Opinion: best starfighter designs ever

[imode]

The TARSUS from Privateer!

http://www.wcnews.com/ships/p1tarsus.shtml <-- BOOYAH!

Seriously though, the Dralthi was always very cool to look at.

[Graham]

Actually, the nose of an X-wing slopes downward, so you have great forward visiblity. The pilot sits high enough that the control panel doesn't really get in the way. As for the TIE fighter, it also has upwards visiblity. But then again, looking straight up doesn't help when there's somebody on your six...

Actually, the TIE would only have extremley limited upwards visibility as the are only a few small vision slits on the top. Forward visibility is also hindered to some degree by the canopy framework.

Graham

[renegadeleader1]

Legend of the Galactic Heroes - Spartanians. Probably one of the most realistic space only figher designs I've seen. The Reich Valkyries from the series are also fairly realistic, but ugly as sin.

Star Wars - B-Wings. I love asymmetrical designs, and this one is just fun. BTW, was the swiveling cockpit just for the toys (like Slave I), or do they actually do that in the movie?

Its in the movie

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/...hter/index.html

[JELEINEN]

Its in the movie

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/...hter/index.html

Okay, thanks.

[GobotFool]

Ah, the B-Wing is cool, but not as cool as the A-Wing.

Yeah, who would have thought such a small craft could demolish the largest and most powerful cap-ship in SW.

[Anubis]

Ah, the B-Wing is cool, but not as cool as the A-Wing.

Yeah, who would have thought such a small craft could demolish the largest and most powerful cap-ship in SW.

Blind stupid rebel luck.

[Radd]

B-Wing is not for me. Seems slower than the Y-Wing, no astromech for repairs, and the gyro-cockpit seems... expensive to keep in good shape.

In the X-Wing games, the B-Wing was faster, tougher, and had more firepower than the Y-Wing. As for the wing rotating around the cockpit, it really did not seem any more complex than the X-Wing spreading it's wings. The fuselage rotates down, and the two smaller wings spread out. Certainly far and away less complex than everyone's favourite transforming fighters.

[Radd]

Legend of the Galactic Heroes - Spartanians. Probably one of the most realistic space only figher designs I've seen. The Reich Valkyries from the series are also fairly realistic, but ugly as sin.

Star Wars - B-Wings. I love asymmetrical designs, and this one is just fun. BTW, was the swiveling cockpit just for the toys (like Slave I), or do they actually do that in the movie?

I really dislike the look of the fighters from LotGH, but they fit so perfectly, so I don't mind at all. And they really do look what I'd expect a more 'realistic' space fighter to look like.

And I seriously do want to see someone make a LotGH Homeworld (1 or 2) mod, it is oh so perfect for that sort of game.

[JELEINEN]

And I seriously do want to see someone make a LotGH Homeworld (1 or 2) mod, it is oh so perfect for that sort of game.

I'd love something like that. How big of fleets can Homeworld handle?

[Akilae]

And I seriously do want to see someone make a LotGH Homeworld (1 or 2) mod, it is oh so perfect for that sort of game.

I'd love something like that. How big of fleets can Homeworld handle?

Homeworld 1:

In theory... limitless. Just take a look at the Great Galactic Core mission.... all those ion frigates, mmm.....

In practice, about as far as your eye can see in "Parade" formation. After that, ships start having problems getting into place, and you end up never proceeding into the next stage (you can't warp).

Better bet with Homeworld 2... but there's no incentive to have a large fleet... since you're always up against a fleet that has more ships...

[Akilae]

B-Wing is not for me.  Seems slower than the Y-Wing, no astromech for repairs, and the gyro-cockpit seems... expensive to keep in good shape.

In the X-Wing games, the B-Wing was faster, tougher, and had more firepower than the Y-Wing. As for the wing rotating around the cockpit, it really did not seem any more complex than the X-Wing spreading it's wings. The fuselage rotates down, and the two smaller wings spread out. Certainly far and away less complex than everyone's favourite transforming fighters.

The fuselage doesn't only rotate down... it rotates around you as you fly. The Star Wars ship guide also presents an idea of what would happen if your gyro were ever to malfunction. Imagine trying to land with your foil stuck in a perpendicular position to the horizon...

Later on they installed backup gyros, so I think it became less of a problem.

Addendum: The B-Wings don't rotate in the game due to game engine limitations.

