How Fast is 'Fast', Anyway?
Posted: 2007-07-25 07:24pm
It occurs to me that, when we try to work out how fast something not in the ICS actually moves, we're basically weighing it's reputation.
I don't believe the engine vent method is any more than a loose correlation- between variants of the same design, maybe- because there are too many examples of craft being much faster or slower than that indicates.
Chief overachiever has to be the relatively tiny vented TIE series. Underachievers, Corellian Corvette and Nebulon-B, huge engines, moderate to low rates of acceleration- largely, admittedly, by reputation.
I mainly want to see if I can find out where the goalposts are, and ask questions on a couple of other ideas.
I'm deliberately ignoring civilian and merely quasi-military units like Padme's yachts, which do have lower numbers, and concentrating on fighters.
The slowest fighter-type we have canon numbers for is, I think, the ARC-170, at 2,600 'g'. (I misstated this in the Y-wing thread- thought it was slightly faster. Oops.)
Given that it is a successful design used in a demanding role by a galactic hegemon, it almost certainly isn't the worst out there. There should be designs that weren't good enough that are slower yet.
The upper end seems to be the Eta-2 Actis, which equipped sixteen out of thirty-five squadrons on each Venator. 5,250 'g'. Widespread enough that I don't think it can be considered bleeding edge, heavily armed and shielded enough that a stripped down version should be much faster.
We never see the kind of long range, high speed computer-controlled firing style of combat that these numbers imply; correct me if I'm wrong, but the usual rationalisation is that the faster craft use their superior acceleration to either force combat on the slower or avoid it if the enemy seems superior, and once in close contact, velocities roughly matched, they manoeuvre at relative speeds set by the pilots' physical and mental limitations.
So peak acceleration would be of minimal relevance in combat, but important in setting up and disengaging from the fight.
Two main questions. First, how slow can a fighter type be, and still be viable for use? That is, before it becomes so easy to intercept that the current average can sidestep it or bounce it with trivial ease?
Second, how much acceleration is is possible to squeeze out of a fighter type before it becomes a hangar queen? I'm inclined to accept the Actis as the upper limit of trouble free- or no worse than any high performance craft- but how much further can the envelope be pushed?
Third (OK, it was an extended couple.)- where's the middle of the scale?
Two minor questions. The Actis and Nimbus- when I got a good look at the ICS numbers, my brain went boing. (Some would say it hasn't stopped.) They were both much faster- if that's actually the right term for acceleration- than I expected they were going to be.
I was expecting the Actis to be 100 or 200 'g' slower than the TIE/ln, instead- going with the value I've seen quoted on this site, 4,100 'g' for the /ln- it's 1,150 'g' faster.
Not superior technology, but possibly superior implementation? KDY are a galaxy-spanning producer of all forms of arms, they have generations of design and manufacturing experience. Sienar were nowhere near as well established, if the notes on the Sith Infiltrator are anything to judge by were basically a special projects shop for a long time.
Old contacts landed Sienar Fleet Systems the contract, but- politics aside- would the Imperial Starfleet have been better off if they had continued to use Kuat Systems Engineering built fighters?
Second, a pet theory on the MGLT issue. This probably counts as unsupported speculation. I have no evidence for this, but then again I have no evidence against it either.
It would be nice to be right, but I don't expect to be on this; I offer it for consideration, because I want to see what the arguments against it are.
Is it possible that- given the major maneuver to intercept or evade, then relatively low speed tactical combat idea- that MGLT is actually a tactical combat measure? More a gauge of mechanical reaction time than a velocity?
It's the only reason I can think of at the moment to have MGLT and maximum linear acceleration in 'g' coexisting as meaningful measurements.
I don't believe the engine vent method is any more than a loose correlation- between variants of the same design, maybe- because there are too many examples of craft being much faster or slower than that indicates.
Chief overachiever has to be the relatively tiny vented TIE series. Underachievers, Corellian Corvette and Nebulon-B, huge engines, moderate to low rates of acceleration- largely, admittedly, by reputation.
I mainly want to see if I can find out where the goalposts are, and ask questions on a couple of other ideas.
I'm deliberately ignoring civilian and merely quasi-military units like Padme's yachts, which do have lower numbers, and concentrating on fighters.
The slowest fighter-type we have canon numbers for is, I think, the ARC-170, at 2,600 'g'. (I misstated this in the Y-wing thread- thought it was slightly faster. Oops.)
Given that it is a successful design used in a demanding role by a galactic hegemon, it almost certainly isn't the worst out there. There should be designs that weren't good enough that are slower yet.
The upper end seems to be the Eta-2 Actis, which equipped sixteen out of thirty-five squadrons on each Venator. 5,250 'g'. Widespread enough that I don't think it can be considered bleeding edge, heavily armed and shielded enough that a stripped down version should be much faster.
We never see the kind of long range, high speed computer-controlled firing style of combat that these numbers imply; correct me if I'm wrong, but the usual rationalisation is that the faster craft use their superior acceleration to either force combat on the slower or avoid it if the enemy seems superior, and once in close contact, velocities roughly matched, they manoeuvre at relative speeds set by the pilots' physical and mental limitations.
So peak acceleration would be of minimal relevance in combat, but important in setting up and disengaging from the fight.
Two main questions. First, how slow can a fighter type be, and still be viable for use? That is, before it becomes so easy to intercept that the current average can sidestep it or bounce it with trivial ease?
Second, how much acceleration is is possible to squeeze out of a fighter type before it becomes a hangar queen? I'm inclined to accept the Actis as the upper limit of trouble free- or no worse than any high performance craft- but how much further can the envelope be pushed?
Third (OK, it was an extended couple.)- where's the middle of the scale?
Two minor questions. The Actis and Nimbus- when I got a good look at the ICS numbers, my brain went boing. (Some would say it hasn't stopped.) They were both much faster- if that's actually the right term for acceleration- than I expected they were going to be.
I was expecting the Actis to be 100 or 200 'g' slower than the TIE/ln, instead- going with the value I've seen quoted on this site, 4,100 'g' for the /ln- it's 1,150 'g' faster.
Not superior technology, but possibly superior implementation? KDY are a galaxy-spanning producer of all forms of arms, they have generations of design and manufacturing experience. Sienar were nowhere near as well established, if the notes on the Sith Infiltrator are anything to judge by were basically a special projects shop for a long time.
Old contacts landed Sienar Fleet Systems the contract, but- politics aside- would the Imperial Starfleet have been better off if they had continued to use Kuat Systems Engineering built fighters?
Second, a pet theory on the MGLT issue. This probably counts as unsupported speculation. I have no evidence for this, but then again I have no evidence against it either.
It would be nice to be right, but I don't expect to be on this; I offer it for consideration, because I want to see what the arguments against it are.
Is it possible that- given the major maneuver to intercept or evade, then relatively low speed tactical combat idea- that MGLT is actually a tactical combat measure? More a gauge of mechanical reaction time than a velocity?
It's the only reason I can think of at the moment to have MGLT and maximum linear acceleration in 'g' coexisting as meaningful measurements.