Editing Talk:Viper (TRS)/Archive 1

{{Template:Archive-bot
|maxarchivesize = 32K
|counter = 9
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Viper_(RDM)/Archive%(counter)d
}}

{{ArchiveTOC}}

{{newsection link}}

==Mk. VII Vipers FTL Capable?==
Before I say anything, I'd like to point out that I'm speculating all of this. I have heard nowhere else that the Mk. VII's have FTL drives.

I think that the Mk. VII's have installed jump engines. My reasoning is as follows:
The last time we saw a Viper squadron that was composed entirley of Mk. VII's was Ripper's squadron during the miniseries. Before they were destroyed, they were being reassigned to Caprican locan defense squadron. Galactica was not really close to Caprica when this mission started, the distance required to travel would be best done with a FTL jump.
The next time we see Mk. VII's used extensivley is on Pegasus. Stinger orders two Mk. VII's and a Raptor - which we know are jump capable - on the recon mission. The target is too far away to be reached realistically at sublight speeds. Stinger may be uncreative and lacking initiave, but hes not stupid, and would not design a mission with such an obvious flaw. The Mk. VII's must have FTL drives. Furthermore, we now know that ships that small can carry FTL drives, i.e. the [[Blackbird]]. In fact, its entirley possible that the Blackbird's FTL drive itself CAME from a scrapped Mk. VII, instead of [[Raptor 305]] - the FTL engines for a Raptor might be too big for the tiny Blackbird, but a Mk. VII is only slightly bigger than the Blackbird.
The other small craft from the era of the second Cylon war, the Raptor, does have FTL drive. It would make sense that the Colonials installed an FTL drive on Mk. VII's, but not Mk. II's, because Mk. VII's are about 50 years newer. 

Just a bunch of speculation. Feel free to add to my theory or poke some holes in it. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 20:51, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Remember though, the Colonial 798 was making the trip, it was only 30 light minutes. In the novel btw, they were refueling at Caprica before continuing on to Picon where the squadron would be split up. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 21:12, 7 January 2006 (EST)

:I'm inclined to agree, as the 2 Vipers and a Raptor thing had occured to me before, always while I wasn't around to add it here. It'd be '''very''' hard to explain otherwise. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:10, 7 January 2006 (EST)

::This would also make it easier to believe that the three Mk. VII vipers seen in Roslin's fleet were later integrated into Galactica's squadron. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 23:21, 7 January 2006 (EST)
:::You would think that if the Mk. VII was FTL-capable, they would've used them in the attack on the Tyllium asteroid. You know, jump behind the raider screen to attack the asteroid. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 08:25, 8 January 2006 (EST)
::::Yes, but Mk. VII's are "a handful for all but the most experienced of pilots." Starbuck was out for this mission, and the only other person we've seen fly a Mk. VII is Apollo - that is, until we see Pegasus, in which the entire compliment of pilots flies Mk. VII's. Again, another continuity error... so much for naturalistic science fiction. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 20:42, 22 January 2006 (EST)

:::::Well, they needed the nuggets to round out the squadron, and they were only certified for the Mk. IIs. Maybe the more experienced pilots also chose Mk. IIs to maintain tactical cohesion. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 21:31, 22 January 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry that I didn't see this page before January 7th-ish.  However,  '''I think this entire line of reasoning is flawed''', and it's just jumping to conclusions here.  The three main points you have here are that:
1)Galactica was far from Caprica <br>
2)Stinger ordered two Viper Mark VII's on a recon mission with a Raptor in "Pegasus"<br>
3)You think that since, small-sized (not captial-ship sized) vessels like Raptors have Jump drives, Vipers must also.<br>

However, all of these are fairly well explainable:

