Original Starship Design Thread

[puddlejumperOZ]

[Saquist]

That was kewl.

[puddlejumperOZ]

It was wasn't it More to come, stay tuned

[blackluster]

That was a pretty cool animation. I imagine pulling a maneuver like that irl would be insanely dangerous.

Update on fighter. I've been doing some major overhauls with the shaping, especially with joins that just didn't look right in the last model.

Spoiler:

The back of the wings and the cockpit fuselage from the front have more 302 like shaping. The avionics and VTOL thrusters have been integrated into a larger load bearing housing (will make the Typhoon variant easier to conceive), wings are smaller with more customized shaping and the thruster and CM units on the wing tips are added. The rearward looking radar mount has also been cut but I'll probably bring it back in some form that resembles that bizarre structure behind the cockpit on 302's...

[Dr Lee]

I like it....

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

That was a pretty cool animation. I imagine pulling a maneuver like that irl would be insanely dangerous.

I imagine pulling a maneuver like that in Stargate would be insanely dangerous.

(if it were even possible to maneuver in hyperspace . . .)

Update on fighter. I've been doing some major overhauls with the shaping, especially with joins that just didn't look right in the last model.

Spoiler:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4/f100-1-2.jpg

The back of the wings and the cockpit fuselage from the front have more 302 like shaping. The avionics and VTOL thrusters have been integrated into a larger load bearing housing (will make the Typhoon variant easier to conceive), wings are smaller with more customized shaping and the thruster and CM units on the wing tips are added. The rearward looking radar mount has also been cut but I'll probably bring it back in some form that resembles that bizarre structure behind the cockpit on 302's...

Nice work.

When you finish this, could you send it to me?

[Cmdr. Setsuna F. Seyei]

Warning Hi res image to follow

Spoiler:

[Semmer]

That was a pretty cool animation. I imagine pulling a maneuver like that irl would be insanely dangerous.

Update on fighter. I've been doing some major overhauls with the shaping, especially with joins that just didn't look right in the last model.

Spoiler:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4/f100-1-2.jpg

The back of the wings and the cockpit fuselage from the front have more 302 like shaping. The avionics and VTOL thrusters have been integrated into a larger load bearing housing (will make the Typhoon variant easier to conceive), wings are smaller with more customized shaping and the thruster and CM units on the wing tips are added. The rearward looking radar mount has also been cut but I'll probably bring it back in some form that resembles that bizarre structure behind the cockpit on 302's...

Very good. I'm looking foward in seeing this baby finished.

[bradly08]

That was a pretty cool animation. I imagine pulling a maneuver like that irl would be insanely dangerous.

Update on fighter. I've been doing some major overhauls with the shaping, especially with joins that just didn't look right in the last model.

Spoiler:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4/f100-1-2.jpg

The back of the wings and the cockpit fuselage from the front have more 302 like shaping. The avionics and VTOL thrusters have been integrated into a larger load bearing housing (will make the Typhoon variant easier to conceive), wings are smaller with more customized shaping and the thruster and CM units on the wing tips are added. The rearward looking radar mount has also been cut but I'll probably bring it back in some form that resembles that bizarre structure behind the cockpit on 302's...

very nice indeed, but i willl make a few recomendations if you don't mind.

1. Reduce the size of the vertical stablizers
2.Remove the weird things at the end of the wings
3.Intergrate the main body more, thus giving your wings slightly more space, without lengthing them.

[blackluster]

Thank you for the comments.

1. Reduce the size of the vertical stablizers
2.Remove the weird things at the end of the wings
3.Intergrate the main body more, thus giving your wings slightly more space, without lengthing them.

1. That shouldn't be a problem. Their current size was for keeping with the dimensions in PJOZ's spec, but he already changed on the wingspan so decreasing the tail fins should be fine. I actually need to double check the current height since the wing angle has changed a bit.

2. You don't like them? Currently those units house counter measures at the back and a rotating vernier unit for maneuvering in space. I feel like I need something on the wing tips, but I can revisit the shaping if that is the problem.

