posted
Now that looks good!!! It looks a lot more balenced now. Does the FJ version have a slightly deeper secondary hull though?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Nice work. I would consider reworking the Saladin deflector however. Even though I followed FJ when I designed Surya I have come to think a cut-out of some kind in the bow of the primary hull might be the right way to go. I can't believe I'm saying to follow something done on "Enterprise" but after all, that little detail was stolen from the PA ships so turnabout is fair play, eh? (even though the PAs use the cutout for photorp launchers, not nav deflectors)
As for the dreadnought, I would consider restoring some of the heft to the ass end of the secondary hull, by making the rear deflector the same width as FJ had it, and then reducing the severity of the fantail scoop you have added. A subtle scoop will get across the feel you are looking for while remaining distinct in appearance from the CH.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Another possible solution is that which Thomas Sasser devised for 1/537 scale models based off the ERTL/AMT Refit 'E' kitbashes. A primary hull based navigational deflector would work, as seen on my U.S.S. Patrick model:
It's an idea that was later used on the Akira class in ST:FC. Just modify it a bit to fit the TOS concept technologies and there you go.
You could also just leave any sort of nav deflector off, I guess, and say it folows the same design philosphy of the Avenger/Miranda, Oberth and Constellation class ships. Rick Sternbach is quote in an article that appears in an issue of ST:The Magazine that these vessels use a combination of force fields, Bussard collector's and tractor beams to clear their path of debris, thus don't require a dedicated navigational deflector. Perhaps the Saldin/Hermes classes are the same?
Another thing to consider is that the three round "circles" on the leading edge of the primary hull might also be navigational deflector's. I recall seeing in a set of blueprints - and want to say it was the FJ set - which show that as being the navigational deflectors for those vessels.
Just a couple suggestions....
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
As for the Federation, I've had a go at that one myself more than once. In the end I just couldn't reconcile the design or the registry number so I started from scratch and made something a little more of it's time. I personally treat FJ's plans as an early concept or an NXP pathfinder vessel and not the actual appearance of the U.S.S. Entente.
posted
Believe me, I tried many other locations and solutions for the Hermes deflector, including all those suggested here, but I finally decided to go with the neck. One reason was it was something I hadn't used before. I have had deflectors on the front edge of dishes, buried in the hull, under the primary hull, etc, but never in the neck. I'm a bit wary about using an Enterprise-style hull cutout or having an Akira-style underslung deflector, since one of the main features of Connies are their smooth, round hulls. I also didn't want to get too far away from the FJ ships. I suppose I could have left the deflector off, Miranda-style, but since FJ included one I thought I should too. One thing I haven't tried is twin deflectors mounted like engine nacelles on a wing!
As for the Dreadnought, I did consider widening the rear slightly, but I worried that the hull would become to cylindrical. However, I think that the hull with the straighter sides and rear deflector is still sufficiently different from the Constitution hull. The scoop has to be fairly sharp and concave since the hanger bay is back there.
Any way, I'm not going to write a full-blown article about these ships or prepare 4-view schematics. I'm including them in my Constitution/Pyotr Velikiy article as only side views and a single line of text. So, I think what I have is good enough.
Rev: OK... But how's the bussard going to work with the deflector like that?
Finally: Welcome, Aridas! Have you introduced yourself and told the folks here a bit about your Trek tech history?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:"Welcome, Aridas! Have you introduced yourself and told the folks here a bit about your Trek tech history?"
Thanks, Masao! I have read the posts with interest here for some time and finally thought it worthwhile to break the habit of posting everything I had to say about Trek on that other BBS.
I was the owner of Star Fleet Printing Office, and produced the original "USS Avenger General Plans". Some of my other work included the "SS Kobyashi Maru General Plans", "USS Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints", "Federation Starship Recognition Chart", and last but not least my update to the FJ TM -- the "Federation Reference Series". I collaborated with Todd Guenther on several projects, and contributed to the first volume of his "Ships of the Star Fleet". Some of my ship designs include the Wright-Corder configuration of Avenger, Surya frigate, shuttlecarrier Ariel, Cochise and Cygnus destroyers and Amerind and Monoceros scouts, and other items like the Killer Bee assault pod.
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: You could also just leave any sort of nav deflector off, I guess, and say it folows the same design philosphy of the Avenger/Miranda, Oberth and Constellation class ships. Rick Sternbach is quote in an article that appears in an issue of ST:The Magazine that these vessels use a combination of force fields, Bussard collector's and tractor beams to clear their path of debris, thus don't require a dedicated navigational deflector.
From memory, Ships of the Star Fleet got around that by giving the Reliant and others "WADE" for Wide Angle Deflector Emitter. They were rectangular box sections at the front of the exposed machinery on the raised upper hull.
aridas, from one newbie to another, welcome. Love your work
Cheers!
Jim.
-------------------- It's life Jim, but not as we know it...
Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Aridas, i've already told you on TrekBBS how awesome your stuff is, but i have a quick Q. The Cygnus, Cochise, Monoceros and Siva: do they exist anywhere besides as silhouettes?.. ive been dying to see details since i first saw them on the recognition chart
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with you Masao about trying to keep the clean smooth shape FJ used. What about 2 small deflector 'pods', 30' from the front edge of the disc in either direction. Put a small deflector out of each. This would also allow a scout a much wider 'range' of view and would not require struts to break up the lines of the bow.
Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
OK. If you are wedded to this approach this is what I would recommend. Lengthen the interconnecting dorsal to eliminate the visual clutter created by having the deflector so close to the nacelle. That and the bonus of having the two systems a little further apart to avoid interference between them.(Sorry Reverend) Then further smooth the way the deflector housing you have added joins to the dorsal, perhaps by having what is circular at the front slowly become rectangular in cross section until it flattens into the side of the dorsal. Then remove the pennant from the deflector housing to avoid visual clutter and competition with the pennant on the nacelle. You might instead want to add a simple circle on the housing to infer a docking port that is flush, thus anticipating the recessed docking port on the photorp housing on TMP era ships.
Oh, and I would terminate that housing before it collides with the flush vents at the aft of the dorsal. Perhaps terminate the housing at the same angle as the flush vents to set up a nice visual effect.
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
Captain Mike, I only published them as silhouettes because they were slated for volumes 7-10 of the FRS and the compilation, neither of which were ever published. The way they appear will be revealed at some point, however...
posted
...or we could simply have one of our talented artists here present the Hermes Class as it was presented and intended from the FJ tech manual (Federation Class DN included). This constant desire to revise our understanding about ships we have come to learn about and respect in the past is very troubling.
I could accept such revisions of these class designs ONLY if one were to suggest on the print something to the effect "potential refit specifications" or some such AND present the original configuration alongside the revisiion, for the sake of those who have not yet beene xposed to the original work. Sound reasonable?
-------------------- All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by. . .
posted
I think it is reasonable for the revisions to be refit specifications, or refective of variants within the class. I think it would be very strange if all the ships in the Hermes, Saladin, or Federation classes looked identical. That's certainly not the case with ships within a single naval class.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
