Pilot Archive
Thread: X-wings sfoils open and close for a reason. something is missing.
Zade_Taerin wrote:
The explanation that I read (can't remember where) for the S-foils open is to increase the amout of area used for heat disipation. When the weapons are firing they develop a large amount of heat... the wings splitting expose the inner surface for radiating and cause a greater separation between the heat sources (guns) that are firing. The reason the X-wing slows down is that inopen mode energy is actively routed to the weapon systems and the shields take more as they need to extend to cover the new volume.
Good enough explenation, But what about the ARC-170? It doesnt slow down and wings have to be open to fire, same with JSF.
Ardilis wrote:
So why again does a X-Wing lose speed when the s-foils are open seeing as aerodynamics isn't an issue in space?
They are, they just ahve a much lower resistance. Even in space there is particles, and it is this that allows a rocket to move through space. If there was no particles in space, a rocket would have nothing to project against. It is also the reason somethign woudl stop in space, with out particles, an object will never lose momentum and keep going in the constant direction forever.
The explanation that I read (can't remember where) for the S-foils open is to increase the amout of area used for heat disipation. When the weapons are firing they develop a large amount of heat... the wings splitting expose the inner surface for radiating and cause a greater separation between the heat sources (guns) that are firing. The reason the X-wing slows down is that inopen mode energy is actively routed to the weapon systems and the shields take more as they need to extend to cover the new volume.
Like an eagle that bares its talons just before it goes in for the kill, same kind of idea IMHO.
SciFi = Science Fiction, meaning a fiction of things that we consider achievable by science.
Space Opera = Things that happen in space because they are cool and fun, usually larger than life and heroic.
Star Wars is NOT SciFi, its Space Opera. Thats the reason why TIEs screech when they fly past you, blasters make noises, Planets get blown up, Star Destroyers are not simply large, they are HUGE, the hero always gets the girl (or the other way around
)The foils behave that way because its cool and George Lucas wanted them to be that way. There is no scientific explanation for most things, except in its own Star Wars logic. Its true though that they should stick to their own logic.
Concerning the OP, I think it would make sense that an X-Wing with opened foils would gain maneuverability in exchange for speed. Why? Because its cool that way.
Message Edited by AnvilX on 09-22-2005 02:10 PM
AnvilX wrote:
Actually we are mixing something up in this thread.
SciFi = Science Fiction, meaning a fiction of things that we consider achievable by science.
Space Opera = Things that happen in space because they are cool and fun, usually larger than life and heroic.
Star Wars is NOT SciFi, its Space Opera. Thats the reason why TIEs screech when they fly past you, blasters make noises, Planets get blown up, Star Destroyers are not simply large, they are HUGE, the hero always gets the girl (or the other way around
The foils behave that way because its cool and George Lucas wanted them to be that way. There is no scientific explanation for most things, except in its own Star Wars logic. Its true though that they should stick to their own logic.
Concerning the OP, I think it would make sense that an X-Wing with opened foils would gain maneuverability in exchange for speed. Why? Because its cool that way.
Message Edited by AnvilX on 09-22-2005 02:10 PM
I actually took a Science Fiction class in college (I can't belive they teach this in college, but hey, I needed an english credit, so...) Science Fiction is defined as deviating from what is currently accepted as true by science and tellinga story in that altered reality. In general most story tellers opt to alter the reality in the direction of a prediction of scientific advancement because that kind of altered reality is more readily adopted by the audience, but that is not the limit of the definition of Sci Fi. By your definition, a story written in the 12th century about an adventurer sailing around the world would be called a "sea opera", because it was widely scientifically accepted that the world is flat. It is a fundamental assumption of Sci Fi that we do not know everything there is to know about the universe, and we need to suspend our disbelief in order to broaden our mindsto understanda storyfrom a new perspective.
