1) Gull-wing the wings (see the Vought F4U Corsair).
2) Lengthen the main fuselage forward of the wing/engine roots.
3) Blend the main engines deeper into the fuselage (see the Harrier, and think of the intakes as two separate engines).
4) OR pull the main engines a bit further out and have them taper into the fuselage towards the back (see the F-101 Voodoo).
5) OR pull the main engines a bit further out and have them run the length of the main fuselage (see the Vulcan bomber).
6) Lengthen the cockpit for a second crewman
7) OR widen it for a side-by-side cockpit and add room behind for a "sleep cell" if you want to keep the long duration missions.
8) Move the forward-swept parts of the wings outwards from the fuselage, probably all the way to the tips.
9) OR blend the entire wing structure into a sort of inverted crescent shape (think more curves than angles)
10) Replace the flat ventral gun turret with a one or more dorsal/ventral hybrid turrets just outside the engine/fuselage wing root
11) OR replace the ventral gun turret with fixed, forward bore weapons
12) OR rebuild the main fuselage around a high-capacity weapon (think a more fighter-y A-10)
13) Replace the two dorsal engines with a quad over/under "detachable thrust pack"
14) OR ditch the boosters entirely
15) Provide some external modeling on the fuselage for the FTL drive
Just a few ideas to toss around. But, and this is really key, DON'T just take the existing model apart and tweak it. Really try to start with the IDEA behind it and build from scratch. Altering the existing model sounds easier to me (but, then I don't model) but I imagine it will also result in a hugely inefficient build. Experienced guys (and gals) chime in on this one.
some of those ideas look pretty good, thanks. underside boosters could be very nice and would solve CoM problems but i don't know how to fit them as it would make landing very difficult. adding extra (high-capacity) weapons will certainly be attempted when i get back to work on modelling. i will probably have some new pics to post by late tonight.
p.s. move engines outwards as on the voodoo? considering the current configuration of the fighter they would need to move inwards to do this.
p.s.2 another thought, angling the nozzles of the boosters slightly up could remove the CoM problem. it would mean that when using boosters the fighter flew along a vector angled down rather than straight out of the nose but it would allow the thrust vector to point directly through the CoM hence preventing a torques that would cause a spin.
Think of the boosters as a strap-on package not a permanent assembly. They're not for use when the fighter launches from or lands in atmosphere, just in space. Or else have the launch platform (or base) provide a lift, launch assembly, or other mechanism for launching the now-laden fighter.
Just angling the booster exhaust probably won't work ... and, again it's an unnecessarily complicated fix. After all, now you're talking about off-vector thrust used to compensate for CoM issues. Which means that a portion of the thrust the boosters are designed to produce is being used inefficiently. Remember the mantra "This is a warship. Warships waste nothing." If the system isn't designed to run at 100% they'll come up with something else.
By comparing to the Voodoo I meant make them wider (possibly even angular to fit with the wing design).
Think of the boosters as a strap-on package not a permanent assembly. They're not for use when the fighter launches from or lands in atmosphere, just in space. Or else have the launch platform (or base) provide a lift, launch assembly, or other mechanism for launching the now-laden fighter.
Just angling the booster exhaust probably won't work ... and, again it's an unnecessarily complicated fix. After all, now you're talking about off-vector thrust used to compensate for CoM issues. Which means that a portion of the thrust the boosters are designed to produce is being used inefficiently. Remember the mantra "This is a warship. Warships waste nothing." If the system isn't designed to run at 100% they'll come up with something else.
By comparing to the Voodoo I meant make them wider (possibly even angular to fit with the wing design).
Keep thinking up new thinks.
to clarify when i talked about changing direction of the booster i meant this
as it's in space it wouldn't really matter if for some maneuvres it accelerated in a direction that was not nose first, if both the primaries and boosters were used then the vector would be somewhere between the two vectors shown here and some thrust would be along a component at 90 degrees to that vector(hence wasted). if you only fire one set of engines at a time, no problems?
If you only fire one at a time, sure. The trouble is they're BOOSTERS. This means you use them WITH the main engines to coax a little more speed (or a lot more) out of ye olde girl(e). Since your weapons will likely have VERY limited firing arcs, having to compensate for off-CoM vectored thrust makes aiming more complicated than it has to be.
Again, you're wedded to those funky boosters and more power to ya. But, they're NOT practical in a warship. You don't add something to a combat vessel that makes using it HARDER. Sure, the extra speed is nice, but if I'm constantly having to adjust my vector, trim the etheric rudder, feather the main engines, or whatever handwavium I have to do to get the guns on target (or just get the vector aligned with the carrier for landing) what's the point?
Seriously, SF, take a step back from this thing and THINK about what you're asking it to do. Everything you've done since you began designing it is a rationalization to allow you to keep the format/design without compensating for what it IS. Go back to my long post from a couple days ago ... toss the thing.
