Subject:
|
Re: F-2 Bat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:38:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
547 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
I disagree with Mark that it needs landing gear. With the way you built it,
with those 8 studs on it’s belly, I can just see a small squadron of these
haning upside down (i.e. their namesake) afixed to a capital ship’s
underbelly in deep space, ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice.
|
Well, aside from the well-known fact that I have a thing for landing gear,
the “realistic” rationalization is that it would be far cheaper to build
landing gear into fighters than it would to engineer a hanging rack system
for fighters with individual airlocks.
Remember, in the military, your weapon was built by the cheapest bidder. :D
-Grand Admiral and Keeper of Fleebnorks
“Adopt a fleebnork. They’re DYING!” -Sally Struthers
|
Again, I’m going to have to disagree, if we’re going to dive into a ‘realistic’
rationalization here. For you see, from my perspective, normal landing gear in
a zero gravity environment are totally useless. After all, landing gear serve
only one purpose: to keep the ship off the ground. In a zero gravity
environment, I would rather want my ships to be ‘attached’ to the carrier vessel
so that they wouldn’t float away or such.
And let’s talk about other things as well. In order for landing gear to work
properly, you’d need to either have landing gear that attached to the ship, or a
hangar bay for the ships to land within.
Now a hangar bay would have to be huge to carry several fighters, as well as
give them room to take off and land and enter and leave. Then there’s room for
personelle and equipment. Also, with normal landing gear, you’d need artificial
gravity, and with a huge gaping hole in your hangar bay, most likely you’d need
to either turn the gravity on and off during deployment, or not have gravity in
the hangar bay at all (which would mean having landing gear that attach to the
ship).
And if you’re not going to have gravity at all, why not have the ships attach to
the outside of the ship, any engineer who needs to repair the fighter would have
to make a ‘space walk’ anyway in a zero gravity environment, though in a hanger
I suppose he could forego a suit (though it would take precious time, energy and
resources to fill and empty the hangar with breathable air).
So it seems to me, the far cheapest option would be to have individual air
locks and small bays for the ships to attach to.
The advantages of this would be that there would be very little room that would
be taken up by the fighter bays, compared to that of a hangar bay, and no energy
lost creating artifical gravity (if you had that capability) as well as the
removal and retrieval of breathable air within the hangar.
And if you’re going to have the ships attach to the skin of the captial ship,
why need landing gear anyway? Why not go with something cheaper... as any
lowest bidder would... and go with a magnetic locking plate, like that of a 2x8
field of studs on the bottom of the F-2 Bat? ;) Think about it, no extra
materials, no mechanical retractable arms that would need maintanence, no
hydrolics, or whatever else you’d use to raise and lower them. It would be the
best way to go cost wise.
But what do I know.
--Anthony
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) If we're talking about small fighters, might it be cheaper to have your pilots wear evac suits in a non-pressurized landing bay? Entry to the bay could be through a single airlock, and the individual ships could be moored or clamped into place (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| In lugnet.space, Anthony Sava wrote: (snip a whole lot of stuff) So um... what if you want to land the thing somewhere other than the mother ship? :) -Grand Admiral and Keeper of Fleebnorks (URL) "Adopt a fleebnork. They're DYING!" -Sally Struthers (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Well, aside from the well-known fact that I have a thing for landing gear, the "realistic" rationalization is that it would be far cheaper to build landing gear into fighters than it would to engineer a hanging rack system for fighters with (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
