Chimera Class WIP

[Capt.Hunter]

Thanks ASR, I really apprciate any help you can give.

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

Hey Cap'...

Here is the first mock up for you to gander at. It's based on the rather confusing ortho you had in your message...however I think I might have captured it...somewhat

Your CHIMERA has picked up a project number: bbx-0806-002

Anyway, we'll play with the Paint image until we settle on a basic planform and basic detail format. After that, it's pen to paper for the finals.

Anyway...phase zero, ver 0.1 of the bbx-0806-002...CHIMERA-class BB...and don't mind the centerlines and guides. The nacelles are close, but simple place holders for now.

Thoughts?

[Capt.Hunter]

Considering how confusing that image i showed you was I think you did a great job. Not sure if it's just me or not, but the stardrive section and the saucer look a bit out of synch. Maybe making the saucer a bit smaller (length wise) and the stardrive a bit longer would help.

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

Saucer needs to be fatter and rounder and the engineering hull needs to be longer and more slender?

Also...and I have to ask...do you really want the SCHIMTER-like spines on this thing?

[Capt.Hunter]

nope only thing I like from that other image is the nav crystal. So it can actually retain more of the classic feel instead of the hybred look that, that other pic has.

No i like how wide the saucer is. I was thinking maybe it needs to be smaller in length.

While at the same time increase the length of the stardrive

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

Got it...I'll see what I can do with the mock-up

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

OK...here we go...

Lengthened the ENG hull and shortened the primary. This served to stretch the ship's length.

Attached is a comparison of the version 0.1 planform and the 0.2 planform.

Thoughts?

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

OK...Cap here we go...

Firstly, from an engineering stand point, having pylons that split or articulate like an x-wing is not a good idea. Here's why (stay with me folks, about to throw some realworld stuff into this...though it might not sound like it...might end up sounding like treknobabble, but it makes sense )

-Pylons are designed to be load bearing structures and to also act as load transfering structures. They bear the weight of the nacelles, which has been calculated by a good friend of mine from MIT to be roughly 25% of a starship's mass (warp coils are not light things...they are very heavy). They do this with the help of the structural integrity field generators and waveguides. The more sleek and slender the pylon, the more the SIFGs have to work to keep the thing from coming apart at sub-light, not to mention the transistion to FTL. They also transfer load through to the centeral framework of the vessel by way of the strongbacks (those are the points in the engineering hull where the pylon 'meshes' into the framwork of the engineering hull and ultimately the dorsal and ventral keels). If you notice, these strongbacks have changed over the evolution of Trek designs (TOS- thick cross-section, but narrow, TMP- thin cross-section with a reversed taper, TNG- thin, but a large strongback cross-section, ENT-E- mixture of the TNG and TMP designs).
-Cap is requesting a hinge with dual nacelles on each side, or a variation of the quad nacelle. VOYAGER is a good example of the designers beefing up the pylon structure to compensate for that hinge point for the variable warp- geometry nacelles (VWGN). In doing a four nacelle version of this idea, I've had to beef the strongback points up even more. This is because of the hinge point-the load is transfered there rather than to the strong backs. Now, while the VOY is at sublight and the nacelles are centerlined to the ENG hull, the load is transfered to the pylon/ENG hull strongback. But, that load goes to the hinge point once the nacelles rise to their FTL position. The same would apply to the CHIMERA design...hence the thicker and beefier pylons and added stronback structures. Slender ENT-E type pylons that split like this aren't very feasible and would suggest that we steer clear of them.

I would suggest the nacelles remain fixed at either the ENG-hull centerline or fixed in the X-formation as you have shown in your mock-ups. VGWN doesn't just doesn't work well with the four nacelle set up. Further proof is to look at the other four nacelle designs: CONSTELLATION-class has two above and two below the primary hull and they are close to the verticle centerline. The N'GVAR-class Klingon BB sports four nacelles, but they are fixed along the horizonal centerline. None of these are articulated.

On that I did do a version with this type of system. It was rather fun to do and I even colored it...but I don't see this as an avenue to take with the CHIMERA design.

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

Working on ver0.2.2

Changes that are coming:
-Eliminating the hinge. The VGWN arrangement has been dropped
-Revamping the pylon and nacelles for a dual nacelle set-up
-Switching to a gravitic sub-light-bsaed drive system. The impulse units will become secondary hanger bays or smaller craft.
-LAteral view mock-up coming as well

[ASR CO COVENTRY]

OK Cap'...what to you think?

Laterals of the dual nacelle idea...and a cutaway of the nacelle.

I mirrored the gravity drive from the fighters...over the top?

If this is a go...this it's time to put pen to paper and take it out of mock-up.