| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
 I answered who the artist of the ship was last time this was asked, so here goes again.
The artists name is Jeff Carlisle.
I'm sure you have all seen that artist's sigil on many starwars pictures in:
Star Wars Gamer #2
Star Wars Gamer #4
Star Wars Gamer #5
Star Wars Gamer #7
Star Wars Gamer #8
Star Wars Gamer #9
Star Wars Gamer #10
Dungeon/Polyhedron #98
The New Jedi Order Sourcebook
The Power of the Jedi Sourcebook
and so on.
If you haven't seen his work before I'll kindly point you to his starwars stuff here:
http://www.jeffcarlisle.com/image/tid/19
The fighter is not a T-wing and never has been one other than what fans made up themselves, it is a "gamma wing".
This is his official reply when asked about it:
| Quote: | | The Gamma Wing is a ship I created right before Phantom Menace came out, to visualize a fighter that might be created after ROTJ, incorporating elements of other fighters. So it has solar cells like a tie fighter, quad guns like an X-wing, and a nose similar to both an A-wing or Y-wing. AS to stats--none as yet--but let me know if you make any up! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gamer,
Thanks for the info and the link. Some nice pics there.
Bren |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | (1) Very fast, but not as maneuverable as some fighters (it looks too long with large powerful engines too close together to foster direction changes). |
Huh? Putting the engines close together makes it easier to change direction, not harder. Spreading the engines farther apart would make the craft less maneuverable.The closer the engines are to each other the greater the angle of turn per unit of thrust. You can prove this by drawing a right tranle. As the sides get long, the hypotenuse (thrust) must also increase to maintain the same angle.
That's why real fighter jets have centerline engines rather than engines mounted of the wings. And in the SWU compare the most maneuverable fighters (A-Wings, TIE Interceptors) have engines that are close together, while ships with engines that are far apart (Y-Wings) are less maneuverable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Huh? Putting the engines close together makes it easier to change direction, not harder. Spreading the engines farther apart would make the craft less maneuverable.The closer the engines are to each other the greater the angle of turn per unit of thrust. You can prove this by drawing a right tranle. As the sides get long, the hypotenuse (thrust) must also increase to maintain the same angle.
That's why real fighter jets have centerline engines rather than engines mounted of the wings. And in the SWU compare the most maneuverable fighters (A-Wings, TIE Interceptors) have engines that are close together, while ships with engines that are far apart (Y-Wings) are less maneuverable. |
Huh? is right, your aerspace engineering fu is weak, grasshopper
It has nothing to do with maneuverability in 'real' jets in why they are placed there.
Nobody has to prove anything themselves, the Aerospace industry already did it for them.
Look up the Hawker Harrier.
Its maneuvering thrusters aka Reaction control thrusters are placed ends of wings, tip of nose and end of tail.
The X-15? same placement.
Now name a 'real jet' that uses it's primary thrust nozzles as it's sole means of maneuvering.
Not even the space shuttle does that and it's RCS is mounted off center line too.
Very few modern jets have the irising vector nozzels on their engines and those still aren't the sole means of maneuvering.
You build a supersonic capable jet with it's engines mounted on nacelles with low drag giving both good speed and fuel efficiency and for combat jets a minimal radar return signature and the engineers will stop laughing at that post.
There are also many instances when passenger jets, some jet bombers and transports having lost alot of hydraulic fluid used their wing mounted engines to maneuver and the majority of them landed safely and your not doing that with centerline engines.
One of the things they did get right in Firefly and Serenity was the Serenity's maneuvering capability with it's secondary engines mounted as they were.
The other series was Babylon 5 who designed nacelle mounted engines on most of the fighters for this reason did so with NASA consultation.
The model maker mentioned that in an interview. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tetsuoh
Captain
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tetsuoh wrote: | I also just noticed its similarities to Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator...
Well general design wise anyway. |
[quote="Gamer"] | atgxtg wrote: | I think Fallon Kell is right and it is concept art, or maybe fanart. Can anyone ID the artist's signature?Judging from the image and LEGO version, I think it might be concept art for a V-Wing, rather than a T-Wing.
The artists name is Jeff Carlisle.
http://www.jeffcarlisle.com/image/tid/19
The fighter is not a T-wing and never has been one other than what fans made up themselves, it is a "gamma wing".