1) Galactica and Caprica and in the same star system at the time, albeit on opposite sides of the system or something.  Remember, the conceit of the show is that there are Twelve habitable worlds in their one star system.  Further, they made it a point that they don't always use Jump drives when they don't need to, fuel consumption, etc.  <br>
2)Stinger did '''not''' order two Viper Mark VII's on a recon mission in "Pegasus".  Although he ordered "Whiplash" and "Thumper" to get their "optical gear ready" he never said that they were going in their Mark VII's; although Whiplash is a Viper pilot, for all we know the two of them, just like Apollo, are qualified to operate a Raptor and Stinger just trusts them more or something.  Point is, he never explicitly says "Viper", and we know that some Viper pilots know how to use Raptors.<br>
3) Raptors are bigger than a Viper, for starters, much bigger, so I think they can fit an FTL drive inside that Vipers cannot.  Further, it's a "Limited" FTL drive.  That is, it can only make small "hops" as opposed to one big Jump like Galactica.  Remember how the "Ships" gallery on the official site explains that some ships have "short legs"? That is, they can get from Planet A to Planet B by making many small Jumps instead of one big one.  On top of all of this, a Raptor is not a frontline combat unit.  It's an electronic support ship.  Heck, we've never even seen these things using weapons on a regular basis (missiles ''once''). So I think because they're not meant for frontline combat highspeed manuevering, they can fit in a bulky FTL drive, etc. 

All of this leads me to the conclusion that speculating that Viper Mark VII's have FTL drives doesn't really hold up.  I'm going to revert the edit on the article. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 22:05, 22 January 2006 (EST)

:Fair enough. 1 and 3 were fluff that I came up with after I had the Pegasus and Stinger reason, but yeah, you managed to poke a hole in that one that I missed. You've been doin' that with a lot of my theories lately. :-P :-) On a serious note, the two Raptors makes the most sense, and Whiplash and Thumper must be qualified in both. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 23:13, 22 January 2006 (EST)

::Well I'm just pointing out facts and proceeding from there; I mean I'm not going to just say "I disagree because that's dumb and I  think Vipers shouldn't have them because I said so", etc. etc. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:17, 22 January 2006 (EST)

:::That wasn't meant to be a jab at you or anything - I agree with you. I went back and read the transcript of the dialogue, and you're completely right, Stinger doesn't mention Vipers. 

:::After I mixed up yours and Peters comments on the Timeline (RDM) talk page, I was afraid you thought I was a troll or something, just making trouble. I'm not, I just wanna help contribute to this wonderful wiki you've got going here. --[[User:BMS|BMS]] 00:44, 23 January 2006 (EST)

==Mark vs. Mk==
About the recent string of edits:  I'm not certain, did we agree on the convention of using "Mark II" or "Mk II"?  All of the "Mk"'s just got reverted to "Mark"'s.  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:47, 15 October 2005 (EDT)
:We made the consensus that either Mark or Mk. were acceptable IIRC. I just think though that using Mark in, especially, designations looks sloppy. Mk. is an established military designation, especially in the British military. For full titles, I think it should be Mk. but Mark would be fine for others. The picture of the Mk. II, for example, I think looks better as Viper Mk. II rather than Viper Mark II. Conversely, I think that a line of text such as "The raiders engaged in a furball with seven Mark IIs" is fine. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:06, 3 November 2005 (EST)
::Also, note the period in Mk. as it is an abbreviation. I just read throught the Viper article and I think it just looks bad. Remember though, this is coming from someone who grew up reading "Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft" and such so it could just be what I'm used to. I only changed it in the picture captions. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 14:09, 3 November 2005 (EST)


Made the following changes: 
*Mark VII has three engines, not two. Its third engine is partially shrouded by the fighter's tail root. 
*Elaborated on what and how the Cylons comprimised the Mk VII. 
*Suggested a possible thrust vectoring feature on the Mk VII's engines, based on its angular, segmented design.

Well, time to date and ID this old thing.

--[[User:David Templar|David Templar]], 4 May, 2005

== Changes ==

I deleted the Notes section following the Viper specs, it used to say:

"Since the Galactica only had 40 Viper Mk. II's aboard, they needed as many fighters as possible, thus the remaining Mk. VII's were refitted and stripped of their advanced computer systems. However, since this is not how the Mk. VII was designed, it makes the craft increasingly difficult to handle and can only be flown by the most experienced pilots (Apollo & Starbuck). Galactica has roughly 6-8 Mk. VII's on board after the Cylon attack ("Scattered", "Flight of the Phoenix")."

