 | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Crash, of course. Adrian (URL) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Well, Philip DID say none of his ships would ever be landing on a planet. And one man fighters would probably have a limited fuel supply, so going too far probably wouldn't be an option. And I doubt you'd want to land on an enemy ship. So as (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) It'd be a problem if you wanted to land somewhere there wasn't a highly specialized docking system. But I already DID say that. ;) -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)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) I love that idea. But Mark was talking about cost-effectiveness, and my belief is that this way would be a tad bit more expensive to build and maintain. --Anthony (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Expensive? Bah! I build my ships out of solid gold with platinum wiring and diamond-encrusted control surfaces. Phooey on your bean counting! Dave! (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) snip (...) If you will remember, the standard TIE fighter pilot had to wear and EVA suit during the entire flight. Most SW tech manuals that cover this small fighter point out that to make it cheap and fast, it has NO environmental systems (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) It may be cheaper to do EVAs and have individual access locks et al., but wouldn't the safety of the pilots be put into more-than-acceptable risk everytime they go in or out? One could have a compromised suit, your lockingport could not exist (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) What, you mean your pilots and techs aren't wearing powered armor suits like the troops and officers? Personally that is why I never build escape pods, all the crew are wearing or have instant access to powered armor. (...) Well all my (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Who needs fighters? I say take out your enemies with your broadside, pull up inside their safe firing distance, and launch your power suited marines out the torpedo tubes with plasma cutters, airlock override scramblers, and auto-frap cannons. (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| | | | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Well broadsides have this nasty habbit of not hitting small manuverable craft, like enemy fighters. Fighters will chew through marines real easy regardless of whether they have powered armor. Of course the marines do have the mini-nuke (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
| |
