www.ditl.org

I think its the bulbous nature of the Fighters which puts me off. And I am rather partial to wings

There's the rub. I HATE the idea of wings on a non-atmospheric craft. Pylons for weapons mounts I can live with, but true airfoils are ridiculous.

And the A-10 "Warthog" is an absolutely perfect example, Graham. Even an aesthetically "ugly" craft has a certain practical beauty when it's so well designed for its purpose. A lot of people like English bulldogs, too - or even worse, French bulldogs.

Reliant121 wrote:I think its the bulbous nature of the Fighters which puts me off. And I am rather partial to wings

Anytime I see wings on a fighter intended to operate only within space, I take it as a sign that the people making that movie or TV show are not serious about what they are doing... or not competent in it.

My all time favourite space fighter design is the Babylon 5 Starfury. Now there is a ship that looks like it can operate in the place it is supposed to. If ever we build fighters for space, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they actually look something like a Starfury.

Although the starfury does have wings. They're just in a X pattern. So you might call the thing a......nevermind.

Anyway I think wings of some kind add a bit of graphical flair. Which I imagine is why they tend to be included. Though with a variety of sci fi spins.

I do, however, like it more when they take the time to come up with a reasonable excuse why there are wingy things involved.

The A-10 Warthog is called the Tank Killer for a reason: It's 30mm Avenger cannon. No, not 20mm, 30mm. They actually built the plane around it, so that the cannon is centerlined in the nose. If you've seen pictures of it with the landing gear down, you'll notice that the front wheel is actually askew of the centerline, because the cannon is in that spot. It's also better armored than any other fighter in existance.

Ummm... OK, all that happens to be true. Is this in relation to something? We've been describing that the pragmatic, if ungraceful, design of the A-10 is a positive thing.

BTW - with the advent of new mission-specific C-130 derivatives, the A-10 is no longer the only primary application of the 30mm cannon.[

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:I think its the bulbous nature of the Fighters which puts me off. And I am rather partial to wings

Anytime I see wings on a fighter intended to operate only within space, I take it as a sign that the people making that movie or TV show are not serious about what they are doing... or not competent in it.

My all time favourite space fighter design is the Babylon 5 Starfury. Now there is a ship that looks like it can operate in the place it is supposed to. If ever we build fighters for space, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they actually look something like a Starfury.

I find the Starfury a beautiful design. And it seems that wings are viewed as unnecessary for interstellar travel. Thats not always why wings are there. Take the Romulans. Their symbol is the Hawk, with wings, clutching Romulus and Remus. The Wings are symbolic, a way of representing the Nature of the empire. I admit on the Peregrines, there appeared to be little purpose of the wings apart from mounting the Warp engines.

Using up even more resources to build ships that are hundreds of metres long than is absolutely necessary is the height of stupidity. Particularly if it's for symbolism, or some such.

Another competant design is the Viper from BSG and nBSG.

Congrats on promotion!

We seem to have different values. You lot seem to purely value utilitarian pursuits. Thats fine. I simply value other things.

Thanks. I think hitting Rear Admiral is just another little indication that I need to get a life.

Thats not fair! I was going to make a get al ife joke!

You don't get to 4000 posts without making your own self-deprecating jokes first.

And yese, I've always had a soft spot for the Vipers.

As far as aesthetic extravagance, Reliant - it's great for civilian ships, but the guiding factor in designing a governmental/military craft MUST be practicality and utility.

Fair enough.

sunnyside wrote:Although the starfury does have wings. They're just in a X pattern. So you might call the thing a......nevermind..

Those aren't wings, they're pylons to hold the engines. They don't even look much like wings.

It actually makes sense to have the engines on the end of pylons, even. Having them further from the centre of mass increases the moment for a given force, so makes you turn faster.

The Viper I would hate if it was just a space fighter, but it's designed for atmosphere too so I accept the aerodynamics and wings on it. Love the RCS thrusters though, they actually show them firing!

Obviously they aren't wings in the aerodynamic sense. Only in the visual. And yes they came up with a valid reason to have them, which I like to see in a design.