the ship. It would require a straight in approach with very little room for error.


I see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:00 am
Posts: 1744
Is there any reason a prospective pilot couldn't just land from the front on most BSG ships?

It's just that I noticed that a lot of designs "around here" have landing bays uncomfortably close to the engines, but coming in from the front would solve most of the issues right there.

After all, its not like there aren't enough designs around here with forward facing landing bays already.

Am I missing something, or are "we" all getting bogged down with terrestrial concerns here?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:00 am
Posts: 606
Could it be done, yes. But landing on something that's barreling down on you is a lot harder than catching up to it. It would almost definitely require some form of linked computer system between ship and fighter, or an elite squadron of daredevil pilots.

This is especially true in combat, since the rear is relatively undefended in most designs, meaning that would always be the way to land that doesn't involve flying through your own firing solutions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:00 am
Posts: 5509
Location: Battlestar Hecate BSG-94
Landing from the front is certainly doable but isn't something that would be desirable, IMO. To me, I see it as an issue of velocity and clearance.

On velocity: You have to compensate for the combined velocities of the craft, and once you're tying to land you'll be not only trying to stop the small craft but also do it in a manner where you don't continue out the back. For calm, peace time landings, this shouldn't be an issue. But doing a combat landing would be something else entirely.

On clearance: There's a little more when approaching from the top, but if you have to abort you're going to have to push the stick forward and fight the g-forces that want to push you back and thus pull up on the stick. It's a lot easier and the pilot has more effective strength and control if he pulls back on the stick rather than pushes forward.

The issue could be solved by flipping the pod upside down so the approach, relative to the ship, is upside down and opposite the the "bottom is down" gravity.

_________________
Kurt

Click the link to read Lady Hecate off line in PDF, .epub, or Kindle formats: http://www.bsg94.org/downloads/index.html
Click here for the Colonial Warbook for Lady H: http://www.photobucket.com/colonial_warbook


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:39 pm 
Offline
Ship's Executive Officer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:00 am
Posts: 9627
Location: I have absolutely no bloody idea...
flip the flight pod orientation. simple solution.

_________________
my deviantart page: http://xraiderv1.deviantart.com/

Image

archive of our own, good place to find lots of fanfiction:
https://archiveofourown.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:00 am
Posts: 1744
The thing is, the Battlestars don't generate enough velocity, even at full bore, to appear to be any sort f factor to the fighters. Starbuck pushed Apollo into the pod while at more or less full throttle, and it didn't seem to matter at all how fast she was going. Though I think Galactica was at rest.

Even so, I never noticed the two Battlestar's speeds seeming to be in any real way impressive compared to the acceleration a fighter could pull. Since the Viper controls the approach speed anyhow, the actual speed of the landing platform isn't important here.

I also don't follow the abort wave off issue here. The is shaped the same way front and back access. The pilot controls their approach speed. If they have an issue, climbing form either end isn't a great deal different considering the sheer disparity in a Battlestar's acceleration compared to a Vipers, or any smallcraft for that matter really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:00 am
Posts: 1744
Bet me a Viper can't accelerate faster in reverse than a Battlestar can full out in forwards? Seriously, there is such a massive disparity here its not funny. No speed that any of the ships we saw moving at was sufficient to cause any issues in this universe.

It's also not science, it's science fiction trying to replicate what we see in an atmosphere, even though, as you said, a capital ship would always have the advantage in even the short term. It may take them a few minutes to get a head of steam up, but they have that kind of fuel at hand. A Viper shouldn't but apparently the miniscule fuel tanks a Viper carries is sufficient to pull multiple Gee acceleration curves for significant periods of time.

Granted, I much prefer my sci-fi like this, because the reality of fighter based combat in space sucks big time! As in don't waste your people's lives types of suck!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group