My homebrew kitbashes

[sojourner]

Just keep pushing what you can do. Don't limit yourself to the components.

[largo]

yeah, we want to see some ORIGINAL frisbees with sticks and nacelles.

[arthur2sheds]

sojourner wrote:

---

The Navy does not scale down a carrier hull to make a PT boat.

Most of the designs (or very similar) up thread have been around the internet a thousand times. They take little time or work and it shows.

That is most unfair. Even the simplest 'kitbashes' take a fair bit of time and a certain skill level.
Everyone who takes the time and patience to come up with these designs has my appreciation. The Franz Joseph destroyer/scout/dreadnought and TWOK Reliant are just basic 'kitbashes' on the Enterprise but we still love them.
I've really enjoyed this thread, please keep posting. As soon as my post count is high enough i will be posting my own designs. I also make no excuses for using Vances and Captain Shades parts sheets and i look forward to peoples comments good and bad!

[The Axeman]

The Franz Joseph stuff is indeed kitbash writ large, and they look it. I am no fan of his work in that respect. The Reliant is also a bit more than a kitbash, as shuffling components around wont make that whole rear section or the roll bar. Genuine 'kitbash' plastic models like Forbin makes are a whole other world away from the cut & paste artwork that litters the internet. They take all sorts of parts and disguise or modify them to make genuinely new models.

I am with Sojourner on this, you should push to improve and make your own designs with your own stamp on them. Kitbashes tend to be the first rung on the ladder of design and creativity, and it should only be considered a stepping stone to other things. I'd much rather see an amateur attempt at a model or drawing than the best cut & paste work.

[Draculasaurus]

Having no desire to debate the relative merit of kitbashes, I'll simply say; I like Ian's designs, and find many of them to be very creative.
-especially the chunky cargo ones!
keep up the good work.

[Ian Keldon]

Thanks for all the support guys!

Today's contestants:

USS George Washington,systems testbed for the Constitution class


And lastly, the USS Valhalla

[CorporalCaptain]

Again, in the Lafeyette, you are doing something that I called attention to upthread, though less so: you are obscuring part of the main deflector when viewed from the front. I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I think it's a no-no. I believe that the main deflector should not be obscured at all when viewed from the front.

[Kaiser]

Have to agree with CorporalCaptain on that.

but very cool designs there

[Ian Keldon]

Does this meet with more approval?

USS Lafeyette


I had to go back and add credits in any event

[sojourner]

You have an extra deflector in the front view.

[Kaiser]

Yep despite extra deflector by itself it looks much better

[Ian Keldon]

sojourner wrote:

---

You have an extra deflector in the front view.

I saw that almost as soon as I posted it.

Kaiser wrote:

---

Yep despite extra deflector by itself it looks much better

Fixed.

[Ian Keldon]

some bonus material on the Aesirs:

From "Jane's Fighting Starships" Communications to the Editor (August 2295 edition)


"Aesir-class Battlecruisers: Soldiers that need to fade away"
Submitted by Commodore Augustus Wainright, Starfleet Plans and Policies Division

Few subjects are as controversial as that of Starfleet's battlecruiser program. Starships designed primarily around combat operations have always been the "third rail" (to use an ancient term) of Plans and Policies debates. Supported mostly by TacFleet and it's boosters, battlecruisers (along with dreadnaughts) are ships built in the sincere hope that they will never have to be employed.

With the general outbreak of peace following the signing of the Khitomer Accord, the time has come to finally face the fact that battlecruisers have never provided a solid return on investment for Starfleet, either because they proved impossible to perfect (as in the disaster that was the Menahga class), or simply were too resource intensive to maintain relative to the amount of time spent on deployment.

The later case is represented by the 2 dozen Aesir class hulls currently gathering dust at Utopia Planetia, Proxima, and Beta Antares Fleet yards. While ton for ton one of the most capable combatants we've ever built, the Aesirs are like Arabian horses: high strung and high maintenance. The PB-49 hybrid/circumfrential nacelles may have provided sustained cruise speeds in the Warp 11 range, but only because the Mark 6 M/AMRC was designed for reactant injection rates nearly 25% greater than any other reactor in service. The attendant need for increased reactant storage led to the elongation of the secondary hull, increasing the ship's mass and reducing it's maneuverability.

With nothing out there appearing to pose any significant threat to Federation interests, the tonnage limits imposed by the Accords, and the overall expense of maintaining relatively inefficient and overly-specialized combat vessels, it's well past time that the Aesir class, like it's mythological namesakes, pass from this world and into legend.

[Kaiser]

Cool Back story

[Ian Keldon]

From "Jane's Fighting Starships" Communications to the Editor (October 2295 edition)

"A Response to: 'Aesir-class Battlecruisers: Soldiers that need to fade away' "
Submitted by Captain Sedak, Commanding Officer, USS Valhalla

With respect to Commodore Wainright's Communication to the Editor of August 2295, I find I must proffer the following rebuttal:

Waste is illogical. Decommissioning and scrapping the Aesir class would represent a significant sacrifice in terms of components, even taking recycling of components into account. The primary structural assemblies, particularly the hull frames, the reactor core bracings and the main plasma conduit supports are unique to this design, and unsuitable for use in any other class starship. Given that the average Aesir class hull has less than 10,000 hours flight time (out of a projected 173,000 flight hour primary endurance), it would be unfortunate to sacrifice hulls in such good condition when other options are available.

Down-powering the weapons configuration would place the ships within treaty stipulations, while retaining the "rapid response" capability represented by the Mark 6/PB-49 engine specifications. Multi-mission capacity could be enhanced by the substitution of a standard-size Type 9 primary hull in place of the Type 7 currently employed, with only slight modifications needed to the warp field configuration control software. The estimated loss of approximately .4932274 of one warp factor would be an entirely acceptable trade off.

From "Jane's Fighting Starships" Communications to the Editor (December 2295 edition)

"Regarding Aesir*-class refits"
Submitted by Commodore Augustus Wainright, Starfleet Plans and Policies Division

Captain Sedak's proposal, while admirable in it's intent, frankly does little to address the primary issues involved with the Aesir class program.

The substitution of a Type 9 saucer for the current Type 7 only exacerbates the mass situation, adding the better part of 17,000 metric tons to the ship. This would result in even further degraded maneuverability, and place additional strains on both the structural integrity and inertial damper systems, and exacerbating the power efficiency issue. Losing nearly 13% of it's sustained cruise speed and a reduced weapons capacity on top of all that makes even less sense than the proposal to retain the class "as is".

I must wonder if Captain Sedak's logic is "uncertain" where this issue is concerned.