It looks like a pair of ducks engaging in coitus, mid air. If you can excuse that kind of design because it's not designed for combat, you can excuse any design. Check out my take on an Imperial assault bomber:

Note the sleek, wingless design. Nothing to get in the way during those bombing runs!

You know, the funny part is, I totally expect things like this to be in Star Wars.

On large craft you will see the pilots sitting side by side. This is because it allows them to more easily share the work load and facilitate quicker communication.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Literally mute? I'd imagine they at least have headsets.

It looks like a pair of ducks engaging in coitus, mid air. If you can excuse that kind of design because it's not designed for combat, you can excuse any design. Check out my take on an Imperial assault bomber:

Note the sleek, wingless design. Nothing to get in the way during those bombing runs!

WW, you're approaching it from a qualitative, not quantitative point of view. It's pointless to argue that because you can always say, "Well that's just your opinion." Well, my "opinions" are not opinions, but rather facts based on years of research done by the fine folks at Boeing, Cessna, Raytheon, etc.

On large craft you will see the pilots sitting side by side. This is because it allows them to more easily share the work load and facilitate quicker communication.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Not if you have commlinks. Why would you need to be in the same room as another person to work with them? That's like saying you can't expect a squadron to perform well together because they all are in separate cockpits.

I would be happy to discuss possible future space combat with you, in another thread. In this thread, we are currently discussing the K-wing as it exists (or doesn't) in the Star Wars universe. As both of you are making the same points, I will deal with you jointly.

The K-wing's side by side cockpits make no sense. As All Shields Forward mentioned, they can't share the workload separated in different cockpits. If they have different mission roles, there is no reason for side by side seating to share workload, so it makes far more sense for them to sit in tandem, one behind the other. This way, the fuselage could be reduced in width by two or three times what it currently is. This is important for several reasons. In the first place, it reduces mass and improves the thrust to weight ratio of the ship and therefore its agility (increased agility is always good). Secondly, it greatly enhances atmospheric performance, which is probably of concern for a planetary bomber. A wider fuselage creates far more drag than a narrower one, this is simple aeronautics. So, narrower is better, and thus tandem is better than side by side. Even if you want to defend against depressurization, tandem is better. You can insert a bulkhead between pilot and gunner. Problem solved.

As to the engine on top of the ship, it may be on the centerline of the ship, but it could be that way and also be inside the fuselage. This would reduce drag in the atmosphere, clear the rear firing arc, and give the pilots rear visibility. It would also help to shield the engine from damage. There is no reason not to do this. You guys brought up the B-29, but show me a B-29 with blocked firing arcs from its gunner positions. It had waist gunners because the top and bottom turret couldn't adequately cover the space occupied by the fuselage, and to divide up responsibilities because the top and bottom turrets were shooting above and below the aircraft.

Do I need to go on?

Eh, I like you and all, but studying something and having a certification are two entirely different levels of credibility. I appreciate your thoughts, but you could afford to tone it down a bit. It might be time to sit back and take a breather when you can't even see an obvious attempt at levity.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that simply make no sense. Walkers with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

It looks like a pair of ducks engaging in coitus, mid air. If you can excuse that kind of design because it's not designed for combat, you can excuse any design. Check out my take on an Imperial assault bomber:

Note the sleek, wingless design. Nothing to get in the way during those bombing runs!

You know, the funny part is, I totally expect things like this to be in Star Wars.

In some sort of experimental test facility that had some technobabble reason for multi-plane artificial gravity, yeah, I could totally see this concept in SW.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that dimply make no sense. Walters with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Don't know if it was an autocorrect thing or an error, but it's "moot".

This is pretty much the case. The TIE fighter is a poorly-designed dogfighter, which IS its primary mission role, largely due to issues related to visibility. You can retcon it, and I don't mind that, because I think TIE fighters are cool, but the design is a poor one on that issue alone.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that dimply make no sense. Walters with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

You're right, we should spend less time arguing about Star Wars minutia.

Echo and Whisper are both male, by the way.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that dimply make no sense. Walters with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Don't know if it was an autocorrect thing or an error, but it's "moot".

This is pretty much the case. The TIE fighter is a poorly-designed dogfighter, which IS its primary mission role, largely due to issues related to visibility. You can retcon it, and I don't mind that, because I think TIE fighters are cool, but the design is a poor one on that issue alone.

