Size of fighters in Wing Commander games

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Post Reply
User avatar
Peregrin Toker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8609
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Size of fighters in Wing Commander games

Post by Peregrin Toker »

Something I wonder about is that the fighters of the Wing Commander games (well, with the exception of some Kilrathi fighters from WC2) are much, much larger than modern-day fighters.

For example, the smallest Confederation fighter in Wing Commander 3 is roughly 20m long, and in real life, this fighter would be a meter shorter than a General Dynamics FB-111A light bomber.

The medium fighter, the much-maligned Hellcat, is 27m long. That's around two-three metres shorter than the smallest Avro Vulcan variant.

One of the heavier Confed fighters from the same game, the Excalibur, is 32m long, roughly the length of some of the larger Avro Vulcan variants.

(The confederation's Longbow bombers are longer than a Tupolev Tu16 heavy bombers of the Soviet Union!!)

Now, I have never played any Wing Commander game, so I'd be grateful if one of the Wing Commander fans on this board could explain what makes it necessary to make the lightest fighter the size of a tactical bomber, and the basic fighter approaching a British strategic bomber in size?
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"

"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Well I am a Wing Commander fan but my fandom grants me no insight- it's probably due to propulsion/engine or more likely power generation technology that simply can't get any smaller ...
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Stormbringer
King of Democracy
Posts: 22678
Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm

Re: Size of fighters in Wing Commander games

Post by Stormbringer »

Simon H.Johansen wrote:How, I have never played any Wing Commander game, so I'd be grateful if one of the Wing Commander fans on this board could explain what makes it necessary to make the lightest fighter the size of a tactical bomber, and the basic fighter approaching a British strategic bomber in size?
Because there are more systems needed for travelling in space as opposed to traveling in air. And more space needed for fuel and all of that.
Image
User avatar
RadiO
Jedi Knight
Posts: 641
Joined: 2002-07-12 03:56pm
Location: UK

Post by RadiO »

Rapier from the first game is 24 meters long, weighs 13.5 tonnes.
An F-14, by no means a small aircraft, is 19 meters long and weighs roughly 18 tonnes empty and 37 tonnes at max weight.
So despite all the extra equipment and the increase in size over today's aircraft, WC fighters apparently still weigh less than those of today.
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa! Let's get the hell out of here already! Screw history!" - Professor Farnsworth
User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

They would use lightweight components to increase acceleration in space, since acceleration is inversely related to mass given a constant thrust. The volume would be due to the need for coolant systems and fuel. While remass is light, it tends to take up rather large volumes.

Also, while the F-14 is large for a carrier aircraft, there have been larger fighters. The F-101 Voodoo is 20.5 meters (and quite impressive looking, I got to see one at an air show last year). The F-102 Delta Dagger was 20.7 meters, and its successor the F-106 Delta Dart is 21.5 meters. The Dagger had a maximum weight of just under 16 tons, not much heavier than a WC Rapier. The F-104 Starfighter was 17.7 meters and only 10.4 tons.

For "tactical fighters," sizes can be larger. The F-105 Thunderchief is 20.3 meters, and the F-111 Aardvark is 22.3 meters. I'll agree the WC fighters are probably too light, but given the larger sizes needed for life support and thrusters (since they'll all need thrust vectoring or an insane number of verniers), the lengths probably aren't that off.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
User avatar
Peregrin Toker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8609
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Peregrin Toker »

Vympel wrote:Well I am a Wing Commander fan but my fandom grants me no insight- it's probably due to propulsion/engine or more likely power generation technology that simply can't get any smaller ...
Good point - the Jump system might take up a great part of the Jump-capable fighters. (some of the heavier fighters were jump-capable IIRC, which would explain why an Excalibur is the size of a strategic bomber despite being classified as a heavy fighter)

BTW, I've recently found out that we saw a Kilrathi Atmospheric fighter in WC3, which was 17-18m long.... that's roughly as long as an average modern-day fighter.
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"

"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Bah! You want a large fighter- Tu-128 FIDDLER. Nuff said.

Image

27.43m long. 19.8m wingspan.

Interceptor rather than a fighter but who's quibbling. It's massive.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Peregrin Toker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8609
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Peregrin Toker »

Vympel wrote:Bah! You want a large fighter- Tu-128 FIDDLER. Nuff said.

Image

27.43m long. 19.8m wingspan.

