Two Pike/Early TOS ships

[darkwing_duck1]

First up, the Mustang-class interceptor. Small, short duration starships tasked with interdiction and patrol/system defense duty. Crew of about 20. It's most notable feature is the abandonment of the traditional bridge placement atop the saucer section for a position at the leading edge of the saucer slope. This change permits the main power feeds for the weapons systems to be bundled into a set of feeds leading directly from the warp reactor forward to the saucer center before branching up and down to power banks for the torpedo and beam weapons, keeping the feeds deep within the protective confines of the hull. The close-in placement of the warp nacelles likewise allows for a compacted power feed system less vulnerable to damage. The relatively low-yeild warp coils in these nacelles (maximum speeds Warp 4/5/6) produce relatively little radiation hazard, diminished further by extra baffle plating inside the nacelle housing.

Next is a ship I'm just not sure what to call. My working designation is a "deep space surveyor". I suppose she could also be a heavy scout or pocket destroyer.

 

[Raider]

This Mustang-class interceptor reminds me of the SFB class of very small war ships -- I think they even use the same class designations.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Two very interesting designs. Both are believeable for the indicated time-period. Although the Mustang looks a little too "greblied up" for my tastes. Might i suggest to remove the lower megaphaser and put it side be side with the upper one.

With the mystery ship i would suggest putting the nacelles in the correct orientation. And the nacelle-supports need a little bit of detail. But i really like the enlarges saucer.

And of course lettering would be really nice (yes i know, that is not easy to do).

 

[Raider]

Concur with the lettering -it adds a nice touch.

 

[Kaiser]

The first one dosnt do a thing for me : /

but the Second one I like alot better

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Two very interesting designs. Both are believeable for the indicated time-period. Although the Mustang looks a little too "greblied up" for my tastes. Might i suggest to remove the lower megaphaser and put it side be side with the upper one.

With the mystery ship i would suggest putting the nacelles in the correct orientation. And the nacelle-supports need a little bit of detail. But i really like the enlarges saucer.

And of course lettering would be really nice (yes i know, that is not easy to do).

Moving the lower phaser emplacement to the dorsal hull leaves an enormous gunnery blind spot. I'd considered the extreme port and starboard edges of the saucer as alternate placement sites.

The version of nacelle I chose for the surveyor forced me to move the "pennant" to the top of the housing, if that's what you mean by "orientation".

 

[Sean_McCormick]

No, with orientation of the nacelles, i meant that you put the inboard side with the flow sensor and flux chiller, which usually faces the other nacelle on outboard facing. True, those parts face upward on the Dreadnoughts third nacelle and downwards on one nacelled designs like Saladin and Hermes, but a two nacelled design with those parts facing outward is not known to me. Because of that, i assume that those parts usually "interact" with their counterpart on the other nacelle (a concept that apparently was part of the design of TOS, if the effects-budget would have allowed it, we might have seen energy arcing between those elements during warp-flight; a sketch showing such an effect from the TMP design phase is known).

With the megaphasers i seriously doubt that one has a 360 degree firing arc. my take on those is that they are used to fire on targets more or less directly ahead or behind of the ship with normal phaser batteries providing 360 degree cover.

 

[Raider]

Are mega-phasers an overkill on these small ships?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

My original intent with the "heavy phaser" mounts (not necessarily "megaphasers, per se", but something more powerful than standard), was that the emitters were steerable, allowing for off-axis firing.

That said, I got to looking at it and it looks "kludge-y", so I did a bit of a redesign. The main weapons are moved forward and imbedded into the hull for more protection. The aft torpedoes are moved beneath the impulse engines and also imbeded. Secondary weapons consist of two single mount standard weapons emitters, one dorsal and one ventral, with full 360/180 arc of fire respectively.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Now, that is a beautiful design!

 

[Kaiser]

Looks better than the first one

 

[Unicron]

I dunno, I kind of like the original version. I'm less keen on the second design though - I wish the top view had a more distinct saucer section. The side views give that impression, but then you look at the top and it's suddenly as if the whole saucer covers everything.

 

[Raider]

Speaking from an SFB frame-of-mind I'd mount the engines more toward the centerline and then mount phasers on the left/right sides of the hull.

Just an idea...

 

[Ziz]

On the second one with the extended saucer, those two bump things at the back of the saucer in the top view don't line up with the accompanying parts on the side view.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

On the second one with the extended saucer, those two bump things at the back of the saucer in the top view don't line up with the accompanying parts on the side view.

EEP! Thanks for catching that! Actually, it isn't the "bumps" that are not aligned, it's a 1/4 inch error in the placement of several other parts that's the culprit...I'd have to redo the entire side to correct it.

I'll be more careful next time!