Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Ok how about a redesign of a redesign, if that makes sense? Basically the Splicer 5000, the blue fighter in this thread is a direct development off an earlier aircraft, kind of like the F-20 is to the F-5, or more appropriately the Su-37 to the original model Su-27. In this case the Splicer 4000 was a highly advanced, marginally experimental plaene, and when it was first introduced was one of the best around. Unfortunately it couldn't be upgraded because of how the systems were all integrated together. The 5000 was borne as a result. Now this craft never recieved the advanced PDE/grav engine so no need for intakes. However since the 5k comes from the 4k I am trying to keep the engines cockpit as close as possible. The docking mounts that are on currently will be deleted after I figure out the new wings. Well here is the start, let me know what you think, and of course once it is done I will texture it. I think it needs a new color instead of blue though, maybe a gray shade, thoughts? Comments are appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) Just for reference, here is the original 4000 design. As you can see it was not a very well executed design. The redesign will probably not be as well but I will put more thought into it as the sidestory my friend Kevin is writing will feature it. I'm considering something of a box wing on this redesign, sort of a bi-plane config, but we will see. Edited January 24, 2005 by Knight26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Yah, but what is the 5K supposed to do? Interceptor? Jabo? Fighter-bomber? Long-range strike aircraft? Trainer? Sightseeing? Just plain flying around? Gotta give us that info so that we can help with the redesign... At the very least, we can draw inspiration from the existing designs to let you know what we like to see in a particuler aircraft role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 The 4000 and 5000 are superiority fighters, designed to get in close and dogfight. They are the multirole workhorses of the confederation. THe 4000 was also the first digfighter to carry any kind of ordnance that could threaten a capship, that torpedo tube. Mind you all that can do is take out surface emplacements, turrets, sensors, observation domes, etc... These are the close in knife fighters, so the 4000 will end up covered in thrusters with a strong gun armament and secondary missiles, the tubes are already in, uses a magazine instead of the more typical single missile per tube on other fighters. This was done as a means of better protecting the missiles, but proved too weighty and prone to breakdown so on the 5000 they went back to the old style with added armor. Right now after the wings my biggest concern is the front of the engines and seeing how to blend that area better, try to get around the limitations of ACAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macplus Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 If you don't mind a little constructive critisism, I think you should put less windows and redesign the weapons, they look toysh, just my humble opinion, keep on the good work buddy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Well the pilots do like to see, so the canopy isn't going to go away, as for the weapons, I have no clue what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 How about some rear visibilty so the pilots can check their 6. Why is it that most sci-fi fighters have no rear visibilty? Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyrox Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 hmm, I just noticed something...are all of your designs based on lego prototypes? because even after a round or two of redesigns, they smack of lego creations to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSW Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 This might give you some ideas...did it a while ago as a rough prototype for a video game space ship...ended up going a bit more sleek and elegant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Will work on this more today, have the day off, to answer some questions first: @graham: I don't know why the majority of sci-fi fighters don't have built in rear visibility. But, as I explained in an earlier thread the cockpit has a sensor imaging system installed, which allows the crew to "see" through the walls of the cockpit. It is similar to what is seen on the YF-19. Also direct rearward visibility is pretty overrated, what is needed is the over the should view which the design still give you a pretty good view of. @phyrox: No, these are not lego inspired, though haterist at one point noticed the same thing and was going to look into seeing how to build the 5000 out of lego. Heck I haven't even picked up a lego in years, though I appreciate many of the things people have been able to do with them, those brick designs are pretty versitile. @MSW: Interesting design, maybe I can work in some elements, with your permission, but those cruciform wings might get in the way of the docking fixture. We will see how it progresses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Ok I was playing around with wing configurations this morning, and came up with the following four basic concepts. Thanks MSW for the basic idea. I am still leaning towards an overall FSW config and may go to a single wing planform in the end, but I am still tyring to figure that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Next, rear swept, uncanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Forward swept, uncanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 forward swept canted, funny thing happened when I was previewing them, if you run them all together at a good pace it look like its flapping its wings, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 No, no, no. No quad wings, not in those configurations. The first thing anyone will say is "X-wing". I somehow think you won't like that. The basic design without wings doesn't quite fit the superiority role.. it badly needs wings. Lemme think about it, but don't let my thinking stop you from working on the design. My thinking tends to take some time to work through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I think you should ditch the bottom wing, move the top wing