some images of my main laser gun barrel, the second image shows the barrel being "elevated"(inverted commas because the gun is on the underside). i have yet to detail the turret around it but i am quite sure that the gun is complete. for aerodynamic reasons the gun would not be elevated during atmospheric flight. the black domes either side of the gun are radar and gradar(gravitational detection and ranging) scannners, a high detail multi wavelength camera is also fitted but almost too small to spot in these images. Attachment not found.
the gun in the zero degree elevation position Attachment not found.
elevated to 45 degrees below horizon
thanks for the idea of the elevation mechanism, knight26 you used something similar on one of your ships a while back.
and nice to see you like the reactors evil_genius_180.
some images of my main laser gun barrel, the second image shows the barrel being "elevated"(inverted commas because the gun is on the underside). i have yet to detail the turret around it but i am quite sure that the gun is complete. for aerodynamic reasons the gun would not be elevated during atmospheric flight. the black domes either side of the gun are radar and gradar(gravitational detection and ranging) scannners, a high detail multi wavelength camera is also fitted but almost too small to spot in these images. Attachment not found.
the gun in the zero degree elevation position Attachment not found.
elevated to 45 degrees below horizon
thanks for the idea of the elevation mechanism, knight26 you used something similar on one of your ships a while back.
and nice to see you like the reactors evil_genius_180.
i dunno why your so concerned about aurodynamic beacuse nowaday we can make a brick fly with our current technology via computer controls
I'd pount out that the real-world space shuttle has all sorts of divots, holes, RCS nozzles and the like all piercing the hull and it flies quite well for a brick. Added hatches that have to open ans close all the time gives more chances for said hatches to jam. Still, nice modelling and the reactors do look cool. Seems like you have a number of backup reactors too.
Now do not take this the wrong way, but I want to show you that you should not be afraid to completely start over again with a design.
This was the last itteration of my original Splicer 5000 design. Similar to what you are doing now I kept adding new bits and parts to it to try and make it more realistic and cooler but all the feature creep made it become an unholy mess.
I decided after that to scrap the whole design and start fresh, but keep all the major salient features. Again though there were too many design comprimises.
I then took what I learned on that version and came up with this one. I was quite satisfied with the design for a long time.
This was very nearly the latest design, and the genesis of it was that I wanted to make texturing simpler as an upgrade to my modelling program messed up how I used to do textures. However I made far too many comprimises trying to keep all of the original salient features.
This is the current design, and I am really satisified with it. I had to abandon certain features, but I am satisified with the overall result. It is still true to the original design in many respects but has grown to be a much more feasible and acceptable design.
Again, your modelling skills are growing well, but you need to really take a hard look at the model and decide if it really works with your increased skill. Think about it this way, your newer designs are really surpassing this one in overall look, design and feel, making this one feel like a much older, less refined design. If you were to start from scratch, but keep in mind all the features you want to incorporate, or even bits you have already modelled you could come up with something really fantastic that still does honor to the original design.
thanks for the tips.
completed the turret a few moments ago Attachment not found.
i'll post some more images later but if anyone wants a specific view of it or a detailed image of some part please ask.
i'll probably be working on panelling the last bit of the main fuselage today and maybe the hyperspace drive or the wing root thrusters. still looking for ideas on
1. where the panel lines should go on the wings.
2. what the hyperspace drive should look like, the key requirement is to have two particle beams intersecting at a point forward of everything else on the craft.
A suggestion regarding the turret. Ditch the circular base. Streamline the whole thing and give it a smaller forward cross-section. Right now that big forward cross-section is creating a drag magnet, and it is limiting your panel sizes to, in some cases, uselss sizes, and others odd shapes that will make working in them difficult. With a slimmer cross-section you can make the panels larger and more useful, just paint on some scraped paint and such to show where the turret traverses.
Panels on your wings, look at real airplanes.
It sounds like your hyperdrive needs to have emitters at the front of your prong wings, but the rest of the drive could be buried in the fuselage or in the thicker wing root.
A suggestion regarding the turret. Ditch the circular base. Streamline the whole thing and give it a smaller forward cross-section. Right now that big forward cross-section is creating a drag magnet, and it is limiting your panel sizes to, in some cases, uselss sizes, and others odd shapes that will make working in them difficult. With a slimmer cross-section you can make the panels larger and more useful, just paint on some scraped paint and such to show where the turret traverses.