Keep the basic principles:
1) Long-ranged space fighter with trans-atmospheric capability
- Requires streamlining, intakes, maybe even fins
2) Flex-wing geometry
- Part of the streamlining, possibly overcoming need for vertical atmospheric stabilizers
- Allows for Rule of Cool forward-swept design
3) Twin main engines external to fuselage
Then consider modifying the original design along the lines of my other suggestions. Several I really recommend are
a) Taper the engines towards the back (a reverse-V with the apex at the tail - Think F/A-18 Hornet or F-5 Tiger)
b) Gull-wing at either the root or the engine joints
c) Provide wing-mounted hard points for external ordnance (missiles, gun pods, decoys, etc)
- Don't forget something center-of-mass aligned for the fuselage as the integral weapon (laser, mass driver, Atomic Napalm Neutralizer ... set to Deep Fat Fry, of course!!)
d) Lengthen the central fuselage beyond the forward sweep of the flex-wings
- This way the pilot doesn't have to look THROUGH the wing to see port/starboard
- Of course, if the pilot has a virtual cockpit (ala later versions of Macross, esp. Macross Zero) then that matters less.
e) Maybe provide space for a second crewman and possibly a tiny "berth" for long-duration missions (basically a life-support coffin behind the cockpit)
f) TOSS the boosters out from the main design. Build the thing without them. THEN, once done, build a second bit which is a strap-on pack with four boosters (two high, two low) that fits AROUND the central-aft fuselage (allowing the main engines' thrust to peek between the array) or, for that matter, that appends to the ends of the flex-wings (think where the X-Wing's lasers are, then replace those with over/under engines!!). This latter arrangement would avoid the "how does it take off/land with those things" problem IF the wings are gulled.
g) Toss the idea of sealed/extendable RCS thrusters with bolognium doors and impossibilium hinges and hydraulics. Instead, simply put recessed RCS nozzles in appropriate places (especially considering leverage) that take into account CoM.
Then play with the hull-form, weapons, and some sort of appropriate greeble for the FTL. You might even consider making the FTL part of the hull-matrix and rather than making some sort of emitter, adjust the hull panels to take into account the FTL Matrix Web Network Generators (tm) or whatever.
...
Seriously, SF, your skills have improved since you started here. But, you continue to try to justify a failed design. Keep the CONCEPTUAL elements of it that you like ... but ditch the actual model and start fresh. If nothing else, you'll be able to build the same basic shapes far more efficiently this time around (saving the need to go back and optimize the mesh).
REAR GEAR COMPLETE, and i'm very satisfied with it. panel lines around this area have been replaced. now working on front gear, a thought occurred to me (probably a question for you knight 26) where do the lights go on an aircraft(both the flying lights and the landing lights for taxiing etc in darkness)?? i think there is usually a light on the nose wheel strut, where else? thanks.
p.s. sanderlee: you keep mentioning "flex wing geometry" as far as i knew a flex wing is the billowy sail like wing structure on a hang glider, this fighter doesn't have variable geometry wings either, the hinge is just there so the wings can fold in for storage in tighter spaces. Attachment not found.
decided i will complete this design, then start on something very different. considering dropping the folding wings as doing so will allow for stronger wings, spaces in which the fighter is stored will need to be wider by 5.5-5.6 metres, but height requirements will be reduced(that and wings look awful folded in). i've been trying engines for the pods but cannot get them too look right, am now considering dropping boosters entirely BUT want to keep the pods so need something else to go up there, also wondering whether to radically alter pod's shape from a curved tube to a curved box like shape(really hard to describe, i'll probably post a picture later). as for total redesigns i have had some thoughts but they have all so far failed on one ground or another after some consideration. i think the real problem i'm facing here is working out what sort of general appearance i want in my verse, cool but plausible is what i'm trying for this but that gives very little indication of exact details. been trying to think of whether it would look appropriate flying alongside various ships from well known sci fi films but once again i need to have a good idea of what series has the best match for the sort of stuff i'm trying to create.
p.s. dropped in some landing thrusters below, that's the vtol problem well and truly sorted.
thanks, i know it still has design issues i must solve so it's not such plain sailing as i'd like it to be. i've got some(older) work on the 3d warehouse for download and some scattered around elsewhere(skp and obj mainly), see my blog, if you're interested.
any thougts on what else could be put in the pods, or on ways of means of setting up thrust vectored boosters such that the force vector goes THROUGH the CoM and the overall set up still looks cool.
i've been searching around for pictures but struggling to fins any that are visually acceptable in the context of the rest of this design.
I just worked put what one of my key problems with the craft is: i seem to be unable to construct nice transitions between the curvier and flatter parts. for example where the wing roots connect the slightly curved fuselage side to the curvy underwing bulge(contains the thrusters and gear) and the rather flat wing itself. also where i am now trying to fit the boosters i'm getting the smae issue. how do i deal with this. what is a good method to make these transition areas less visually repulsive. everything i do to fill them in has messy geometry, sharp triangles and forms shpaes that just shouldn't be there.
seems like despite having no clue what to do next just a few hours ago i am now almost finished. in the end i found how to deal with the wing root and booster nozzle framework.
with the boosters now complete, i decided on the thrust vectored idea in the end, all i need to do is drop some panel lines onto the booster pods and rear wings. after that just internal stuff...
