Orbis Light Fighter: reworked
- Thread starter wbnc
- Start date
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
Mongoose
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.
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.
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.
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
Emperor Mongoose
Nice!
Have you tried three legs? Trilateral symmetry would be the basic configuration for stable thrust.
Have you tried three legs? Trilateral symmetry would be the basic configuration for stable thrust.
legozhodani
Banded Mongoose
Must say I rather like them. As for practicle , well the Lockheed F104G wasn't the best now was it!
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
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.
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.
Tansk for the feedback guys great way to start foa year is with some good commentary 
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.
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.
So basically stack them vertically and raise them into launch position...like bullets in a magazine...or a PEZ dispenser from hell...
try to crash into something ???? Umm have you ever met a pilot???? ..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.
phavoc said:
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.
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 said:
So basically stack them vertically and raise them into launch position...like bullets in a magazine...or a PEZ dispenser from hell...
Condottiere said:
try to crash into something ???? Umm have you ever met a pilot????
..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
Mongoose
Looks good!
