Delta Flyer VS Millennium Falcon

In My Humble Opinion
1

I know you guys would have all the specs on these.

I know the Millenium Falcon can make the Kessel Run in less the 12 parsecs [sic] but can’t the Delta Flyer do Warp 10? I missed the episode where Parris went Warp 10, but I assume it was in the Flyer. Am I wrong?

Anyway, the Millennium Falcon is a piece of crap. It is slow, ugly, it’s cannons are fired manually, it is always in disrepair…

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that the Falcon was in perfect condition and everything was working at 100%. Who would win? I still think the Delta Flyer would kick it’s ass. Yeah, I know it’s just a shuttle craft. I have to give the Falcon a little chance here, or there would be no debate. If I didn’t want a debate, I would have titled my thread “Millenium Falcon vs Defiant” or “Star Destroyer VS Borg Cube”.
Come to think of it, “Borg Cube VS Death Star” would have made a great one…

So Star Wars freaks, I am sorry but I think you guys are gonna have to loose this one. Is there anything the Millennium Falcon has or is there some trick it can do to defeat the Delta Flyer? I don’t think so.

2

Didn’t we have a Star Destroyer vs. Enterprise thread?

It’s my impression that the technology of “Star Trek” is vastly more advanced than Star Wars. Star Wars is basically just World War Two In Space. Star Wars warships have machine gun and cannon-like lasers and fighter planes; Star Trek ships have phasers and photon torpedoes that just look and sound WAY cooler. Star Trek has technology that doesn’t come close to existing in Star Wars, like transporters and replicators. I can’t imagine the propulsion technology isn’t way ahead, too.

3

Sure… at least 2. What’s your point? We’ve had more than one “Is God real” thread, too. And pleanty of “This animal vs that animal” This thread is unique. It may be similar to others, but it’s different. If people don’t want to debate it, then it will go away like all my other threads…
Sure the technology of Star Trek is vastly superior to that of Star Wars, but I like to listen to the Star Wars guys come up with interesting points on how they could win.
These are two new ships now. I am not even sure what kind of size difference we are dealing with. I know someone will bring that up eventually.

And to level the playing field a little, the Delta Flyer cannot go into warp… how’s that?

4

This one is a bit harder to figure out, since I’m not as familiar with the Delta Flyer’s capabilities as I am the Enterprise. However, IIRC, the Delta Flyer was designed specifically to fight the Borg, but other than that, it’s not too spectacular of a ship.

The Millenium Falcon is armed with two turrets with four “overpowered” cannons in each, a pair of belly-mounted fixed blasters, and an Arakyd concussion missile launcher.

With only one pilot in each vessel, I think the Flyer would be able to take the win. But with a full crew, I believe the Falcon would have the advantage, given the scenario of a chance meeting.

I’m sorry, but your impression is unfounded. ST is shinier and cleaner than SW, certainly, but that by no means is indicative of “better”. The Flyer’s advantage rests in range and subluminal speed… the Falcon’s rests in sheer toughness and extra-luminal speed (hyperspace travel is far faster than warp travel).

Incorrect. The technology of “replication” is known in SW (the Falcon has one, though it’s not called a “replicator”, and it doesn’t make food appear in a shiny computer-generated shimmer). Transporters (teleporters) also exist… given the amount of crises that arise from transporter incidents (how many times has a crew member been duplicated?), it’s no surprise that it’s a technology that’s considered to be nothing more than a sideshow attraction.

Anyway, back to the debate…

The Falcon’s systems are designed with incredible redundancy, which means that several systems can fail and it can keep going. However, this also increases the likelihood that systems will fail spontaneously, so if the Falcon has a sudden surge in its power cells in the middle of the fight, it’s gone.

Again, I say thee, nay. Visit Star Wars vs Star Trek: I Want YOU for the Galactic Empire!

The author of that page takes numerous examples of the damage turbolaser fire does to several different sources (one instance in the novels describes turbolaser blasts being used to boil off massive amounts of water in a planets oceans, and he figures out how much energy is required to do that). Using this info, he extrapolates the upper and lower limits of energy in a turbolaser blast. The final numbers aren’t too far off from the energy in your average Phaser blast.