(as copied from earelier in the thread) shield generators now completed internal structural details now completed
life support systems(to do) cockpit completed
control panel (to do)
waste recycling(to do)
air recycling(to do) air vents now completed various things pilot may need(fire extinguisher/ med kit/ etc) now completed
anyone got a good idea of what sort of thing could be the logo for the "British Space Force", it should have some strong old style british empire symbols in there mixed with modern looking sci fi touches. once i know what it should be i can mark it onto the tail fins.
will upload some pics as soon as i back up the file onto the new machine.
Okay, I hesitate posting on your work because of your habit of blowing people off but here goes...
The boosters need some general tweaking and cleaning up, but I really like what you've got going there so far. With that said, ditch the horrible wing things coming out of them, make them detachable and add a second set to the underside. The boosters would be best served as a space-only piece of hardware and it would also help the aerodynamics if it had the option of removing them. Making them like JATO packs would be cool, plus you could use them to supplement your other designs.
I know it's been brought up before, but trying to change the flight characteristics (as in AoA) just to accommodate a kooky setup with the boosters is asinine at best and completely moronic at worst (from an engineering standpoint).
Here's another idea to consider...
Ditch the thrusters on the main fuselage altogether aside from the ones for VTOL and mount them on the detachable booster pods. If you could set it up properly around the CG it should more than adequately be able to maneuver the ship in space. Also, when the primary mission profile calls for atmospheric flight you can ditch the boosters and all the weight of the maneuvering thrusters for a cleaner, sleeker craft.
Your main landing gear needs work. It's too plain, but also unrealistic looking with the dual struts.
These changes aren't drastic and require minimal effort to change or add. On top of that it would negate all of the issues you've been having that have already been addressed.
Do me a favor though. Don't insult me by saying you'll take it under consideration or use it in a later design. That's chastising and it's considered rude. Straight up say whether or not you like it.
ok "cleaning up the boosters" , is it an annoying geometric problem or do you think there is some design flaw(in the booster itself as opposed to it's location), what do you mean by clean up and how do you propose it is done?
ditching the "wing things" is not going to happen, sorry.
problem for me with underside boosters, is a lack of space below the fuselage(both from how high my craft's underside is above the ground and the fact i have a turret under there), that and i can't get them to look very good.
regarding thrusters putting them in those pods is a nice idea however wouldn't that be even worse for centre of mass issues if all the thrusting is now going on above the CoM. if it makes sense physically i will add some thrusters into those pods. although i would be hesitant to remove the existing thrusters so would probably just be adding extra thrusters.
you say landing gear is "too plain", now i do rather like my dual struts but what would you suggest i add?(i'm quiet interested in adding detail here)
sorry if you found me earlier replies to you insulting, i hope this one isn't so bad.
As far as the thrusters go, here's what I mean (and this is totally dependant on adding boosters to the underside as well)...
Use the B5 Starfury as an example for arrangement. If you place the boosters around the center of mass and add the thrusters in a manner similar to the Starfury any thrust will cause rotation about the center of mass. As far as not finding a configuration you like just mount them symmetrically. It seems as though you're treating this craft as if it will behave the same way during carrier operations in space as in atmospheric conditions. I'd suggest avoiding that line of thought. That's why I was recommending the boosters as addons for space flight and to remove them for atmospheric use.
Why are you against removing those wings? They do nothing for the design. As a matter of fact, aesthetically, they really hurt the design. Others have mentioned that you have a pretty solid design that just needs a little of this or a little of that (removing those hideous wings for example). Yet, you seem hell bent on keeping the ugliest and most pointless aspects of this craft. It's like you want the Brits to have the ugliest ships. Are you keen on be laughed out of every space battle?
The landing gear is too plain and with the strut setup it looks nonfunctional. I'm just going to point you to google for real world examples. I'm personally a fan of the F-18 landing gear.
When I said to cleanup the boosters I was referring to the modeling quality and tightening up and optimizing the mesh.
AoA = Angle of Attack is the angle at witch a lifting surface, aka a wing, meets the air coming at it. This is critical in an aircraft as exceeding the AoA can result in the wing stalling, losing lift. With spacecraft this is less of an issue. However, balancing thrust to make sure it is going through the CoM is. Thrust that is not directed through the CoM will cause the craft to rotate about the CoM and or tumble out of control.
SDF Macross had an inovative and napkin math corralating way of dealing with this. The standard VF-1 Valkyrie directed its thrust through fighters CoM. The Super Valkyrie added new thrusters to the dorsal surface. This arrangment by itself would ahve been a disaster. But since the VF-1 was a variable craft they also lowered the main engines and angled the thrust of the boosters to create a thrust vector along the fighter's nose. Perfect, no way, as not all of the booster thrust was usable. Cool as heck see, you bet.
Your arrangement, while similar does not account for CoM. If your main engines were somehow able to move down when the boosters were attached then you would have a similar fix, but that will not work with this design.