Edited April 20, 2004 by Akilae

[MSW]

Design is a lot more then just visual appeal to me, realism and usibility count a great deal in my thoughts and a fighter with little to know visibility is junk in my opinion. Realism also counts a great deal in my opinion and most sci-fi movie and TV designs are not realistic in my opinion. A little fudging is ok for storytelling considerations but not too much.

I just want to point out something really obvious ... the way battles are fought changes...it sounds really stupid for men to climb into heavy armor with near zero visability and limited mobility, mount a horse, grab a lance, and charge into battle...it sounds really stupid for men to dress up in what we would call elaborite costumes (but they called uniforms) and march around in nice neat little rows on the battlefield all while cannons are fireing at them...but it wasn't so long ago that battles were waged in this manner

What seems uber realistic today might not seem the chivarly or honorable thing in the future...as much as a TIE fighter lacks visability, so too did the helments of the knights of old...a starfighter designed for some form of "honorable lanceing tournament" could be very plauseable and realistic in that enviroment, yet look unrealistic or even silly in the context of another...

You never know...give the vast size, vacumme, and lack of gravity in space...battles may end up more resembleing bumper cars or smash up derby then anything yet seen in movies, videogames, or on TV...

And given that a high pressure stream of water can slice through steel like it was butter...it seems quite plauseable to me that such cutting torches could be used very effectively in space (no atmosphere and gravity to slow the stream)...A short burst of a super high pressure hairline thin stream of liquid on a passing ship could concievibly slice it in two, all without useing much more then a half-liter of "ammo" (ammo that doesn't need bulky storage devices and reloading mechanisams...afterall many motorcycles store the engine oil within the bikes frame to save room and reduce mass...less mass = less inertia = a starfighter that can change direction, accelerate, decelerate both quicker and useing less fuel to do so)

Besides in space, without atmosphere, without something to reflect light (like smoke) lasers, and beam weapons would be invisable...makes then kinda hard to dodge

[Mechwolf]

My favorite sci-fi fighter craft in no particular order...

Star Wars

A,B,E,Y, & X-wings

Babylon 5

E.A. Tiger, Aurora, & Thunderbolt class Starfuries

Narn Frazi class heavy fighter

Minbari Nial fighter

Battlestar Galactica

Original Colonial Viper as well as the Vipers from the miniseries. It's just too bad the miniseries was terrible.

Colony Wars on PS1

All League Of Free World figters

And finally the Gunstar from The Last Starfighter.

[MSW]

rotateing cockpits like those on the B-wing would be useless in space where there is no up or down...not to mention that space going bombers (TIE bomber) are completely pointless...

Also the big rotateing sections of some ships to produce gravity (the Earth destroyers on B5 for example) are completely unrealistic...There are a number of reasons why...but the two most obvious ones are that the pivot point the section rotates around, even if teflon coated bearings are used, will produce friction, which in turn will tray and drag the rest of the ship to rotate as well...so you end up useing lots more fuel to try and keep the rest of the ship from rotateing as well as continualy use energy to keep that section rotateing...the other big problem with such ship designs is that the rotateing section will induce some instability into it's flight path, causeing it to veer offcorse and requireing continual course corrections (this of course occurs even on the space shuttles as the astronauts move around inside, brushing against the cockpit walls and such...there was some great video shot on one of the shuttle missions that illustraites this effect...astronaut is shown holding a conventional 35mm camera...he lets it go, and it just floats there...he grabs it again, takes a picture, realises he has now run out of film, and hits the button causeing it to internaly roll the film back up...he then lets it go, and the internal dynamics of the little film rolling mechanisam causes the camera to quickly dance about and drift off before the astronaut can grab it again)

My point is that in the movies, video games, and other avenues of pop media....even the most "realistic" seeming space ships are anything but

[F-ZeroOne]

Swordfish II (Cowboy Bebop) - A design that put retro back into science fiction spacecraft. Not only was it another move toward the trend oof reverse thrust/proper physics spacecraft, the design turned away from the dull, smooth, areodynamic spaceships that plague so much modern science fiction these days.

The aviation buffs probably know this already, but the Swordfish II is almost certainly a tribute to the original Fairey Swordfish, an aircraft that was about 30 years out of date when new but still managed to put the fateful torpedo into the Bismarck, and actually outlasted at least one of the aircraft intended to replace it!

