| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: Starships & Symmetry |
 |
|
Stats-wise, the E-Wing is a mean little fighter; fast and maneuverable as a TIE Interceptor, with more durability and firepower than an X-Wing. It's a great ship for a dogfight. I have a problem with the artwork, though...
One of the great things about the ships in the Star Wars films is that, on the surface at least, they make sense from a physics perspective. If you look at any Star Wars spacecraft from directly ahead, the engine layout is either evenly distributed around the fore-to-aft center of mass, or it is close enough to the naked eye that there is no real need to quibble. Even the B-Wing, with its relatively asymmetrical design, could plausibly be considered to have its engine located at the fore-to-aft center of mass of the ship.
This is important from a real-life perspective because (at least, as near as I can figure), in a real-life zero-g scenario, an unbalanced distribution of the ship's engines will not drive the ship forward. Instead, the ship will do a very expensive impression of a pinwheel in space, as the unequal thrust pushes the center of mass around in a circle, rather than driving it forward.
Which brings me back to the E-Wing (and the A-9 Vigilance, to a lesser extent). While I enjoyed aspects of the Dark Empire series, I have long felt that Dark Horse screwed up quite a bit, and the artwork of these two ships is a perfect example. By mounting the main engines low on the wings of both craft, they created a craft that is not suitable for zero-g operations (unlike the various canon spacecraft), because the engines are unevenly distributed around the ship's fore-to-aft center of mass.
I have some ideas for a fix, but I'd appreciate the input of the forum, mostly to see if anyone else has noticed this, or if there is some aspect of physics that I'm missing...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kemper Boyd
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I have some ideas for a fix, but I'd appreciate the input of the forum, mostly to see if anyone else has noticed this, or if there is some aspect of physics that I'm missing... |
Considering that both the E-wing and the A-9 Vigilance Interceptor are fairly new products compared to the ships we see in the movies, we could postulate that they actually use artificial gravity to compensate for the off-midline engines. Artificial gravity is no biggie in Star Wars, even older fighters have inertial compensators.
The placement of the engines might allow greater agility and maneuvering capability when combined with artificial gravity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| Kemper Boyd wrote: | | Considering that both the E-wing and the A-9 Vigilance Interceptor are fairly new products compared to the ships we see in the movies, we could postulate that they actually use artificial gravity to compensate for the off-midline engines. Artificial gravity is no biggie in Star Wars, even older fighters have inertial compensators. |
That's possible, but I have some issues with it. For starters, using artificial gravity to counter off-set engine placement is far less efficient than simply mounting the engines on-line in the first place. A better placement would've been at the wing roots, on either side of the ship's aft fuselage (similar to the ARC-170 in ROTS). In addition, artificial gravity and inertial compensators have been in use for an absolute minimum of thirty years by that time (measuring from TPM to Dark Empire), so if the design was something they could just compensate for, then why aren't there more ships in the EU with similar designs? Instead, all the canon ships, plus all of the WEG creations pretty much toe the line on symmetrical engine placement. Only in Dark Horse comics do we see ships designed differently. Considering how patchy the artwork is in a lot of Dark Horse's stuff...
| Quote: | | The placement of the engines might allow greater agility and maneuvering capability when combined with artificial gravity. |
Speaking again with a layman's knowledge of physics, this would only be useful if you wanted to push the ship "up". With the low placement of the drives, physics would primarily be working to force the ship's nose upward (i.e. away from the side with the unbalanced thrust). This in turn creates a vulnerability in dogfighting because a ship with such an unbalanced thrust pattern will tend to go for the "easy move" (i.e. a ship that turns sharpest while going "up" will tend to favor that maneuver), which will, in turn make them predictable. In aerial combat, being predictable is a very quick way to become dead.
Part of my theory on a redesigned E-Wing would be to move the engines up to the wing roots, right up against the fuselage, and put maneuvering pods in their place on the wings. These pods could rely on whatever sort of maneuvering technology is preferred in the campaign, but that would be their primary purpose.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
I have some ideas for a fix, but I'd appreciate the input of the forum, mostly to see if anyone else has noticed this, or if there is some aspect of physics that I'm missing... |
You pretty much have it right as is. Those engines will send the ship tumbling very quickly.
