Talk:Viper (TRS)/Archive 1

Mk. VII Vipers FTL Capable?[edit]

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. --BMS 20:51, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Mark vs. Mk[edit]

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. --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. --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. --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.

--David Templar, 4 May, 2005

Changes[edit]

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. --Ricimer, October 14, 2005

I'm sure Ricimer meant to say "please". You can use --~~~~ 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. --Peter Farago 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.... --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. --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.

--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. --Peter Farago 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. --Talos 23:58, 12 December 2005 (EST)

Dimensions new series Viper Mk II & Mk VII[edit]

The dimensions given here for the new series Vipers are a bit off. The correct sizes acording to Lee Stringer [1],one of the VFX Animators of the Mini Series, are:

Viper Mk2[edit]

Length: 8.4082 m

Wingspan: 4.7168 m

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

Viper Mk7[edit]

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: [2]

--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. --Peter Farago 17:48, 3 November 2005 (EST)

Done!

Same source gives also dimensions for Raptor, Galactica (RDM) and Basestar (RDM).

--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. --Peter Farago 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. 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. --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. --Peter Farago 13:24, 25 December 2005 (EST)

Well it wouldn't be the first time that there's a small mistake in the subtitles 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. --Talos 13:25, 25 December 2005 (EST)