Mind you, I didn't get the reference until I saw the Cowboy Bebop movie, in which an original Swordfish makes a cameo...

[Guppy]

I know it's anime, but I love the Black Tiger, Cosmo Tiger and Cosmo Zero from Space Battleship Yamato/Star Blazers.

And the retro funk of the BDG Viper cannot be beaten.

[nench]

I`ve been always an R-TYPE fan :

http://www.eidosinteractive.com/gss/legacy/rtype/index.htm

Edited April 20, 2004 by nench

[nench]

Slave I rockz:

also does the millenium falcon :

More star wars 3d ships here:

http://www.theforce.net/scifi3d/starwars/imperialcraft.html

Edited April 20, 2004 by nench

[Stamen0083]

...the pivot point the section rotates around, even if teflon coated bearings are used, will produce friction, which in turn will tray and drag the rest of the ship to rotate as well...so you end up useing lots more fuel to try and keep the rest of the ship from rotateing as well as continualy use energy to keep that section rotateing...

There should be two sections rotating in opposite directions to offset the drag.

the other big problem with such ship designs is that the rotateing section will induce some instability into it's flight path, causeing it to veer offcorse and requireing continual course corrections...

How? Even elementary physics tells us that anything rotating introduces a force vector that resists changes. How else does a bicycle balance? Gyroscopes? Inertial Navigation System?

If anything, rotating the ship would cause the ship to stay in its path more, assuming a dead on course was plotted, of course.

[Mechamaniac]

rotateing cockpits like those on the B-wing would be useless in space where there is no up or down...not to mention that space going bombers (TIE bomber) are completely pointless...

Also the big rotateing sections of some ships to produce gravity (the Earth destroyers on B5 for example) are completely unrealistic...There are a number of reasons why...but the two most obvious ones are that the pivot point the section rotates around, even if teflon coated bearings are used, will produce friction, which in turn will tray and drag the rest of the ship to rotate as well...so you end up useing lots more fuel to try and keep the rest of the ship from rotateing as well as continualy use energy to keep that section rotateing...the other big problem with such ship designs is that the rotateing section will induce some instability into it's flight path, causeing it to veer offcorse and requireing continual course corrections (this of course occurs even on the space shuttles as the astronauts move around inside, brushing against the cockpit walls and such...there was some great video shot on one of the shuttle missions that illustraites this effect...astronaut is shown holding a conventional 35mm camera...he lets it go, and it just floats there...he grabs it again, takes a picture, realises he has now run out of film, and hits the button causeing it to internaly roll the film back up...he then lets it go, and the internal dynamics of the little film rolling mechanisam causes the camera to quickly dance about and drift off before the astronaut can grab it again)

My point is that in the movies, video games, and other avenues of pop media....even the most "realistic" seeming space ships are anything but

The other thing about the Babylon 5 ships that always annoyed me was...... Wouldn't they produce gravity only in the section that was rotating? The rest of the ship would be totally gravity free.

Of course, in space travel is that there is no gravity, no drag, and no up and down, so in reality, probably the most realistic sci fi space ship was the Borg cube, or the original flying saucers from the 50's. They don't need to be aerodynamic since there is no drag, and if you notice, the Borg cubes were always rotating, which would create gravity inside the ship.

The Borg ship also illustrates another good point though. Technically, no matter what the shape of the vessel, as long as it was rotating, it would produce gravity of it's own. So, really, if you can imagine the Enterprise (or whatever) literally spinning through space on a flat axis, it would have gravity, and as long as that big flat axis was in the general direction of where they wanted to go, it wouldn't matter since there is no drag for them to fight against.

Of course, if the spinning ship created it's own gravity, then as speed increased, there would be some structual wear to worry about within it's gravity well which is why the Enterprise would fall apart in an atmosphere. Also a reason why the original flying saucer concept probably still makes the most sense.

[myk]

"X-wing".....

[mighty gorgon]

Ah, the B-Wing is cool, but not as cool as the A-Wing.

Yeah, who would have thought such a small craft could demolish the largest and most powerful cap-ship in SW.

Blind stupid rebel luck.

For all imperial fans, there is only ONE PAGE!!!

SWTC!!! Best of the best (and technically sound! The web pages on the Star Destroyers are amazing). Check the TIE Page.