What? The TIE Fighter is an excellent design. It doesn't have visibility problems. No really. It flat out doesn't. Remember when those pilots looked to the sides to see what was going on, despite the fact there was no way to see it from our point of view?

Well, why would they do that? Because they have an Oculus Rift type setup in their helmet that's streaming from cameras on the ship. It's pretty much the only thing that makes sense. they've got a helmet specifically designed for flying those vessels, they go through a lot of training, and TIE fighters aren't exactly seen as pushovers by our heroes in the OT. In fact they're largely seen as a threat.

You don't really think The Empire would be so silly as to only have a front viewport, right?

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that dimply make no sense. Walters with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Don't know if it was an autocorrect thing or an error, but it's "moot".

This is pretty much the case. The TIE fighter is a poorly-designed dogfighter, which IS its primary mission role, largely due to issues related to visibility. You can retcon it, and I don't mind that, because I think TIE fighters are cool, but the design is a poor one on that issue alone.

What? The TIE Fighter is an excellent design. It doesn't have visibility problems. No really. It flat out doesn't. Remember when those pilots looked to the sides to see what was going on, despite the fact there was no way to see it from our point of view?

Well, why would they do that? Because they have an Oculus Rift type setup in their helmet that's streaming from cameras on the ship. It's pretty much the only thing that makes sense. they've got a helmet specifically designed for flying those vessels, they go through a lot of training, and TIE fighters aren't exactly seen as pushovers by our heroes in the OT. In fact they're largely seen as a threat.

You don't really think The Empire would be so silly as to only have a front viewport, right?

Yep. That's the retcon I go with too, that or a helmet-mounted target designator that simply shows the outlines of enemy ships wherever they are, even if it is against the backdrop of the cockpit. Either way, it's a good retcon, but there is no evidence for it in the films, and the design is itself fundamentally poor given the fact that this isn't made clear in the films. Also, if they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

I might be half way down the ramp as solo's cranking the engines but uhm.

In a fantasy world where very tiny cells control the one all powerful force controlling everything with lazer beams that blow up planets in a blink of an eye and lazer swords that refract in upon themselves.

And not one single ship having realistic thrusters other than to go forward. maybe turn left or right if you slow the other side down. on a few of them..

I just thought you all should know that in less than three hours It will be hump day for most americans and is already for most Europeans!

may the force be with you!

(and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them)

The TIE Fighter is an excellent design. It doesn't have visibility problems. No really. It flat out doesn't. Remember when those pilots looked to the sides to see what was going on, despite the fact there was no way to see it from our point of view?

Well, why would they do that? Because they have an Oculus Rift type setup in their helmet that's streaming from cameras on the ship.

Like I said.

Why do I keep clicking on this thread? Sigh.

Anyway, the problem I have with this discussion is that you guys are arguing functionality and efficiency of a Star Wars vehicle. The entire franchise is littered with vehicles and vessels that dimply make no sense. Walters with super high centers of gravity and very narrow aspect ratios so that a stiff breeze would nick them over. Troop transports that have the troops exit through a bottleneck. Fighters that CANT LAND. Vehicles that deliberately limit the pilot's field of vision.

This is Star Wars. The fact that the k-wings design doesn't make sense isn't the issue the issue is that the ship is ungodly ugly and dumb looking. We forgive the stupid design of at-ats and tie fighter because they are COOL looking (and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them), but something like the k-wing that is both dumb and ugly, some people will go out of their way to rip them apart.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Don't know if it was an autocorrect thing or an error, but it's "moot".

This is pretty much the case. The TIE fighter is a poorly-designed dogfighter, which IS its primary mission role, largely due to issues related to visibility. You can retcon it, and I don't mind that, because I think TIE fighters are cool, but the design is a poor one on that issue alone.

What? The TIE Fighter is an excellent design. It doesn't have visibility problems. No really. It flat out doesn't. Remember when those pilots looked to the sides to see what was going on, despite the fact there was no way to see it from our point of view?

Well, why would they do that? Because they have an Oculus Rift type setup in their helmet that's streaming from cameras on the ship. It's pretty much the only thing that makes sense. they've got a helmet specifically designed for flying those vessels, they go through a lot of training, and TIE fighters aren't exactly seen as pushovers by our heroes in the OT. In fact they're largely seen as a threat.