My issue with Lucas and his writing is not that takes too many liberties with science for us to believe. Clearly by the popularity of the milieu he's built, there are plenty that are able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. My issue is that he is a movie maker who writes more like a screen writer trying create these epic moments with emphasis on how it will look on a big screen and what kind of toys he can sell, and too often ignores the continuity and consistancy of his own plot. Also, Sci Fiction has one binding element that lets us as the audience suspend disbelief and still connect with the story: no matter what the setting, we are all human at the core, and the experiences in this altered reality should allow us to relate to the human elements of that experience: love, heroism, adventure, greed, etc...
This is where Lucas gets his biggest critics. How can a nine year old boy and a sixteen year old girl fall in love by spending a few minutes chatting in a space craft? Why would a padawan devote his life to service to all the Jedi Order represent then throw years of devotion and training out the window with a few minutes of temptation to the dark side? Why would Anakin trust anything the emperor says, and why would he agree to be the apprentice when it is clear that he casts them aside for the next new one? There are numerous examples of these logic problems that make it hard for us in the audience to relate.
So, yes, Star Wars is science fiction, but it may not be "good" science fiction.
Cookie-Eater wrote:
Zade_Taerin wrote:
The explanation that I read (can't remember where) for the S-foils open is to increase the amout of area used for heat disipation. When the weapons are firing they develop a large amount of heat... the wings splitting expose the inner surface for radiating and cause a greater separation between the heat sources (guns) that are firing. The reason the X-wing slows down is that in open mode energy is actively routed to the weapon systems and the shields take more as they need to extend to cover the new volume.
Good enough explenation, But what about the ARC-170? It doesnt slow down and wings have to be open to fire, same with JSF.
Well the visible difference is that the engine positions don't change on the JSF or ARC-170 when the foils open or close. On the X-Wing they do.
I think the better question to ask is why do ships have to close their foils when they hyper? Why not have the foils open all the time? All foil-craft have to close the foils to hyper. Not sure why.
Daeges wrote:
I actually took a Science Fiction class in college (I can't belive they teach this in college, but hey, I needed an english credit, so...) Science Fiction is defined as deviating from what is currently accepted as true by science and tellinga story in that altered reality. Booo, bad definition. Science fiction is speculative work that falls into a few general categories. At the heart of science fiction however is the essential element that the story needed to take place in a setting other than earth present day. There are generally two accepted breakdowns here (there are lots of categories of scifi) - realistic stuff, like what Clarke was writing, and speculative fantasy, which is more what StarWars was about. Just asking "what if?" and running wild. For the most part Star Wars did not focus on technology or beatevery aspect of it to death(the way an episode of say, Star Trek TNG would) so things like x-wing foils are left open to guesswork.
My issue with Lucas and his writing is not that takes too many liberties with science for us to believe. Clearly by the popularity of the milieu he's built, there are plenty that are able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. My issue is that he is a movie maker who writes more like a screen writer trying create these epic moments with emphasis on how it will look on a big screen and what kind of toys he can sell, and too often ignores the continuity and consistancy of his own plot. Also, Sci Fiction has one binding element that lets us as the audience suspend disbelief and still connect with the story: no matter what the setting, we are all human at the core, and the experiences in this altered reality should allow us to relate to the human elements of that experience: love, heroism, adventure, greed, etc...Eh, okay!
This is where Lucas gets his biggest critics. How can a nine year old boy and a sixteen year old girl fall in love by spending a few minutes chatting in a space craft? Why would a padawan devote his life to service to all the Jedi Order represent then throw years of devotion and training out the window with a few minutes of temptation to the dark side? Why would Anakin trust anything the emperor says, and why would he agree to be the apprentice when it is clear that he casts them aside for the next new one? There are numerous examples of these logic problems that make it hard for us in the audience to relate. I also teach directing (I swear I'm not making this up, I even work part time as a local stage director) - which I only state to add some level of weight to my opinions. Lucas could have gotten away with those scenes, life onstage is compressed to only the important moments, and those are illustrated above. Most of where Lucas failed was in weak directing, as the characters had poor chemistry and the lines certainly didn't help them along. I liked the movies as cheap entertainment, but I sat in the theater banging my head on the back of my chair frequently at some of the poor directing choices that were made.
