FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to ___.
- Thread starter Kinnison
- Start date
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
That's a neat nacelle. It's not the way I did it, but it's neat nevertheless. And it fills the bill for an "advanced circumferential engine", i.e a TMP-style circumferential nacelle.
That's a neat nacelle. It's not the way I did it, but it's neat nevertheless. And it fills the bill for an "advanced circumferential engine", i.e a TMP-style circumferential nacelle.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
Well, I combined a few different views on the engine, starting with the original PB-32 as a base. The forward cowl is from the painting, with the lower sensors added based on the PB-32 design. The aft section is basically a slightly simplified version of the movie nacelle.
Glad you approve. I'm curious to see what you'll eventually settle on.
Well, I combined a few different views on the engine, starting with the original PB-32 as a base. The forward cowl is from the painting, with the lower sensors added based on the PB-32 design. The aft section is basically a slightly simplified version of the movie nacelle.
Glad you approve. I'm curious to see what you'll eventually settle on.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
This is a rough rendering of what it was meant to look like. The raised part on the upper surface of the nacelle in the silhouette is part of the mounting plate that attaches to the bottom of the dorsal, and wraps around the upper surface of the nacelle. It isn't present in this illustration of just the nacelle.
This is a rough rendering of what it was meant to look like. The raised part on the upper surface of the nacelle in the silhouette is part of the mounting plate that attaches to the bottom of the dorsal, and wraps around the upper surface of the nacelle. It isn't present in this illustration of just the nacelle.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
Well, it was meant to be a bridge technology that pointed the way to the TNG nacelles, (which we were going to call "circumlinear" hybrids) so it kinda makes sense that it looks the way it does.
Well, it was meant to be a bridge technology that pointed the way to the TNG nacelles, (which we were going to call "circumlinear" hybrids) so it kinda makes sense that it looks the way it does.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
I always interpreted FJ's TM as being at least loosely derivative of the TOS-era. (The ships depicted there would be TOS-era vessels.) I also agreed with FJ's (at least loosely implied) notion that a "class" of starships evolves over time, with each "subclass" representing at least a broadly defined specification, like a snapshot-in-time during that evolution.
When I came out with my W.D.E. (Warp Drive Evolution), I traced the evoloution of the Constitution-class parallel to FJ's subclasses. I agree that the TOS Enterprise would be an Achernar-subclass spec in the Constitution-class' ongoing development. The fanon literature over the years seemed to suggest to me that subclasses prior to Achernar were less capable; that the Bonhomme Richard-subclass could only cruise at Warp 5 and would redline at Warp 7; whereas Achernar could cruise at Warp 6 and redline at Warp 8. When the Tikopai-subclass rolled out, I interpeted that as the result of new technolgies being discovered (or ironed out) during TOS; so it would be like a "TOS Season 3" or TAS spec, capable of exceeding Warp 8 be not sustaining ultra-Warp 8 speeds for long.
My W.D.E. kicks in for post-Tikopai subclasses (the "refits"), assuming that the new nacelles are all based on linear (fourth-power) warp drive. The refit Enterprise (onscreen) never exceeded Warp 7, but linear Warp 7 is 7 times faster than circumferential Warp 7, so the refit Big E definitely put out more bang for the buck.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes in this thread; if you subscribe to FJ's designs, that's fine. I stopped over 20 years ago. The Great Goddenberry had a point there, as far as the aesthetics of a "hero ship" go. He preferred to see Federation starships with pairs of nacelles and I agree. Ptolemy looks great, but Hermes would look better if it looked more like Ptolemy or Vance's Akula:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Akula.gif
...or his Alert-class:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Alert.gif
or perhaps something like a Belmont, but with upswept wings:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Belmont.gif
or, even better, like the Spitfire, by Starscape:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8393164#Post8393164
As for FJ's dreadnought, I never liked it. I say it would look cool if you turned the secondary hull around so the shuttlecraft hangar were facing aft, eliminate the saucer and the third nacelle, and make the other two nacelles and the tubular hull beefier and it would be a more interesting ship. I'm not a fan of uber-huge, tri-nacelled, kickass-battleships, but I thought Forbin had an interesting design in his Triumph-class:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage_triumph.html
I'd like to see a version of the Triumph with only two nacelles, but longer ones.