Also I agree with Juvat, ditch those wings/fins coming off the boosters, they make no sense at all.
been very busy with other stuff all week but have been thinking, might be best putting ftl stuff in those pods . i was however meaning to ask you, where should lights go in the craft? i added one to the forwrad landing gear strut, where else should there be some, both for ground maneuvering at night and when operating in combination with other craft(naturally lights would be turned off to improve stealth when required although the IR radiation from the engines/reactors is practically unmaskable hence true stealth an impossibility.). as for the rear upper wings, maybe it's just me but i rather like them(in my opinion it looks quite awful without them, or without some form of pod where the boosters are). unlike the off axis thrust they don't present a huge problem. i'll get back to work on it tomorrow and over the weekend.
thanks to both of you for some clear ideas, i wondered if with the vector from the boosters now pointing at 17 degrees below horizontal(hence through my CoM) i may be able to cure my AoA issue by firing some small thruster like equipment from below. i'll have to play around with some equations for the vectors but i should be able to make the resultant cancel out the up and down components(once again it would be at the cost of efficiency though, damn).
if anyone has other ideas for what could go in the pods, post them. chances are there'll be some suggestion amongst them that is ideal. ftl drive is a good idea but i'm not sure how it should look. obviously not like a direct rip off of star trek nacelles.
p.s. have been looking around some more for ideas. wondered if anyone could give me suggestions on the design of the control panel. i was thinking of including a panel a bit like an LCARS with a top view schematic of the fighter on it. different points could light up if a fault occured somewhere in the systems.
p.s.2. another thought that struck me was having the booster engines change function to be pure space engines(rather than pure space engines that can only operate for short time periods). this way atmospheric flight would be performed with the main engines whilst exoatmospheric flight would be done with both the primaries and secondaries. in space both the primaries and secondaries burn at all times this way the centre of mass could be somewhat higher. i now have the problem of thrust vector being under the CoM in atmo but aerodynamics could be used to negate this issue. thoughts?? thanks
rear wings(i now some of you hate them) are now rebuilt and nearly fully panelled. tail fins have been modified but as yet no new flag on them(thoughts?). a few days more work and she'll be complete.
she's still not quite finished but the exterior is more or less complete. i imported to blender for another test. the news is good! the model imports fine and isn't much bigger a blend file that the old hellhound. i aslso tested some dirt effects in the blender render, what do you thuink of these, how could i improve them? i was looking recently at a blend file of a viper fighter that i downloaded from blendswap, one the key elements to why it looks so good appears to be the red stripes(they also allow a really clear place to make scuff and scratch markings showing true metal colour beneath.) can anyone advise on what would be a good way to place some large stripes onto this model, if i got them to fit well with the design i think it could vastly improve the rendered images. the images posted here include the new rear wings(more or less same shape but improved tail fins plus panel lines), any thoughts on what sort of logo i should be displaying on the tail fins, it used to be the british flag but i want something a bit more unique as the markings for the british space force.
thanks
note that in the pics my cockpit is open because i forgot to close it before export and i had not separated my parts(as i would in final export) so it would be a nightmare to isolate and move into closed position. Attachment not found.
heck i wish this site had a multiple images uploader! Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. Attachment not found. hellhounddirty.jpg
definate improvement from what you were posting a few months ago - but you need to fix up all those smoothing errors like the odd shading on sharp corners - it'll look a lot cleaner.
definate improvement from what you were posting a few months ago - but you need to fix up all those smoothing errors like the odd shading on sharp corners - it'll look a lot cleaner.
thanks, some of those smoothing errors have no apparent cause but i'll alter the geometry round them to cure them. others are because some points are nonmanifold when all groups are together. in sketchup i a trying to make each separate part a manifold solid but for this test import i didn't bother to separate them all and at present not everything in the skp file is manifold. i guess the key problems you're referring to are the panels on the foreplane part of the wings and the inboard side of the primary engine intakes, i'll sort them after other modelling is complete. hard part with this is until i imported to blender i couldn't see those issues so i didn't realise that error until now. i'll post more work as soon as i get a chance(generally weekends nowadays). as for stripes, dirt efefcts or tail plane logo have you any thoughts?
thanks
p.s. with your brilliant modelling and design talent would you judge this to a more "hard" scifi design than my older stuff, is my new hellhound the sort of design you could imagine cropping up in a scifi series(if so which one)?
would you judge this to a more "hard" scifi design than my older stuff,
I already said it was an improvement, I think everyone has a slightly different opinion of what constitutes hard scifi, what existing hard sci-fi would you compare your work to?
is my new hellhound the sort of design you could imagine cropping up in a scifi series(if so which one)?
hmmm, Those last two are such limiting questions I nearly didn't bother answering, I feel they're written to channel a certain type of feedback. I don't blame you though, I think you've been ripped apart quite a bit here, and not all fairly.
If you're lucky enough to work on a series of any sort then most likely you'll be doing what someone else tells you to do, or building something to meet specific requirements, the chances of getting your pre-built model into the show are slim to nothing. I'll tell you what, if I make a series of my own, I'll put this as a background ship somewhere and credit you as a modeller, but i'm not paying for it.;)
More general feedback, for a beginners model its perfectly fine but I think there's a real heavy archaic-ness to it - which is kinda how i feel about my old Columbia class carrier, its a bit too big, in the wrong way, and a bit old fashioned and over-complicated looking, I feel you should try and resolve that in your next attempt (with a fresh, new, cleaner design). I could be far more specific but i'm not sure if it's at all what you want to hear, I think you're the kind of person who just likes to work things out on their own.