Panels on your wings, look at real airplanes.
It sounds like your hyperdrive needs to have emitters at the front of your prong wings, but the rest of the drive could be buried in the fuselage or in the thicker wing root.
thanks for the advice, i put a lot of work into the circular turret but if i can think of a way to create a narrower one that still looks as good i will go with that. the curve itself is actually quite flat but i can see how making the turret narrower would improve the aerodynamics.
as for wing panels, it's proving tricky to find an aircraft with a wing shape anything like this. even aircraft with forward swept wings are few and far between.
hyperspace drive, thanks for the tips but what i was really after was an idea of what each emitter should look like rather than where to place the emitters. i am sorry i did not better specify what i wanted suggestions for.
currently working on some thrusters.
have now completed forward thrusters, finally put the thruster clusters into the bays. each cluster has three thrusters on it, two pointing in opposite directions(rotating about the x(left right)axis) and one pointing out along the x axis. this device is copied on both sides of the nose. the whole assembly can slide in to be covered by the curved hatches during atmospheric flight. i have noticed the fact that part of the bay doors are in the "line of fire" from the thrusters but given the location of these thrusters this should not affect the forces they can provide for the ship. the insides of those hatches will be hardened against the thruster exhaust, but it is not hugely high energy anyway. good excuse to put some burn/dirt marks on the hatches, later.
an image is attached Attachment not found.
p.s. i strongly doubt i will be altering these, given the way they are fitted and the space they are in there are very few other options for the nose thrusters.
why make them have doors.... why not make them like the shuttles have them aka jsut holes...... you are making things functionality far to complicated... LESSS is more.....
why make them have doors.... why not make them like the shuttles have them aka jsut holes...... you are making things functionality far to complicated... LESSS is more.....
closed hatches are better for aerodynamics during atmospheric flight, this is a space/AIR superiority fighter.
p.s. any thoughts on VTOL systems, the old models of mine just showed it as a grey striped surface above a glowing blue sheet, any thoughts on better designs. the vtol system should fit in the small space above each landing gear bay. check my old models on the 3d warehouse to see the bit i want to redesign.
dude the shuttle can fly with the holes in in its nose so your better aerodynamics is flawed you are making unnecessary unneeded things to make things more complicated and plus what if something gets in to the cracks of the doors and fuses them shut or the hindges break and make it so they cant open and some stupid thing like that and you are just giving your computer systems more work to do which is unnecessary and as for vtol they are all jsut nossels that are sticking out that can rotate a few degress on real world aircraft so if you want thos your gunan have to mess with your thinking of aerodynamics also putting them in where the landing gear is is a stupid idea or the other option is putting a lift fan in the center of your craft you would also need small thrust holes in the wings to stabalize the craft while in hover mode
closed hatches are better for aerodynamics during atmospheric flight, this is a space/AIR superiority fighter.
The Shuttle flew with exposed RCS ports, as did the X-15 and the NF-104, so obviously exposed ports aren't that bad for aerodynamics, especially when you consider the mass plenty for retractable doors. And that's not even considering the maintenance issue.
p.s. any thoughts on VTOL systems, the old models of mine just showed it as a grey striped surface above a glowing blue sheet, any thoughts on better designs. the vtol system should fit in the small space above each landing gear bay. check my old models on the 3d warehouse to see the bit i want to redesign.
First of all, the VTOL system needs to support the entire mass of your fighter, plus some margin for accelerating upwards. I highly doubt it could fit in a "small space".
As for references, there's vast amounts of stuff On the internet. You might want to put some effort into at least narrowing down your idea and showing a few examples before asking for help.
ok, i'll save sorting out VTOL for later. for now what i really need is advice on what do to to the tail end. unsure of where to arrange panels and what to put around where the engine nozzle will be. Attachment not found.
