2DFalcon Class

Posts

• Rekkert4106 Buenos Aires, ArgentinaPosts: 2,311Member

  April 2013 #2

  

  It looks very cool and different, I love the modified arrowhead logo on the top view.
  I don't like the nacelles very much though, they look too Naboo-ish for me.
  Also, I like the idea of the rotating joints, but they don't make much sense for warp nacelles, only for impulse engines. May I humbly propose to move the warp nacelles to be directly connected to the body, and leave the impulse engines alone on the joints?

  For all my finished Trek fan art, please visit my portfolio​
• BC0 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #3

  Rekkert wrote: »

  It looks very cool and different, I love the modified arrowhead logo on the top view.
  I don't like the nacelles very much though, they look too Naboo-ish for me.
  Also, I like the idea of the rotating joints, but they don't make much sense for warp nacelles, only for impulse engines. May I humbly propose to move the warp nacelles to be directly connected to the body, and leave the impulse engines alone on the joints?

  
  I like the lines of the warp shuttle, though as I said it looks Romulan to me more than Federation.
  
  If the impulse and warp pods are combined like they are on the Romulan D'deridex it would not be bad having the whole assembly rotate, though the spikes would get in the way of any use of the engines as vectored thrust unless you intend for them to drive into the ground on landing or something. As far as I know of the only vectored thrust shuttle the Federation has so far is the Argo so there is probably room for another for use in fields that interfere with the usual antigrav systems, especially one with more range.
  
  Speaking of range, I would suggest more endurance and speed for the warp drive if it is meant for interstellar use since the travel time between Earth and Alpha Centauri at warp two is about five months (though the writers often ignore their own warp speed charts). On the other hand if it is just meant for high speed maneuverability in the same star system it is fine as is.
• spacefighter2 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #4

  trek shuttles are always a bit ugly and stubby, which i am not a fan of. however this craft looks quite good and i do like the rotating engines. the spike extending from their rears looks "nabooish" but also very good.
• Startrek91481171 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #5

  

  
• Narsil0 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #6

  I'm glad I was able to inspire you. I like that you added the impulse engines to the back of the nacelles. Maybe you could add some micro-torpedo launchers on her.
• Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #7

  I like the revised version. One suggestion: Unmanned combat vehicles are in vogue now, why not make an unmanned star trek combat drone?
  Also, a short duration vessel may not have bussard collectors as it's not meant for long range/duration use, so it doesn't need to gather interstellar hydrogen, It would likely, if it needed fuel, get it from a carrier/support vessel that might even beam fuel on board in a few seconds.
• spacefighter2 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #8

  Judge Death. wrote: »

  One suggestion: Unmanned combat vehicles are in vogue now, why not make an unmanned star trek combat drone?

  ehem, i have already designed a "falcon class drone"here. i do not have a problem with you calling it a falcon but think you may wish to call the drone something else. a drone is actualy a very good idea though, i notice that the "nabooish" spikes are gone but the engines in their place look just as good or perhaps better. i can see what judge death is saying about not having bussard collectors but rather than remove them why not refit the whole ship for longer range longer term operations, maybe have a fighter capable of long range interstellar travel. aslo perhaps make the bussard collectors bigger and replace the two of them with a large one in the centre somewhere that then feeds the gas to the engines through pipes. overall quite nice.
• Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #9

  not to dump on your work or be a sheldon Cooper (God I hate people like that!) but......warp 2 maximum?
  
  on an interceptor?
  
  seriously, there are shuttles and transports that outdo warp 2 by a long shot. freighters can outdo warp 2, so, what is this going to intercept?
  
  given the huge weapon load and extremely low speed I'd say this was more of an assault ship than an interceptor, like it's meant for attacking planetary targets or bases, immobile targets essentially.
  
  it could also be a defensive unit carried by a carrier to trouble spots and left to defend immobile assets like planets and bases. at warp 2 it would need a carrier to get anywhere in time.
• Judge Death.1 Posts: 0Member

  April 2013 #10

  BTW, your missile looks a little mundane, you might want to jazz it up a little. Here's a good design for a futuristic missile:
  
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsh8lZtLpT8
• Startrek91481171 Posts: 0Member

  October 2013 #11

  

  Judge Death. wrote: »

  not to dump on your work or be a sheldon Cooper (God I hate people like that!) but......warp 2 maximum?
  
  on an interceptor?
  
  seriously, there are shuttles and transports that outdo warp 2 by a long shot. freighters can outdo warp 2, so, what is this going to intercept?
  
  given the huge weapon load and extremely low speed I'd say this was more of an assault ship than an interceptor, like it's meant for attacking planetary targets or bases, immobile targets essentially.
  
  it could also be a defensive unit carried by a carrier to trouble spots and left to defend immobile assets like planets and bases. at warp 2 it would need a carrier to get anywhere in time.

  
  The warp 2 capability is more or less for emergency situations. This is a carrier based fighter.
• Startrek91481171 Posts: 0Member

  October 2013 #12

  

  thanks everyone for the comments. Judge Death unfortunately my computer won't run the video, but I appreciate the suggestion.