"Mass-lightening"/inertia: Sarli was right after all?

[Bakustra]

There might be one thing that explains it.

What if the newer fighter craft have some sort of engine limiter preventing them from flying faster than is safe from a piloting perspective? I mean we have engine limiters on cars now, so it is not that much of a stretch.

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power. And dogfighting is going to be quite impossible. This goes double for patrolling, reconnaissance and a bunch of other functions that a fighter might be called upon to perform. Not mentioning that a bird strike or some cosmic dust hitting you at those speeds is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear missile hitting your face.

So the maximum listed speeds that are given in the high numbers (Mach 15-20) might be the Maximum capable speed, while the lower ones (like 220kph) might be the limited reasonable speeds that the software actually allows you to fly at under non extraordinary conditions.

And I can clearly see the jedi having the limits laxed somewhat due to their magical reflexes and all.

So the limiter limits speeds to less than that of a modern airliner, or for that matter a modern sports car? Especially for the personal, armed vehicle of a bounty hunter? The number makes no sense, just boot it from continuity and continue on.

[Purple]

So the limiter limits speeds to less than that of a modern airliner, or for that matter a modern sports car? Especially for the personal, armed vehicle of a bounty hunter? The number makes no sense, just boot it from continuity and continue on.

I was talking more in the thing about the Jedi starfigther outflying a Tai. Yes, the whole bounty hunter thing is pure idiocy.

But you have to admit that for some of the things, like the more reasonable but still abysmally small starfighter speeds compared to what they would need for orbital exit, my idea makes sense.

[Batman]

There might be one thing that explains it.
What if the newer fighter craft have some sort of engine limiter preventing them from flying faster than is safe from a piloting perspective? I mean we have engine limiters on cars now, so it is not that much of a stretch.

Actually, yes it is. Engine limiters on cars (which are routinely disabled, by the way) take off maybe a third (and usually less) of a car's speed. And that's civilian cars. We're talking about a 2 orders of magnitude reduction in speed for military fighters. Um-no?

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power.

Um no it's not? What would be the reasons why it would?

And dogfighting is going to be quite impossible. This goes double for patrolling, reconnaissance and a bunch of other functions that a fighter might be called upon to perform.

Leaving alone the fact that a lot of those functions can be performed without ever getting back into the atmosphere, that would explain why they usually don't move that fast in atmosphere. Doesn't explain the peak atmosphere speed of IG-2000 being 220 kph when unshielded fighters can go 12,000.

Not mentioning that a bird strike or some cosmic dust hitting you at those speeds is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear missile hitting your face.

Err-this is in-atmosphere. Cosmic dust is a nonissue?

So the maximum listed speeds that are given in the high numbers (Mach 15-20) might be the Maximum capable speed, while the lower ones (like 220kph) might be the limited reasonable speeds that the software actually allows you to fly at under non extraordinary conditions.

Um-no? 220 kph is standing still even by modern day standards. There's been a number of fighters which couldn't stay airborne at that speed in our own history. You are saying that vehicles that are capable of Mach 10 (nonshielded) to Mach 40 (shielded) are limited to WW1 combat speeds in atmosphere. No.

[Purple]

Actually, yes it is. Engine limiters on cars (which are routinely disabled, by the way) take off maybe a third (and usually less) of a car's speed. And that's civilian cars. We're talking about a 2 orders of magnitude reduction in speed for military fighters. Um-no?

The principal remains the same, the technology not so much. But the principal of limiting the speed of a craft for the sake of user safety remains the same.

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power.

Um no it's not? What would be the reasons why it would?

Well for a start at those speeds any obstruction at all is going to come and go in an instant before any human operator can react.
Also, the g forces in question will do some nasty stuff to you if you try and turn at those speeds.

And dogfighting is going to be quite impossible. This goes double for patrolling, reconnaissance and a bunch of other functions that a fighter might be called upon to perform.

Leaving alone the fact that a lot of those functions can be performed without ever getting back into the atmosphere, that would explain why they usually don't move that fast in atmosphere. Doesn't explain the peak atmosphere speed of IG-2000 being 220 kph when unshielded fighters can go 12,000.

