Next on the Chopping Block

[Knight26]

Ok, now that the Splicer 5000 redesign is finished, except for the textures, which I plan to start on this weekend, I am ready to start on the next fighter in the line. This fighter actually predates the 5000, the Splicer 2000 "Cutter." Now these are all supposed be modular designs so I am considering using the cockpit as a common module, though changes will be made to the exterior depending on how it is mounted and what is mounted to it, etc... This one is an interceptor, designed for high speed in and out slashing attacks, run in drop missiles and light torpedoes, maybe make one to two strafing runs then beat feet out of there. It does have a gun armament but unlike the 5000 it is secondary to the missile. Like I said I am considering using the same cockpit (with modifications) and a cranked arrow planform with forward canards and three big engines. It may or may not get the advanced engine type as the 5000. I appreciate any thoughts you all have on the design because as of now I am not sure how to proceed beyond the points I have listed. To see what it looked like before here is the original design.

[Knight26]

Ok first update, still a long way to go but it is a start. The only parts I have retained from the S-5000 are the cockpit and the torpedo launcher. The Torpedo Launcher may go though, and the cockpit is now so heavily encased that only the canopy is recognizable. This is still very early in the design and very rough so everything is up for change. I appreicate any comments but I think you can start to see the line I am going along for this one.

[Knight26]

Ok, redid the wing and engines adding the missile packs in the process. I may add additional hardpoints under the wing for long range ordnance, I will remodel the torpedo pack and start on the gun placement next. Again I look forward to any comments or critiques, come on 100 views and no comments I find that hard to believe.

[Opus]

Give it SR-71 style tailfins on the top and bottom of the and you've got a winner.

[Wabbit]

Give it SR-71 style tailfins on the top and bottom of the and you've got a winner.

It does block the pilot's view in those angles, but what the heck. If it can be made like the wings are 'draped' over the outer engines it'll be cool and somewhat protecting it against nme fire.

[Knight26]

Fins are still being contemplated at this point, will have to get back you on that. Anyway I've mounted the guns, I am debating adding a third set, the problem is where to put them at this point. I've also narrowed the tail end and modified the torpedo launcher. I am not sure if I should keep the narrow tail end or go with with the fatter original. It would give it mine dropping capablities with the fatter rear end, but I am not sure if I should go with it. I am also going to look into how hard it will be to put in an intake on the dorsal side, as well as a missle hardpoints for long range missile types. Any thoughts?

[Wabbit]

I dunno about those gatlings that I feel they're too far in the back of the plane and because it's in the back also too close to the fuselage. It'll give the pilot a uncomforting feel that they could be hit by their own guns if the fighterbomber would perform tight turns, rolls and other high manouvres. If you look for instance at IMHO the most beautiful fighterplane from WWII, the Supermarine Spitfire, it had guns on the wings and slightly forward of the pilot's position. The later jet fighters also had the guns in the forward positions, if any, there was a period that people believed in missiles only and dogfights were unnecessary with that.

[Nightbat]

I'm seeing your designs entering a next generation, you're starting to lose

the "lego" effect and giving it a much more organic and "real" appearance

I'm not surprised if a "redesign" you will make end up looking nothing like the

original

Instead of fins maybe you can design a thruster system

I agree it needs some "random thingies sticking out" but fins may seem a bit

unnesseccary on a spacecraft

Those Gatlingguns will indeed give a very weird effect on a pilot,

he may get used of having his weaponsfire passing him by, but there's also

the confusion when an enemy starts shooting him from behind

[Knight26]

Good point guys, I moved the cannons into recessed positions under the wings instead of the F-22 style mid fuselage mount. Yes that is correct the F-22 has its cannon burried mid fuselage and has to open a door to fire out of so the cannon rounds pass a good 15 or 20 ft, need to check to be sure, over the fuselage, most fighters only cross maybe 5-10 feet at a maximum. I'll have to do a little more work to blend the aft end of the cannon into the wing, but what do you all think?

[Wabbit]

Maybe the blocky lines should be rounded somewhat to fit the engines' smooth form or the other way around and add some angular fins/wings, but I think it's already badass.

Hey, that's the first time I heard of an existing craft that has its guns mid-fuselage..! Do you have a link or photo of it? Quite interesting...

I agree with Nightbat that fins are unnecessary in space, but it can add some agressiveness to the craft. Not to mention extra little fuel, housing thrusters or telemetry aparatus and other sensors that may not affect the performance of the machine, but will come in handy for the mechanics if they want a full diagnostics.

Edited September 25, 2004 by Wabbit

[Knight26]

Ask and yee shall recieve, this is a picture of the F-22s gun mount, that door opens to allow it fire:

I'll do some more work on the Cutter in a little bit, going to go for a bike ride first then after I get back and cleaned up I'll start back to work. Probably work on refining the main fuselage and putting in more missile mounts, something long range equivalent to the Phoenix.

[Wabbit]

Ask and yee shall recieve, this is a picture of the F-22s gun mount, that door opens to allow it fire:

I'll do some more work on the Cutter in a little bit, going to go for a bike ride first then after I get back and cleaned up I'll start back to work. Probably work on refining the main fuselage and putting in more missile mounts, something long range equivalent to the Phoenix.

Thanks for the picture!

That's some odd place to have the gun covered, I wonder how it looks like when the gun fires for real; will be pilot be any way distracted.