At the end of the day, as long as you like it, thats what really matters, right?
in that final question i wasn't trying to encourage buyers or anything(i don't know if i'll sell this one at all), nor was i wishing to say it should be in a particular series(i'd far prefer to just use it for my own sci fi and such, where i can make the plot decisions etc) i was merely asking if it looked like that of quality of design. sometimes it's nice to know if stuff is good enough to be comparable to what you've already seen. my plan for the next design was a KKS(kinetic kill ship) my thoughts were for a four engined design with the engines arranged at the tips of some vertical supports attached to some horizontal semi wing like structures. along these "wings" ,it's to be an exoatmospheric craft only so they're just supports with heat radiators on them, i was intending to place the heavy missiles it carries. my plan is that there will be some small ramjets in the middle for long range cruises, then the tip engines would be some kind of antimatter system for high acceleration and deltaV "dives" towards enemy capital ships.
thanks for the answers.
i dont get why you insist on giving fighter style craft long range flight capabilitys... fighters are not ment for that
The F-22 Raptor has
Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 miles, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks thats with external mounted fuel tanks so not very far and you insist on giving your fighters week long missions?
i was merely asking if it looked like that of quality of design. sometimes it's nice to know if stuff is good enough to be comparable to what you've already seen.
....Is a much better question. You can answer this yourself, just take a good objective look at your model and really step back and compare it to something from BSG, Star Wars etc.. see if you can find wireframes and see how a professional really does it.
my plan for the next design was a KKS(kinetic kill ship) my thoughts were for a four engined design with the engines arranged at the tips of some vertical supports attached to some horizontal semi wing like structures. along these "wings" ,it's to be an exoatmospheric craft only so they're just supports with heat radiators on them, i was intending to place the heavy missiles it carries. my plan is that there will be some small ramjets in the middle for long range cruises, then the tip engines would be some kind of antimatter system for high acceleration and deltaV "dives" towards enemy capital ships.
thanks for the answers.
Sounds good, make some sketches first and show them!
dropped some extra edges into the wing tips, this should prevent that weird shading when i import to blender. but i won't know if it's worked until the next import test i do. also added intake warning markings around the intakes of the secondary engines, and added a flag to the tail(in the end i gave up trying to find a full alternative logo and just modified the british flag to make it fit better into the space where i added it.). have still not found a good arrangement of stripes to add, damn!
p.s. colbs: in deep space range is technically irrelevant, what counts is delta V. all starships you can imagine have infinite range, it's just a matter of how long you're willing to wait to get to your destination. bussard ramjets give me infinite specific impulse as i don't need to carry fuel(though there is a system fitted where hydrogen is collected into tanks during cruises where no power is needed then can be injected into engines for an extra boost when larger than normal accelerations are required. ramjets max out on speed somewhere, current theory suggests this happens somewhere between 15 and 85 percent of lightspeed(not a very precise prediction lol), as at a certain speed the gas entering the engine is causing a backward force of equal magnitude to the forward force from the hot plasma pumped out of the rear. the KKS will have the antimatter engines because with a big enough fuel tank it can get closer to the speed of light hence taking advantage of the mass increase due to speed and allowing for an obscenely high momentum in the impacting projectile. almost every ship is my verse has ramjets, or else they would find themselves having to carry huge masses of propellant for any voyage involving several significant velocity changes. the KKS will carry enough fuel for accelerating up to a very high proportion of c and slowing back to zero 3 times, i'll work out exactly how this is with tsiolkovsky's equation once is start designing the KKS.
and how are you going to gather the hdrogen in the vast gaps inbetween the stars for sucha small craft you couldnt collect enough to go star to star picking up the hdrogen it gives off and the reserve tanks would not get you that far
and how are you going to gather the hdrogen in the vast gaps inbetween the stars for sucha small craft you couldnt collect enough to go star to star picking up the hdrogen it gives off and the reserve tanks would not get you that far
that, i am afraid is one of my handwavium points. i restricted myself to 5 pieces of handwavium and that is second on the list. sorry about that, somehow by an unexplained method the intake can collect enough hydrogen. that's all there is to it.
Posts
1) Gull-wing the wings (see the Vought F4U Corsair).
2) Lengthen the main fuselage forward of the wing/engine roots.
3) Blend the main engines deeper into the fuselage (see the Harrier, and think of the intakes as two separate engines).
4) OR pull the main engines a bit further out and have them taper into the fuselage towards the back (see the F-101 Voodoo).
5) OR pull the main engines a bit further out and have them run the length of the main fuselage (see the Vulcan bomber).
6) Lengthen the cockpit for a second crewman
7) OR widen it for a side-by-side cockpit and add room behind for a "sleep cell" if you want to keep the long duration missions.
8) Move the forward-swept parts of the wings outwards from the fuselage, probably all the way to the tips.
