Does anyone know where I can get some accurate KBoP schematics? The construction plans for the shooting model (or model kit) would be great.
I swear, this is the most complex ship exterior in Trek.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
I know where you can get some inaccurate ones.
Well, I shouldn't say that. I can't vouch one way or another.
Try this link: http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php. Plenty of schematics and blueprints here to leaf through. Mostly Starfleet but a fair representation of Klingon ships also.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'll go out on a limb and admit I hate the KBOP.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Meh its okay, not great, but okay. Not a huge fan of the Defiant though. I mean the weapons are cool, but I always felt the concept art version looked better.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
I always thought the KBOP was one of the best starship designs I'd seen, in fact it was a little too swoopy and cool for Trek and more Star Wars in feel. As for the Defiant, I'm no huge fan of the on-screen version but it's magnitudes better than the concept version.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well the Defiant may not be the prettiest ship, but it sure is the tastiest. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It looks seriously "Star Wars" with those silly guns on the wingtips- why it needs wings is anyone's guess- certainly not for lift during atmospheric flight.
Most overused ship ever.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I BoP is probably the only Klingon ship that look good from just about any angle. The Vor'cha, K'tinga/D7 and Neg'var all have one or two good angles but other than that they tend to loose their character. To me that's what separates a good design from a great one.
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
The ship was used so much (with nonsense explanations) because it a) looks very cool, and b) because the model is very good. You dont throw away something like that after using it once, you stomp it into the ground at every opportunity.
The wings are there because they're cool, nothing more. If function ruled then all the ships in Trek would be big cylinders, spheres or cubes, to get all the volume you need for the smallest material used. They'd look like a lot of Masao's fleet museum stuff, boilers in space!
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Axeman 3D: The wings are there because they're cool, nothing more. If function ruled then all the ships in Trek would be big cylinders, spheres or cubes, to get all the volume you need for the smallest material used. They'd look like a lot of Masao's fleet museum stuff, boilers in space!
Err... Thanks!
BOILERS! In SPAAAAAACE!
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Nicely painted boilers, I'm sure everyone agrees. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Don't take that Masao! Go knock his teeth down his throat!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Axeman 3D: The ship was used so much (with nonsense explanations) because it a) looks very cool, and b) because the model is very good. You dont throw away something like that after using it once, you stomp it into the ground at every opportunity.
(cough) Ambassador (cough)
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
The model was certainly designed with wings because they look cool. But if you were to try to come up with some useful function, you could say that they're used to dissipate excess heat during combat. That's the primary explanation for the "S-foils" seen on various Star Wars fighters.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I thought the S-Foils just expanded the field of fire- that's certainly the case with the B-Wing.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
The expanded field of fire seems to be listed as a primary reason for the S-foil on the X-Wing and B-Wing. However, the Episode III cross-sections book lists heat dissipation as the primary purpose for the ARC-170, V-Wing, and Eta-2 Jedi starfighter S-foils. None of these ships increase their field of fire by opening their S-foils.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
X-Wings, B-Wings, Klingon BoPs, it's all just done for style and if the various in-universe explanations seam contrived, it's because they are.
I'm sure if you thought hard enough you could come up with a dozen or so vaguely plausible explanations from increased manoeuvrability by altering the relative position of the RCS quads to increased weapons accuracy by widening the distance between the emitters and/or targeting sensors. Thing is because none of these ships were designed with anything but style in mind, no straight scientific explanation will ever ring totally true.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Well if we're on the subject of spacecraft with wings, anyone remember the Lost in Space 'Bubble' Fighters? Not only was thing one big wing, the cockpit was pretty much a gyroscope. Explain that Einstein.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Was there anything in that movie that made any sense?
But I still watch it from time to time. Cool production design.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fellow modeler Alfred Wong made a fantastic kit of those bubble fighters.
The movable "wing" might help with targeting but the glass bubble is a terrible design. At least you can see out of it, unlike the TIE fighter.