Almost none of that is canon. There's no indication that the Mk VII's systems were altered beyond removing the comprimised navigation software. The comment about it becoming more difficult to fly was taken from the Scifi channel's page, which has been wrong on more than one occasion. It certainly is not backed up by anything in the show.--David Templar, Octber 14, 2005
:I am completely reverting your edit.  Yes, Scifi.com has been known to make mistakes, but nonetheless '''we regard it as canon until flatly contradicted by something else'''.  Much of our Viper pilot numbers for the first season are based on the running count on the Vipers "CAG roster" section of the gallery.  Further, it makes sense.  Lastly, when you are talking on a discussion page, sign your name instead of leaving it blank, and date it.  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], October 14, 2005

::I'm sure Ricimer meant to say "please". You can use <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> to leave behind a signature automatically. Also, that fact that the nuggets were started out in Mk. IIs lends support to the idea that they're somewhat easier to fly. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 00:28, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

:::Thanks Peter. No, I completely disagree with Ricimer that gutting the Mk VII's computers makes any sense. The problem has clearly been one of an exploitable software, which can be purged and the computer reverted to an earlier, safe program. So why would they take out all the advance computers? It's overkill to an unreasonable extent. At worst, they can disconnect the navigation computer from certain other systems, and that would not affect the ship's handling characteristics at all, even assuming the flight control falls under the navigational computer. And I'm pretty sure they're training pilots on the Mk IIs not only because they're simpler to fly (they're like Cessnas to Mk VII's F-16, Apollo has complained about their lack of electronics before in the miniseries), but also because they're more expendable (and possibly more rugged). We know that the Mk VIIs are certified for combat, and they're undoubtedly superior to the Mk II (even in the event that they have been lobotemized), so why would they have trainees fly the most complex, least replacible fighters when they don't even know if they can land? I hope this sig thing works.... --[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 01:40, 15 October 2005 (EDT)
::::Wait, what you just said contradicted what was just said above; I mean, how could Viper Mark II's be more complex?  I'm pretty sure on the basic idea that the networked control computers have been removed, at the cost of worse performance.  --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 09:29, 15 October 2005 (EDT)
:::::Sorry, should have phrased the sentence better. "why would they have trainees fly the most complex, least replacible fighters" refers to the Mk. VII, not the Mk. II. Flight control computers doesn't have to be networked with the other systems to work, though, maybe except the engines. The flight control system is only responsible for translating the pilot's control input into proper reaction control thruster response, that doesn't really require the help of any other systems. If one wants to get down right to the bone of the problem, it's this, in space flight, your ship has to be able to perform the following actions for you because you humanly can't:

:::::*You need your thrusters to fire twice for every course change you make, once to get you moving, once to stop you from continuing to move. This is technologically simple to do and doesn't require a networked computer, the thruster simply times the duration of its firing and tells it opposite number to fire for the same exact duration and power level once the pilot stops pulling the stick. You can't "unnetwork" the thrusters from each other (not that it'd achieve anything helpful) and/or "fly manually" in this area, it simply won't work, unless you intend to move with all the agility of the space shuttles. But even the space shuttle has computers to do the above tasks for it. If the pilot has to push his stick in the exact opposite direction as he had pulled it for the exact duration he had pulled it... Well, I think you get the idea. Since this doesn't really require an advanced computer, I don't see why if flight control has its own computer that it'd be changed. 

:::::*The ship needs to able to know where it is, its relative velocity and vector from its immediate environment and the direction the nose is pointed. This is required for the ship to basically know how to stop itself from spinning, tumbling or drifting out of control. This would require the navigation system (it being in charge of knowing the ship's orientation and direction travelled) and could pose a problem for the pilot if it's decoupled from flight control... To put it mildly. Assuming the Mk. VII's navigational computer can autopilot the ship into controlled flight (ie. not tumbling and drifting laterally with respect to a defined orientation, say Galactica herself), then removing the link between navigational computer and flight control (assuming they're even separate systems) would mean that the navigational computer has to generate a heading indicator on the HUD for the pilot to point the ship at and burn towards order to bring an out of control ship back into controlled flight (without such a basic computer assistance, space fighter combat is impossible). 

