Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetical design question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:33:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
760 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Spencer Nowak wrote:
| |
I was under the assumption you would accelerate after the direction change.
Actually, the way this all started, spinning the ship to shoot behind you, is
a bit foolish.
|
Not at all. In atmospheric fighter combat, if I drop in on your six, you’ve got
to shake me long enough to swing around and point your forward-facing guns at me
before you can shoot back because you can’t fly backwards. Thus, whoever gets
tailed first is usually the one who goes down in flames. In space combat, you
no longer have to apply constant thrust, so you no longer need to constantly
face the direction of travel. Now when I drop in on your six, you can spin
around and shoot me just as easily as I can shoot you. Besides, it’s not like
you have a choice about how physics works in space, so you need to take
advantage of everything you can.
| |
Unless in a little fighter, there should be guns all around, like a modern
warship.
|
Yes, the Starfuries are one-man fighters, and yes, the capital ships (like the
Hyperion) are coated in gun turrets (it’s not at all easy to spin a capital ship
around to point the guns at little one-man fighters).
| |
Even if it was a fighter, it would make sense to just have 2 people and a
rear-mounted gun (i.e. WW2 bombers)
|
Why? WWII bombers had rear-facing gun turrets for the very fact that they
weren’t as manouverable as WWII fighters, and they needed to have a way to at
least attempt to defend themselves if their fighter escorts weren’t the Tuskegee
Airmen. We’ve experimented with 2-man fighter jets, but the consensus seems to
be that with the exception of trainer aircraft (where the second seat is there
so the instructor can try to save the plane when you lose control), two pilots
in two fighters is a much more efficient use of manpower than two pilots in one
fighter. Warplanes that are used largely for bombing runs are more likely to
have a dedicated bomber on the crew so one guy can keep an eye out for enemy
fighters while the other guy can devote all of his attention to targetting the
bombs. Of course, smart-bombs are kinda eliminating that need, since the bombs
no longer have to be dropped with absolute precision to hit the intended target.
And if you think it would make sense to just put rear-facing guns on the ship
for the lone pilot to control, just remember that it means he’s got to split his
attention between two targetting systems.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hypothetical design question
|
| (...) I was under the assumption you would accelerate after the direction change. Actually, the way this all started, spinning the ship to shoot behind you, is a bit foolish. Unless in a little fighter, there should be guns all around, like a modern (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jun-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