Then we have the discrepancy in shield function… in ST, shields function as a “fluctuating armoring”… the ship can take random “feedback” damage even when the shields are still up. However, in SW, the shields create a completely solid wall that keeps every manner of foreign energy/matter out, unless they are forcibly brought down.

Finally, we have energy powering systems… warp cores are notoriously unreliable. The slightest cosmetic damage to a vessle can threaten a core breach. Whereas in SW, the only way to burst a power generator is to actually pound through a ship’s armor until you actually hit the generator.

All right, Mr. Nenno, now that we’ve got that cleared up… I’m sure you won’t make such baseless claims in the future? :smiley:

The Falcon is, what, 26 meters in length (IIRC). Give or take a few tenths of a meter, anyway. I think the Delta Flyer is comparable in length.

I think this debate will wind up the same way as MY “Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer” thread did… the circumstances of the meeting are important. If the two ships just happen to get sucked into a wormhole and meet somewhere randomly, I believe the Falcon would get the drop on the Flyer, since it’s very-heavy (for its size) guns give it an advantage in a short fight. However, if the two ships are meeting after a week of planning, I imagine the Flyer would be able to figure out some little trick. Especially if they meet in the orbit of a planet or moon… the Flyer can stay below the horizon, popping up every now and then to fire off a phaser shot.

Anyway… who else knew that I was going to show up eventually? :smiley:

5

[Moderator Hat: ON]

This is an IMHO question. So that’s where I’m sending it.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

6

Novels? Bah! What counts are movies and, in the case of Star Trek, TV shows.

Whatever you might say about a Star Destroyer’s turbolasers, the fact is that they sure don’t seem to be able to hit anything with any sort of reliability. The relevant figure isn’t damage per hit, it’s (damage per hit)(hit percentage). Star Wars ships spray fire all around without hitting anything.

I LIKE Star Wars technology better. It’s more consistent. Star Trek technology is pretty much invented or discarded as story needs dictate, which drives me nuts:

  1. You know those little communicators they have on their uniforms? Do you have to touch those before speaking or not? Huh?

  2. Am I the only person who’s noticed that Star Trek personal weapons are about as accurate as a 17th century musket, and have an equally awful rate of fire? I can’t begin to count the number of times Worf took one shot at an intruder, missed, and was then overpowered. The best part about “Star Trek: First Contact” was that the most powerful hand-held weapon in the movie was a Tommy gun.

  3. Why is it that in Star Trek the ship can create force fields seemingly effortlessly, just by asking it to, but they never use this technology when it’s appropriate, except on the holodeck, where it invariably screws up?

  4. And the replicator. They can replicate food, but they never replicate anything else. That’s such a frigging cop-out.

  5. What happened to the notion that nobody in the Federation needed money? Now there’s “gold-pressed latinum” everywhere. The Ferengi need it but the Federation doesn’t - so why don’t Federation citizens just give lots of it to the Ferengi? Why can’t you replicate it? Huh? Huh?

Star Wars is much more consistent. The technology is ugly and industrial, but it’s always the same. During big battle sequences, it’s never “we’re screwed, but look, let’s come up with some technology mumbo-jumbo and wham, a miracle solution!” Either the X-Wing blows up the TIE fighter or it doesn’t.

The Falcon’s size has, uh, changed a lot over the years.

  1. The external set used in the first movie was 80 feet long, about 24.4 metres. I don’t know how much that should be trusted, since the external set does not match the internal set in many respects.

  2. Various technical specs and plans published over the years by Lucasarts have placed the length anywhere from 30 to 37 metres.

  3. Estimates based on a pretty involved study of the films, sets and supporting materials place the length at either 27 metres or 33 metres. Some model kits have it as long as 46 metres. the author of the link says 34 metres.

As you probably know, the whole Millennium Falcon concept was slapped together at the last minute when George Lucas vetoed the previous ideas; this worked out wonderfully in a way, because the final product LOOKED like a beat-up, dozen-times-repaired hulk built purely for a purpose with no mind the aesthetics.

7

Minor quibble - the DF was originally designed to retrieve a probe from a gas giant, and built quickly in a race against a species claiming scavenging rights to the probe [season 5 or 6, I forgot which). Modifications and tinkerings were done in later episodes.