:::::Now, would having to use such an indicator make the Mk. VII harder to fly than the Mk. II? Not really. It would at the most make both equally difficult to stability in combat if the pilot lets the fighter get away from him. In controlled flight, however, there would be no real difference that isn't hardware based. If both fighters have thrusters of the same performance arranged in comparable positions, then they're both going to fly pretty much the same way. If the Mk. VII has more powerful thrusters in better positions, then it'll be more agile, although that is doubtful since the Mk. II is already incredibly agile and if the Mk. VII is notably more agile, I really don't know how the pilot can remain conscious. It could be that such a combination would allow the Mk. VII to get away from her pilot more easily (more sensitive to handle) and a dumbed down control recovery system makes stabilizing harder, but from what Starbuck has told us, the Mk. II is just as dangerous a performer if not MORE SO. At least in a highly computerized fighter, safety protocols can be put in place to control the violence with which the fighter turns (customizing control sensitivity to the pilot); less computerized fighters just does what it can as hard as it can. Also, from what we've seen of the Mk. II in combat, pilots have on several occasions put their Viper into a complex spin, suggesting that their control recovery might be automatic rather than indicator based. A manual recovery can be a very length event, depending on the degree of which the ship is out of control and the ability of the pilot, and almost certainly fatal if one is underfire as it involve making your fighter flying steady again. Frankly, it's not really even that hard to do for a computer, so the computer responsible for this doesn't seem likely to be particularly advanced. 

:::::Now, what would decoupling flight control from navigation system accomplish in terms of protecting the fighter from Cylon infiltration? Absolutely nothing, assuming if they can even be treated as separate systems. The connection between flight control and navigation was never the problem, the whole problem was Cylon accessing the entire fighter via navigations. If navigation system can be separate from the rest of the network without affecting any of the nav system's duties as listed above, why gut every advance computer on the fighter? And if only the networking function has been removed from the Mk. VII, it certainly doesn't really make the Mk. VII harder to fly than the Mk. II. 
:::::--[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 17:03, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

Although I can't bring myself to read that impressive missive through entirely, I would just like to note that Baltar's CNP was clearly a new development, and very probably postdated the Mk. VII anyway. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:09, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

I just had a tidbit to add, the Mk VII has a side stick while the Mk II has a center-mounted stick. IRL most FBW aircraft use side-mounted sticks, joysticks mounted on a side panel instead of between the pilots' legs, while most pre-FBW craft used center-mounted sticks. The F-16 is an example of the former and the F-14, the latter. ...Just something I noticed while watching 33 recently. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 23:58, 12 December 2005 (EST)

== Changes revisted == 
This is over the following: 

"Since Galactica only had 40 Viper Mark II's aboard, they needed as many fighters as possible, thus the remaining Mark VII's were refitted and stripped of their advanced computer systems. However, since this is not how the Mark VII was designed, it makes the craft increasingly difficult to handle and can only be flown by the most experienced pilots such as Apollo and Starbuck. Galactica has roughly 6-8 Mark VII's on board after the Cylon attack ("Scattered", "Flight of the Phoenix"). (source: Scifi.com series website)"

I think there are enough evidence now to contradict the above and warrant its removal. The above was based on the idea that the Mk VII's high level of computerization made it vulnerable, not just Baltar's comprimised CNP. We're now quite sure that the CNP is the only culprit behind Mk VII's vulernability versus the Cylons. Season 2 has shown that everyone can fly Mk VIIs just fine and makes absolutely no mention of any removal of computer systems despite 20 episodes of opportunities. Even before Season 2, the miniseries flat-out said it was the CNP, but now we have even clearer proof that the Mk VIIs will work just fine without a total cybernetic lobotomy. 

I'm not going to remove the section at this time, though, I'm waiting for people to agree and someone else can remove it. --[[User:David Templar|David Templar]] 14:32, 17 March 2006 (CST)

== Dimensions new series Viper Mk II & Mk VII ==

The dimensions given here for the new series Vipers are a bit off. The correct sizes acording to Lee Stringer [http://www.leestringer.com/],one of the VFX Animators of the Mini Series, are:



=== '''Viper Mk2''' ===

Length: 8.4082 m

Wingspan: 4.7168 m

Height: 2.7247 m (in flight, without landing gear!)


=== '''Viper Mk7''' ===

Length: 9.8643 m

Wingspan: 5.61 m

Height: 2.9508 m (in flight, without landing gear!)


