Subject:
|
Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:39:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1087 times
|
| |
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:G50po7.A47@lugnet.com...
> 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?
Hey, great design, Tim. Are you sure it's got a large enough
weapons-to-surface-area ratio? :) I wouldn't exactly call that a light
fighter - more of a medium fighter.
As far as the whole size vs. maneuverability issue is concerned, I
generally use two mechanisms. The mostly objective one is that if a
smaller fighter with the same size/number of engines as a larger
fighter, the smaller will be more maneuverable. A more subjective
measure that I use it rather simple: pick it up and swoosh it around a
little bit. If it just doesn't feel right making the thing do a barrel
roll, it probably shouldn't be called a fighter. (Just imagine a Star
Destroyer or the Enterprise doing a barrel roll and you'll see where I'm
coming from here.)
--
later... Jer
irvinej@accuvera.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertador - Light Penetration Fighter
|
| "Mike Petrucelli" <lordinsanity@usa.net> wrote in message news:G50KGn.LIs@lugnet.com... (...) way (...) size (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.space)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