9) OR blend the entire wing structure into a sort of inverted crescent shape (think more curves than angles)
10) Replace the flat ventral gun turret with a one or more dorsal/ventral hybrid turrets just outside the engine/fuselage wing root
11) OR replace the ventral gun turret with fixed, forward bore weapons
12) OR rebuild the main fuselage around a high-capacity weapon (think a more fighter-y A-10)
13) Replace the two dorsal engines with a quad over/under "detachable thrust pack"
14) OR ditch the boosters entirely
15) Provide some external modeling on the fuselage for the FTL drive
Just a few ideas to toss around. But, and this is really key, DON'T just take the existing model apart and tweak it. Really try to start with the IDEA behind it and build from scratch. Altering the existing model sounds easier to me (but, then I don't model) but I imagine it will also result in a hugely inefficient build. Experienced guys (and gals) chime in on this one.
p.s. move engines outwards as on the voodoo? considering the current configuration of the fighter they would need to move inwards to do this.
p.s.2 another thought, angling the nozzles of the boosters slightly up could remove the CoM problem. it would mean that when using boosters the fighter flew along a vector angled down rather than straight out of the nose but it would allow the thrust vector to point directly through the CoM hence preventing a torques that would cause a spin.
Just angling the booster exhaust probably won't work ... and, again it's an unnecessarily complicated fix. After all, now you're talking about off-vector thrust used to compensate for CoM issues. Which means that a portion of the thrust the boosters are designed to produce is being used inefficiently. Remember the mantra "This is a warship. Warships waste nothing." If the system isn't designed to run at 100% they'll come up with something else.
By comparing to the Voodoo I meant make them wider (possibly even angular to fit with the wing design).
Keep thinking up new thinks.
to clarify when i talked about changing direction of the booster i meant this
as it's in space it wouldn't really matter if for some maneuvres it accelerated in a direction that was not nose first, if both the primaries and boosters were used then the vector would be somewhere between the two vectors shown here and some thrust would be along a component at 90 degrees to that vector(hence wasted). if you only fire one set of engines at a time, no problems?
hellhound thrust.jpg
apologies for the rushed diagram
Again, you're wedded to those funky boosters and more power to ya. But, they're NOT practical in a warship. You don't add something to a combat vessel that makes using it HARDER. Sure, the extra speed is nice, but if I'm constantly having to adjust my vector, trim the etheric rudder, feather the main engines, or whatever handwavium I have to do to get the guns on target (or just get the vector aligned with the carrier for landing) what's the point?
Seriously, SF, take a step back from this thing and THINK about what you're asking it to do. Everything you've done since you began designing it is a rationalization to allow you to keep the format/design without compensating for what it IS. Go back to my long post from a couple days ago ... toss the thing.
Keep the basic principles:
1) Long-ranged space fighter with trans-atmospheric capability
- Requires streamlining, intakes, maybe even fins
2) Flex-wing geometry
- Part of the streamlining, possibly overcoming need for vertical atmospheric stabilizers
- Allows for Rule of Cool forward-swept design
3) Twin main engines external to fuselage
Then consider modifying the original design along the lines of my other suggestions. Several I really recommend are
a) Taper the engines towards the back (a reverse-V with the apex at the tail - Think F/A-18 Hornet or F-5 Tiger)
b) Gull-wing at either the root or the engine joints
c) Provide wing-mounted hard points for external ordnance (missiles, gun pods, decoys, etc)
- Don't forget something center-of-mass aligned for the fuselage as the integral weapon (laser, mass driver, Atomic Napalm Neutralizer ... set to Deep Fat Fry, of course!!)
d) Lengthen the central fuselage beyond the forward sweep of the flex-wings
- This way the pilot doesn't have to look THROUGH the wing to see port/starboard
- Of course, if the pilot has a virtual cockpit (ala later versions of Macross, esp. Macross Zero) then that matters less.
e) Maybe provide space for a second crewman and possibly a tiny "berth" for long-duration missions (basically a life-support coffin behind the cockpit)
f) TOSS the boosters out from the main design. Build the thing without them. THEN, once done, build a second bit which is a strap-on pack with four boosters (two high, two low) that fits AROUND the central-aft fuselage (allowing the main engines' thrust to peek between the array) or, for that matter, that appends to the ends of the flex-wings (think where the X-Wing's lasers are, then replace those with over/under engines!!). This latter arrangement would avoid the "how does it take off/land with those things" problem IF the wings are gulled.
g) Toss the idea of sealed/extendable RCS thrusters with bolognium doors and impossibilium hinges and hydraulics. Instead, simply put recessed RCS nozzles in appropriate places (especially considering leverage) that take into account CoM.
Then play with the hull-form, weapons, and some sort of appropriate greeble for the FTL. You might even consider making the FTL part of the hull-matrix and rather than making some sort of emitter, adjust the hull panels to take into account the FTL Matrix Web Network Generators (tm) or whatever.
...