That's just me.
I always interpreted FJ's TM as being at least loosely derivative of the TOS-era. (The ships depicted there would be TOS-era vessels.) I also agreed with FJ's (at least loosely implied) notion that a "class" of starships evolves over time, with each "subclass" representing at least a broadly defined specification, like a snapshot-in-time during that evolution.
When I came out with my W.D.E. (Warp Drive Evolution), I traced the evoloution of the Constitution-class parallel to FJ's subclasses. I agree that the TOS Enterprise would be an Achernar-subclass spec in the Constitution-class' ongoing development. The fanon literature over the years seemed to suggest to me that subclasses prior to Achernar were less capable; that the Bonhomme Richard-subclass could only cruise at Warp 5 and would redline at Warp 7; whereas Achernar could cruise at Warp 6 and redline at Warp 8. When the Tikopai-subclass rolled out, I interpeted that as the result of new technolgies being discovered (or ironed out) during TOS; so it would be like a "TOS Season 3" or TAS spec, capable of exceeding Warp 8 be not sustaining ultra-Warp 8 speeds for long.
My W.D.E. kicks in for post-Tikopai subclasses (the "refits"), assuming that the new nacelles are all based on linear (fourth-power) warp drive. The refit Enterprise (onscreen) never exceeded Warp 7, but linear Warp 7 is 7 times faster than circumferential Warp 7, so the refit Big E definitely put out more bang for the buck.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes in this thread; if you subscribe to FJ's designs, that's fine. I stopped over 20 years ago. The Great Goddenberry had a point there, as far as the aesthetics of a "hero ship" go. He preferred to see Federation starships with pairs of nacelles and I agree. Ptolemy looks great, but Hermes would look better if it looked more like Ptolemy or Vance's Akula:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Akula.gif
...or his Alert-class:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Alert.gif
or perhaps something like a Belmont, but with upswept wings:
http://www.pixelsagas.com/gallery/albums/tos/Schematic_Fed_Belmont.gif
or, even better, like the Spitfire, by Starscape:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8393164#Post8393164
As for FJ's dreadnought, I never liked it. I say it would look cool if you turned the secondary hull around so the shuttlecraft hangar were facing aft, eliminate the saucer and the third nacelle, and make the other two nacelles and the tubular hull beefier and it would be a more interesting ship. I'm not a fan of uber-huge, tri-nacelled, kickass-battleships, but I thought Forbin had an interesting design in his Triumph-class:
http://www.inpayne.com/models/kitbash/trekpage_triumph.html
I'd like to see a version of the Triumph with only two nacelles, but longer ones.
That's just me.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
You know, it's somewhat 'in vogue' and very easy to decry Franz Joseph now. After all, there's been numerous 'fan ships', official products, etc, in the 40 years of the franchise.
But, at the end of the day, Franz did it first, and made a lot of things possible that just hadn't been done before. To decry the Saladin, Hermes, Ptolemy and Federation may be easy to do now, because there have been so many variants since, but there weren't then. There was nothing, nada. Franz operated in a near vaccum, making educated guesses on how things worked at a time where there was no tech manual to work from, much less websites detailing every console and control panel that ever appeared.
So, as much as it may be 'en vogue' to belittle his efforts, keep in mind that without him and the Technical Manual he created, most of this other fandom material, and all which spawned of it, would likely never have existed either.
You know, it's somewhat 'in vogue' and very easy to decry Franz Joseph now. After all, there's been numerous 'fan ships', official products, etc, in the 40 years of the franchise.
But, at the end of the day, Franz did it first, and made a lot of things possible that just hadn't been done before. To decry the Saladin, Hermes, Ptolemy and Federation may be easy to do now, because there have been so many variants since, but there weren't then. There was nothing, nada. Franz operated in a near vaccum, making educated guesses on how things worked at a time where there was no tech manual to work from, much less websites detailing every console and control panel that ever appeared.
So, as much as it may be 'en vogue' to belittle his efforts, keep in mind that without him and the Technical Manual he created, most of this other fandom material, and all which spawned of it, would likely never have existed either.
Re: FJ's Cruiser is to Achernar, as FJ's other ships are to
Nice words there
I agree.
Nice words there
I agree.