''"... IMPORTANT NOTE: These are from the CGI models NOT the fullsize props. Although measurements etc. where taken of the full size props and the CGIs made from that, it doesn't mean they match 100% ..." quote'' '''Lee Stringer'''

'''Source: [http://www.starshipbuilder.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000012.html]'''

--[[User:ThRow|ThRow]] 13:57, 3 November 2005 (EST)

:Excellent. I encourage you to add this information to the appropriate pages with the source and Mr. Stringer's credentials. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 17:48, 3 November 2005 (EST)

::Done! 
::Same source gives also dimensions for [[Raptor]], [[Galactica (RDM)]] and [[Basestar (RDM)]].
::--[[User:ThRow|ThRow]] 23:25, 3 November 2005 (EST)

:::I rejigged your citation to use the footnote templates we have available. If you'd like to familiarize yourself with their use, please see [[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad]] for references. Thanks for helping to make this site a more reliable resource. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 00:28, 4 November 2005 (EST)



I remember reading in a previous article on the raptors and Galactica's combat ships that the Vipers couldn't have a specific breakdown like the Raptors because we didn't have specific numbers to go along with each.

Well in [[Flight of the Pheonix]], Chief Tyrol does say the registry for Viper 54289.  It's the Viper that Tyrol labels as unserviceable scrap.  I wasn't sure if any one wanted this info so i just posted it under Viper Talk.  [[User:Ltcrashdown|Ltcrashdown]] December 25, 2005
:I listened to the audio on the DVD and he clearly says "Viper 289." The subtitles have to be a mistake, we've only seen three digit and four digit numbers on Vipers. You can see my theory on Viper serial numbers on the [[Viper 2276]] talk page. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:39, 25 December 2005 (EST)
::We do have an article on [[Viper 289]] as of recently. The comment disparaging the notion of keeping track of Vipers was probably mine, but I've changed my mind about that. It may also be possible to find other Viper serial numbers on DRADIS screens. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 13:24, 25 December 2005 (EST)


Well it wouldn't be the first time that there's a small mistake in the subtitles [[User:Ltcrashdown|Ltcrashdown]] December 25, 2005
:I just wanted to use the DVDs I just got (about 30 minutes before for Christmas). Anyway, I'm going to go through, looking for Viper numbers and such. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 13:25, 25 December 2005 (EST)

==Viper Redirect==
Spencerian, you read my mind. I was wondering if maybe we should put a disambig at the top of this article, and then change Viper to a redirect to here. It's very common for people to just link Viper, and since we're rounding out the TOS content, most of the new references are going to be talking about this article. That way I'll never have to go on another Viper crusade like I did today... --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:01, 17 January 2006 (EST)


==Mk II Turn Speed==
I remember starbuck saying in an episode that the viper can 'turn end over end in .35 seconds'.  She says this when she is trying to scare the nuggets shes training.  If someone remembers the episode an addiction ought to be made.  --[[User:Antagonist|Antagonist]] 01:21, 13 February 2006 (EST)

:Hi, Antagonist. I remember it: "[[Act of Contrition]]," where we first see [[Kat]], among other nuggets. Technically speaking, this is also something that may be worth exploring on the [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]] article, where technobabble is debunked with ''"Mythbusters"''-like tenacity. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:07, 13 February 2006 (EST)

== Merge Content Note ==

I've merged any relevant content from the following articles prior to their redirecting to this article in the Avionics subheader:

Torque Percent Gauge<br>
Altimeter<br>
Radio Magnetic Indicator<br>
Attitude Indicator<br>

More computer detail of the avionics are found in the [[Computers#Avionics]] link. Not all articles had any relevant data, but almost all have nice screen shots that worked perfectly in this merge. I will strike the old articles once we note any issues here. Any questions or comments? --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:36, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

:Maybe use the Mark VII cockpit counter (currently linked to by "All your base") as an example of one of the digital readouts in the Mark VII part of the controls? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:59, 23 May 2006 (CDT)

==Split?==
With the addition of a lot of content and also of images does anyone else think that this page would be better split into two articles for Viper MkII and another for Viper MkVII? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 12:22, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

:I think we've generally leaned to a single page because, well, it's just one show, right? But, I think there's plenty of data to have separate Mark II and VII pages. Yes, I think it would help the overall format immensely. Let's have others chime in about it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:04, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
::Agree. Maybe this page could be a short general intro page with links to the specific model pages. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 13:40, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
:::I agree with Talos' decision. Let's have Viper (RDM) be a general guide to the new Vipers, then have Viper Mk. II and Viper Mv. VII cover the specifics. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 14:25, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
:::I also agree with Talos. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 18:46, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

