Calling all Stargate Fans!

[Dallidas]

Originally Posted by magyareagle

I think that for purposes of this thread, 17 meters is acceptable. Although, If you take a look at the relative wingspan of most modern fighters, 20 might be more realistic. As for the weapons department, I'd say that most of it would be lost to armor and Engines, especiall when it is considered that this is Earth's first fighter. The amount of thrust required to get into Orbit is enormous, and that would take up most of the space on the fighter.

you seem to be forgetting the inertial dampeners, which drop the weight of the fighter to near zero, therefore you dont need all that much to get into orbit.

[SADDAMINSANE]

From this image you can see that 60 to 70 meters is closer to the correct size and that 37 meters is the midget Al'kesh haha

[Bar]

Originally Posted by freekzilla

That also makes the estimated 8 meter length of the Dart questionable. I just wish they, TPTB, would give us some concrete figures to work with.

Actually, there is a reason for their hesitancy to give concrete figures or reference:
Then BSG first came out, they(Zoic), released CG orthos of the MKII Viper and the BSG, and other offficial sites quoted dimensions. It was relatively easy(With the correct know-how), from then on for amateur model makers to make master models of the ships.
It seems now that the producers of similar shows keep their mouths shut now, for obvious reasons. They are protecting their assets...
Bar.

[magyareagle]

Originally Posted by Dallidas

you seem to be forgetting the inertial dampeners, which drop the weight of the fighter to near zero, therefore you dont need all that much to get into orbit.

I'm not talking about the mass of the fighter, but the actually the internal space occupied by the engines and fuel. Also, from what I've read, the inertial dampeners don't have any effect on the ships weight. They simply prevent the pilot from being injured by the extreme gravitational forces encountered during high velocity maneuvers.

[Dallidas]

Originally Posted by magyareagle

I'm not talking about the mass of the fighter, but the actually the internal space occupied by the engines and fuel. Also, from what I've read, the inertial dampeners don't have any effect on the ships weight. They simply prevent the pilot from being injured by the extreme gravitational forces encountered during high velocity maneuvers.

I'm pretty sure the inertial dampeners affect the whole ship. 2 examples. first, in redemption i believe, when they strapped the gate on the f302, carter said they were setting the inertial dampeners to maximum and then said something about the weight of the ship and the gate. Also in abyss when they were about to crash into the ocean, jacob said to set interial dampeners to maximum, agian suggesting it would affect the weight of the ship(in relation to gravity??). Thtas my take on it.

So, they wouldnt need as much space for fuel if the ship didnt weigh much.

[Althalus]

i agree with dallidas about the inertial dampeners reducing the weight of a ship but not reducing it to a point of weightlessness if you think about it wouldn't the most effective way of reducing the g forces on a ship to reduce its weight

[cjabates]

Originally Posted by Althalus

i agree with dallidas about the inertial dampeners reducing the weight of a ship but not reducing it to a point of weightlessness if you think about it wouldn't the most effective way of reducing the g forces on a ship to reduce its weight

Not to sound nit-picking or nerdy, but weight and g forces have nothing to do with each other (in this instance, anyway).

G forces are the result of inertia on the pilot/airframe, caused by a change in the velocity vector (pitch, yaw, or thrust). Today's fighter jets are designed to withstand somewhere around 9-10 G's- unfortunately, humans are only designed to withstand about 7 before blacking out. The dampers reduce the effects of maneuvers on the airframe, allowing them to be more radical, not the weight of the airframe.

(just FYI, I majored in aerospace engineering in college)

[Althalus]

yeah i kinda wrote it out wrong which was my mistake, sorry.

[Dallidas]

Originally Posted by cjabates

Not to sound nit-picking or nerdy, but weight and g forces have nothing to do with each other (in this instance, anyway).

G forces are the result of inertia on the pilot/airframe, caused by a change in the velocity vector (pitch, yaw, or thrust). Today's fighter jets are designed to withstand somewhere around 9-10 G's- unfortunately, humans are only designed to withstand about 7 before blacking out. The dampers reduce the effects of maneuvers on the airframe, allowing them to be more radical, not the weight of the airframe.

(just FYI, I majored in aerospace engineering in college)

that is in atmosphere though, not in space so the effects would be different, i would think.

but i cant say i know a whole lot on the subject, and there isnt any point in argueing over something that doesnt exist.

[Bar]

Of course there's a point!
It's fun!
Bar.