Spaceships don't need wings in space: A flaw in design.

Sure, the X-wings look cool. but how does that help the speeds in space? as we know, the wings mean nothing in space..and a vehicular space vehicle does not need wings as there is no wind in space.

the millenium falcon has no wings, yet it won the kessel run. Slave one etc. good examples.

but ships like the jedi starfighter, vwings, awings, xwings, bwings etc. why do they have wings?


the best way to travel space is in a capsule. In a round vehicle.

 

The best way to travel in space is in a vehicle of any shape whatsoever, because there's no drag and no aerodynamic considerations. Star Trek kind of played around with that idea with the Borg cubes. It only becomes a consideration if the ship ever travels through atmosphere. We've seen X-wings launch from the ground, though, so aerodynamics are a concern for them.

 

what about the solar sail? the dooku ship? i heard that was a good way to travel using the sun's rays or something other. WE also saw the snowspeeders on hoth doing some crazy things, and those have very small wings, almost impossible for any vehicle to do that with an atmostphere. but in space you have ships like the Bwing with a large wing and a moving cockpit that's based on gavity as it spins so that makes no sense. I'm just saying, all ships could be oval and it would make no difference on the death star attack run. I don't like the idea of a square spaceship, I suppose that's why I hate ST.

 

But they need wings if they are going to make sounds in space!



OK, in-universe, don't you think that having wings gives them better maneuverability in planetary atmospheres?

 

Space shuttles have wings because it helps them maneuver or something like that, so wings are helpful.

 

In regards to the X-wings, another benefit of their design is that the quad lasers are spread really far apart. This might help in targeting enemies or causing more destruction. Plus, they fire in a staggered pattern, which would be impossible if they had no wings. Just an idea.

 

They have to be able to land in atmospheres right?

 

and ILM was perfectly aware that aerodynamics aren't required. That's quite obvious if you look at the Y-Wing and the TIE.

and in-universe X-Wings are clearly based on the ARC-170 (or whatever that one's based on) which could very well have been designed with atmosphere in mind, for example to defend Coruscant should the Seperatists ever attempt an invasion (or a fake invasion).

that, and GFFA starship designers apparently have a sense for aesthetics. Who wants to fly around in a cube or something. and it's not like the design, aerodynamic or not, gets in the way of ship functions.

in fact, the X- and B-Wings probably present a pretty small target with everything spread out in thin wings, in contrast to the A-Wing which is little more than a (almost square) cockpit strapped in front of two huge engines

 

Gold Star for you.

 

Don't all Star Wars ships use thrust vectoring to maneuver in space? In that case the wings don't help them one bit as they already have repulsorlifts to provide lift rather than airflow over a wing.

 

The Shuttle's wings are designed for manuvering upon reinsertion into the atmosphere. In space they have manuvering thrusters in the nose for pointing the beast in the correct direction (opposite the orbit) for said insertion, also for manuvering and things of that nature, once the beast is pointed in the right direction, these manuvering thrusters also slow the shuttle down, allowing it to drop from orbit into the atmosphere, where the wings and control surfaces take over, along with gravity. As for the original question: In space? Wings aren't required. In atmosphere, they most certainly are. Even the Falcon could POSSIBLY get away with it, since it's a huge body and nothing more, it'd be a lifting surface all it's own. Now the Slave 1..well, suspension of belief is a wonderful thing

 

I suppose of Slave1's "wings" were about 3 times as large as they are it might fly. Those wings are of course the repulsorlift housing is SW jargon.

It'd be interesting to apply real dynamics to Slave 1. The backside would launch it like a rocket, and the wings would have to turn and level off like an Osprey aircraft, which would have to be at least 3 times the size they are to fly on. If it had enough fuel, or was actually a jet rather than a rocket, and the computer systems were far, far faster than our own it might be able to make enough flight corrections to remain aloft in a stable flight path.

I suspect all SW craft must have some sort of minor forcefield that is always on except upon landing. This minor deflector would not only protect it from space debris but would also provide an invisible aerodynamic shape so the repulsorlift can work efficiently.

X 1138

 

The ships have wings to even everything out. How would an A-Wing look with no wings? The ships don't just fly in space. What if they fly on a planet?

 

I suspect all SW craft must have some sort of minor forcefield that is always on except upon landing. This minor deflector would not only protect it from space debris but would also provide an invisible aerodynamic shape so the repulsorlift can work efficiently.

Space debris is usually handled by the regualr shields. As to how shields interact with planetary atmospheres however, is something that hasn't been covered. Technically it might make sense that they do, considering that so many ships have un-aerodynamic shapes to them, but yeah.