I don't think anything can explain that. But my point can explain the other stuff. I even said so my self just 1 post later.

Not mentioning that a bird strike or some cosmic dust hitting you at those speeds is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear missile hitting your face.

Err-this is in-atmosphere. Cosmic dust is a nonissue?

Bird strike in atmosphere, cosmic dust in space.
I was making an analogy to prove a point.

Object + your face + Mach 30 or faster impact speed = bad.

Um-no? 220 kph is standing still even by modern day standards. There's been a number of fighters which couldn't stay airborne at that speed in our own history. You are saying that vehicles that are capable of Mach 10 (nonshielded) to Mach 40 (shielded) are limited to WW1 combat speeds in atmosphere. No.

Again, I said just 1 post later (if you had taken the time to read it) that my point does not apply to that particular case.
I just used the number because I needed on and it seemed like a low one.

[Batman]

Actually, yes it is. Engine limiters on cars (which are routinely disabled, by the way) take off maybe a third (and usually less) of a car's speed. And that's civilian cars. We're talking about a 2 orders of magnitude reduction in speed for military fighters. Um-no?

The principal remains the same, the technology not so much. But the principal of limiting the speed of a craft for the sake of user safety remains the same.

One small problem-we know they are perfectly happy with fighters moving Mach 40 in atmosphere so why would they reduce the in-atmosphere speed of IG-2000 to something a modern day car can beat by a considerable margin?

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power.

Um no it's not? What would be the reasons why it would?

Well for a start at those speeds any obstruction at all is going to come and go in an instant before any human operator can react.
Also, the g forces in question will do some nasty stuff to you if you try and turn at those speeds.

The g forces in question will be nonexistent thanks to Wars having technology to see to that. Acceleration compensators FTW.

Not mentioning that a bird strike or some cosmic dust hitting you at those speeds is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear missile hitting your face.

Err-this is in-atmosphere. Cosmic dust is a nonissue?

Bird strike in atmosphere, cosmic dust in space.

Yep. A birds strike is definitely going to bother a ship that can go Mach 12 in atmosphere without shields.

[Connor MacLeod]

*rubs his temples* This thread makes my head hurt. I thought the confusing "inertial damping" and "mass lightening" was silly, but this...

Look, we know that if they get high enough they can make straight line departures rom the atmosphere in relatively short periods of time (but they have to be in the atmosphere, even in the thin parts, to do so.) That means that "max airspeed" is going to be variable depending on context. And there can be lots of reasons. Fighting in and around troops on teh ground is one, or over cities, ro whatnot. Traveling at supersonic at low altitudes is going ot be.. unpleasant if not dangerous to your surroundings (much less if you go hypersonic..)

On top of that, any shielded or armored craft is going to be subject to air resistance and friction acting on the vehicle, especially at those high speeds. Those are bound to degrade defenses (Curtis once mentoned something to that effect I believe - that maximum speed in the atmosphere will be influenced heavily by the limits of deflector shielding)

I would further note that the WOTC airspeeds for the ICS depicted vessels like the aethersprite tend to differ from the ICS values, which would logically suggest some sort of difference exists as it is.

[Purple]

One small problem-we know they are perfectly happy with fighters moving Mach 40 in atmosphere so why would they reduce the in-atmosphere speed of IG-2000 to something a modern day car can beat by a considerable margin?

I am going to repeat this just one last time.
My theory does NOT extend to the idiotic IG-2000 thing.

I said it here:

Again, I said just 1 post later (if you had taken the time to read it) that my point does not apply to that particular case.I just used the number because I needed on and it seemed like a low one.

And before that here:

I was talking more in the thing about the Jedi starfigther outflying a Tai. Yes, the whole bounty hunter thing is pure idiocy.

But you have to admit that for some of the things, like the more reasonable but still abysmally small starfighter speeds compared to what they would need for orbital exit, my idea makes sense.

Do you understand now of shall I have to draw you a picture?
Shall I? It's no problem, no problem at all. If you want it's 5 minutes for me to draw one using MS paint.

The g forces in question will be nonexistent thanks to Wars having technology to see to that. Acceleration compensators FTW.

