Re: CG Galactica
 

Interesting question.

Although we have had some test aircraft that had rather stubby wings, I don't think they were "take off" capable. They almost always (as far as I know) had to be deployed from larger aircraft.

I don't think a Viper in its current physical configuration could fly, at least atmospherically. In space, you can have a box and make it travel with maneuvering jets, but in atmo it would be about as flight worthy as an elephant.

Re: CG Galactica
 

I wondered because some planes, e.g. the F-117, look totally unlikely to fly, but do so.
Just curious.

Re: CG Galactica
 

Hehe ..... good point. :)

In truth, at least the F-117 still seems to possess the characteristics of an airfoil...albeit, a singular foil (like a flying wing).

A Colonial Viper, at least to me (and yes I am FAR from an aerodynamics expert) just looks a bit too.....blocky, and has too small of a wingspan to begin with.

But, like I said, we did have some test aircraft (IIRC) that had very stubby wingspans....but, they still had airfoil characteristics.

Again, I am far from an aerodynamics expert, so, as with all things, take my opinion with a grain of salt....or just take the whole durned shaker. :)

Re: CG Galactica
 

The lockheed f-104 Starfighter flew pretty well with short wing span.

A wind tunnel test would be cool.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/30509197/f104-03.jpg

Re: CG Galactica
 

I messed around with some different camera angles... Also I threw in some extra Vipers just to get a feel of density.

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay5.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay4.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay6.jpg

Re: CG Galactica
 

Basically for the viper to fly properly you'd have to taper the leading and trailing edges of the wings and add a forward Canard. I think were still dealing with an aircraft that would have a ridiculously high landing speed, even more than an F104.
You dont really need to have an airfoil that generates lift to fly, especially at higher speeds, but of course you trade off low speed capabilities and high G turns.

Re: CG Galactica
 

Added some floor detail and areas around the launch tubes.

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay8.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay9.jpg

:salute:

Re: CG Galactica
 

That landing bay just keeps looking better and better with each element you add. :)

Re: CG Galactica
 

Actually, that's the Hangar / Launch deck that sits bellow the landing deck.

(Landing deck)

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z..._LandPod1s.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...landingbay.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z..._LandPod1n.jpg

(Hangar / Launch deck)
http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay6.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...LaunchBay9.jpg

:salute:

Re: CG Galactica
 

LOL! Sorry, was in a rush....didn't have time to differentiate. :)

Re: CG Galactica
 

Taking a break from the Hangar deck scene. I wanted to add some detail for a laser turret.
They were never clear on the original show where these guys were, but I'm assuming they were tucked away, nice and protected near the launch tubes to protect the ship and the birds.
So here is what I've started so far...

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps436a5db3.jpg http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps5fde4f32.jpg

:salute:

Re: CG Galactica
 

That is actually looking pretty hefty for a low poly lookin object lol


Teeeeesa...:D


Nah, is sexy and sleek like any old ship of the fleet.


Regards,

Randal R.

Re: CG Galactica
 

Thanks... I haven't figured out where I'm going with this yet. But that's why it's a work in progress...

Trial and error. Experimenting until I find what works.

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/z...psb52b382a.jpg

:nervous:

Re: CG Galactica
 

But if the Viper has VTOL capabilities, would it need such a high landing speed?

Re: CG Galactica
 

Interesting points about flyability of the vipers.
I asked the same questions years ago to my next door neighbor who is (retired) an
Aviation engineer. original viper would never get of the ground
the anhedral angle of the wings are too steep, wing area is to small to generate
enough lift. the drag caused by the engines and the nose section would be far to great
for the the lift generated by the wings to over come.

If it could fly, the engines would need to be insanely powerful with a huge airfoil camber
and thickness. power generated by the top engine wouldn't be as effective because
the intake is restricted by the cockpit

take off speed would be in excess of 500kph. Landing and stall speeds just as high.
Without canard wings, as it approaches take off speed would flip over on its back
like an F1 car because of the taper on the nose section. that would push the nose up.

If your interested, when i get home I'll find pictures of the vipers i came up with
to make them flyable.

edit: original vipers center of gravity is about a meter behind the cockpit behind the
root of the leading edge of the wings

Re: CG Galactica
 

Just curious...did you ask him about VTOL?


EDIT-- What about Croad's fighter, from TLP? Flatter wings.

Re: CG Galactica
 

I did ask about VTOL :-) when i was looking at streamlining the original shuttle.

Most of what i asked and what was told was all on the harrier.
looking at how the exhaust is vectored by the nozzles moving up and down
and how it was stable on it's roll (z) axis with vectored vanes in the exhaust
nozzles.

Croads fighter looking at it, looks more flyable, It would have the same
problems as the viper. one less engine reduces the drag, however the wings
are a problem. if that wing had a typical airfoil cross section, airflow to the
engines would be disrupted or restricted because the engine is on top of the
wing. Also the engines are slightly recessed into the fuselage and that
would restrict airflow as well.

Have a look at Learjets, engines on the side on pylons away from the
fuselage.

When air passes over a wing the pressure drops as it goes over the top,
air pressure under the wing remains the same. that's what gets the plane off
the ground. Having an engine on top of a wing, where air pressure is lower
and more disturbed means the engines are sucking in a lot less air and
sometimes even cause a flame out.

That's why passenger jets (eg 737) have the engines underneath on pylons jutting forward of the wing.

Croads fighter could be flyable, if the engines where under the wings, nose
tapered, and tail made taller. and wingspan a little larger, Angle of the wings
wouldn't be a problem there about the same as the space shuttle.

Edit: something else i thought of, you could leave the engines on top, put them on little pylons
so that they are above the wing and way from the fuselage, like and A-10 for example.

Re: CG Galactica
 

If you don't think a Viper will fly, think again! This RC viper admittedly is not like like the actual model, but the shape does indeed fly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZcEu...eature=related

Re: CG Galactica
 

Nice find, :-)
basic shape of that looks a little like a cross between ralph mcquarries original
concepts and the version in the new bsg series, with a shallower wing anhedral.
When you look at that model, it's very similar to the concorde.

that video gave flash backs of the cardboard space shuttle gliders in 7th grade
primary school. awesome.

Need to have another look.
cheers :salute:

Re: CG Galactica
 

Just to play Iblis' Opposer here....since these machines were primarily intended to fly in space, does atmospheric compatibility mean as much?
What about the Cylon fighters?