Regds,

Gorgon

(seriously considering to include the TIE Interceptor in his "BEST" list)

Edited April 20, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[RFT]

The other thing about the Babylon 5 ships that always annoyed me was...... Wouldn't they produce gravity only in the section that was rotating? The rest of the ship would be totally gravity free.

Well, yes, but from my memory of B5 (and it's been a very long time since I've watched it), not much gets shown inside those earth capships. The bridge might be in that section. or, the spinning section is used for crew quarters or "comfort" areas, while the rest is gravity-free and the crew just have to deal with it.

Artificial gravity must exist in the B5 universe, as all the other races have it on their capships, and the white star has it...

anyway, aside from the abvious choices- starfury, A, X, and Y wings, etc, I really liked a lot of the designs from the early wing commander games- especially wing 2...

[Black Valkyrie]

1- Legioss

2- Millenium Falcon (Did your men deactivate the hyperdrive of Millenium Falcon)

3- Z Gundam (all versions)

4- Vic Viper (Gradius/Salamander)

5- A-Wing

6- Drop ship (Aliens)

7- Slave-1

8- Silver Hawk (Darius)

9- X-Wing

10- R-9 (R-Type)

11- Gundam Wing Kai version

12- Grendaizer w/ Spazer combo

So many can`t remember them all.

[Anubis]

Babylon 5's bridge was in the rotating section. About all that didn't rotate on the "cylinder" core was the hangar section. As far as other ships (non human) yes they did have artificial gravity. When the White Star arrived they explained how it used a Minbari artificial gravity net (or something like that). The earth vessels most likely had the bridge and living sections in the rotating sections. Area like the hangar and engineering probably wouldn't need the a gravity net. I would like to think they'd get around like in gundam inthe other sections. Jump down to the hangar deck floor, have some slide handles in the hallway, and stuff like that. I always loved Babylon 5's designs.

[GobotFool]

Babylon 5's bridge was in the rotating section. About all that didn't rotate on the "cylinder" core was the hangar section. As far as other ships (non human) yes they did have artificial gravity. When the White Star arrived they explained how it used a Minbari artificial gravity net (or something like that). The earth vessels most likely had the bridge and living sections in the rotating sections. Area like the hangar and engineering probably wouldn't need the a gravity net. I would like to think they'd get around like in gundam inthe other sections. Jump down to the hangar deck floor, have some slide handles in the hallway, and stuff like that. I always loved Babylon 5's designs.

I thought the narn and centauri vessels lacked artificial gravity. It's been a while, but everytime I saw the inside of a narn ship they were all strapped in to their seats.

[bsu legato]

Has nobody mentioned Aeryn's Peacekeeper Prowler from Farscape yet?

[Anubis]

Babylon 5's bridge was in the rotating section.  About all that didn't rotate on the "cylinder" core was the hangar section.  As far as other ships (non human)  yes they did have artificial gravity.  When the White Star arrived they explained how it used a Minbari artificial gravity net (or something like that).  The earth vessels most likely had the bridge and living sections in the rotating sections.  Area like the hangar and engineering probably wouldn't need the a gravity net.  I would like to think they'd get around like in gundam inthe other sections.  Jump down to the hangar deck floor, have some slide handles in the hallway, and stuff like that.  I always loved Babylon 5's designs.

I thought the narn and centauri vessels lacked artificial gravity. It's been a while, but everytime I saw the inside of a narn ship they were all strapped in to their seats.

Possibly, but I know at a minimum at least the Minbari had artificial gravity.

[Axelay]

OK, I'll go way out on a limb here and vote for my "namesake."

I have always loved Axelay. It had such a cool and innovative arsenal for its day. The Wind Laser just can't be beat, and the Round Vulcan and Macro Missiles were my bread and butter. I will continue to pray for the day in which I will see a sequel which is of the same caliber as (if not superior to) the original...

[MSW]

QUOTE (MSW @ Apr 20 2004, 01:49 AM)

...the pivot point the section rotates around, even if teflon coated bearings are used, will produce friction, which in turn will tray and drag the rest of the ship to rotate as well...so you end up useing lots more fuel to try and keep the rest of the ship from rotateing as well as continualy use energy to keep that section rotateing...

There should be two sections rotating in opposite directions to offset the drag.

That is a potentialy good idea but why? there is no up or down in space, why go through the trouble in the first place?