You don't really think The Empire would be so silly as to only have a front viewport, right?

Yep. That's the retcon I go with too, that or a helmet-mounted target designator that simply shows the outlines of enemy ships wherever they are, even if it is against the backdrop of the cockpit. Either way, it's a good retcon, but there is no evidence for it in the films, and the design is itself fundamentally poor given the fact that this isn't made clear in the films. Also, if they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

No. No it wouldn't be, because sometimes that technology fails and you need a backup. This modern idea of full reliance on cameras needs to die a terrible, terrible death.

Also I did kinda' cite the films there. There's no reason to look around like that unless you have that system. Which is exactly what they did.

(and, in fact, some people will go out of their way to rationalize them)

The TIE Fighter is an excellent design. It doesn't have visibility problems. No really. It flat out doesn't. Remember when those pilots looked to the sides to see what was going on, despite the fact there was no way to see it from our point of view?

Well, why would they do that? Because they have an Oculus Rift type setup in their helmet that's streaming from cameras on the ship.

Like I said.

Oi. Me and a friend were discussing the TIE fighter and I threw out having viewscreens on the insides of the cockpit, then he pointed out to me that system with the same moment I cited and I was like, "Oh. Yeah that totally makes sense."

On large craft you will see the pilots sitting side by side. This is because it allows them to more easily share the work load and facilitate quicker communication.

All of which is made mute by having them sit on separate cockpits!

Literally mute? I'd imagine they at least have headsets.

Well, after having to purchase and then mantain two sets of life support systems (with redundancy), having to constantly repair micro fractures caused by three huge engines pushing on that tiny neck, and then all the life insurance policies paid out to K Wing ball turret gunners killed in ruff landings the cuts had to come from somewhere.

Oh! And dont forget all the crafts lost when they stalled as soon as their repulser drives got knocked offline!

Well, after having to purchase and then mantain two sets of life support systems (with redundancy), having to constantly repair micro fractures caused by three huge engines pushing on that tiny neck, and then all the life insurance policies paid out to K Wing ball turret gunners killed in ruff landings the cuts had to come from somewhere.

"Foam the runway!"

Millennium, civil or mechanical?

Side by side cockpits vs tandem isn't speculation on my part. Sitting together gives the pilots the same vantage point. It allows them to quickly reference instrument data. Also they can react quicker when the other pilot falters. If this wasn't true airliners would be tandem so they could reduce drag. Tandem is used on fighters because speed and agility are there primary concern.

I would be happy to discuss possible future space combat with you, in another thread. In this thread, we are currently discussing the K-wing as it exists (or doesn't) in the Star Wars universe. As both of you are making the same points, I will deal with you jointly.

The K-wing's side by side cockpits make no sense. As All Shields Forward mentioned, they can't share the workload separated in different cockpits. If they have different mission roles, there is no reason for side by side seating to share workload, so it makes far more sense for them to sit in tandem, one behind the other. This way, the fuselage could be reduced in width by two or three times what it currently is. This is important for several reasons. In the first place, it reduces mass and improves the thrust to weight ratio of the ship and therefore its agility (increased agility is always good). Secondly, it greatly enhances atmospheric performance, which is probably of concern for a planetary bomber. A wider fuselage creates far more drag than a narrower one, this is simple aeronautics. So, narrower is better, and thus tandem is better than side by side. Even if you want to defend against depressurization, tandem is better. You can insert a bulkhead between pilot and gunner. Problem solved.

As to the engine on top of the ship, it may be on the centerline of the ship, but it could be that way and also be inside the fuselage. This would reduce drag in the atmosphere, clear the rear firing arc, and give the pilots rear visibility. It would also help to shield the engine from damage. There is no reason not to do this. You guys brought up the B-29, but show me a B-29 with blocked firing arcs from its gunner positions. It had waist gunners because the top and bottom turret couldn't adequately cover the space occupied by the fuselage, and to divide up responsibilities because the top and bottom turrets were shooting above and below the aircraft.

Do I need to go on?