I can't remember: Are the engines in the fuselage your primary engines or the hyper-ludicrous-speed ones? If they're the latter I'd suggest making them the primary engines instead and have a setup similar to the F-35 VTOL exhaust section, but dual instead of single. Then you could create a similar setup where the intake looking things are. Three birds with one stone: Better aft facing exhaust, something to fill the "intake" area (that could provide excellent reverse thrust) and VTOL capability. Beyond that, like others have said, just put small exhaust ports in strategic places across the surface. Knight26's fighter is a good example to take cues from. Lastly, I'd VERY strongly suggest you ditch the higned doors for your thrusters. It's a bad idea that could lead to a lot of other problems. I do like the irising hatch mentioned earlier.
I wrestled with the blunt end issue on my designs in the past. Realize that a giant blunt end like that will actually create drag on the aircraft, litterally pulling it backwards as you increase speed. Curiously though, having a small blunt end on the trailing edge of a wing will actually improve aerodynamics because the mini-vorticies created there will create their own new trailing edge and limit vortex and unsteady air seperation.
I like Juvat's idea for the F-35 style engine nozzles, but don't think your desing will allow for that.
As for waht to do with the rear end, I recommend adding a tail boom like on the SU-27 family of fighters and installing decoy launchers. Then add a Harrier like end to the boom with lots of additional thrusters.
This will make the rear end of the craft much more visually interesting too as now your rear end won't all be on a single plane.
Finally, ditch those thruster hatches, too many issues there. If you reallly feel that FOD or aeroD from them is such an issue then go with iris hatches, or better a butteryfly valve like on an old carberator.
Edit add: 5x more powerful, prepare for massive pitch over issues.
Excellent ideas. :thumb: I like the idea of the tail boom. I think through some minor reworking of the exhaust nozzle area the thrust vectoring approach could work.
so you want to cause more maitiance issues for your engineers as well as issues in flight if the doors do not work and you need to turn i guess you want your planws crashing in to astroids and moons and other things because of failing thruster doors
so you want to cause more maitiance issues for your engineers as well as issues in flight if the doors do not work and you need to turn i guess you want your planes crashing in to astroids and moons and other things because of failing thruster doors not to mention fireing the thruster while the doors are down beacuse of some sort of failure that didnt give you a warning and you decide to use them can lead to some uber bad issues if i was a pilot flying one of thos id just rip the doors off before i took flight in one of thos
if i was a pilot flying one of thos id just rip the doors off before i took flight in one of thos
try!! the doors are made from solid diracium(my unobtanium super metal), so too are the hinges. the opening/closing is controlled by powerful electric motors, very simple only one moving part.
So now the fighter is indestructable and made out of a magic material, nice. The thruster doors are a huge concern and I can't figure out why you are being so resistant to peoples suggestions against them.
This nagging about certain features ceased being constructive some time ago - you're all entitled to a say but that's it, please lets let the OP move on from this issue.
try!! the doors are made from solid diracium(my unobtanium super metal), so too are the hinges. the opening/closing is controlled by powerful electric motors, very simple only one moving part.
all it takes is one moving part for somthing to go wrong we are just trying to put some logical functionality in to your design
it only takes one moving part to go wrong and everything is ruined, i quite agree. but when each hatch has ONLY ! moving part the chance of this is very low. also note that the hatches open upon leaving the atmosphere and close just before reentry, they remain open whilst in space.
working on the primary engine exhausts at the moment, will add some pictures when sketchup stops freezing. they look pretty awesome, based on an F 15s "turkey feather" afterburner.
F-15s don't have the turkey feathers (too maintenance intensive and no real purpose). Something that occured to me regarding your thruster hatches: Can they be made disposable? In atmo they can be installed and if the craft has to leave atmo then they can be jettisoned. If the craft ends up operating primarily in space they wouldn't need to be installed. Food for thought.
F-15s don't have the turkey feathers (too maintenance intensive and no real purpose). Something that occured to me regarding your thruster hatches: Can they be made disposable? In atmo they can be installed and if the craft has to leave atmo then they can be jettisoned. If the craft ends up operating primarily in space they wouldn't need to be installed. Food for thought.
i could certainly have a jettison mechanism incase there was a mechanical failure with the motors, as it is this craft would be entering and leaving atmospheres regularly, often multiple times in one mission, so jettison would be a bad option except in emergencies. i'l add a button for "hatch cover jettison" when i get onto the control panel.
