posted
Hey everyone, I've got a few questions about the impluse systems on a fighter style shuttle that I'm developing.
Basically there is three sections in the system.
1) Standard position engines. (off the Type 9/12{class 2} or Janeway's Endgame shuttle). One change that I'd like to do is make output exhaust from the top and bottom of the unit. The canon version only has output from the top.
2) impulse engines mounted at rear of warp nacelle (Aeroshuttle style). As in the aeroshuttle these two (one per nacelle) engines share power and fuel with the warp engines. This limites the drain on the fuel of engine groups 1 and 3.
3) Impusle boost thrusters (delta flyer hatch boosters). consealed within the hull only used in emergency situations. Share fuel supply with engine group 1.
Now in an attempt to not make not so uber-style. I came up a little theory. Group 1 engines are the main engines. Group 2 is only used in space, only extreme sitiation would group 2 be used in atmosperic flight. Group 3 is a major drain on fuel and power and can only be fired twice before needing repairs from an engineering team at the 'mother ship' or station/base.
the design is ment to be very fast and agile. the desgin is to be used in plantary ingagments/ marine ground force cover/ naval patrol/ 'mother ship and station base defense and plantary defence and patrol. With perforce reviews by pilots as a possiblity of be used as main fighter for Starfleet and other planery defence organizations.
Everyones thoughts would be greatly appreciated. thanks.
IP: Logged
posted
The triple impulse system seems to indicate that these fighters are optimized for high-acceleration sublight combat. Now, especially with small craft, "optimizing" should be synonymous with "compromising"... So I'd like to suggest the following.
1) Using the warp nacelle impulse engines probably should mean deactivating the warp drive completely. The fighter responds to a threat by warping in, then shutting down warp drive, channeling all its power to Group 2 engines, and plunging into battle at insanely high sublight acceleration. The ferocity of the attack compensates for the inability to warp in pursuit of the enemy; the opponent simply doesn't have time to escape into warp.
2) Only the Group 1 engines appear useful for maneuvering; the others are more for forward thrust. Perhaps you should take special care in placing the Group 1 engines so that they can vector their thrust in every direction, including forward. They could even be *outboard* of the warp nacelles, rather than inboard as in Type 12 or Intrepid.
3) Impulse fighting suggests short ranges and short engagements. The weapon suite should reflect that. No point in embarking long range torpedoes or "pursuit weapons"; instead, something that's deadly at short ranges, and perhaps fixed forward since the craft itself is so agile. Whopping big pulse phasers would be my suggestion.
4) I'd drop the "patrol" aspect of the mission, since this doesn't sound like a high endurance type. I'd also downplay the warp propulsion. Performance specs should reflect the emphasis on impulse fighting, so the craft shouldn't be much faster than a typical small shuttle (warp 2 or so, tops, and that with low endurance).
5) DS9 "The Siege" suggests that sub-impulse fighters are evenly matched with impulse fighters when within an atmosphere. This probably means that impulse engines don't work all that well within atmospheres. So the "planetary" aspect of the mission here probably can't make use of Group 3 engines, and even Group 1 works at drastically limited performance. Which is all good and well - you don't want to go one percent lightspeed within an atmosphere anyway!
If you want to make this a superb atmospheric fighter, you probably need some sort of Group Four non-impulse engines, plus aerodynamic hull shapes and the like. Or you can drop Group Three and substitute an atmospheric engine system. Actually, I'd like the latter - it makes for a lighter, less complex craft, and Group 2 already seems to do the job of Group 3.
For "naval" work, perhaps you can have a special variant where the atmospheric engines are replaced by an underwater propulsion system...? Seriously, though, while any shuttle should be capable of underwater operations, adding warp or impulse drive to such a vehicle would be operationally pretty weird. The TAS "aquashuttle" is a strange piece of engineering, and seems to be ten times the size of any fightercraft.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