Why not? Can't one crewman handle piloting and energy distribution while the other handles weapons and shields? And actually, it doesn't reduce mass to have a single cockpit in a spacecraft. It adds mass. Think about this: you would need more than just the cockpit tub for such a design. You'd need larger tanks because the internal atmosphere would be more voluminous due to the geometry of the bubble canopy and the mechanism to open and lower it would be more bulky and weight more than two separate systems (the F-14 vs the F-18 proves this). Whereas, if you had a pair of smaller cockpits, each hugged up next to the occupant, you need less atmosphere and therefore less volume in your oxygen tanks, plus the canopies can be smaller and the mechanisms that hold them together and lower and raise them can also be greatly reduced in size and mass.

Atmospheric resistance is a laughable point, though. All the fighters in Star Wars have horrible aerodynamics save the Naboo N-1. All of them. Even the A-wing because of its vertical surfaces behind the laser cannons would have poor aerodynamics because they would generate vortices that would impact the engines and vertical stabilizers and throw it out of control. So they all must have some sort of shield that creates an aerodynamic bubble around them. The K-wing likely has a similar shield.

You wouldn't have the necessary torque from an engine closer to the centerline. Because there are two others pushing the ship on the underside, having a single engine above them means it needs to be further from the center of mass in order to provide enough thrust to counter them. And again, drag isn't a problem for the K-wing if it isn't for the X-wing (and the novels say that it isn't). Actually the B-29's gun turrets would have shorn off the rudder, so it has the exact same problem as the K-wing. The thing is, the K-wing can compensate for this by having escorts, which it always does. And you're dead wrong about the Superfortress' waist guns. The reason it had them isn't because the upper and lower turrets were blind in those areas. In fact, it didn't have them at all... I was confusing the B-17 Flying Fortress with the Superfortress. Of course, the Superfortress had no problem with blocked arcs, because its primary purpose was to get bombs to the target. And the way it did this was not by having superior fierpower. It did this by having superior escorts in the form of P-51 Mustangs and Spitfires from the RAF. Just like the K-wing.

Millennium, civil or mechanical?

Side by side cockpits vs tandem isn't speculation on my part. Sitting together gives the pilots the same vantage point. It allows them to quickly reference instrument data. Also they can react quicker when the other pilot falters. If this wasn't true airliners would be tandem so they could reduce drag. Tandem is used on fighters because speed and agility are there primary concern.

Mechanical.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain extent, but I really think that having two cockpits would be of more importance in a vehicle where the first shot that pierces the canopy means death for whoever is inside. If both occupants are in the same space, both die. If there are two cockpits with a single occupant, then the chances are doubled for survival.

It's important to remember that in a heavily armored ship like the K-wing, the first shot that pierces doesn't necessarily have to kill the ship or the pilot.

f they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

You wouldn't say that if you were trapped inside the cockpit of a windowless fighter with complete electrical system failure...

So they all must have some sort of shield that creates an aerodynamic bubble around them. The K-wing likely has a similar shield.

You know you can't just make things up and present them as evidence, right? I mean you can, but that's how you end up on Ancient Aliens.

f they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

You wouldn't say that if you were trapped inside the cockpit of a windowless fighter with complete electrical system failure...

PREACH

So they all must have some sort of shield that creates an aerodynamic bubble around them. The K-wing likely has a similar shield.

You know you can't just make things up and present them as evidence, right? I mean you can, but that's how you end up on Ancient Aliens.

I do. But the fact is that the X-wing would never be able to move through an atmosphere and reach a target within two hours if it didn't have a shield. The Battle of Yavin would have been over before it even began. If it moved through the atmosphere of Yavin IV without a shield and traveled at at least escape velocity, atmospheric resistance would shear the wings off that ship because of its enormous engines and flat-surfaced leading edges. Its cannons also would melt from the extreme heat generated because they're so thin and spindly. Therefore it must have had a shield in place that formed some sort of invisible bubble around the ship. This problem is a hundred times worse for the Y-wing, which has thousands of tiny surfaces that would either get shredded or vaporized. Same with the Millennium Falcon. Even the humble TIE Fighter must have a rudimentary atmospheric shield in place (and if you look at the gun turret battle in ANH, you can even see it).

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Thank you Mr. Doyle, but you're still trying to impose the principles of physics on a universe where we know either none exist, or they're so perverted from our own that trying to derive anything meaningful from the scant data we have available to us is an ultimately fruitless endeavor. Personally, I prefer Socrates to Holmes: the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Come to think of it, Occam might also have something to say about the inevitability of your conclusions.