But the fact that the pilot won't know where he is going as in the 1 second it takes him to jerk the controls to turn left for example he will have traveled 10.2 Kilometers (at mach 30). Since mach 1 is 1225 km/h, and that is roughly 0.34 km/second.

So let's say that signals from your brain reach your arms in an instant (ignoring travel times) and that it takes 3 seconds for you to turn the control stick so that your fighter makes a 30 degrees turn left.

That means that at the moment the turn starts you will be 10.2 x 3 = 30.6 kilometers from where you started.

Do you see now how this might cause a slight delay in pilot input and make it difficult to fly the craft without computer assistance?

Yep. A birds strike is definitely going to bother a ship that can go Mach 12 in atmosphere without shields.

Indeed, I guess you are right about this one.
But on the other hands, at those speeds the pilot won't be able to dodge anything.

Let's say there is a church bell tower/tree/AT-AT walker/what ever just as long as it is capable of destroying the fighter in case of an impact in an open field and the fighter is unknowingly going strait toward it at mach 30.

Now let's say the pilot's instruments warn him of the existence of said object at a distance of 30 kilometers.
Since mach 1 is 1225 km/h, and that is roughly 0.34 km/second. And since we have established that it takes him just 3 seconds to fly 30 kilometers.

We can conclude that the pilot would only have 3 seconds worth of time to dodge the obstacle before impact becomes inevitable.


Do you see how all of that could turn out to be not so safe overall? Even without adding in extra variables like say a dogfight or AA fire?

[Batman]

One small problem-we know they are perfectly happy with fighters moving Mach 40 in atmosphere so why would they reduce the in-atmosphere speed of IG-2000 to something a modern day car can beat by a considerable margin?

I am going to repeat this just one last time.
My theory does NOT extend to the idiotic IG-2000 thing.

Duly (if belatedly) noted. My bad.

The g forces in question will be nonexistent thanks to Wars having technology to see to that. Acceleration compensators FTW.

But the fact that the pilot won't know where he is going as in the 1 second it takes him to jerk the controls to turn left for example he will have traveled 10.2 Kilometers (at mach 30). Since mach 1 is 1225 km/h, and that is roughly 0.34 km/second.
So let's say that signals from your brain reach your arms in an instant (ignoring travel times) and that it takes 3 seconds for you to turn the control stick so that your fighter makes a 30 degrees turn left.
That means that at the moment the turn starts you will be 10.2 x 3 = 30.6 kilometers from where you started.
Do you see now how this might cause a slight delay in pilot input and make it difficult to fly the craft without computer assistance?

Absolutely. I was commenting on your assumption that moving at those speeds would be suicidal (which it isn't, at least not with your 'no obstructions' stipulation) and that g forces would be a problem (which they won't thanks to acceleration compensators). You're not going to do any maneuvering worth mentioning at those speeds. Kinda like the SR-71 only a lot worse.

Yep. A birds strike is definitely going to bother a ship that can go Mach 12 in atmosphere without shields.

Indeed, I guess you are right about this one.
But on the other hands, at those speeds the pilot won't be able to dodge anything.

Absolutely.

Let's say there is a church bell tower/tree/AT-AT walker/what ever just as long as it is capable of destroying the fighter in case of an impact in an open field and the fighter is unknowingly going strait toward it at mach 30.

Except there isn't, at least by your stipulation.

I mean, at mach 32, flying in the clear blue sky with no obstructions is going to be suicidal without some extreme computing power.

Doing so close to the ground is obviously a bad idea unless it's a very very flat planet.

[Purple]

In other words, we have had a misunderstanding about fighting over trying to convince each others of the same points.
Dully noted.

[nightmare]

I'll start with an apology, my schedule tend to allow only for periodic debates at best. I don't intend to continue this discussion, but I don't want to leave it hanging on my account, either.

As per what, exactly? Repulsorlift can you get out of and back into a gravity well. I don't recall them ever being used for lateral movement.

Well, there's only every repulsorcraft we've ever seen, including quite a few droids. Just because some of them also have other engines means nothing.

You have no doubt evidence that every last one of them actually uses repulsorlifts for lateral movement.

