What's more annoying, X-wings or Vipers?

[Wallace]

For the record, the retroactive explanation for the "atmospheric" maneuvering depicted by the starfighters in Star Wars:

(big long explanation)

Unfortunately, that's a pretty terrible explanation, it would have been much better if George Lucas had just said, **** off dickheads, it looks cool.

It is pretty ridiculous to think that people can't master two different styles of control. When Pilots learn to fly, they don't suddenly forget how to to drive their cars, I don't forget how to walk if I go ice skating, there are helicopter pilots who also fly planes just fine.

As Vanamonde said, restricting your flying technique would give you a big fat disadvantage. Real life example, Harriers have the ability to hover and pilots soon learned to use that to their advantage in combat, not just for landing. They could use the directional thrust to slow and turn faster and do things impossible for a plane with fixed engines, and I've never heard about any pilots having trouble when moving back to jets without directional thrust.

The ability to spin round and fly shooting backwards would certainly have helped those pilots in the Death Star trench.

Thus, the Vipers and other ships that can turn on a dime and hit their targets with ease don't fit.

Actually, the Vipers turning ability is realistic when they turn on a dime, when they spin around to shoot raiders following them, that's accurate, it's when they turn slowly to stay pointing down their velocity vector that's wrong.

babylon 5 was the only one that did it right.

It's one of the closest, the Star Fury was a great design, probably the most realistic design for a space fighter on screen, and mostly the ships would be flying about right, but every now and again you'd see them banking and flying like planes, and it would be more annoying cos they'd been doing it all right until then. Usually their ridiculous outfits would distract you from any mistakes tho.

[Vanamonde]

I can hold my peace no longer; here's the thing that drives me into a homicidal rage about Vipers. The idiotic things have 4 intakes, but only 3 engines. Urge to kill, rising...

[sal_vager]

The four intakes feed a collector box or plenum, that goes on to feed the engines

[Seret]

I can hold my peace no longer; here's the thing that drives me into a homicidal rage about Vipers. The idiotic things have 4 intakes, but only 3 engines. Urge to kill, rising...

Plenty of single-engined aircraft have two intakes.

[Vanamonde]

Have you guys noticed that the nose intake on a Viper would have to duct air through the flipping cockpit to reach the flipping engines? It doesn't make sense, I tell you! Sheesh.

[sal_vager]

Internal ducting is narrower, increasing air velocity and pressure into the engines for more performance.

[Seret]

Have you guys noticed that the nose intake on a Viper would have to duct air through the flipping cockpit to reach the flipping engines? It doesn't make sense, I tell you! Sheesh.

Probably not an engine intake then. Could be anything really, like a sensor array. Or a cheese dispenser. Who knows?

Of course the real answer is that it's obviously inspired from 1950's-era fighters like the Sabre. Spaceships in sci-fi films and TV are designed by arty types, not engineers, and they tend to nick parts off real-world designs that they think look cool.

[hugix]

The star wars universe with the laserswords and the force and old prophet like Kerbals. I could care less about the dogfights. The film doesn't explain how its universe works, and it shouldn't. As long as the story is good I don't care. Just like the Matrix or Toy story. Who gives a hoot abut scientific accuracy.

Then there are those movies who try to incorporate science into the story or try to explain how impossible things can be made possible. These generally fail. And thet fail bad. Mostly it is by using words like quantum, or supercollider. I once saw a movie where the main character was saved by a ghost / apparition. The entire movie was about a drugs war. No mention of ghosts whatsoever and then in the last 20 minutes. BAM. A ghost of a previously shot character saves the day. Talked right with some pseudo scientific jabber jabber. IT kills the movie when directors try to answer those questions.

And then there is a third kind, it gives a brilliant explanation that tells you absolutely nothing.

That's silly.

[Brethern]

Unfortunately, that's a pretty terrible explanation, it would have been much better if George Lucas had just said, **** off ********s, it looks cool.

It is pretty ridiculous to think that people can't master two different styles of control. When Pilots learn to fly, they don't suddenly forget how to to drive their cars, I don't forget how to walk if I go ice skating, there are helicopter pilots who also fly planes just fine.

As Vanamonde said, restricting your flying technique would give you a big fat disadvantage. Real life example, Harriers have the ability to hover and pilots soon learned to use that to their advantage in combat, not just for landing. They could use the directional thrust to slow and turn faster and do things impossible for a plane with fixed engines, and I've never heard about any pilots having trouble when moving back to jets without directional thrust.

The ability to spin round and fly shooting backwards would certainly have helped those pilots in the Death Star trench.

The books do point this out very well, most training programs that rebel and imperial pilots go through happen in atmosphere. It's only the veterans that have years of experience learn how to use the void to their advantage.

