Re: B5 and Sir Isaac - Reply (again)

David wrote:

>If you can show me a 'Fury turn 90 degrees and apply 
>main thrusters to give a centripetal force, or even just to 
>slide diagonally, I'll be much more impressed with the 
>importance of thrust vectoring to B5 wargaming than I
>am right now.

Um, if I understand you correctly, then the two examples that I gave in
my
earlier post (fromS&P and TFoN) both do that. In each case, the 'Fury
pilot
avoids pursuit and attacks an "enemy" by doing just that. When I
described this
as "vectoring", what I was talking about was the application of thrust
normal to
the current velocity vector to accelerate the fighter out of the line of
flight of the
pursuer. Is this not what you mean by "sliding diagonally"?

In each case, the StarFury uses its vertical thrusters (it could also
use the
lateral ones) to give itself a component of velocity in the plane normal
to its
original velocity vector; the pilot then capitalises on this (and the
surprise that it
gives the other guy -- not unlike VIFFing by a Harrier) by rotating his
ship
nose-down as it "rises" and firing at the other fighter. The point is
that the first
fighter is not just using its thrusters to uncouple its velocity and its
facing by
rotation, but is applying thrust to vary the velocity vector by adding
an extra
component -- _then_ they rotate to get a shot in, but that's a separate
manoeuvre. You can't do that without using Newtonian mechanics.

So I think that I have shown what you asked. Are you suitably impressed?
B-)

Phil, who wishes that other races' fighters were as obviously Newtonian
as the
EA's. The Centauri in particular.
-------------------------------------------------------------
 Gravity is a Downer... So let's go flying!
   -- so sayeth Phil Atcliffe (p-atclif@uwe.ac.uk)