8

I realize this is just the choice of the action sequence directors, but the Flyer has never seemed particularly maneuverable, whereas the Falcon was flying rings around Tie Fighters (remember the asteroid field?). That ‘evasive action’ thing they try to do in Star Trek never seems to work–about half the time they give that order, the next shot you see is the ship slowly lumbering to the side as it gets hit yet again. When the Falcon gets dodgy, other ships start crashing into each other and slamming into asteroids.

I’d still have to put my money on the Flyer, though, because Tie Fighters don’t have shields, and the weapons on the Falcon were probably chosen with that in mind. The Flyer, however, only ever fights ships with shields.

Oh, and Rickjay: Replicator technology, like holodecks, is hideously expensive and fairly tightly controlled. The only reason Quark had one was because he had to serve food and drinks, and that’s about all his replicator was (supposed to be) good for. They use replicators to make dilithium crystals, which is why they’re not such a big deal any more.

9

Do we have Luke on board?

If so, you’re screwed. Try fighting the force. We’ll just fling your entire ship into the nearest star.:slight_smile:

10

In that case, we know precisely zip about the capabilities of the Falcon.

The novels and sourcebooks are Official material, and stand unless directly contradicted by the Canon films.

A SD’s turbolasers are designed to hit capital ships, not fighters. The fact that they manage to wing several starfighters with capital-ship-grade weaponry indicates extreme reliability.

Think of it this way… try swatting a fly with a 2X4.

Actually, Han installed his high-powered turrets with the threat of piracy and/or corrupt blockade officials in mind. They’re far more than capable of pounding through something with shielding, especially shields as fragile as the Flyer’s.

11

Well, appearance has no effect on capabilities, so that point is worthless. It’s not slow, it just can’t fly at warp speeds. Manually fired cannons doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I’m not particularly impressed with the capabilities of ST gun control systems…they have slow refire and miss often.

Well, first this takes away your fourth point above. Second, we’ve never seen how a perfect condition Falcon would perform. I mean…if it could go head to head against Star destroyers and take turbolaser blasts without being destroyed when it’s NOT in perfect condition…

Some advantages the Falcon has over the Flyer…it’s armored, it has the advanced sensor array (What kind of sensors does the flyer have?), and it’s got missiles that might come in handy.

12

The Delta Flyer, like the Enterprise (any of them), has the distinct advantage that it can maneuver and fight while travelling at faster-than-light speed. While the Millennium Falcon is performing a hyperspace jump – even a microjump – it’s essentially a sitting duck.

However:

Unlike the Enterprise or the Voyager, the Delta Flyer has no photon torpedoes. It is armed only with phasers. Photon torpedoes can be fired at warp speed and travel at warp speed, but, according to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, phaser beams travel at the speed of light and no faster.[sup]1[/sup] This makes them nearly impossible to use at warp speeds. The old “back up at warp 2 and shoot them 'til they explode” tactic, so loved by us Enterprise-vs.-Star-Destroyer boffins, will be unavailable to the Delta Flyer.

And besides, the Millennium Falcon looks cooler. :wink:

[sup]1) I realize that the ST:TOS episode “The Ultimate Coputer” showed the Enterprise and several other Constitution-class starships shooting at each other with phasers while travelling at warp 5 or above. As with many technologies in the Star Trek universe, this was conveniently forgotten by the scriptwriters by the time TNG came about.

13

This thread is doomed. Doomed, I tell you, doooooooooomed.

Comparing ST and SW technology is comparing apples and aardvarks. Continuity errors and sheer scientific illiteracy on the part of the writers prevent us from having any consistent knowledge of what actual effect a given piece of technology in either universe has.

Moreover, the technology displayed in the stories depends, to a very large extent, on the stories the writers want to tell involving that technology. Since the stories are different, the effect of technology will be different too.

Take the speed thing. SPOOFE tells us that hyperspace travel is ever so much faster than warp travel. Is this because the Federation’s technology is ever so much inferior? No, it’s because, in Star Trek, space is big. It’s the Final Frontier. Star Trek stories are about exploring it. In Star Wars, though, the galaxy is only a backdrop to the action going on, it’s all familiar territory. So, the Star Wars galaxy is conceptually much smaller than the Star Trek one. (And both of them are vastly smaller than the real one, since the script writers just don’t think that big).

