posted
I'm still wondering what is on the ventral side of this ship... I just can't picture a mirror image of the dorsal side - seeing as those bottom nacelles don't match the top... the angle up instead of being the mirror image of angling down...
Also is there maybe some sort of deflector apparatus?
------------------ Homer: I'm gonna miss Springfield. This town's been awfully good to us. Bart: No, it hasn't, Dad. That's why we're leaving. Homer: Oh, yeah. [pokes his head out the window] So long, Stinktown!
I have several models/minis of the Cheyenne here in front of me, all are built with identical tops and bottoms (mirror images). The pylon curve when looked at from the angle the "Behind the Scenes" card set shows, gives the impression that they are angling up. When you rotate the model in virtually any direction, this optical illusion goes away.
I don't think Alexander da Large is about, otherwise he would agree with me about this.
Later! Art
------------------ Spoken in Klingon, with a distinct Scottish accent: "If it's not Klingon...It's crap!"
posted
Model? Minis? Where was I when these came out?
------------------ Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!
posted
I don't see why the deflector couldn't be the same as on the saucer of the Galaxy class -- both top and bottom. Aux. deflectors do have precedent in the Intrepid class (I know it came after the Cheyenne, but I doubt that was the first time a Starfleet designer had the idea).
posted
Although the ship could basically be symmetrical, I'm sure there is some *minor* vertical asymmetry. Obviously, there won't e.g. be a bridge on the ventral side!
The saucer deflector on the dorsal side looks ridicuously small, due to the altered scale of the saucer. It also doesn't much look like a deflector, what with being painted all coppery without a hint of blue. Thus, I'd like to imagine that the corresponding location on the ventral side was slightly modified so that there would be a bigger deflector there. Currently, there is no way of telling if Miarecki put something like that down there or not, so I'm free to have my little fantasy...
Apart from that, I don't see major needs for asymmetry. The small Cheyenne probably won't need a Captain's Yacht, and the saucer underside isn't a likely spot for such currently-apparently-missing hardware as torpedo launchers or shuttlebays. I trust we can say that the torp launchers are on those vertical pylons, even though they appear smaller than the launchers of other ship types. And I trust we can say the shuttlebay is either on the aft surface of the saucer, or then omitted altogether (after all, not all wet-navy ships have helicopter hangars!).
posted
Only if I had the money to buy all those models...
------------------ Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!
posted
While we are on the topic - do we have any canon info on the mission of this class? I've seen a bunch of web sites that variously call it an explorer or a ultra-torp-firing-super-cruiser
posted
The only time we've ever really seen it was in the graveyard at Wolf 359. The Pegasus was orginally supposed to be of this class. Other than that, who knows?
------------------ "The sons of the Prophet were valiant and bold, And quite unacustomed to fear. But, of all, the most reckless, or so I am told, Was Abdulah Boul Boul Ameer." Aban's Illustration www.alanfore.com
posted
The U.S.S. Crazy Horse was also supposed to have been a Cheyenne (and both *are* Cheyennes in *my* canon Trek world).
------------------ "To all Harry-Fans: I meant no disrespect against Harry and have nothing against the stupid little creature. Thanks and enjoy the show." Nimrod, 04-04-01.
posted
Considering its similarity in design to the Constellation class, my guess would be that it is a long range exploration vessel.
------------------ Lisa: "Don't you remember the story of Oedipus?" Homer: "Maybe five dollars will refresh my memory." Lisa (angrily): "Oedipus was the story of a man who kills his father and marries his mother!" Homer: "Uggh! Who pays for that wedding?"
posted
I like to think a failed scout design. If it were successful then we see more of them in battles but no, the only time (I think) is the graveyard scene in Wolf 359. As for the scout idea, since she has only 2 phaser arrays visible (well 1 but assuming that the underside of the saucer has one too) and possibly a torpedo tube or two. Then you got 4 warp nacelles that could only mean two things to be faster, or longer endurance. Either way it could mean that she was a ship that "scouted" on long missions.
------------------ Signature for sale! For a mere price of $20 per letter you get this wonderful little space to say your own things. Get it now while there's still space!
posted
I think it's a science vessel, not a scout. Flaunting your nacelles like that is asking for trouble. The Dauntless got that right, tucking in its potatoes.
posted
Since similarly shaped ships can have very different missions (Nova vs. Sovereign) and differently shaped ships can share a mission (Galaxy and Nebula), I think we should forget about engine configurations for a while and concentrate on the visible mission gear.
Superficially, the Cheyenne and the Constellation are very similar. Both have the maximum number of phaser emitters typical of their era (Cheyenne has the longest possible strips, while one couldn't easily cram more of those ball turrets to a TOS ship than Constellation has). Both also appear to have two forward-firing torpedo launchers, although the Constellation launchers are twin-tubed. We do not know if the Cheyenne launchers are rapid-fire, multi-shot weapons to compensate, or if the Cheyenne simply is more lightly armed in this respect.
Both ships also seem to feature the standard number of sensor ports for their eras, without any obvious additions in the style of e.g. Soyuz. Neither type carries podded systems. And neither type has a big prominent navigational deflector.
The big difference is that the Cheyenne either completely lacks shuttlebays, or has a small ventral or rear-facing one. So far, all the Enterprises have had big hangars. They have also utilized their shuttles mainly for exploration of dangerous areas and for errands with which the mothership could not be bothered. If the Cheyenne does not perform these missions, then she probably isn't an exploration ship or a diplomatic platform. She's unlikely to be a transport or supply ship, either, or a surveyor - too much armament, too few cargo holds or sensor ports visible.
To sum up, the Cheyenne doesn't have distinguishing features (if we forget the engines), and has a slightly more austere equipment fit than the average "multipurpose" Enterprises. She's sized like the previous generation of cruisers, but is smaller than the frigates of her generation. And sadly there is no, repeat, no data on her performance yet.
From there on, it's all guesswork. She could be a generic multi-mission ship built to replace the aging Constellations, Constitutions and whatnot - but it seems more as if Starfleet replaced these old-timers with ships one size larger (Excelsiors being the apparent "backbone" ship nowadays, judging by numbers). Or she could be a scout or courier as proposed (this is a special role that justifies the apparent low production numbers and low screen presence and doesn't require any visible special mission gear), and be given somewhat oversized phasers just to "round her out", make her more multi-purpose.
One thing I'm sure of: when we get a better picture of the Challenger class, we'll see a very similar mission gear to the Cheyenne one. The only difference will be that the Cheyenne has four smaller nacelles and the Challenger two oversized ones, perhaps amounting to the same thing. So these two ships are likely to share a mission. Whatever that mission is...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