I don't need to show that until you've demonstrated that no repulsorcraft is capable of lateral movement. But yes, I do have evidence that every single repulsorcraft can be used for lateral movement. Starwars.com puts it like this: "From the Movies
A repulsorlift is a type of antigravity engine that allows vehicles and vessels to push against gravity fields, providing flight."

I trust you know that flight means more than lift. Or I can point out Luke's remote back in ANH, one example out of many.

It's not my fault you don't know your terminology.

Actually, intra doesn't just mean 'inside' but is also translated from latin as 'within' and is also used in the conjunction 'intraplanetary travel', so that should be my line. Languages change, deal.

[Batman]

You have no doubt evidence that every last one of them actually uses repulsorlifts for lateral movement.

I don't need to show that until you've demonstrated that no repulsorcraft is capable of lateral movement.

As a matter of fact yes you do. We know for a fact repulsorcraft can move laterally. You have to show they do so via repulsors. I don't have to prove a negative.

But yes, I do have evidence that every single repulsorcraft can be used for lateral movement. Starwars.com puts it like this: "From the Movies
A repulsorlift is a type of antigravity engine that allows vehicles and vessels to push against gravity fields, providing flight."
I trust you know that flight means more than lift.

Not in this context it doesn't. I notice a complete and utter lack mentioning of them using repulsorlifts for lateral movement.

Or I can point out Luke's remote back in ANH, one example out of many.

Which moved laterally. The evidence it did so using repulsorlifts would be...?

It's not my fault you don't know your terminology.

Actually, intra doesn't just mean 'inside' but is also translated from latin as 'within' and is also used in the conjunction 'intraplanetary travel', so that should be my line. Languages change, deal.

Err-so fucking what? Either way it means traveling within the planet? What you want is interplanetary travel.

[Darth Ruinus]

The remotes used a repulsor to float up in the air, but they had seperate maneuvering thrusters to move about.

EDIT: Oh wait, if the repulsorlifts just push off of gravity, can't they also just push off of gravity to their sides and infront and behind them? Repulsor tanks and other vehicles can move forward and side to side, but they are never said to use any other drive beside their repulsors.

[Crazedwraith]

I actually read that article.

For movement, the remote used a small repulsorlift generator which could achieve a top speed of twenty-five kilometers per hour. Eight maneuvering thrusters made the remote extremely nimble; combined with it's fast acceleration and deceleration, this made for an unpredictable practice.

Whoops, it specifically mentions the repulsorlifts being used for motion. Unless you think it means the remote can go at 25km but only straight up or down.

[Darth Ruinus]

Yeah, but then in my edit I realized that the repulsorlifts should be enough to move in any direction provided it can push off of gravity in any direction.

[Batman]

Yeah, but then in my edit I realized that the repulsorlifts should be enough to move in any direction provided it can push off of gravity in any direction.

But that's it-you can't push off of gravity in any direction. Gravity is always straight down. Even if you could do an angled push against it, there would always be an increasing vertical component to your movement. You could move laterally, but you would also always be rising in relation to local gravitational 'down'.
Lateral movement might perhaps be effected by not pushing against gravity, but matter, in a sort of reverse tractorbeam style, and adjusting the actual pushing-against-gravity part so that no actual change in altitude occurs. (yea, I know, double actual in a single sentence, bad style, but I hope you got my gist).

[Darth Ruinus]

Ok, I'm about to ask a really stupid question, so bear with me.
But I thought the "gravity straight down" is because objects are being pulled to the bottom of a gravitational well. Going straight down is the effect of gravity, but gravity itself is all around an object (the well itself). So a repulsorlift, instead of pushing away from the center of the well, can push off of the the entire well (the sides so to speak) right?

[Batman]

Ask the guys who invented repulsorlifts. For the time being I assume pushing against gravity means pushing in the opposite direction gravity is trying to pull you, which is towards the center of the well.
As I said, you presumably could push against it at an angle, which would allow you to move laterally, but, always with an increase in altitude. I don't see how movement exclusively perpendicular to the gravity well's pull would be possible by purely pushing against it.

[Darth Ruinus]

The Armored Assault Tank says it uses "The AAT used heavy-duty repulsors to keep it off the ground and propel it forward". But other repulsorcraft I've looked up seem to imply that you are right, the repulsor doesn't seem to provide the forward motion for the craft.

