Project Valiance (formerly "Defender Class Ship")

[iantalosarika]

Alright, here they are.

Side View
Perspective view of the rear
Front View
Perspective front view (looks cool to me)

[iantalosarika]

I had to get rid of the cube tail and just make the tail an extension of the hull.

[iantalosarika]

I really have to remember to put all this stuff in one post. I have a new idea for the ship name. The Crossbow (or Longbow, whichever you think is better) class.

[kosh0darmek]

long bow sound nice


is it just me or do those graphs just like a run of the mill ship?


cant u spice it up a little

[iantalosarika]

It's a low detail model, I want to get a basic model ship ready, then I'll make it look better. Besides, I'm not so great with details.

[kosh0darmek]

aight

[iantalosarika]

And what do you mean by "run of the mill"?

[kosh0darmek]

look kinda normal not so (out there) (super duper) (sleak)

[cptjeff]

I think it's very good. I like that one, the suacer is thin, the neck it thick, so it would work well, the Tail looks really nice, and, well, It looks really good to me.

And It looks great from all of those angles as well.

And I just realized that you could put the impulse engines on the rear naccele connecter. that would be an uncommon touch, and it would owrk pretty well with the level your nacceles are at.
I would Also like to state that the Longbow class is a VERY good name. However, it is already been taken several times. Crossbow class has not, but it doesn't sound nearly as good to me. What about Lance class? that hasn't been taken. or you could look in the flagship project thereads..

[iantalosarika]

I should have known that the name was taken... -sigh- I don't really like the name "Lance Class", I think "Scimitar" might be better if it isn't already taken.

[cptjeff]

not bya starfleet ship, but in the non canon movie there's a reman vessel....

hat about an adjective? Defiant, for example.

here are a few more ideas: Brazen, Fireheart, Nightlance.

[iantalosarika]

Fireheart sounds like a good name, but not for this kind of ship. And as for the impulse engine on the back... I'd do that, but I have no clue what an impulse engine looks like on the outside of a ship... Is it that red thing on the back of the Enterprise D's neck?

[cptjeff]

yes, that's the impulse exaust, which is the part you see. It's red with heat from the gasses. you can't see the actual impulse engine, but it's located right near the exaust.

[jared]

How about Ironclad after the ships from War of the Worlds? They were mankind's only weapon at all equal to the power of the Martian Fighting Machines.

[iantalosarika]

Hmm... Ironclad... That sounds like a good one. I'll have an image of the ship's rear with the impulse engine in a moment.

[iantalosarika]

Perspective view of the rear with impulse engine.
This what you meant?

[jared]

That's the sort of thing.
Try two on the pylon for steering purposes.

Also put one on each side of the saucer. That way when it's seperate it's not engineless.
And I suggest a further improvement no Star Trek ship has to date; put one on the front somewhere for faster braking since there's nothing to slow you down in space.

[Deleted]

What programe did you use to make it, i would like to get it and make my own ideas

[iantalosarika]

Alright, I'll try those.

Roberts, I sent you the link to download the program, but I'll post it here so everyone else can find it. The program is called Blender, and it can be downloaded at www.blender.org

[iantalosarika]

And I was going to get to placing them on the saucer, I just wanted to make sure I had it right before I did and found out that was wrong.

[cptjeff]

and it's not a action: reaction thing, so one at the front is uneccecary. it involves a collapsing magnetic field and the ship rides the "waves" that creates.

or at least that's the tech manal mumbo jumbo....

I've always wnated to put one on the top just to be different.

[iantalosarika]

Well, I don't know where to put the one on the front, so I put three on the back of the saucer; one on each side of the back of the saucer and on in the back of the middle.

[jared]

The best position would probably be opposing the two rear saucer ones.
Despite HOW the ship starts moving, the laws of physics mean that once the engines are off, the ship still goes forward at the same velocity until an opposing force halts the motion. It is in fact impossible to keep anything absolutely still in a non-gravitational environment, but adding the braking engines (the retro rockets you sometimes hear mentioned in real space travel) can help slow the ship when needed. I assume the technobabble explaination in Trek would be that the rear impulse engines simply invert the field or something, but that is inefficient, slower and dangerous at the high speeds used.

[cptjeff]

go ahead, put on in on the front. It would save the thursters trouble. But since it runs off of plasma that's generated by a fusion reactor, the coil does not have to be anywhere near the exaust. so you don't have to modify your drawing, because they could just route the plasma from the reaction chambers to the coil in the front. They would not have to put a seperate reaction chamber in the front.

[iantalosarika]

Personally, I don't like the impulse engine on the front because I didn't design a spot for it. I can do that for another ship I'm going to start once this one is done.