Similarly with the warp core breach thing. ST stories tend to emphasize the cleverness and technical ability of the characters, while SW concentrates on more traditionally heroic elements. So, the crew of the Enterprise (or whatever) face challenges like avoiding warp core breaches, whereas the Star Wars mob don’t. (What’s Luke Skywalker going to do about an overloaded power plant? Poke it with his lightsaber? “Use the Force” - ohh, yes, I can just picture all those little midichlorians opening up their technical manuals).

I’ve read several similar discussions, and they just don’t work. Phasers versus turbolasers? What is a “rapid nadion effect”, and how does it stack up against “Tibanna gas particles”? We don’t know. The writers can’t tell us. Ultimately, it just boils down to “my invisible friend’s bigger than your invisible friend”. Waste of time. (Which is not to say that I’m necessarily against wasting time…)

14

Tell me if I am wrong, but isn’t a parsec a measurement of distance, not time?..

15

Yes, a parsec is a measurement distance not time. An after the fact explination was that the Kessel run was a route through an area of space full of black holes. Any ship making the run would have jink around each one like a slalom skier. Thus a measure of the quality of a ship and its crew was how tight of a line it could take. A poor ship/crew would have to take wide turns and keep a large distance from the “poles” (the black holes). A better ship could take a finer line almost touching the “poles.” Han’s statement that he could do it in 12 parsecs is supposed to be a statement that he and his ship are of exceptional quality.

This explanation doesn’t wash when viewed in context however.

<ashamed to admit I can quote this from memory>
Han: Chewie tells me you are looking for passage on a ship to Alderan.
Ben: Yes. If it’s a fast ship.
Han: You’ve never heard of the Millenium Falcon?
Ben: No. Should I have.
Han: It did the Kessel run is les than 12 Parsecs. I’m outrunning imperial ships. Not the local bulk cruisers, I’m talking about the big Corrilian ships. She’s fast enough for you old man.
</ashamed to admit I can quote this from memory>

Obviously they are talking about speed not distance.

This adds one more thing to what <b>Steve Wright</b> was saying. You simply can’t compare the two universes. Anything which is odd or an inconvienient fact can be explained away using some sort of logic or ignored. I used to hang out at alt.startrek.vs.starwars until someone brought up the fact, that in one episode of ST:TNG Riker states the amount of energy the Enterprise-D’s shields can take before failing. The amount was less than a SUV traveling at highway speeds (55 MPH). How do you destroy the Federation flagship? Launch a dozen Ford Explorers at it. :slight_smile:

Who would win. It depends who does the author decide will win.

16

I couldn’t help it but when I read the title I kept thinking “Radio Flyer vs Millenium Falcon”?

Now that would be a scrap to tell the grandkids about.

Just imagine the Radio Flyer, able to morph into whatever a kid could imagine. The MF wouldn’t stand a chance.

17

Tracer…

A sitting duck that can go hundreds of times faster than the Flyer, yeah. :smiley:

Steve Wright…

Both take place in a single galaxy. The action in both series never leaves their respective galaxies (except for a couple of isolated incidents involving The Traveler and/or Q or something). The galaxy in Star Trek is our oh-so-beloved Milky Way - 100,000 light years across. The galaxy in Star Wars, As Yet Unnamed - 120,000 light years across (I’ve also heard 150,000, but I’ll stick with the former number).

Hyperspace travel across the SW galaxy takes a matter of weeks, although an exact number isn’t known. A relatively small number is alluded to since traveling across the galaxy is a relatively common thing.

Warp travel, at the fastest speeds the Federation has developed (as of Voyager, the latest “update” to Trek technology), would take over a century to cross the galaxy.

Given those numbers, I think it’s pretty obvious that hyperdrive is much faster. Although I readily admit that this has no bearing on other aspects of technology.

Those actually can be compared. One just needs to figure out how powerful each respective weapon is, and from that you can extrapolate a general idea of capabilities.