As far as possible fixes, I have a couple ideas...
Add Parts:
The simplest solution is to add an engine to balance things out. It doesn't have to be very big, or even visible from most exterior views. It's sole purpose can be to counteract the rolling motion. (Like a helicopter's tail rotor.)
Ethric Rudder:
Another idea, rooted in the "aerodynamic" style of flight, rather than standard Newtonian vacuum physics that Star Wars ships exhibit, is some kind of massive invisible electromagnetic "rudder" that interacts with subatomic particles or some other such sci-fi device to keep a ship moving in the direction that it's pointing.
Gyroscopes:
If you stabilize your ship with gyroscopes, you'll reduce (not eliminate) this problem. You'll also reduce overall maneuverability and free space, and increase the energy usage, heat waste, and mass of your ship.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | You pretty much have it right as is. Those engines will send the ship tumbling very quickly.
As far as possible fixes, I have a couple ideas...
Add Parts:
The simplest solution is to add an engine to balance things out. It doesn't have to be very big, or even visible from most exterior views. It's sole purpose can be to counteract the rolling motion. (Like a helicopter's tail rotor.)
Gyroscopes:
If you stabilize your ship with gyroscopes, you'll reduce (not eliminate) this problem. You'll also reduce overall maneuverability and free space, and increase the energy usage, heat waste, and mass of your ship. |
These are both possibilities, but ultimately, it irritates me that they are even necessary (and that Dark Horse had such lower standards for quality control). Personally, I think I'll just ret-con my E-Wings and A-9's so that the engines are up against the wing roots on either side, as I've already suggested.
One other reason to have the engines closer together is that, if one engine goes out, the ship will be more stable with the remaining engine/s closer to the center-line.
| Quote: | Ethric Rudder:
Another idea, rooted in the "aerodynamic" style of flight, rather than standard Newtonian vacuum physics that Star Wars ships exhibit, is some kind of massive invisible electromagnetic "rudder" that interacts with subatomic particles or some other such sci-fi device to keep a ship moving in the direction that it's pointing. |
That's similar to my theory on how starships maneuver in the SWU, except that they use gravity instead of electromagnetism. The way I figure, to make a craft bank and turn as ships do in the SWU requires shifting the "gravity slope" in the direction that the pilot wishes to turn, so that the ship turns in space without losing forward velocity.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
These are both possibilities, but ultimately, it irritates me that they are even necessary (and that Dark Horse had such lower standards for quality control). Personally, I think I'll just ret-con my E-Wings and A-9's so that the engines are up against the wing roots on either side, as I've already suggested.
One other reason to have the engines closer together is that, if one engine goes out, the ship will be more stable with the remaining engine/s closer to the center-line. |
That's viable, although you get a reduced maneuverability benefit from differential thrust with the shorter lever arm of the root-mounted engines. Of course, I suppose that only really matters if you want to build a real one...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | That's viable, although you get a reduced maneuverability benefit from differential thrust with the shorter lever arm of the root-mounted engines. Of course, I suppose that only really matters if you want to build a real one... |
True. Although my idea was to replace the engines on the wings with pods that assist with maneuverability, either with thrusters or with gravity manipulation.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | That's viable, although you get a reduced maneuverability benefit from differential thrust with the shorter lever arm of the root-mounted engines. Of course, I suppose that only really matters if you want to build a real one... |
True. Although my idea was to replace the engines on the wings with pods that assist with maneuverability, either with thrusters or with gravity manipulation.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Starships & Symmetry |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | That's viable, although you get a reduced maneuverability benefit from differential thrust with the shorter lever arm of the root-mounted engines. Of course, I suppose that only really matters if you want to build a real one... |
True. Although my idea was to replace the engines on the wings with pods that assist with maneuverability, either with thrusters or with gravity manipulation.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, to be clear, your idea was to replace the engines on the wings with pods that assist with maneuverability, either with thrusters or with gravity manipulation? 
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. I was distracted by the evil Darth Nternet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mind trick.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16322
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the Force can have a strong influence on the weak minded. And apparently that includes my computer.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