3. Could you maybe clarify this suggestion?

[puddlejumperOZ]

That was a pretty cool animation. I imagine pulling a maneuver like that irl would be insanely dangerous.

Update on fighter. I've been doing some major overhauls with the shaping, especially with joins that just didn't look right in the last model.

Spoiler:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...4/f100-1-2.jpg

The back of the wings and the cockpit fuselage from the front have more 302 like shaping. The avionics and VTOL thrusters have been integrated into a larger load bearing housing (will make the Typhoon variant easier to conceive), wings are smaller with more customized shaping and the thruster and CM units on the wing tips are added. The rearward looking radar mount has also been cut but I'll probably bring it back in some form that resembles that bizarre structure behind the cockpit on 302's...

The model looks great Blacky, my only doubt is the overlarge wing fences (the inboard protusions between the fuselarge and wing root) would cause massive loading in atmo, other than that, very cool. Single or dual seat version?

More vids

Spoiler:

[blackluster]

The model looks great Blacky, my only doubt is the overlarge wing fences (the inboard protusions between the fuselarge and wing root) would cause massive loading in atmo, other than that, very cool. Single or dual seat version?

Those protrusions are actually part of the super-structure. You can think of them as load bearing extensions of the fuselage and aircraft skeleton (will be needed for those turrets you wanted in the Typhoon variant which I still need to ask you about).

This is dual seat but I probably won't change the canopy for the single seat. In the latter the pilot would sit higher and have more avionics, but I've found some two seat fighter cockpit models that I can confirm that against.

[bradly08]

Thank you for the comments.
2. You don't like them? Currently those units house counter measures at the back and a rotating vernier unit for maneuvering in space. I feel like I need something on the wing tips, but I can revisit the shaping if that is the problem.

3. Could you maybe clarify this suggestion?

2. No they look out of place IMO. I would rather they come to a point or somthing similar to the F-22 wingtips.

3.The main body seems to be spread out more (those things that look like jet inlets are out from the main body. i would intergrate them more so it gives more wingspace but it also means you don't have to add length to them.)

[blackluster]

2. No they look out of place IMO. I would rather they come to a point or somthing similar to the F-22 wingtips.

That is rather subjective so I'll wait to see if there is a consensus if you don't mind. Those structures aren't without purpose. An F22 by contrast is not designed to fly in space which somewhat nulls the comparison.

3.The main body seems to be spread out more (those things that look like jet inlets are out from the main body. i would intergrate them more so it gives more wingspace but it also means you don't have to add length to them.)

As per the discussion in the technical thread, wing space is mostly irrelevant. In terms of the original 302, I couldn't work out a logical reason for the approach they took, hence the modification I went with. The engine designs themselves I haven't actually depicted but I can go through it for you quickly.

Per the specs and the original MEC system on the 302, the engines units actually house 3 different engines. On the model I posted, two intake systems are visible from the top. The forward, thin slit like intakes are for the turbofans on takeoff/landing. This prevents dirt and debris from being drawn into the engine and allows operation from less than ideal locations. The larger turbofan intakes are on the bottom and are hidden from view in the pic (though you can spot them in some older versions I posted). They are closed during take-off and landing. The intakes you see further back on the unit are supersonic air flow intakes for the scramjet and aerospike engines located towards the rear of the craft. These are in operation during high speed flight and the others are closed. Because of this level of integration, the engine units are very large, but I feel this is justified for the leap forward they are meant to be compared to the original 302 in terms of not only efficiency in different environments but overall power output as well which is meant to dwarf its predecessors like the F15 did to its predecessors.

[benoz777]

Those protrusions are actually part of the super-structure. You can think of them as load bearing extensions of the fuselage and aircraft skeleton (will be needed for those turrets you wanted in the Typhoon variant which I still need to ask you about).

This is dual seat but I probably won't change the canopy for the single seat. In the latter the pilot would sit higher and have more avionics, but I've found some two seat fighter cockpit models that I can confirm that against.

Too much down force, = wing failure at +mach 1. Flatten them out some