[Imperial528]

If you were to adjust the angled "pushing" force against the well so that the effect of increasing altitude is negated by the effect of the overall well pulling down on the craft, wouldn't that essentially make a perpendicular movement? Sort of like a tilt-rotor VTOL.

Basically, what I'm thinking is that say when in the default hover position, your repulsor pushes entirely on the center of the well with a force of 1 g, but in the move forward position, let's say that the angle only points half of the repulsor at the well, and that the overall force of the repulsor is increased to 2 gs, so that the amount pointed at the center of the well is still enough to keep you up, while the end pointed at the remainder of the well will apply the other 1 g.

Although, this assumes that you can push on every part of the well, not just the center.

[Batman]

The Armored Assault Tank says it uses "The AAT used heavy-duty repulsors to keep it off the ground and propel it forward". But other repulsorcraft I've looked up seem to imply that you are right, the repulsor doesn't seem to provide the forward motion for the craft.

As I said, if the canon states they do, they do, I just don't see how they could do it by as I understand it the gravitational equivalent of opposing magnets.

[j.eller]

The Armored Assault Tank says it uses "The AAT used heavy-duty repulsors to keep it off the ground and propel it forward". But other repulsorcraft I've looked up seem to imply that you are right, the repulsor doesn't seem to provide the forward motion for the craft.

As I said, if the canon states they do, they do, I just don't see how they could do it by as I understand it the gravitational equivalent of opposing magnets.

This is from the wookiepedia article on landspeeders:

"Low-power repulsorlifts allowed most landspeeders to constantly hover one to two meters above the ground, both when stationary and while traveling. Turbine jet engines were responsible for propelling the vehicle forward."

My assumption was always that repulsorlifts were used for elevation wrt the gravitational pull, and could provide a limited 'push' in other directions (as for probe droids and the like). I assumed that anything high speed (T-47s, landspeeders, swoops) needed another form of propulsion in addition to repulsors to get up to any kind of decent speed. Not sure of the canonicity or the science, but that has always been my impression. It explains the AAT thing too. AATs are slow, so could use repulsors for forward movement as well as staying up. I assume that the same would apply to MTTs.
Anyone got any ideas on what powered stuff like the republic fighter tank or GAT (which got up to much higher speeds) ?

[j.eller]

Another thought about the science side.
Could it be possible that repulsors act to provide a force proportional to a mass acted on, as opposed to fighting with the gravity well as such?
That way, pushing back against a large mass (read; planet) with the local gravity basically provides an antigravity field because equal forces in opposite directions negate. Low velocities could be achieved in other directions by providing force against mass in the opposite. Could explain why they can't get up to speed in the forward direction; because the atmosphere (and trees, buildings etc) don't provide much mass to 'push off' from.

[Darth Ruinus]

This is always how I imaged them working (j.eller said similar while I was making this). The red arrow is the repulsor pushing off of the gravity field below, it's pushing away from the center of the gravity well. The green arrow is the repulsor pushing off of the gravity field behind it causing the craft to move forward. Then you can go further and strap on actual engines to the craft so that it goes faster.

[Darth Ruinus]

Anyone got any ideas on what powered stuff like the republic fighter tank or GAT (which got up to much higher speeds) ?

The TX-130 is listed as a speedercraft, but even the 1-H (listed as a repulsorcraft) has a greater speed than the AATs. Maybe speedercraft are a type of repulsor craft which tacks on the extra engines while pure repulsorcraft just use repulsors.* Also, the AAT's base looks like is mostly missile launchers, with one repulsor disc in the front and some coils at the back. Other vehicles might pack more repulsorlifts on their undersides since most of them have more traditional tank designs. Or maybe the AAT simply isn't designed to be fast.

*I don't own any of the tech books, so I don't know if the distinction between repulsorcraft and speedercraft exists outside of Wookieepedia.

[j.eller]

*I don't own any of the tech books, so I don't know if the distinction between repulsorcraft and speedercraft exists outside of Wookieepedia.

I just looked at the T-47 article on wookiepedia and it says that they had an 'ion afterburner' in addition to repulsors, which suggests that this is the distinction between the two types.