Ship cannibalisation

[cwl]

If say a Akira class ship lost a nacelle in combat and around the same time an Akira class was almost destroyed leaving a half destroyed hull but perfectly intact nacelles.

could starfleet tow both ships to a shipyard, remove the healthy nacelle from the half-destroyed starship and fit it to the other one?

Could they do it? would they do it?

and would there be obstacles preventing them. technically speaking of course.

 

[Romulan_spy]

I don't see why not. Of course, it would require a lot of work, repairing or replacing components, making sure everything is connected properly, calibrating everything etc but I think it would be doable.

 

[Patrickivan]

I would say that specific componants are modular and would work with various classes. Though in the event of a damaged componant, there's the issue of not just that it fits, but what's damaged and needs to be fixed before it can receive the replacement componant.

In other words, I'd say yes and no depending on the circumstance.

 

[sojourner]

Nope, repairing ships is ridiculous. Both ships would get trashed and rebuilt from new as that's much easier. In fact, there is a lost episode of TNG where someone broke a chair on the Enterprise and they had to destroy the whole ship and build a new one.

 

[Patrickivan]

^
I think I remember that one... Troi got too fat from being pointless and useless. Ate too much of that chocolate ice cream she was so fond of. She crammed her ass into her seat on the bridge (why oh why?!).

They re-did the carpets too...

 

[Herbert1]

Matt Jefferies specifically placed the US.S. Enterprise's engines on pylons so that they could be swapped out or upgraded.

 

[Sandoval]

Matt Jefferies specifically placed the US.S. Enterprise's engines on pylons so that they could be swapped out or upgraded.

You could 'swap out or upgrade' the nacelles without putting them at the end of these huge pylons.

He put them on pylons because the things are dangerous and need to be kept away from the habitable section of the ship.

 

[Judy Waxhorn]

Nope, repairing ships is ridiculous. Both ships would get trashed and rebuilt from new as that's much easier. In fact, there is a lost episode of TNG where someone broke a chair on the Enterprise and they had to destroy the whole ship and build a new one.

This explains Generations nicely. "Lighbulb is shot can't see a damn thing. Prepare to trash the ship. LaForge, disable the warp-core protection system. Troi, take the helm. All hands, prepare for DRAMA."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Troi, take the helm. All hands, prepare for DRAMA."

 

[Captain Robert April]

Matt Jefferies specifically placed the US.S. Enterprise's engines on pylons so that they could be swapped out or upgraded.

You could 'swap out or upgrade' the nacelles without putting them at the end of these huge pylons.

He put them on pylons because the things are dangerous and need to be kept away from the habitable section of the ship.

AND so that they can easily be swapped out.

The one does not negate the other, especially since he said both.

 

[Sandoval]

AND so that they can easily be swapped out.

AND why are they easier to replace on the end of long pylons Captain Robert Boldtext?

 

[scotpens]

Cannibalism? There is no cannibalism in Starfleet! Absolutely none. And when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit.

Matt Jefferies specifically placed the US.S. Enterprise's engines on pylons so that they could be swapped out or upgraded.

You could 'swap out or upgrade' the nacelles without putting them at the end of these huge pylons.

He put them on pylons because the things are dangerous and need to be kept away from the habitable section of the ship.

Also because the nacelles atop those tall, skinny pylons would subliminally remind viewers of masts and sails.

 

[Captain Robert April]

AND so that they can easily be swapped out.

AND why are they easier to replace on the end of long pylons Captain Robert Boldtext?

Fewer points of connection to deal with.

Same reason jet liners have their engines in, say it with me, kids, nacelles. So they can swap out the unit without having to tear the whole ship apart.

 

[Timo]

...Although there, too, the primary reason for the engines being in standoff pods is unrelated to maintenance: engines embedded in the wing or hull would suffer from greater drag, airflow problems etc.

Also, would it really hurt you to learn

a) manners
b) English

Sandoval dear?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Sandoval]

...Although there, too, the primary reason for the engines being in standoff pods is unrelated to maintenance: engines embedded in the wing or hull would suffer from greater drag, airflow problems etc.

Also, would it really hurt you to learn

a) manners
b) English

Sandoval dear?

Timo Saloniemi

To be sure, I am evidently typing in English.

Also, wouldn't it be easier to put Timo Salmoniemi as a signature rather than typing/pasting it into the body of your post every time?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Wouldn't it be easier to stay on topic?

 

[Sandoval]

Wouldn't it be easier to stay on topic?

If it bothers you, ignore the offending posts.

Simple solution.

 

[scotpens]

...Although there, too, the primary reason for the engines being in standoff pods is unrelated to maintenance: engines embedded in the wing or hull would suffer from greater drag, airflow problems etc.

I’m not an aerodynamics expert or an aeronautical engineer, but don’t nacelles create more drag than internal engines? Many early British jet aircraft had the engines buried in the wing roots, right up against the fuselage.

De Havilland Comet:

Handley Page Victor bomber:

Whereas American-made large jets, both civil and military, from the Boeing B-47 and 707 to the present day, all have their engines slung on pylons below the wings (except for some tri-jets that have the middle engine in the tail cone with its intake forward of the vertical fin).

I can see the advantages of having the engines in nacelles — easier access for maintenance, lower cabin noise level, greater safety in the event of an engine fire. So why did the British do it the way they did?

(Sorry to skyjack the thread, as it were.)

 

[Captain Robert April]

Diverting the thread from an impending flame war is not hijacking, it's a relief.

 

[Starlock]

^Yep. Snark wars become tedious.

The real world reason that large jet engines were moved out onto pylons beneath the wings was because their weight would help keep the wings from flexing upwards while in flight.

As for swapping out - note that in the TNG: Technical Manual it mentions that the newly constructed Enterprise exchanged parts of its engines with another Galaxy class.

So "swapping" can be considered normal procedure.