The LIS movie did indeed have cool production designs- I occasionally watch it just to marvel at how good it looks when compared to the original, god awful, 1960's television show. I still cant wrap my mind around what the earth ship Proteus was supposed to look like before the spider tingies got ahold of it.
Zefram, all the examples listed in the cross-sections book are old designs by Star Wars- maybe they fixed their heat problems- they sure managed to make hyperdrives smaller (judging by the ISD not having that giant hyperdrive sticking out the back like the Republic version and fighters not needing those rings).
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Was there anything in that movie that made any sense?
But I still watch it from time to time. Cool production design.
I liked it. Thought it would have made a good series, too. Better than the original.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think they made a pilot a few years back, though it obviously never got picked up. In fact, if I recall the left-over sets from that production were the basis for the Pegasus sets used on Galactica. I wonder if that pilot ever saw the light of day, these things do occasionally leak out on the net.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Zefram, all the examples listed in the cross-sections book are old designs by Star Wars- maybe they fixed their heat problems- they sure managed to make hyperdrives smaller (judging by the ISD not having that giant hyperdrive sticking out the back like the Republic version and fighters not needing those rings).
One of my biggest complaints about Star Wars is the pace of technological development. Each starship or starfighter class is supposedly an improvement on the last design. But how much technological advancement could you expect over a twenty year time span in a culture that has had faster-than-light space travel for thousands of years? You would think that technology would tend to plateau with the occasional quantum leap every few generations.
As in-universe explanations go, the use of S-foils or large BOP-like wings for heat dissipation is actually a pretty good one. The only way to increase radiative heat transfer from an object in a vacuum is to either increase its temperature or to increase its surface area.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I wonder if that pilot ever saw the light of day, these things do occasionally leak out on the net.
I've seen parts of it recently, so yes, it has leaked out. You just have to be able to find it.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Heat dissipation makes sense except in the case of the Klingon BoP. Well, I take that back, the heat dissipation feature still makes sense, it just doesn't make sense why the wings move. What matters if the wings are up or down?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Well, the wings need to go up to land. But on the model there is a lot of hull that moves in order to accomplish this.
It may be that the wings in their up position cover the area of the hull involved in heat disspersal.
The wings are there at all to give the guns a good wide angle. And the wings look cool and scary too(which seems to be an important part of Klingon designs).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Surely the heat dissipation on a KBop happens in that red and yellow glowing thing on the tail, not the wings.
I think we had a thread on this a few years back and IIRC we found that TNG aside, the BoP has consistently been shown to drop the wings to attack, raise to two slightly different mid positions to cruise and of course all the way up to land. So whatever difference the wings make, their positions are most likely determined by a balancing act between tactical and navigational advantage. So targeting accuracy and RCS redistribution seams to be the most logical variables, given the data.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Surely the heat dissipation on a KBop happens in that red and yellow glowing thing on the tail, not the wings.
I've always thought that was the case.
the only solidly explained reason is the up for landing position. Perhaps there is no real reason for the other two. Secretly, I think the guys that make BoPs just put a button on the bridge marked "Land/Cruise/Attack" instead of one that says "Wings up/flat/down".
Posted by Axeman 3D (Member # 1050) on :
Maybe it's to do with shaping the warp field or in creasing manouverability at certain stages of flight? Maybe it's because it looks cool and they know fanboys will fill in the gaps themselves?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
It wouldn't be totally out of the realms of possibility if a major part of the design ethos is for it's psychological impact. Perhaps the Klingons just consider the wings down look to be more menacing. Compared to say Federation designs, the Klingons (and the Romulans for that matter) seam just as concerned with their own sense of aesthetics as with purely practical considerations when designing anything from PADDs to uniforms to starships. Of course the Feds to have a sense of aesthetics, but it's usually a secondary consideration.
[ March 17, 2009, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zefram:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Zefram, all the examples listed in the cross-sections book are old designs by Star Wars- maybe they fixed their heat problems- they sure managed to make hyperdrives smaller (judging by the ISD not having that giant hyperdrive sticking out the back like the Republic version and fighters not needing those rings).