::::Okay, might need a split and Mk II and MK VII are good lines to cut along, but it'll be tricky...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 21:04, 24 May 2006 (CDT)

Split is complete. Please adjust some of the details to better match the personalities of each page. I attempted to keep information common to both Vipers on this page, with detailed information and images specific to it's model article. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:54, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

== Wing Loading ==

the article states that the high wing loading of the vipers would compromise their ability to manuver in an atmosphere.  In reality the reverse would be true.  High wing loading implies a small wing surface area, whereas low wing loading implies the opposite.  An aircraft with large wings would meet more air resistance when rolling and so would have a limited roll rate.  Reducing the surface area of the wing reduces the resistance met and increases the aircraft's ability to roll.  

What high wing loading implies is reduced stability.  This is okay for a fighter, where an unstable design is able to outmanuver a stable design, and in fact most modern warplanes are designed deliberately to be aerodynamically unstable to the point where they would be unflyable without computer assistance.  In a civilian aircraft a high wing loading and unstable aerodynamic profile would seriously compromise the safety of the craft and make it unsuitable for civilian use. 

One area of performance where low wing loading tends to be superior is in rate of climb (A big wing moves more air and can generate more lift for a given speed), but this can be compensated for with more powerful engines, at the expense of high full consumption. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading {{unsigned|PassiveSmoking}}

== Newer Viper? ==

I seem to recall the Battlestar Scifi website mentioning that the very latest Viper revision (Mark 9?) was remote piloted.  Obviously this meant less deaths but the viper was also so maneuverable that it could kill people if it had a cockpit.  This was back years ago when the website included info about the characters and ships, before it's latest redesign.  

Have I gone totally mad or does someone else remember this too?  Is this info still up somewhere?  If so I think we should add it. {{unsigned|Jedakiah}}

: No, there's no such Viper craft in the cannon. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 05:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
==2-7 jump==
where are models MK1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6? {{unsigned|Cold85}}
: Those models have not been revealed, and therefore have no entries here. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::There is what looks like a Mk. I Viper on display in the [[Galactica Museum]]. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

== Caprica's "Mark I" Vipers ==

I think we can safely assume the fighter jets depicted in "[[Imperfections of Memory]]" are indeed Mark I Vipers, as the ones developed for the Cylon War (which begins six years later) are clearly designated Mark IIs. Often, the first version of a vehicle doesn't have "Mark I" on it, just as a film is rarely titled "Something 1." (The first ''Star Wars'' prequel being an obvious exception.) Also, just because these Vipers don't ''seem'' capable of spaceflight, that doesn't meant that they're ''not''. Zoe-A and Philo-A may have been wearing atmospheric flight suits, but that was just the simulation they were in. Anyway, I think we can safely edit the page to place ''Caprica'''s Vipers up top, before their Mark II and Mark VII successors. -- [[User:Liquidcross|Liquidcross]] 18:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
: I concur with your view. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't think that the Viper in "The Imperfections of Memory" can be classified as the Mark I because of two appearances of other Vipers. The TOS Viper which is present in Galactica's starboard museum is presently considered the Viper Mark I. In "There is Another Sky" there is even an earlier version of the Viper. Presuming both  "There is Another Sky" and  "The Imperfections of Memory" Vipers have real world equivalents.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/ReddyRedWolf/CapricaFighters.jpg

--[[User:RedWolf|RedWolf]] 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

: Actually, the 1978 Viper appearing in the Galactica museum was just a nod. Like the ''Enterprise'' in the background in the Fleet during the Mini. Just because Mark I doesn't look much like Mark II doesn't really mean much, either. They could have drastically changed the design later on, but called it a Mark II. So it's a Viper. As to what Mark #, I think we should really just not give it a number until we have definitive proof.  -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 04:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::Plus, the aircraft in New Cap City were never called "Vipers." They may have a completely different name, just like other real world aircraft. -- [[User:Liquidcross|Liquidcross]] 12:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::: Right. My understanding is that the craft flown by Zoe-A/R and Philo in the V-world were Vipers. (I will be watching the episode later just to make sure, but they were distinctly called "Vipers" in the preview clip that was released days before.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [[bsp:|Battlestar Pegasus]]</sup> 13:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
::::They did call them Vipers within the episode. Zoe-A says something like, "I've never flown a Viper before!" -- [[User:Liquidcross|Liquidcross]] 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)