Interceptor rather than a fighter but who's quibbling. It's massive.
Is it just me, or does it bear a striking resemblance to its strategic bomber cousin, the Tu-26 Backfire??

(Which probably not is a coincidence, since it was designed by the same people)

Hmm... now the size of Wing Commander fighters don't seem that disproportionate any longer.
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"

"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Simon H.Johansen wrote:

Is it just me, or does it bear a striking resemblance to its strategic bomber cousin, the Tu-26 Backfire??
Actually I think you mean the original Tu-22 BLINDER (I'm not shouting, I just always but ASCC names in Caps); the BACKFIRE is a considerably more advanced aircraft with swing wings- btw Tu-26 is an erroneous designation the true designation has always been Tu-22M; despite the lack of similarity between the production BLINDER and BACKFIRE.
(Which probably not is a coincidence, since it was designed by the same people)
Most likely- Soviet design definitely went through 'fads'.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

WC fighters have been rather large, but it seems the Confed has managed to improve their fighter designs with new technology. The new prophecy era fighters vastly out match the old WC2-4 era fighters.

Just compare these stats

Excalibur, WC3 era
http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wc3excalibur.shtml

Excalibur, WC4 era
http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wc4excalibur.shtml

Excalibur, WC Prophecy era
http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcsoexcalibur.shtml

Panther, Class-B superiority fighter, Prophecy design
http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcppanther.shtml

Vampire, Class-A superiority fighter, Prophecy design
http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcpvampire.shtml

As you can see the Excalibur did recieve a minor upgrade between WC4 and WCP. Its shields got a nice little boost. Yet with the Excalibur having been the best thing the Confeds could field in WC3 and WC4, it is equaled by a Class-B superiority fighter. The Panther has better armor, somewhat worse shields, equal shield recharge, better speed, better acceleration. This is in a ship less then half as long. Then you have the Vampire which is maybe half the size of the Excalibur and its massively better then the Excal.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

And let us not forget the Prophecy Secret Ops Black fighters.

http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcsoblackpanther.shtml

http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcsoblackvampire.shtml

Further improvements on the Prophecy designs and they out class the Excalibur by an even larger degree.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
paladin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1393
Joined: 2002-07-22 11:01am
Location: Terra Maria

Post by paladin »

Alyeska wrote:And let us not forget the Prophecy Secret Ops Black fighters.

http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcsoblackpanther.shtml

http://www.wcnews.com/ships/wcsoblackvampire.shtml

Further improvements on the Prophecy designs and they out class the Excalibur by an even larger degree.
I did a quick calculation for the acceleration on the black panther and I came up with a number of over 54,000 Gs!!!

530 kps^2 * 1000 = 530,000 mps^2
530,000 mps^2 / 9.8 mps^2 = 54,081 Gs.

If that's correct it seems very high.
User avatar
Peregrin Toker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8609
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:57am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Peregrin Toker »

Vympel wrote:Actually I think you mean the original Tu-22 BLINDER (I'm not shouting, I just always but ASCC names in Caps); the BACKFIRE is a considerably more advanced aircraft with swing wings- btw Tu-26 is an erroneous designation the true designation has always been Tu-22M; despite the lack of similarity between the production BLINDER and BACKFIRE.
Its overall design looks a lot like the Blinder, but the engine placement is similar to that of a Backfire.

BTW, is it just me or did the WC fighters get smaller from WC1 to WC2 just to get bigger in WC3 and smaller in WCP????
"Hi there, would you like to have a cookie?"

"No, actually I would HATE to have a cookie, you vapid waste of inedible flesh!"
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Simon H.Johansen wrote:BTW, is it just me or did the WC fighters get smaller from WC1 to WC2 just to get bigger in WC3 and smaller in WCP????
The fighters from WC1 and WC2 are relatively the same size. They are about mid sized fighters while the bombers were still quite large (Broadsword). Then there was a improvement in Confed armor for fighters and they had to field new fighters to use this armor. The old Ferret Light Fighter was 10 meters long, but the new Arrow was 20 meters long. So with the new armor fighter sizes increased dramatically, though bomber sizes increased only somewhat. Then in Prophecy the fighter technology and even newer armor seems to have been adapted to much smaller sizes. Fighters are now reaching sizes smaller then the WC1 and WC2 era fighters while the Prophecy bombers have gone down to a size slightly smaller to the WC2 era bombers.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Post by Alyeska »

Although it seems the fighter sizes REALLY ballooned in Armada where a 40+ meter fighter is listed.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Post Reply