QUOTE 

the other big problem with such ship designs is that the rotateing section will induce some instability into it's flight path, causeing it to veer offcorse and requireing continual course corrections...

How? Even elementary physics tells us that anything rotating introduces a force vector that resists changes. How else does a bicycle balance? Gyroscopes? Inertial Navigation System?

If anything, rotating the ship would cause the ship to stay in its path more, assuming a dead on course was plotted, of course.

We provide the balance system on a moveing bicycle

If there was nothing onboard the ship, if everything was locked down...and the ship was rotated and sent on a flightpath in space, then yeah it would likely arrive without haveing to correct it's course...but when you introduce moveing parts inside the ship (specificly the crew) this introduces other problems...

An object set in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by outside forces...which is why when you shift from one seat to another in a boat, even if the stearing is locked strait ahead, your movements will introduce slight changes in it's corse...it's the same thing only worse in space as there is no gravity to act upon the ship, and no water to act upon the shape of the boat...

Like a cell phone set on vibrate "dances" across a table...the movements of the astronauts within the shuttle, brushing aganst the wall, pushing off of them, introduces slight shifts in the ships direction...and the crew doing the same onboard a rotateing star ship will also effect it's path over time because the very movements of the crew onboard can slightly slow or even speed up the rate of rotation which in turn would cause a destableisation in the flight path (not to mention that the ship is rotateing to produce an artifical gravity...if all the crew gathers together for lunch in one area of the ship at one time...it would have a simular effect as adding say 5 lbs to only one helicoptor blade..not good if you want to remain in control of the craft)

[Agent ONE]

This topic is so broad it is really hard to say which is the best, they are all really on a different scale...

I mean I think Gundam as a show licks my balls but as far as an in-space killing machine it would be great, full mobility. There is no need to be sleek or areodynamic in space either.

Having said this, the best is Buz Lightyear's super suit... It is basically indestructible and can warp/fly to any and all planets... In Toy Story 2 he killed like 100 thousand zerg troops like they were nothing.

To infinity.. AND BEYOND!!!!

[do not disturb]

i can't believe people are arguing over physics and space, who gives a crap?

none of anything thats on TV makes any sense....ITS CALLED A STORY CREATED BY SOMEONES IMAGINATION. therefore, there is no way to justify your arguments here or ever. please stop as its sad AND annoying. go talk to gene rodenberry or george lucas or something cause no one here gives a crap about what is, what isn't, what could be, or what shouldn't be, its completely retarded to argue about a fictional story with fictional guidelines.

[Mechamaniac]

Babylon 5's bridge was in the rotating section.

Well, that's smart.

"Hey, everyone, shoot the big spinny thing, that's where the people are!!"

No wonder the Minbari had us on the brink of total defeat.

[F-ZeroOne]

i can't believe people are arguing over physics and space, who gives a crap?

none of anything thats on TV makes any sense....ITS CALLED A STORY CREATED BY SOMEONES IMAGINATION. therefore, there is no way to justify your arguments here or ever. please stop as its sad AND annoying. go talk to gene rodenberry or george lucas or something cause no one here gives a crap about what is, what isn't, what could be, or what shouldn't be, its completely retarded to argue about a fictional story with fictional guidelines.

The Centauri have artificial gravity; in at least one episode Star Fury pilots are given a briefing on Centauri tactics and thats specfically mentioned. I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the vessels of the "Hyperion" class [1] don't have gravity, as I think we always see the crew strapped down in them. I don't think its ever stated for definite that the Narn have artificial gravity, but as we usually see them strapped down the assumption would be no.

And Haterist... I think this is relatively mild, comparatively speaking. I used to hang out on a UK B5 newsgroup, and long, heavily involved, complicated discussions on physics was pretty much another way of saying "hello" on that...

[JELEINEN]

i can't believe people are arguing over physics and space, who gives a crap?

none of anything thats on TV makes any sense....ITS CALLED A STORY CREATED BY SOMEONES IMAGINATION. therefore, there is no way to justify your arguments here or ever. please stop as its sad AND annoying. go talk to gene rodenberry or george lucas or something cause no one here gives a crap about what is, what isn't, what could be, or what shouldn't be, its completely retarded to argue about a fictional story with fictional guidelines.

Technical accuracy is a perfectly acceptable criteria for judging a work of science fiction. That's why it's called science fiction.