Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby wbnc » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:17 am

It's just a basic 10 ton light fighter. It's designed for surface operation and as a ship board fighter. trying a few new trick I have learned and put in some basic background to show ho wit would land or dock with a carrier.
Image
Image
Image
Image
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4910
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby phavoc » Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:15 am

As a shipboard fighter it would take up a lot of room (based upon the illustration, with the four wide engines/legs). With anti-grav there is absolutely no reason to have a tail lander either. Small fighters like this designed for shipboard ops are going to be as compact as possible. If this fighter was typically only deployed on planets, or even orbital stations, it would make more sense.
steve98052
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby steve98052 » Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:25 am

It may not be all that practical in terms of making optimal use of space dock capacity, but it sure looks good.

There is a reason launch tube and such take up a lot more space than just the ship volume. Maybe there are reasons for making a fighter less volume optimized, to make it more combat optimized.

On the other hand, it might be that a space fighter would be perfectly practical with a configuration that packs well, such as a hexagonal, rectangular, or triangular cross section, or something that folds into a shape that packs well.
hivemindx
Stoat
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby hivemindx » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:06 pm

The fact that this would not be good use of the space inside the carrier was the first thing that occurred to me too, however here are a few things that could counter that.

First of all each fighter could be turned 90 degrees relative to the next one in line. This would allow them to fit together a bit better when they are lined up next to each other.

Another thing is that they look like they would stack vertically quite well. So perhaps they are stored like pringles. This would require the access to be moved to the side instead of the tail.

Lastly the launch tubes / hangar bay in the carrier can be designed to fit exactly this shape. If the tube has a cross sectional shape that was four lobed to match the fighter and the fighters were stacked like pringles then there would be almost no space wasted in the carrier. This would mean your carrier can't handle other fighter designs.

From an aesthetic point of view I would like, sometimes, to get away from fighters that are cylinders or cubes, and I'm willing to come up with some thin reasons for this when I feel like it.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4206
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:32 pm

Nice!

Have you tried three legs? Trilateral symmetry would be the basic configuration for stable thrust.
legozhodani
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: UK

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby legozhodani » Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:17 pm

Must say I rather like them. As for practicle , well the Lockheed F104G wasn't the best now was it!
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8124
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:03 pm

You'd really would have to try to crash into anything.

If this is an internal hangar, it would appear that you've calculated a larger area than ten percent; a sphere hull is twenty percent cheaper.

If it's a trench in the hull, and you're attached to a docking clamp, that's only one tonne per, regardless how wide apart the fighters are.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby wbnc » Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:31 pm

Tansk for the feedback guys great way to start foa year is with some good commentary :D
phavoc wrote:As a shipboard fighter it would take up a lot of room (based upon the illustration, with the four wide engines/legs). With anti-grav there is absolutely no reason to have a tail lander either. Small fighters like this designed for shipboard ops are going to be as compact as possible. If this fighter was typically only deployed on planets, or even orbital stations, it would make more sense.
It's a basic multi-role so it is not perfect for any one situation ut can function with acceptable results in many situations.
The rginal desing was the result fo tinkering around with shapes...so I won't say I thought of all this ahead of time...

The drives are in pods so they can be quickly removed and replaced with a new unit if the ship is damaged. The damaged module is hauled off the the repair bay while the fighter with it's newly installed drives can go back out and get shot up some more. on the deck the legs can be interwoven slightly like this.
Image

the nacelles can rotate to basically drop the height of the ship, and the nacelles can be interspaced. Crewmen can still wriggle between the parked or stored fighters to make repairs etc...

the easiest way to launch them would be similar to the drop bays used by Star Furies in Babylon 5. an outer hatch opens up the fighter simply "drops" through it...to have an over-head gantry that picks the fighter up, transports it to a drop shaft at which point the fighter is simply..dropped out the opening.

My favorite way to carry them wudl be on docking clamps. 1 1 ton clamp can hold anythig fro 10-30 tons... while it takes 3 rounds to release a ship carried on clamps there's nothing that says you can release all your clamed fighters aat the same time.so in three rounds you release all your externally carried fighters.

No you can't repair or refuel a clamp mounted vessel..ut you can rotate it into an internal hanger to rearm and refuel, then put it back on it clamp. ..adn there is that nasty no armor protection fro the carreirs hull. But let's be honest if the carrier is getting shot at before it can launch...someone has seriously messed up already.

hivemindx wrote:The fact that this would not be good use of the space inside the carrier was the first thing that occurred to me too, however here are a few things that could counter that.

First of all each fighter could be turned 90 degrees relative to the next one in line. This would allow them to fit together a bit better when they are lined up next to each other.

Another thing is that they look like they would stack vertically quite well. So perhaps they are stored like pringles. This would require the access to be moved to the side instead of the tail.

Lastly the launch tubes / hangar bay in the carrier can be designed to fit exactly this shape. If the tube has a cross sectional shape that was four lobed to match the fighter and the fighters were stacked like pringles then there would be almost no space wasted in the carrier. This would mean your carrier can't handle other fighter designs.

From an aesthetic point of view I would like, sometimes, to get away from fighters that are cylinders or cubes, and I'm willing to come up with some thin reasons for this when I feel like it.
So basically stack them vertically and raise them into launch position...like bullets in a magazine...or a PEZ dispenser from hell...
Condottiere wrote:You'd really would have to try to crash into anything.

If this is an internal hangar, it would appear that you've calculated a larger area than ten percent; a sphere hull is twenty percent cheaper.

If it's a trench in the hull, and you're attached to a docking clamp, that's only one-tonne per, regardless how wide apart the fighters are.
try to crash into something ???? Umm have you ever met a pilot???? :D :D :D ..those guys could run into something if you put them in te middle of te salt flats...Sorry flashbacks doing ground guide duty at a local airfield during an airshow. But I get yer point. with advanced avionics and computer controls,you would just about have to tell the computer to run things into each other.

The trench was a rush job, I plan on reworking it to be a bit tidier, and a bit more detailed.
FallingPhoenix
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:49 am

Re: Orbis Light Fighter: reworked

Postby FallingPhoenix » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:24 am

Looks good!
"We can disagree without being disagreeable." - Gordon B. Hinckley

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests