A Gyroscopically Stabilised Fighter?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-09-12 04:51pm

Okay, looking at the Bubble Fighter in the opening sequence (one of the best ever seen in SF) to Lost in Space and the B-Wing from, well y'know, is there an advantage to having a gyroscopically stabilised space superiority fighter?

Thoughts?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 04:55pm

Well, I'm no astronaut, but I do know that down here in the atmosphere the more unstable a fighter is, the more maneuverable it is.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-09-12 05:06pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, I'm no astronaut, but I do know that down here in the atmosphere the more unstable a fighter is, the more maneuverable it is.

Well not for atmosphere since it wouldn't really be ideal, a B-wing or Bubble Fighter would rip itself to bits and then some.

Really it does seem quite a good idea other than being more technologically challenging, it does mean the pilot and sensitive equipment doesn't go through all the gees the rest of the craft experiences.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 05:14pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Really it does seem quite a good idea other than being more technologically challenging, it does mean the pilot and sensitive equipment doesn't go through all the gees the rest of the craft experiences.

I'm having some trouble understanding what you're describing when you say "gyroscopically stabilized" fighter. Are you refering to a fighter with gyroscopics in it?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-09-12 05:21pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Really it does seem quite a good idea other than being more technologically challenging, it does mean the pilot and sensitive equipment doesn't go through all the gees the rest of the craft experiences.
I'm having some trouble understanding what you're describing when you say "gyroscopically stabilized" fighter. Are you refering to a fighter with gyroscopics in it?

I mean as in the way the cockpit section of the craft is independent of the main fuselage, that is, the body can move around and avoid incoming fire and obstacles while the cockpit can stay relatively still and kept on target.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 05:26pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I mean as in the way the cockpit section of the craft is independent of the main fuselage, that is, the body can move around and avoid incoming fire and obstacles while the cockpit can stay relatively still and kept on target.

Ahhhh..... I see.

To your question, no, that would not help. If you turn the craft, ie change it's orientation, that would be of some use. However, if you actually accelerate or change course, that would be worthless.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-09-12 05:33pm

It might be useful to have the cockpit rotate in order to minimize the effects of acceleration on the pilot.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 05:37pm

XaLEv wrote:It might be useful to have the cockpit rotate in order to minimize the effects of acceleration on the pilot.

You could change the direction of the acceleration experienced by the pilot, but you would not minimize it in any way. This still would actually be a good thing, as you can direct the G forces to his rear, as opposed to his feet or head.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-09-12 05:50pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
XaLEv wrote:It might be useful to have the cockpit rotate in order to minimize the effects of acceleration on the pilot.
You could change the direction of the acceleration experienced by the pilot, but you would not minimize it in any way. This still would actually be a good thing, as you can direct the G forces to his rear, as opposed to his feet or head.

That's what I meant. Notice that I said minimize the effects.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 06:21pm

XaLEv wrote:That's what I meant. Notice that I said minimize the effects.

OK, so we're on the same page then. You know what they say; great minds think alike.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-12 08:50pm

What would one of these fighters look like? It would be good for rolls and the like, but I don't think it would give the plane much of an advantage. Jogging my memory, I sort of remember an old concept for a ship with 2 hulls, so whe the ship is tossed around in the ocean, the passengers feel no effect. I don't think it ever made it beyond concept.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-09-13 02:08pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:What would one of these fighters look like? It would be good for rolls and the like, but I don't think it would give the plane much of an advantage. Jogging my memory, I sort of remember an old concept for a ship with 2 hulls, so whe the ship is tossed around in the ocean, the passengers feel no effect. I don't think it ever made it beyond concept.

Ever seen the opening dogfight to Lost in Space the film or the B-wing from Star Wars? They are the best examples.

This is also possible for a space based fighter, not aerocraft.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2002-09-14 01:47am

Actually, having a gyroscoped fighter means that you'll have to keep track of your wings when rolling. That requires concentration that could distract you, fatally.