Subject:
|
Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:22:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1013 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, John VanZwieten writes:
>
> "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
> news:G50po7.A47@lugnet.com...
> > "Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:G50KGn.LIs@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > Cool. Most of the fighters I see are huge mostrosities (cool looking • but
> > way
> > > to big compared to Galactic Confederation fighters.) That is the • perfect
> > size
> > > to go head to head with my fighters. Oh yeah did I mention, Cool.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Hmm...now that I think of it, most fighters are on the large side. I • was
> > thinking that it was 'light' because its small compared to those. I • still
> > plan on designing larger fighters up to gunboats for heavier assaults. • As
> > size of a fighter increases, so does firepower, but does manuverability
> > decrease? I would assume so because of mass and inertia. How do • fighter
> > designers rationalize/compensate for the apparent loss in • manuverability?
> >
>
> More powerful engines, better shielding, thicker armor.
Isn't that basicly irrelivent if the capital ship can use its heavy weapons on
such a large target?
Of course it could be argued that smaller mass means more efficent engines and
faster more manuverable fighters. This of course would be more valuble than
getting killed by the capital ship despite better shielding and thicker armor.
Now I am also assuming our base comparison is an X-wing or compareable fighter.
Now my basic stock fighter
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/sputnik/86/fang.html
versus an X-wing would go like this. Fang comes to a dead stop. X-wing fires
at Fang while pilot laughs for an hour at the pretty colors bouncing off his
ship. Fang pilot gets bored and activates his Xlaxer node defence system. A
beam fires from the node and the X-wing is incinerated instantly. The pilot
makes a mental note that he didn't even need his offensive Xlaxer cannons.
Now picture captial ship defences verses a huge fighter.
-Lord Insanity (who still thinks Star Wars fighters are rediculously over sized
antique junk.)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| Of course, it makes it all pretty easy when you can invent your own technology. Personally, the doohickey coil in my Spiffcraft is proof against any weapon. Mmmmm, leather seat. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| "Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message news:G57K99.B2z@lugnet.com... (...) That really shows nothing about your strategy/theories on fighter characteristics. It just boasts about some silly technology (which I at least don't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| (...) Just to argue a technical and semantic point; assuming that the smaller mass also corresponds to smaller engines, they may not be more *efficient*. Turbomachinery tends to increase in efficiency with increasing size ... while manufacturing (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| "Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:G50po7.A47@lugnet.com... (...) but (...) perfect (...) was (...) still (...) As (...) fighter (...) manuverability? (...) More powerful engines, better shielding, thicker armor. -John Van (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