So, yes, Star Wars is science fiction, but it may not be "good" science fiction. See, I'd call it science fantasy. My guess is Lucas wrote some nice stories that were never meant to be blown up as much as they were. And as much as he pretends to have some deeper story and continuity in mind, I don't see that in his writing. I suspect many of the things that became cannon and worshiped by the SW fans were simply minor elements in an adventure movie that was never intended to spawn an entire empire of works. Lucas just kept riding that wave and adding more and more material...and was suddenly caught with how to make the final three movies fit together. I don't quite buy that all six were figured out back in the 70's Oh, in answer to your statment, I'd call Star Wars science fantasy, but I'd agree that it isn't the best.
Phizuol wrote:
Well the visible difference is that the engine positions don't change on the JSF or ARC-170 when the foils open or close. On the X-Wing they do.
I think the better question to ask is why do ships have to close their foils when they hyper? Why not have the foils open all the time? All foil-craft have to close the foils to hyper. Not sure why.
www.starwars.com
the X-wing according to what i have read is suppose to slightly better than the standard TIE fighter in manoverability.
as well as more manoverable than the Z-95.( head hunters are old republic vintage) which it is not here. (guess its another of those starwars things that die to the "balance plage"
I have read all of the SW books (including the prequal era) up through the New jedi order. won't read those.
most of them at leat 2xs. and it all sortta jumbles together.
I did read , i don't remember if it was wedge,corron horn, Luke, or Gavin.... where in the book they locked the S-foilfs in attack position witch gave it ,its distinctive shape and its best for manovering.
the x-wing is more manoverable (wratih squadron) than an A-wing , the a-wings just have all that speed.
2 x-wings are actualy able to beat 2 a-wings in a race of sorts through a canyon on a moon. the x-wing being able to take the turns better are what allowed it to win.
The X-wing fighter has a compact life support system of compressors, temperature regulators, and oxygen scrubbing filters. A series of acceleration compensators help isolate the pilot from deadly g-forces generated by high speed maneuvers. There is enough oxygen, fuel and power in an X-wing for a week of non-combat operations. Additional consumable tanks can be affixed to the S-foils at a cost of performance.
a week in that lil cocpit. ick.
note that adding tanks to the foils can hinder manovering, similar to the way it does in RL. and those tanks can be jettisoned if need or when empty. (the 1st x-wing book)
Attacca wrote:
Phizuol wrote:
Well the visible difference is that the engine positions don't change on the JSF or ARC-170 when the foils open or close. On the X-Wing they do.
I think the better question to ask is why do ships have to close their foils when they hyper? Why not have the foils open all the time? All foil-craft have to close the foils to hyper. Not sure why.
So...why does the ARC have foils anyhow? Or was that just a ploy to make it look like a predecessor of the X-Wing? I'm not always up on SW lore...
Well here is the description straight from the databank:
Its extendable s-foils radiate heat and serve as a conduit to deflector shield energy. They also help stabilize atmospheric flight, making the ARC-170 an effective aerial fighter as well as a space superiority vessel
I have read a little more detail elsewhere that states the shields are not at full strength when the foils are closed.
Attacca wrote:
I teach a science fiction course. Do we get to debate?
