Topic: Even Santa needs a new Sleigh... (Read 6405 times)

Atolm-Rising · « **on:** December 23, 2007, 08:07:06 pm »

Concept Federation TOS carrier:

some sketches to help out:

GotAFarmYet? · « **Reply #1 on:** December 23, 2007, 08:12:33 pm »

I like it it can make a pretty good TOS carrier as well with a few mods

Red_Sharif · « **Reply #2 on:** December 23, 2007, 08:12:44 pm »

Creative, as always. Honesty forces me to say, though, that asymetrical Feds give me the heebee jeebees...

Just not my cuppa java...sorry

I, Mudd. · « **Reply #3 on:** December 23, 2007, 08:14:46 pm »

I think ...

wait-a-minute ...

yeah ...

I think I like it.

Good job, man!

JM.

Antivyrus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 23, 2007, 09:14:04 pm »

Hmmmmmm. I think I see my next project hehe.

I like it best because it is not another standard run of the mill cookie cutter fed

Reverend · « **Reply #5 on:** December 23, 2007, 09:40:44 pm »

Excellent design! Its Asymmetri, but not clumsy in the least! I agree with above, it'd look sharpas a carrier.... see if you cna take it on Antyvirus, itd make a good solid ship.

Kreeargh · « **Reply #6 on:** December 23, 2007, 11:03:18 pm »

Mind if i take a lil gorn spin on this Atolm ive got a few ideas ?

Antivyrus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 24, 2007, 12:58:27 am »

Hows this for a pair of reigndeer to pull Santa's new Sleigh

Dizzy · « **Reply #8 on:** December 24, 2007, 01:12:25 am »

I totally love this idea. It reminds me of the Navy Carriers with the Angled Fight Deck. What I see that this design needs is a very large on one side fighter bay and door structure to warrant such an unusual side pylon config. I think the offset bridge command structure is the way to go too. One thing that always irked me about fed carriers was that many of them had bay doors that opened right up into either impulse exhaust or warp pylons. This design would solve all that. Brilliant. Why no one thought of something like this before, I dunno. Brilliant.

AsYlUm · « **Reply #9 on:** December 24, 2007, 01:15:22 am »

very nice and a great start to the model too

Star Dragon · « **Reply #10 on:** December 24, 2007, 10:08:21 am »

Don't scream, but would a variant with symmetrical nacels work?
_
/
(-()-)
_/

Just curious...

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #11 on:** December 24, 2007, 10:24:21 am »

Again, nicely started AntiVyrus...I know you cannot see it, but you should add a second pylon that goes straight (horizontally) that would also connect into the Hull...more support

Oh and Kreeargh, go for it...I'd like to see how you take this

Antivyrus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 24, 2007, 11:49:16 am »

Thanks for the info Atolm. I'll fix that as soon as i back for going outta town for the holidays

oh and that nacelle design rocks

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2008, 04:45:33 pm »

Starfighter?

Antivyrus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2008, 10:25:44 pm »

nice concept

Lord Schtupp · « **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:22:04 am »

Hey Atolm, Dr. Vogt would approve Im sure

Cool page:

http://www.geocities.com/asymmetrics/bv.htm

AsYlUm · « **Reply #16 on:** January 03, 2008, 10:30:35 am »

loving that second concept, any chance of any final sketches? would love to see some

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #17 on:** January 03, 2008, 01:03:44 pm »

Thnx all... I'll see what i can do for schematics
Lord Schtupp: Aye mate, I know that page

Thnx

Lord Schtupp · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2008, 09:29:27 am »

^^^ Oh yea I knew that - I really posted the link for the benefit of others to illustrate how the concept of asymmetry was applied in some aircraft designs, also as I know that these aircraft areone source of your inspiration as per our Luftwaffe chat sessions way back when. I encourage ppl to check it out.

Antivyrus · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2008, 07:57:11 pm »

Some updates,

Keep in mind this is just the rough blocking in still have lots of detail to go

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #20 on:** January 08, 2008, 12:55:35 pm »

the mesh is looking good!
you might want to reposition the secondary hull a bit as it is actually a bit off centre in my pics

Antivyrus · « **Reply #21 on:** January 08, 2008, 07:21:31 pm »

Quote from: Atolm-Rising on January 08, 2008, 12:55:35 pm

you might want to reposition the secondary hull a bit as it is actually a bit off centre in my pics

You wouldn't happen to have a top view available would you?