Posts
Attachment not found.
the gun in the zero degree elevation position
Attachment not found.
elevated to 45 degrees below horizon
thanks for the idea of the elevation mechanism, knight26 you used something similar on one of your ships a while back.
and nice to see you like the reactors evil_genius_180.
i dunno why your so concerned about aurodynamic beacuse nowaday we can make a brick fly with our current technology via computer controls
This was the last itteration of my original Splicer 5000 design. Similar to what you are doing now I kept adding new bits and parts to it to try and make it more realistic and cooler but all the feature creep made it become an unholy mess.
I decided after that to scrap the whole design and start fresh, but keep all the major salient features. Again though there were too many design comprimises.
I then took what I learned on that version and came up with this one. I was quite satisfied with the design for a long time.
This was very nearly the latest design, and the genesis of it was that I wanted to make texturing simpler as an upgrade to my modelling program messed up how I used to do textures. However I made far too many comprimises trying to keep all of the original salient features.
This is the current design, and I am really satisified with it. I had to abandon certain features, but I am satisified with the overall result. It is still true to the original design in many respects but has grown to be a much more feasible and acceptable design.
Again, your modelling skills are growing well, but you need to really take a hard look at the model and decide if it really works with your increased skill. Think about it this way, your newer designs are really surpassing this one in overall look, design and feel, making this one feel like a much older, less refined design. If you were to start from scratch, but keep in mind all the features you want to incorporate, or even bits you have already modelled you could come up with something really fantastic that still does honor to the original design.
completed the turret a few moments ago
Attachment not found.
i'll post some more images later but if anyone wants a specific view of it or a detailed image of some part please ask.
i'll probably be working on panelling the last bit of the main fuselage today and maybe the hyperspace drive or the wing root thrusters. still looking for ideas on
1. where the panel lines should go on the wings.
2. what the hyperspace drive should look like, the key requirement is to have two particle beams intersecting at a point forward of everything else on the craft.
Panels on your wings, look at real airplanes.
It sounds like your hyperdrive needs to have emitters at the front of your prong wings, but the rest of the drive could be buried in the fuselage or in the thicker wing root.
thanks for the advice, i put a lot of work into the circular turret but if i can think of a way to create a narrower one that still looks as good i will go with that. the curve itself is actually quite flat but i can see how making the turret narrower would improve the aerodynamics.
as for wing panels, it's proving tricky to find an aircraft with a wing shape anything like this. even aircraft with forward swept wings are few and far between.
hyperspace drive, thanks for the tips but what i was really after was an idea of what each emitter should look like rather than where to place the emitters. i am sorry i did not better specify what i wanted suggestions for.
currently working on some thrusters.
an image is attached
Attachment not found.
p.s. i strongly doubt i will be altering these, given the way they are fitted and the space they are in there are very few other options for the nose thrusters.
p.s. any thoughts on VTOL systems, the old models of mine just showed it as a grey striped surface above a glowing blue sheet, any thoughts on better designs. the vtol system should fit in the small space above each landing gear bay. check my old models on the 3d warehouse to see the bit i want to redesign.
First of all, the VTOL system needs to support the entire mass of your fighter, plus some margin for accelerating upwards. I highly doubt it could fit in a "small space".
As for references, there's vast amounts of stuff On the internet. You might want to put some effort into at least narrowing down your idea and showing a few examples before asking for help.
Attachment not found.
I like Juvat's idea for the F-35 style engine nozzles, but don't think your desing will allow for that.
As for waht to do with the rear end, I recommend adding a tail boom like on the SU-27 family of fighters and installing decoy launchers. Then add a Harrier like end to the boom with lots of additional thrusters.
This will make the rear end of the craft much more visually interesting too as now your rear end won't all be on a single plane.
Finally, ditch those thruster hatches, too many issues there. If you reallly feel that FOD or aeroD from them is such an issue then go with iris hatches, or better a butteryfly valve like on an old carberator.
Edit add: 5x more powerful, prepare for massive pitch over issues.
Also this is a butterfly valve to give you an idea of how to replace your thruster hatches.
Butterfly-Valve69783576.jpg
working on the primary engine exhausts at the moment, will add some pictures when sketchup stops freezing. they look pretty awesome, based on an F 15s "turkey feather" afterburner.