Farbourne
Rear Admiral
So, I'm an engineer by training, and as such, I think a lot about how things work. Now I realize that Wing Commander ships were probably designed more by artists than engineers and were more about cool look rather than function, and so this is probably way overanalyzing something that shouldn't be overanalyzed...but if I can't do that here, where can I do it?
I won't get into all the physics of why a ship should be shaped like it is, but one thing that I've pondered a bit (especially since playing Standoff, which tried to realistically place gun mounts) is gun placement.
Obviously, from the pilot's perspective, guns mounted closer to the centerline are preferable to wingtip mounted guns. They don't need to have convergence angles set, they are easier to aim, they have a higher chance of both gun blasts hitting a target, and you generally get more range. From an engineering standpoint, having guns closer to the main mass of the ship would in most respects be easier as well, because you don't need to put massive devices far from the center of gravity (reducing moment of inertia of the ship and also stresses on the structural members during maneuvering), and you don't need to run fuel or high voltage or other high energy lines over long distances from the reactor or power source to the gun (and long high voltage lines give you significant energy losses and inefficiencies).
And yet we see ship after ship with its guns mounted out on the wingtips. Just sticking with canonical ships, we see the Hornet, Raptor, Salthi, and Krant from WC1, and the Sabre and Sartha from WC2, the Bearcat from WC4, etc. all with their guns ridiculously far out on the wingtips, while other craft like the Scimitar and Rapier have their guns moderately far out. Meanwhile, the ships that have their guns on the centerline (the Ferret, the Epee, the Broadsword and Crossbow) all are excellent gunnery platforms, whose guns are more effective, pound for pound, than comparable wingtip mounted guns on other craft. It's not canonical, but we see the same phenomenon in Standoff with the Gladius and Stiletto and Sabre and Raptor, all of which suffer from wingtip mounting of their guns.
So why do it? Granted, WWII fighters (which were in many cases the inspiration for Wing Commander) had wing-mounted guns, but this was because you didn't want to have to shoot through the propeller (although some WWII fighters did, notably the Zero and Bf-109). Once everyone switched to jets, cannon became mounted on or near the centerline.
I can only think of a few reasons why a gun in a starfighter should be wingtip mounted. First, it could be a matter maintenence...maybe it's too hard to service a gun mounted in the main hull. I doubt this.
Second, it could be a heat issue...maybe some guns heat up a lot and can't be too close to the rest of the craft. The problem with this idea is that the guns that are noted as giving off lots of heat, the neutrons, are often mounted near the centerline (e.g. on the Rapier, the Crossbow, the Raptor, in the bomber turrets), whereas the "cooler" mass drivers are often mounted out on wingtips (e.g. in the Raptor, or, to a lesser degree, in the Scimitar).
Third, it might be a question of bulk. Certainly in the Raptor and the Scimitar, the mass drivers seem to be massive and need a lot of structure to support them, and maybe there isn't room for them close in. But then again, we seem those same mass drivers mounted on the centerline right under the cockpit on the tiny Ferret, and near the centerline on the Dralthi II.
The other possibility I can think of is that some guns give off some kind of electromagnetic field that is harmful or disruptive to other ship systems, or that they give off a field or radiation that would be harmful to the pilot.
But neither of these theories hold up. If you limit yourself to WC1 and WC2, they might hold water...we see mass drivers and neutrons on the centerline, but NEVER lasers (except in the Dralthi...but the Kilrathi might not care about harming their pilots).
I know I'm overanalyzing. But it's fun. Thoughts?
I won't get into all the physics of why a ship should be shaped like it is, but one thing that I've pondered a bit (especially since playing Standoff, which tried to realistically place gun mounts) is gun placement.
Obviously, from the pilot's perspective, guns mounted closer to the centerline are preferable to wingtip mounted guns. They don't need to have convergence angles set, they are easier to aim, they have a higher chance of both gun blasts hitting a target, and you generally get more range. From an engineering standpoint, having guns closer to the main mass of the ship would in most respects be easier as well, because you don't need to put massive devices far from the center of gravity (reducing moment of inertia of the ship and also stresses on the structural members during maneuvering), and you don't need to run fuel or high voltage or other high energy lines over long distances from the reactor or power source to the gun (and long high voltage lines give you significant energy losses and inefficiencies).
And yet we see ship after ship with its guns mounted out on the wingtips. Just sticking with canonical ships, we see the Hornet, Raptor, Salthi, and Krant from WC1, and the Sabre and Sartha from WC2, the Bearcat from WC4, etc. all with their guns ridiculously far out on the wingtips, while other craft like the Scimitar and Rapier have their guns moderately far out. Meanwhile, the ships that have their guns on the centerline (the Ferret, the Epee, the Broadsword and Crossbow) all are excellent gunnery platforms, whose guns are more effective, pound for pound, than comparable wingtip mounted guns on other craft. It's not canonical, but we see the same phenomenon in Standoff with the Gladius and Stiletto and Sabre and Raptor, all of which suffer from wingtip mounting of their guns.
So why do it? Granted, WWII fighters (which were in many cases the inspiration for Wing Commander) had wing-mounted guns, but this was because you didn't want to have to shoot through the propeller (although some WWII fighters did, notably the Zero and Bf-109). Once everyone switched to jets, cannon became mounted on or near the centerline.
I can only think of a few reasons why a gun in a starfighter should be wingtip mounted. First, it could be a matter maintenence...maybe it's too hard to service a gun mounted in the main hull. I doubt this.
Second, it could be a heat issue...maybe some guns heat up a lot and can't be too close to the rest of the craft. The problem with this idea is that the guns that are noted as giving off lots of heat, the neutrons, are often mounted near the centerline (e.g. on the Rapier, the Crossbow, the Raptor, in the bomber turrets), whereas the "cooler" mass drivers are often mounted out on wingtips (e.g. in the Raptor, or, to a lesser degree, in the Scimitar).
Third, it might be a question of bulk. Certainly in the Raptor and the Scimitar, the mass drivers seem to be massive and need a lot of structure to support them, and maybe there isn't room for them close in. But then again, we seem those same mass drivers mounted on the centerline right under the cockpit on the tiny Ferret, and near the centerline on the Dralthi II.
The other possibility I can think of is that some guns give off some kind of electromagnetic field that is harmful or disruptive to other ship systems, or that they give off a field or radiation that would be harmful to the pilot.
But neither of these theories hold up. If you limit yourself to WC1 and WC2, they might hold water...we see mass drivers and neutrons on the centerline, but NEVER lasers (except in the Dralthi...but the Kilrathi might not care about harming their pilots).
I know I'm overanalyzing. But it's fun. Thoughts?