The ships have wings to even everything out. How would an A-Wing look with no wings? The ships don't just fly in space. What if they fly on a planet?

Wings are required on airplanes to generate lift. Star Wars spacecraft use antigravity to do the same thing, hence they don't need wings. With that said, I would think the A-wing, both incarnations of Jedi Starfighters, and maybe the I-7 Howlrunner would be the most optimal starfighter shapes for their compactness.

 

well, like I said, before..the millenium falcon is the fastest around and she has no wings..so to have all the other ships with wings makes no sense. and how the heck do those giant star destroyers manage to lift themselves from coruscant in AOTC? with that much weight? and no wings anywhere?

 

The A-Wing doesn't have wings. It's a wing with engines


Even before I learned how exactly wings on our airplanes work I never suspected the wings on X-, A-, B- and other Wings were for lift (especially seeing how the word "repulsors" is thrown around all the time) but rather for aerodynamics as in friction and most importantly resistance. It's not that they need air to fly, it's more that they let air flow relatively smoothly around the craft to minimize complications in atmospheric flight.
Something the TIE designers clearly never had in mind.

So I see them as flying Formula 1 cars rather than space planes.

 

It may be that the X-wings also operate in atmosphere. That & the quad laser arrangement.

 

If you over-analyze every little thing, it takes away the fun. Star Wars is entertainment.
X-wings are meant to look cool. While you're at it, why not ask "why are there explosions in space where there is no air"? It's two hours of fun.

If the Millenium Falcon won the Kessel Run, it's becuase it has a bigger engine and Han made "a lot of special modifications". Maybe it has a more power-to-weight ratio than the X-Wing.

Why do the Imperials talk with a British accent when there is no Britain in the Star Wars Galaxy?

Why doesn't Darth Vader ever mention Yoda to Luke? He only says that "Obi-Wan has taught you well". "Obi-Wan once thought as you do". Etc.


Just enjoy the movie.

 

Why can't the wings be included for aesthetic purposes? Incom and Seinar don't want people to think their fighter craft are horrendously ugly, so why are we to assume that the designers of X-Wings, TIE Fighters, etc didn't try to design fighters that were aesthetically pleasing?

 

From an IRL perspective, yes it was built to be more aesthetic. But in-universe, I really feel there is no reason to put on extra mass onto a ship, requiring more powerful engines and consuming more fuel....not to mention providing a bigger target to enemy gunners. I mean, just look at the size of the X-wing compared to the Eta-2. Where Obi-Wan could probably take a single step before hopping off the edge of his ship, Luke could probably go for six strides before passing the wingtip cannons on his.

 

That's a Coruscant accent.

 

You mention the wingtip cannons. Having the cannons at the tip of the wings provides greater firing accuracy.

 

They didn't need fins on cars made in the 50's, but that didn't stop anyone then either right?

 

true..

 

If I may ask, exactly how does putting the cannons at the far extremities of the craft help accuracy? It would almost seem to be the opposite. Take two projectile devices (even water pistols). Hold them in front of your chest and try to aim at something. Now hold them with your arms fully extended and do the same. Even if you discount the shakiness of extended arms, you're most likely going to be closer to being on target in the first situation.

Granted, that's visually aiming as opposed to using a targeting system, but that system shouldn't really do much more than negate the inherent issues with the extended weapons and having the weapons closer would consolidate the power.

The only real benefits I can think of having weapons so far extended from the center is to allow for a lot of convergence settings (since Star Wars fighters are based on WW2 fighters) for various tasks, separating out the weapons so there's a lesser chance of all four being destroyed at once, and maybe allowing for a greater chance of hitting at closer ranges if one 'prays and sprays' fire. I'd buy potentially saying there's harmful effects of a pilot being right next to the blaster shots and/or cannons, but just about every other OT fighter has cannons located right next to the cockpit.

As others have said in many a topic, one must avoid over-analyzing Star Wars too much. You both take the fun out of things designed mostly to look cool and retrofitting science on top of space opera should be left for Star Trek.

That said, I agree that it makes some sense that atmospheric-capable fighters might employ some aerodynamic elements, not to give them lift as to make it simply a smoother and cleaner flight. A lot of modern aircraft, going easily as far back as F-4 Phantom rely on their power over aerodynamic shape. F-4s, A-10s, F-15s all have maintained flight with huge chunks removed, including wings and stabilizers. They just take a lot more effort to avoid losing control. Perhaps in the physics of a GFFA the added wings on an X-Wing allow pilots to save the fuel that the Y-Wings must burn to push their bricks through the air and the A-Wings rudders/vertical stabilizers keep the flying wing from behaving eratically in winds.

But, we can almost all agree they look cool no matter the reason.