to the bottom keping the upward tilt and flatten the bottom the meet the wings making one big lifting surface. and a single caanard sticking straight down just behind the missile tubes or whatever those thigs are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Opus: HUh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Opus: HUh? I get that reaction alot. I drew you a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Interesting, I like the idea of the ventral fin but that is a pretty serious dihedral and I can forsee some problems, I will play with it though. Anyway I put these together this afternoon after all my running around, playing with the weapons config and giving it a mono-wing config. Let me know what you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Also you'll note I went back to the old view angle without perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Ok I tried Opus' dihedral concept, I'm not loving it, maybe it's just that I have not cut in the leading and trailing edges yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Next up is a box wing config, I'm kind of liking this one and right now it is up between this one and the straight mono-wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 A better shot of the box wing config. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I think the dihedral (thanks for adding a new word to my vocab.) would look better if they were more vertical with the trailing edge straight and the leading edge angled back , sort of like a WW2 era "sparrow" wing. What I really had in mind was for you to do is to make the wings and the belly into one continious piece with the body giving the apperance of a lifting body and the wings as a kind of wing/rudder combo deal. Obviosly I'm not an engineer so I'm just going for something that looks cool and a little odd which you can work into your story as the reason for the need to replace them, they're too extreme to be practical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Ok i see what you mean Opus, and thanks for the idea I'm afraid it would just make it look like an upside down S-5000 wing and would really serve no purpose. The box wing is really growing on me, though I am debating adjusting the an/dihedral angles in order to add a different vertical joint. I did give the wing some shape to flesh out the idea some more, plus I stuck the guns in where they will likely go, any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Personally prefer the FSW, single wing version. If landing gears ain't a real issues (you have the docking points on top right?), how about a big ventral fin? The boxed FSW sorts of look a little too common and not quite right to me, but it's your design, so you get the last call. The bottom-cap "intakes" gotta go man, it looks like either (a ) plastic shampoo bottle caps or (b ) female pectoral developments. Maybe mount the guns/ launchers there? Bound to give the crew a heart attack the first time they ever fire the weapons though. Hehe. Thought: Mass Drivers in-line with the engines. That'll be a blast to fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The problem I see with the box wing would be getting chunks of debris stuck in them. It might be cool to fill the space between the wings with missile tubes or chaff launches or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 @lynx: Yeah this one is strictly carrier based, no built in undercarriage, so the ventral fin is a possibility. The Box wing looks common, where else have you seen it? I can only assume you are confusing the retro-exhaust thruster with an intake, which it is not, this model does not have any intakes, except maybe for cooling, so we will see. @opus: Yeah that is a consideration I will think about it at work today and play with it more tonight when I get home. As for filling the space, no that is not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zentrandude Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The Box wing looks common, where else have you seen it? the romulans called, they want their warbird back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Anyway onto the current redesign, i am stuck. I need to decide between two the two wing configurations I have narrowed myself down to. The Single wing FSW with four cannons, or the box-wing FSW with two cannons and some sort of new/failed supercannon in the wing tips. Both have advantages and disadvantages, so I would appreciate any comments to help. Here are two images of the latest box wing concept. And Pot Smoking Zentrandude, there really is little to no resemblance to the warbird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 Perspective shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 (edited) Perspective shot. That would look really cool if you ditched the top wing. It seems kinda excessive and silly. edit: I like the thingys on the wing tips. Keep them. Edited January 26, 2005 by Opus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 You are really bucking for that whole gull wing aren't you, I'll play with it some more tonight, see how it looks without the top wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 It would look god if the wing were straight too. I think that having the wings attach at the top of the fuselage just isn't very aggressive looking and a good fighter should put fear into the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Ok, I didn't get much done today, been nutty, hopefully this weekend, I'd like to finish the design work before my trip in February. Though i will not be able to work on the textures until I get home, dang work computer. Anyway I think I will go with the box-wing, the concept has really grown on me. I may straighten the wing some more but the gull-wing just is not going to happen. The wingtip units will end up being experimental energy weapons, very powerful but not the most reliable. I will reshape the wings to eliminate the overhangs and give it a more realistic camber. I also added the large ventral fins and dorsal tails. This craft will not have an undercarriage as it is strictly carrier based, but will have hard points to land on using a special ground platforms. Anyway let me know what you think and I appreciate any advice you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.