One of my biggest complaints about Star Wars is the pace of technological development. Each starship or starfighter class is supposedly an improvement on the last design. But how much technological advancement could you expect over a twenty year time span in a culture that has had faster-than-light space travel for thousands of years? You would think that technology would tend to plateau with the occasional quantum leap every few generations.
As in-universe explanations go, the use of S-foils or large BOP-like wings for heat dissipation is actually a pretty good one. The only way to increase radiative heat transfer from an object in a vacuum is to either increase its temperature or to increase its surface area.
As to Star Wars, yeah, the plateau in tech is pretty hard to fathom, unless the invention/ widespread implementation of Droids was relativly new thing before Ep I. (this kills all non-canon stories and video games like KOTOR though as thay use tech at least as advanced as the Empire's- even a thousand years prior!).
It could be that older ships required very large crews to man and that "fighters" were much larger than what we're used to due to their command/control needs and large hyperdrives. It would also explain how the droid makers became such a political power.
Also consider that nothing advances technology like a war- all sides rush prototypes into production, make refinments and then rush those into production too in an attempt to out-tech the enemy.
I dont buy the heat-dissipation angle on the KBOP- I'd rather it had something to do with cloaking the ship than that. A larger surface area needed to cloak would also explain most Romulan designs having all that "wing" area.
Rev, we did indeed bat the theory of "wings down to fire" on the KBOP but we disproved it: all the (ug) "larger" versions attack wings-up at least. The same threar showed that the wings can be down while in an atmosphere (during the KBOP raid on that Dominion base).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Rev, we did indeed bat the theory of "wings down to fire" on the KBOP but we disproved it: all the (ug) "larger" versions attack wings-up at least. The same threar showed that the wings can be down while in an atmosphere (during the KBOP raid on that Dominion base).
Well I did say "aside from TNG" which is where all of those HUGE bops showed up. Even so, they were meant to be a different class (however dumb that may be) so the same rules need not apply.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
The thing I've never got with X/B-Wings and the like is that the explanations all seem to point out the advantages of opening the S-foils, such as increased fire coverage and heat disappation, but they never mention why they'd have them shut in the first place.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Maybe a smaller "bubble" for Hyperspace? That's kinda mixing genres there but some treknobable could apply.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I wouldn't leave too much sleep over the science involved in Star Wars, at it's best it's 90% style anyway. Having said that, I dare say the ships in question would be rather difficult to land if the strike foils were always deployed.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
If ease of landing was a consideration then the B-Wing should never have got off the drawing board.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
With the foils retracted it's just a large flat wing shape, making it stable is just a matter of weight distribution.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But aerodynamic is not in the cards in any way.
The B-Wing may fold up for nothing more than storage space or possibly there is some launch rail mechanism that kicks them out that way and they "unfold" in space to be fully operational.
Kinds reminds me of the fighters from Stargate Atlantis (sans extra wing, of course).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Actually, I think the V-19 only appeared on the Clone Wars cartoons (both the animated and CGI ones). I do like the V-wing fighter. It looks compact yet sturdy.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Who said anything about aerodynamics?
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The B-Wing may fold up for nothing more than storage space or possibly there is some launch rail mechanism that kicks them out that way and they "unfold" in space to be fully operational.
Well, according to the X-Wing video game produced by LucasArts, the B-Wing would launch from and land on it's side, as this video demonstrates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyazHq_MHAY&feature=related Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
yeah but it just looks so damn unlikely- you'd need a large, very level piece of ground to land on every time.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Or, you know, a hanger deck?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, but it you have a hangar deck, why need landing gear at all- they look tailor-made to be stored on racks of some sort- easier maintenence that way too....the gear is something thought up for the toy, then applied somehow to the design.
Of course, it's all silly: in space repairs would be better served in zero-G.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well a big flat metal square is a nice universal place to land, so I imagine most craft are designed with that in mind. Otherwise you'll be retrofitting your landing bays every time a new fighter comes into use. Of course they still could use specialised racks like TIE Fighters, especially on smaller dedicated motherships where internal space is an issue, or in specialised maintenance bays but they shouldn't be limited to that mode of storage.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)