Daeges wrote:
I actually took a Science Fiction class in college (I can't belive they teach this in college, but hey, I needed an english credit, so...) Science Fiction is defined as deviating from what is currently accepted as true by science and telling a story in that altered reality. Booo, bad definition. Science fiction is speculative work that falls into a few general categories. At the heart of science fiction however is the essential element that the story needed to take place in a setting other than earth present day. There are generally two accepted breakdowns here (there are lots of categories of scifi) - realistic stuff, like what Clarke was writing, and speculative fantasy, which is more what Star Wars was about. Just asking "what if?" and running wild. For the most part Star Wars did not focus on technology or beat every aspect of it to death (the way an episode of say, Star Trek TNG would) so things like x-wing foils are left open to guesswork.My issue with Lucas and his writing is not that takes too many liberties with science for us to believe. Clearly by the popularity of the milieu he's built, there are plenty that are able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. My issue is that he is a movie maker who writes more like a screen writer trying create these epic moments with emphasis on how it will look on a big screen and what kind of toys he can sell, and too often ignores the continuity and consistancy of his own plot. Also, Sci Fiction has one binding element that lets us as the audience suspend disbelief and still connect with the story: no matter what the setting, we are all human at the core, and the experiences in this altered reality should allow us to relate to the human elements of that experience: love, heroism, adventure, greed, etc...Eh, okay!
This is where Lucas gets his biggest critics. How can a nine year old boy and a sixteen year old girl fall in love by spending a few minutes chatting in a space craft? Why would a padawan devote his life to service to all the Jedi Order represent then throw years of devotion and training out the window with a few minutes of temptation to the dark side? Why would Anakin trust anything the emperor says, and why would he agree to be the apprentice when it is clear that he casts them aside for the next new one? There are numerous examples of these logic problems that make it hard for us in the audience to relate. I also teach directing (I swear I'm not making this up, I even work part time as a local stage director) - which I only state to add some level of weight to my opinions. Lucas could have gotten away with those scenes, life onstage is compressed to only the important moments, and those are illustrated above. Most of where Lucas failed was in weak directing, as the characters had poor chemistry and the lines certainly didn't help them along. I liked the movies as cheap entertainment, but I sat in the theater banging my head on the back of my chair frequently at some of the poor directing choices that were made.
So, yes, Star Wars is science fiction, but it may not be "good" science fiction. See, I'd call it science fantasy. My guess is Lucas wrote some nice stories that were never meant to be blown up as much as they were. And as much as he pretends to have some deeper story and continuity in mind, I don't see that in his writing. I suspect many of the things that became cannon and worshiped by the SW fans were simply minor elements in an adventure movie that was never intended to spawn an entire empire of works. Lucas just kept riding that wave and adding more and more material...and was suddenly caught with how to make the final three movies fit together. I don't quite buy that all six were figured out back in the 70's Oh, in answer to your statment, I'd call Star Wars science fantasy, but I'd agree that it isn't the best.
Ok, now that we seem to go into details, I'd like to explain myself a little more. There seem to be different views about how things are defined.
What I learned once was
that science fiction is a form of speculative fiction that is mainly dealing with the impact of imagined science and technology upon society and persons as individuals. Agreed, there are no hard definitions about where science fiction ends and other genres start. Often the borders are fluid.
To be more specific: The effect of imagined science, the imagined effect of actual science, imagined technology based upon actual science, imagined technology based upon imagined science, the effect of science and technology, or both, upon imagined societies, the effect of science and technology, or both, upon imagined individuals, etc., etc belong to science fiction.
On the other hand, fantasy deals with the supernatural (like magic and fairies), to which there is no scientific explanation and of course many many more.
Several writers use space or the distant future not to speculate about questions of human development (as outlined above), but as an exotic setting in which they tell a story of a more traditional genre, like adventure or romance. The term for this type of "fiction" is space opera.
IMO in SW, technology and science are "special effects" in a way. They are used to tell an interesting and immersive story, just like all the aliens, the force and everything else are used as dramatic elements.
This is, of course, only a very brief explanation, since we should be discussing S-foils and not the definition of science fiction in this thread (sorry for being off-topic
).Oh, one last thing, "a story written in the 12th century about an adventurer sailing around the world" would be called science fiction in my definition, unless the writer just wanted to tell a standard pirate-tale and the fact that the earth was a globe is just a special effect to make the story more interesting. That would indeed be a "sea opera".
I rarely had so much fun reading and writing forum posts. /bow /wave