Seriously, SF, your skills have improved since you started here. But, you continue to try to justify a failed design. Keep the CONCEPTUAL elements of it that you like ... but ditch the actual model and start fresh. If nothing else, you'll be able to build the same basic shapes far more efficiently this time around (saving the need to go back and optimize the mesh).
p.s. sanderlee: you keep mentioning "flex wing geometry" as far as i knew a flex wing is the billowy sail like wing structure on a hang glider, this fighter doesn't have variable geometry wings either, the hinge is just there so the wings can fold in for storage in tighter spaces. Attachment not found.
p.s. dropped in some landing thrusters below, that's the vtol problem well and truly sorted.
There are a lot of technical detals in this thread. (My english is not good so i did not follow but i am trying).
i've been searching around for pictures but struggling to fins any that are visually acceptable in the context of the rest of this design.
with the boosters now complete, i decided on the thrust vectored idea in the end, all i need to do is drop some panel lines onto the booster pods and rear wings. after that just internal stuff...
(as copied from earelier in the thread)
shield generators now completed
internal structural details now completed
life support systems(to do)
cockpit completed
control panel (to do)
waste recycling(to do)
air recycling(to do)
air vents now completed
various things pilot may need(fire extinguisher/ med kit/ etc) now completed
anyone got a good idea of what sort of thing could be the logo for the "British Space Force", it should have some strong old style british empire symbols in there mixed with modern looking sci fi touches. once i know what it should be i can mark it onto the tail fins.
will upload some pics as soon as i back up the file onto the new machine.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
The boosters need some general tweaking and cleaning up, but I really like what you've got going there so far. With that said, ditch the horrible wing things coming out of them, make them detachable and add a second set to the underside. The boosters would be best served as a space-only piece of hardware and it would also help the aerodynamics if it had the option of removing them. Making them like JATO packs would be cool, plus you could use them to supplement your other designs.
I know it's been brought up before, but trying to change the flight characteristics (as in AoA) just to accommodate a kooky setup with the boosters is asinine at best and completely moronic at worst (from an engineering standpoint).
Here's another idea to consider...
Ditch the thrusters on the main fuselage altogether aside from the ones for VTOL and mount them on the detachable booster pods. If you could set it up properly around the CG it should more than adequately be able to maneuver the ship in space. Also, when the primary mission profile calls for atmospheric flight you can ditch the boosters and all the weight of the maneuvering thrusters for a cleaner, sleeker craft.
Your main landing gear needs work. It's too plain, but also unrealistic looking with the dual struts.
These changes aren't drastic and require minimal effort to change or add. On top of that it would negate all of the issues you've been having that have already been addressed.
Do me a favor though. Don't insult me by saying you'll take it under consideration or use it in a later design. That's chastising and it's considered rude. Straight up say whether or not you like it.
ditching the "wing things" is not going to happen, sorry.
problem for me with underside boosters, is a lack of space below the fuselage(both from how high my craft's underside is above the ground and the fact i have a turret under there), that and i can't get them to look very good.
regarding thrusters putting them in those pods is a nice idea however wouldn't that be even worse for centre of mass issues if all the thrusting is now going on above the CoM. if it makes sense physically i will add some thrusters into those pods. although i would be hesitant to remove the existing thrusters so would probably just be adding extra thrusters.
you say landing gear is "too plain", now i do rather like my dual struts but what would you suggest i add?(i'm quiet interested in adding detail here)
sorry if you found me earlier replies to you insulting, i hope this one isn't so bad.
p.s. AoA is not a term i recognise, what is it?
Use the B5 Starfury as an example for arrangement. If you place the boosters around the center of mass and add the thrusters in a manner similar to the Starfury any thrust will cause rotation about the center of mass. As far as not finding a configuration you like just mount them symmetrically. It seems as though you're treating this craft as if it will behave the same way during carrier operations in space as in atmospheric conditions. I'd suggest avoiding that line of thought. That's why I was recommending the boosters as addons for space flight and to remove them for atmospheric use.
Why are you against removing those wings? They do nothing for the design. As a matter of fact, aesthetically, they really hurt the design. Others have mentioned that you have a pretty solid design that just needs a little of this or a little of that (removing those hideous wings for example). Yet, you seem hell bent on keeping the ugliest and most pointless aspects of this craft. It's like you want the Brits to have the ugliest ships. Are you keen on be laughed out of every space battle?
The landing gear is too plain and with the strut setup it looks nonfunctional. I'm just going to point you to google for real world examples. I'm personally a fan of the F-18 landing gear.
When I said to cleanup the boosters I was referring to the modeling quality and tightening up and optimizing the mesh.
AoA = angle of attack.
SDF Macross had an inovative and napkin math corralating way of dealing with this. The standard VF-1 Valkyrie directed its thrust through fighters CoM. The Super Valkyrie added new thrusters to the dorsal surface. This arrangment by itself would ahve been a disaster. But since the VF-1 was a variable craft they also lowered the main engines and angled the thrust of the boosters to create a thrust vector along the fighter's nose. Perfect, no way, as not all of the booster thrust was usable. Cool as heck see, you bet.
Your arrangement, while similar does not account for CoM. If your main engines were somehow able to move down when the boosters were attached then you would have a similar fix, but that will not work with this design.