Bartman…

Except you didn’t remember it from memory :). Han’s line is “It’s the ship that did the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. I’ve outrun Imperial Starships… not the local bulk cruisers, mind you, I’m talking about the big Corellian ships.”

The parts about the Kessel Run and outrunning Imperial ships are completely different thoughts. Although, admittedly, I’m sure Lucas wasn’t thinking of “parsecs” as a measure of time, but rather as a fraction of a second… “partial second”, probably. But that’s just conjecture on my part.

We can try. You just need people who can think of Star Trek beyond the shininess of its ships. :slight_smile:

However, you’re right that one can’t make direct comparisons - the infamous “SW doesn’t have transporters!” argument is a joke, for instance - but I like to think about circumstances and go from there. For example, in my Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer thread, I kept bringing up situations and figuring out how the two ships would fare… since the Enterprise is more maneuverable, it’s best bet is to find a planet or moon or large asteroid and hover just beyond the horizon, and use it’s superior weapons range.

With regards to the Falcon and Delta Flyer… well… I just don’t see much advantages that the Flyer has. It’s only hope would be if the Falcon suffers some hardware failure. Since the Flyer is capable of emitting different types of fields or “stindibbyonic ray bursts” (or some technobabble crap), they might be able to fiddle with the Falcon’s electronics or the stability of its systems.

18

The reason Voyager is taking so long getting home is because that’s the hook the creators decided to hang the series on. (And then leave it to rot, in my opinion, but that’s beside the point…)

When it’s not important to the plot, speed restrictions in the ST universe mysteriously disappear. Take DS9, and Ben Sisko’s girlfriend Kasidy Yates. She regularly trades with the other side of the Federation, as far from DS9 as it’s possible to get. Now, the “official” maps I’ve seen show the Federation as big - it sprawls over most of the Alpha Quadrant. So, it’s safe to figure we’re talking at least 10,000 light years here. The redoubtable Ms. Yates and her poxy little freighter routinely make the round trip in about three months. (No, I don’t have episode cites, after a while all DS9 episodes look the same to me…)

OK, let’s think about this. Compare the hand weapons.

The SW blaster pistol, set to kill, basically works like, well, a gun. It produces a bit more cosmetic damage when it’s fired at an inanimate object, but that’s about it.

The ST phaser pistol, set to kill, can kill a human-sized target, leaving an inert but mysteriously unmarked corpse. Or it can totally destroy a human-sized target, leaving no discernible residue, eliminating also all clothing and carried equipment, but considerately stopping at the target’s bootsoles so that not even a scratch or a scorch mark is left upon the floor. Or, it can disintegrate a conveniently-sized hole in inanimate material. Unless that inanimate material happens to be an android duplicate of a human being, in which case it leaves the target dead (deactivated?) with a large but apparently superficial burn in its clothing through which circuit components peek out. Of course, if the target is man-sized, but a silicon-based life form…

For some reason, the total-destruction effect of the hand weapon doesn’t scale up to ship-mounted weaponry. In the (comparatively rare) event of a ship taking enough phaser hits to destroy it, it generally explodes in a more or less conventional manner. Otherwise, a phaser hit on a ship will make lights flicker and pyrotechnics go off on the bridge (doesn’t seem to matter where the ship gets hit, the phaser fire affects the bridge), and makes people shout technobabble a lot.

This is because ST is a show where Cool Gadgets (even if they work inconsistently) are more important than they are in SW. The SW blaster is a gun, it goes “zap”, it kills people, let’s move on. The ST phaser is a Swiss Army Knife, it does Cool Geek Stuff. And I don’t see how you can find any objective, consistent way of comparing the two.

[quotey thingy fixed by da Mod]

[Edited by Czarcasm on 04-07-2001 at 08:25 AM]

19

And I can’t find any objective, consistent way of getting the vbCode right. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

20

It’s actually about one-fifth of that (2000 light years). And “the other side of the Federation” need not be taken as an exact measurement.

I’m not talking hand weaponry, I’m talking starship weaponry. We simply look at what the weapons can do and go from there. Instances in the movies (like the asteroid scene in TESB, for instance) or mentionings in the novels can give upper and lower limits of turbolaser power.