This is his official reply when asked about it:
| Quote: | | The Gamma Wing is a ship I created right before Phantom Menace came out, to visualize a fighter that might be created after ROTJ, incorporating elements of other fighters. So it has solar cells like a tie fighter, quad guns like an X-wing, and a nose similar to both an A-wing or Y-wing. AS to stats--none as yet--but let me know if you make any up! |
|
HA - it seems the guy who designed the "Gamma Wing" did in fact concept for Maul's Sith Infiltrator - awesome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | (1) Very fast, but not as maneuverable as some fighters (it looks too long with large powerful engines too close together to foster direction changes). |
Huh? Putting the engines close together makes it easier to change direction, not harder. Spreading the engines farther apart would make the craft less maneuverable.The closer the engines are to each other the greater the angle of turn per unit of thrust. You can prove this by drawing a right tranle. As the sides get long, the hypotenuse (thrust) must also increase to maintain the same angle. |
If I gather what you're talking about correctly, that's only in a limited speed system, where one engine can't "outrun" the other. In space, the longer lever arm rules.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope. Putting the engines father apart makes a vehicles more stable, and less maneuverable. You would need a greater difference in thust between the engines to get the same change in direction.
It is like a wheel , or record. The longer the radius, the faster the distance that the rim has to move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think you understand spacial maneuvering, atgxtg. Two engines further apart is easier to maneuver in space than two engines close together. You cut the thrust on one engine, keep the thrust going on the other, and the craft turns more quickly when the engines are further apart. When they are close to each other, the engine is less able to exert directional change on the craft due to being closer to the central portion of the craft.
If you reverse one engine and thrust forward with the other, you get an even greater increase in difference. This is accentuated with engines that are further apart compared to engines that are close together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimace wrote: | | This is accentuated with engines that are further apart compared to engines that are close together. |
It's true. The power to rotate a ship is called torque, and is expressed in foot-pounds (in America) one pound of force on a one foot lever arm is one foot pound. You can achieve 2 foot-pounds of torque with either 1 pound of force on a two foot lever arm or two pounds of force on a one foot lever arm. (Or any other combination that multiplies out to a product of 2.) You can apply this principal directly to starship physics and see that doubling the distance of the lever arm (the distance between the axis of thrust for an engine and the center of mass of the ship) doubles your torque.
In short, wider-spaced engines give you more ability to rotate your craft.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Grimace wrote: | | This is accentuated with engines that are further apart compared to engines that are close together. |
It's true. The power to rotate a ship is called torque, and is expressed in foot-pounds (in America) one pound of force on a one foot lever arm is one foot pound. You can achieve 2 foot-pounds of torque with either 1 pound of force on a two foot lever arm or two pounds of force on a one foot lever arm. (Or any other combination that multiplies out to a product of 2.) You can apply this principal directly to starship physics and see that doubling the distance of the lever arm (the distance between the axis of thrust for an engine and the center of mass of the ship) doubles your torque.
In short, wider-spaced engines give you more ability to rotate your craft. |
Quite true. But they also tend to twist the craft, so rotating torquers like piston jobs wound up being counter-rotating to make more stable gun platforms, otherwise they liked to mount a wing like a horny dog every time you nudged the nose over for an attack run.
Jets aren't as big a problem but widely spaced engines can give flamouts in turns.
I was looking at the concept art and had some thoughts, based on some of the extensive Player designed starship engineering we use in our game. I let Players with enough credits and (A) starfighter engineering skill to design their own ships, but I try to stick with listed engines, installed equipment, shipbuilding points systems, etc.
Those engines look like fusial versions of the Evader-GT to me, rendering a move of space: 9 base (if configured as a lightweight interceptor you'd move: 10, if as a heavy assault starfighter you'd move: 8 ).
It has extendable S-foils giving a raise on the base man die for a manoeuvrable starfighter, start off at 2D and add thrust vectoring. If you call them solar panels it makes no difference, they give their bonus by increased power to the inertial dampeners, thus increasing counterable spaceframe stresses. The net value is they work like S-foils on our rebel style Jedi interceptor.
Command module looks geared for a 1-man crew in a sizeable cockpit, I'd say at least 1wk consumables and a fair bit of cargo space.
Avionics and cryogenic sections are conservative.
main weapons appear to be IX series Taim&Bak laser cannon, fairly average at 2D/5D fire linked.
There doesn't appear to be any secondary weapons, which is suitable for a scout-fighter or light courier ship with starfighter qualities.
I'd say,
hyperdrive: x1
navicomputer: limited, 2 jumps
Move, space: 10
hull: 3D+2
shields: 1D
sensors as TIE
2 laser cannon 2D/5D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With the longish cockpit i could see it being geered to allow the seat to 'fold down' into a bed for long distance hauls..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