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #22 on:** January 08, 2008, 07:33:53 pm »

I can make one available...

Major A Payne · « **Reply #23 on:** January 09, 2008, 02:37:59 am »

Looks wicked. Very different from the norm.

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #24 on:** January 09, 2008, 01:36:24 pm »

Antivyrus · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:22:02 pm »

NO the ship has not been forgotten lol
just had a lot on my plate heres what I got so far and I believe its about finished mesh wise

Dizzy · « **Reply #26 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:23:42 pm »

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2008, 07:55:33 am »

I'll double that mate.
looking sweet(glad that top view helped out some)

Antivyrus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2008, 11:15:36 pm »

Wow! I found this one on page 3.

Anyway, just to give an update, I got the carrier mapped and I'm working on the paint job currently.
Hopefully I'll have some updated pics soon.

Antivyrus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:30:25 pm »

Atolm

I was wondering if you had a particular registry in mind for the carrier and if so what might it be.

Thanks

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #30 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:17:00 am »

Hmmmm...you might want to opt something in the 1800's or 1900's at most...I also don't have a class or name for her, maybe the guys here can help me out with that...
I was thinking something Russian, German, or Japanese from WW2 carriers as a class name though...

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #31 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:20:13 am »

lol...no no

Antivyrus · « **Reply #32 on:** February 27, 2008, 09:20:42 pm »

My personal choice for the carrier name:

Hiryu ("Flying Dragon")

Built by Yokosuka Navy Yard. Laid down 8 July 1936, launched 16 Nov 1937, completed 5 July 1939.
Participated in the Sino-Japanese war, Pearl Harbor raid, Indian Ocean raids in 1942. Bombed by US aircraft at Midway 4 June 1942; munitions and fuel exploded on the flight deck and hangar deck, leading to uncontrollable fires; ship was scuttled 5 June 1942.

Displacement: 21,900 tons full load
Dimensions: 731.5 x 73 x 25.5 feet/223 x 22.25 x 7.8 meters
Extreme Dimensions: 746 x 88.5 x 25.5 feet/227.4 x 27 x 7.8 meters
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 8 boilers, 4 shafts, 153,000 shp, 34.3 knots
Crew: 1101
Armor: 3.5-5.9 inch belt, 1-2.2 inch deck
Armament: 6 dual 5/40 DP, 31 25 mm AA
Aircraft: 64 (73 maximum)

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2008, 09:44:00 am »

That's Cool
Go for that

you can even use the completed date of 1939 as the reg

Scottish Andy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 29, 2008, 10:40:57 am »

I like the design of this ship as it is indeed not a cookie cuter Fed ship. She looks really pretty in your sketches.

Edit: removed all my previous comments after another look and it making more sense. I have since decided I totally agree with Dizzy when he says:

Quote

I totally love this idea. It reminds me of the Navy Carriers with the Angled Fight Deck. What I see that this design needs is a very large on one side fighter bay and door structure to warrant such an unusual side pylon config. I think the offset bridge command structure is the way to go too. One thing that always irked me about fed carriers was that many of them had bay doors that opened right up into either impulse exhaust or warp pylons. This design would solve all that. Brilliant. Why no one thought of something like this before, I dunno. Brilliant.

This is a very well thought out piece of kit! That'll teach me to look more closely next time. Excellent work as always, Atolm!

Atolm-Rising · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2008, 07:12:52 am »

NP, some designs don't hit you right away, and need to be seen in 3d to "get it" fully/properly.
That's why a say a schematic can look bad, but the ship can look sweet in reality. The inverse is also true of the schematic looking sweet, but in reality, it will look generic or bland.
Very few times do both the schematic and the actual, actually look sweet.

News:

Topic: Even Santa needs a new Sleigh... (Read 6405 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: Even Santa needs a new Sleigh... (Read 6405 times)