Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
How do we explain...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timo: [QB] Whatever the origins of the Yeager, she's one heck of a warhorse. If we take the original torpedo tubes of the Maquis design to still be torpedo tubes, they are of an impressive caliber. And the ship still has the standard two aft tubes of the Intrepid. And what about those wing cannon, which the model still retains (although rather dangerously close to the nacelles)? The design doesn't look at all objectionable to me, as long as I don't remind myself that the aft half looks like an enlarged Maquis ship hull. In "reality", there probably is no such familial relationship. I'm sure those pylons are movable, BTW. And this puppy can land just as nicely as an Intrepid can. And the aft-quarter view shows how some of the former aft-facing "warp grilles" have been painted over with beige, making them look not unlike shuttlebay doors - so yes, I think the Yeager does have at least two shuttlebays. Currently, I like the Yeager and the 3-naceller a lot, and the Raging Queen and the Constitution-kitbash with reservations. The Centaur... Umm, I actually am quite fond of that fancy new shuttlebay/bridge arrangement, although I suspect the "bay" could be taken to be a deflector dish as well... Only the Elkins seems truly irredeemable IMHO. Timo Saloniemi [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3