[KOCOUR]

In my oppinion it heavilly depends on type of the film/book/play/game. Starwars are "Heroic fiction" based "SpaceOpera" (term originates in term "soapopera"), So i dont care how the fighters behave as long as there is a Proper hero, wizzard, Propper badguys and princess to save, and is in space.

BSG is sort of War SF so i expect more realism in spaceflight and space combat, but ill actually would care more about if the tactics and combat behaviour of characters looks believable, than about correct physics.

Actually if you wach a movie you have to focus on the storry not on the correctness. Triing to find mowie that is physiccaly or historically or scientificcaly correct, would drive you insane.

Example hystorical films like Brave hart or Kingdom of heaven. They are hystorically totaly wrong in terms of costumes, armor, weapons, and combat, and my big hoby is Mediewal reanactment and medieval millitry hystory, so i should hate those films. Still i Love them.

[Pds314]

Yeah, spaceplanes working like planes in space is less bothersome to me than spaceplanes pretending to be working like planes in space, or worse, pretending to be working like real spacecraft when they are not.

[Pds314]

I suppose the intakes could be used in atmosphere, cool down the air much like a SABRE engine, store it as liquid and then pump it around the cockpit.

[sgt_flyer]

Banking for turning could have an utility - especially if your spacefighter is turning with it's main engines fired up - it will prevent the pilot from experiencing lateral Gs - which would make piloting quite difficult

[Camacha]

To be honest, I think that a rocket (type) engine in a X-wing could well look like an aircraft banking, if it vectors and thrusting means gradually turning and changing the direction of thrust - especially when close up to the craft. It is not flying like an aircraft, but might well look like one.

I feel it is way too popular to hate on 'incorrect' physics in movies and games on the forums nowadays. Give it a rest, you play a slightly more accurate game than usual.

[Nuke]

screw both of them, i want a starfury. i even heard a rumor that nasa also wants one.

[MaxxQ]

Have you guys noticed that the nose intake on a Viper would have to duct air through the flipping cockpit to reach the flipping engines? It doesn't make sense, I tell you! Sheesh.

F-84? F-86? F-100? MiG-15? MiG-17? MiG-21?

[Vanamonde]

MaxxQ, it's not just the position of the cockpit, but the size of it relative to the height of the fuselage. A Viper pilot would have to be straddling an air duct as if riding a motorcycle, assuming there was room for both at all.

[dr_jt]

At high speeds under constant acceleration you want the G forces pushing you down and back into the seat. For this reason it makes perfect sense for space fighters to fly like earth bound ones. When not under acceleration you can flip and spin to shoot in any direction. The problem with flying not under acceleration is that you make a nice target because your path is pretty much on rails and easy to predict. The whole argument about real physics never takes into consideration close combat and evasion. A strafing run under varying acceleration is a lot safer than one without acceleration just so you can prove you are in space and can point in any direction to shoot. The same could hold true for the Deathstar trench run. Get below their most effective fire arc and make the run across the surface weaving all around as you do the run.

[dr_jt]

Have you guys noticed that the nose intake on a Viper would have to duct air through the flipping cockpit to reach the flipping engines? It doesn't make sense, I tell you! Sheesh.

How do you know they intakes? They could be all sorts of techno babble things.

[MaverickSawyer]

I prefer Babylon 5 and the Fury fighters over both.

[dr_jt]

Here is a bit of trivia for you folks. The Star Fighters used in the "Buck Rogers" movie that became a TV series were originally made as Vipers for the original "BattleStar Galatica" movie. Both movies also shared many of the same props.

[dr_jt]

I prefer Babylon 5 and the Fury fighters over both.

As space fighters sure but the others where multi-role and could be used as atmospheric fighters.

[Red Iron Crown]

If you watch a sci-fi movie expecting any kind of plausibility or realistic physics, you're gonna have a bad time. Getting upset at movies for unrealistic physics is like getting mad at water for being wet.

Go for the eye candy and pew pew action, if you want realism go read a book.

[LawnDartLeo]

Turn off brain, put DVD in, press play, enjoy two hours of nonsense, turn brain on.

B5 got it as right as anyone but i didn't like it any more for that matter. It was good FICTION as were the others and I enjoyed them for that.

.... Now the bus jumping scene in Speed (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111257/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_37). I have to admit I roared out "BULL 5#!7!!!!" in the middle of a packed movie theater when that happened.

[Vanamonde]

How do you know they intakes?

If they're not, they're great big finking wind-catchers which would create ungodly drag while in atmosphere, and in space, would just be empty holes wrapped around with useless metal shells which add weight to the vehicle for no purpose.