Also I agree with Juvat, ditch those wings/fins coming off the boosters, they make no sense at all.
thanks to both of you for some clear ideas, i wondered if with the vector from the boosters now pointing at 17 degrees below horizontal(hence through my CoM) i may be able to cure my AoA issue by firing some small thruster like equipment from below. i'll have to play around with some equations for the vectors but i should be able to make the resultant cancel out the up and down components(once again it would be at the cost of efficiency though, damn).
if anyone has other ideas for what could go in the pods, post them. chances are there'll be some suggestion amongst them that is ideal. ftl drive is a good idea but i'm not sure how it should look. obviously not like a direct rip off of star trek nacelles.
p.s. have been looking around some more for ideas. wondered if anyone could give me suggestions on the design of the control panel. i was thinking of including a panel a bit like an LCARS with a top view schematic of the fighter on it. different points could light up if a fault occured somewhere in the systems.
p.s.2. another thought that struck me was having the booster engines change function to be pure space engines(rather than pure space engines that can only operate for short time periods). this way atmospheric flight would be performed with the main engines whilst exoatmospheric flight would be done with both the primaries and secondaries. in space both the primaries and secondaries burn at all times this way the centre of mass could be somewhat higher. i now have the problem of thrust vector being under the CoM in atmo but aerodynamics could be used to negate this issue. thoughts?? thanks
thanks
note that in the pics my cockpit is open because i forgot to close it before export and i had not separated my parts(as i would in final export) so it would be a nightmare to isolate and move into closed position.
Attachment not found.
heck i wish this site had a multiple images uploader!
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
hellhounddirty.jpg
thanks
p.s. with your brilliant modelling and design talent would you judge this to a more "hard" scifi design than my older stuff, is my new hellhound the sort of design you could imagine cropping up in a scifi series(if so which one)?
I told you you would have problems ages ago;)
reference real stuff, go bananas, if it doesn't work, change it.
I already said it was an improvement, I think everyone has a slightly different opinion of what constitutes hard scifi, what existing hard sci-fi would you compare your work to?
hmmm, Those last two are such limiting questions I nearly didn't bother answering, I feel they're written to channel a certain type of feedback. I don't blame you though, I think you've been ripped apart quite a bit here, and not all fairly.
If you're lucky enough to work on a series of any sort then most likely you'll be doing what someone else tells you to do, or building something to meet specific requirements, the chances of getting your pre-built model into the show are slim to nothing. I'll tell you what, if I make a series of my own, I'll put this as a background ship somewhere and credit you as a modeller, but i'm not paying for it.;)
More general feedback, for a beginners model its perfectly fine but I think there's a real heavy archaic-ness to it - which is kinda how i feel about my old Columbia class carrier, its a bit too big, in the wrong way, and a bit old fashioned and over-complicated looking, I feel you should try and resolve that in your next attempt (with a fresh, new, cleaner design). I could be far more specific but i'm not sure if it's at all what you want to hear, I think you're the kind of person who just likes to work things out on their own.
At the end of the day, as long as you like it, thats what really matters, right?
thanks for the answers.
The F-22 Raptor has
Range: >1,600 nmi (1,840 miles, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks thats with external mounted fuel tanks so not very far and you insist on giving your fighters week long missions?
Thats not what I meant - such questions lead critique into a specific path.
....Is a much better question. You can answer this yourself, just take a good objective look at your model and really step back and compare it to something from BSG, Star Wars etc.. see if you can find wireframes and see how a professional really does it.
Sounds good, make some sketches first and show them!
dropped some extra edges into the wing tips, this should prevent that weird shading when i import to blender. but i won't know if it's worked until the next import test i do. also added intake warning markings around the intakes of the secondary engines, and added a flag to the tail(in the end i gave up trying to find a full alternative logo and just modified the british flag to make it fit better into the space where i added it.). have still not found a good arrangement of stripes to add, damn!
p.s. colbs: in deep space range is technically irrelevant, what counts is delta V. all starships you can imagine have infinite range, it's just a matter of how long you're willing to wait to get to your destination. bussard ramjets give me infinite specific impulse as i don't need to carry fuel(though there is a system fitted where hydrogen is collected into tanks during cruises where no power is needed then can be injected into engines for an extra boost when larger than normal accelerations are required. ramjets max out on speed somewhere, current theory suggests this happens somewhere between 15 and 85 percent of lightspeed(not a very precise prediction lol), as at a certain speed the gas entering the engine is causing a backward force of equal magnitude to the forward force from the hot plasma pumped out of the rear. the KKS will have the antimatter engines because with a big enough fuel tank it can get closer to the speed of light hence taking advantage of the mass increase due to speed and allowing for an obscenely high momentum in the impacting projectile. almost every ship is my verse has ramjets, or else they would find themselves having to carry huge masses of propellant for any voyage involving several significant velocity changes. the KKS will carry enough fuel for accelerating up to a very high proportion of c and slowing back to zero 3 times, i'll work out exactly how this is with tsiolkovsky's equation once is start designing the KKS.
that, i am afraid is one of my handwavium points. i restricted myself to 5 pieces of handwavium and that is second on the list. sorry about that, somehow by an unexplained method the intake can collect enough hydrogen. that's all there is to it.