If a filmmaker had a 747 engaging in a dogfight with a MIG fighter performing just as the fighter did, the viewer would rightfully say "That's a load of crap!" 747s do not have the handling characteristics of fighters because they are bigger and heavier.
Likewise a 725meter, multi hundred thousands of metric tons heavy cruiser does NOT perform maneuvers like a 4m, 10,000kg fighter. The audience knows instinctively that it's too big and too massive to do so.
Then the audience would be flat out wrong. Vessels in space have no need nor inclination to behave like planes in atmospheric conditions. An aeroplane in atmospheric flight is affected by the physics of the medium through which it is travelling - in fact, the very ability for it to fly depends on the properties of it. Because of the method of flight in use in a plane, a change in orientation of the plane necessitates a change in velocity. There is resistance to these changes because of the reaction of the physical medium (air) surrounding the plane. The faster it is able to turn, the more manoeuvrable it is said to be.
A spacecraft is in a radically different environment. In fact, to a first approximation, it's not in an environment at all. A spacecraft can spin completely round on its axis without changing velocity at all. 'Front' and 'back' ends are meaningless except to the extent that propulsion can be applied only from certain angles. There is no need for air to flow from the front of the craft to the back to keep it 'up' as there is on an aeroplane. And there is no air resistance to any velocity changes it does make. The term 'manoeuvrability' does not apply to the two situations interchangeably. You are incorrect to assert that it does.
The 'manoeuvrability' of a spacecraft would result not from the ability to turn but from the ability of the craft to change its velocity. Newton's first law, applied in space, means that it needs to do this by applying a force opposing its present trajectory. And what does it use to do this? Propulsion systems. In Treknology terms, thrusters, impulse and warp engines. And which ship has more powerful engines, a small fighter, or the Enterprise?
All very nice,
cultcross, but you've forgotten something:
inertia. Consider two real-world rocketry examples.
Here is the launch of a Saturn V rocket, shot with normal speed cameras. Take off weight of the vehicle was approximately 6.2 million pounds, fully fueled. As you can see, for the first second after ignition, the rocket did almost nothing. It simply hung there on the launch pad as tens of thousands of gallons of fuel were guzzled. Then it began to crawl upwards. Eventually, those enormous F-1 engines hurtled the craft through the atmosphere at speeds sufficient to escape into space, but ...
Here is a launch of a 1:10 scale model of the Saturn V. This rocket weighed a measly 1,700 pounds. Its engines easily overcame the mass of the vehicle they were pushing and this rocket leaps off its pad much more quickly than the original, even after accounting for differences in filming distance.
The problem is, the bigger the spaceship, the bigger the engines needed to move it. And the bigger the ship and engines, the more fuel needs to be burned before you get the movement you want. Sure, those big engines will get your starship moving pretty fast in a straight line (eventually), but little maneuvering thrusters won't be able to do more than nudge a ship the size of the
Enterprise. And if you want your mighty starship to whirl and cavort around its axes, then you'll need more big engines scattered all around the hull to provide the thrust needed (and more fuel) all of which comes with additional mass penalties! And if you're going to be spinning any ship too fast, put in extra structural reinforcement to hold it together against the g-forces. More mass!
By your way of reasoning, small photon torpedoes would be useless since a larger vehicle like the
Enterprise would be able to out-maneuver them. But, the bigger the ship, the slower it would turn, because a real-world maneuvering system wouldn't be able to overcome the inertia of all that mass fast enough unless the maneuvering system was as big as the main drive. And even if it were ... look at the Saturn V again.
Unfortunately for
Darkwing, things on his side of the argument break down when one considers Star Trek's inertial dampers. I assume these work by canceling out mass, giving the ship a new, much smaller, apparent mass. Once you can do this, I see no reason a starship can't maneuver like a fighter, except that to our inexperienced eyes, the ship would look like a toy.
"tldq?!"