[Knight26]

I find the F-22s whole gun arrangement distateful, like most of its weapons deployment, way too complex with too much to wrong. They could have much more easily incorporated a single barrel 30mm cannon without the need for the complex door system and still retain the stealth characterics. Anyway back on topic, I've added on the overhead docking mounts and vertical fins, i will add sensor pods to them like on the Splicer 5000. The fins will fold in for landing on space carriers to limit the space required to keep it. Next up I will redo the intakes and retro thrusters and add intakes for the central engine, no retroes there though, so this beast will slow down slower then it accelerates. After that I will start in on the thruster packs, which will cover this beast.

[Wabbit]

I find the F-22s whole gun arrangement distateful, like most of its weapons deployment, way too complex with too much to wrong.  They could have much more easily incorporated a single barrel 30mm cannon without the need for the complex door system and still retain the stealth characterics.  Anyway back on topic, I've added on the overhead docking mounts and vertical fins, i will add sensor pods to them like on the Splicer 5000.  The fins will fold in for landing on space carriers to limit the space required to keep it.  Next up I will redo the intakes and retro thrusters and add intakes for the central engine, no retroes there though, so this beast will slow down slower then it accelerates.  After that I will start in on the thruster packs, which will cover this beast.

That's done nicely!

I think the rough form is almost finished. And it's not that odd that the braking power is less than the forward thrust, giving it equal the power and engaging it, the pilot would have its internal organs splattered on the instruments and HUD.

Edited September 26, 2004 by Wabbit

[Knight26]

I added the intakes, but I'm just not feeling those fuselage intakes so will likely redo them.

[Knight26]

Ok, changed the central intakes. I was feeling that high middle one at first, liked it, but it was too small, so I added the two side intakes, now the question is do I keep all three or just the side ones, as they are large enough on their own?

[Opus]

I liked it better without intakes and before you changed the frontends of the engines. It was much sleeker and more aggressive looking. An interceptor should look like it's hauling ass even when it's sitting still.

[Mechmaster]

I would say go with the two side intakes and lose the top one or else make it a single intake that curves up the sides and over the top with perhaps inner partitions. Its only my opinion of course but there is something about the three seperate intakes which just doesn't work for me.

[Knight26]

Update time: Not much this time just deleted the top intake and put sensor pods on the fins.

Opus: I think one of the reason it looks slower is the angle of the picture, I changed that. That top intake also contriubuted to the slow appearance and possibly the smaller retro thrusters, not as SR-71 spiky now.

Mechmaster: i ditched the top intake, think it looks much better, it really wasn't needed anymore anyway. It still needs something in my opinion, trying to figure out what is a pain though.

The next step will be designing the long range missiles it will carry in addition to the standard missiles it already holds. I am debating between two concepts: 1) a booster missile with three regular missiles attached that seperate once the booster is expended, or 2) a single large long range missile, something akin to the Phoenix.

Edited September 26, 2004 by Knight26

[Lynx7725]

I kinda like this redesign more, more than the FSW design anyway. Some elements harkens back to the F-104 era though.. 70s-ish looking.

I also take it that this is a strictly space-only craft?

[Knight26]

It's endo-exo atmospheric, with and emphasis on the exo-atmospheric. You are probably asking that because of the missile tubes, they will eventually have end covers that pop off prior to missile firing limiting drag, and then after firing when in atmosphere the air will just flow through them out the exhaust vents, yet to be added. The design is also suppossed to be older then the other fighter by a couple decades or more so that might also explain the look of it, but i would liken it more to the SR-71 in appearance then the F-104.

[Knight26]

Ok, decision time, before I proceed further I need to decide what missile I am going to mount as this beast's long range ordnance. I said before I am considering either a single large long range missile, ala the Phoenix, or a booster pack that carries three standard fire and forget rounds that it releases at range. This picture shows the two new missiles with a comparison of a standard SAM-273-A missile. I appreciate any comments on this. Likely this missile will be externally mounted on the wings, fuselage or missile pack using something similar to the Phoenix pallet. This will probably be the only fighter to carry this round.

[Wabbit]

Ok, decision time, before I proceed further I need to decide what missile I am going to mount as this beast's long range ordnance.  I said before I am considering either a single large long range missile, ala the Phoenix, or a booster pack that carries three standard fire and forget rounds that it releases at range.  This picture shows the two new missiles with a comparison of a standard SAM-273-A missile.  I appreciate any comments on this.  Likely this missile will be externally mounted on the wings, fuselage or missile pack using something similar to the Phoenix pallet.  This will probably be the only fighter to carry this round.

The triplepack F&F missiles are very,very nice. But it will crowd the space under the wings, thus I like the single 'phoenix'-like missile more for this fighter. But that's my opinion though. Triplepacks can be fitted for other purposes. Or maybe on the space between those engine fins, somewhat curved to fit the round form.

The starfighter and missiles are looking great, Knight26.

Edited September 26, 2004 by Wabbit

[Knight26]

For now I am going with the single large missile, I have made basic models of the pallets and here they are mounted with the ordnance on them.

[Knight26]

Small update and the return of the mirror plane, lol. Basically I just added the manuevering thrusters today, not much time for more. I will do the fins next, detail them and add control surfaces, as well as the wing control surfaces. I need to do this now becuase those fins fold of landing and I need to have their landing position established before I start on the landing gear, which will be wing mounted, the mains that is. C&C are always welcome.

[Knight26]

Small update, paneled the fins and figured out their rotation tomorrow I will start on the landing gear. Once those are in I will start detailing the rest of the fighter. Here is a quick preview of it in landed configuration, fins folded. C&C?

[Wabbit]

Are thise fins folding up during approach of the landing bay or after the landing? If it is the latter, I dunno if the below fins are hitting the ground.

And are those manouvering thrusters going to be painted in the fighter's color in the end? IMHO it's better if the starfighter doesn't look 'patched up'. But this is just cosmetics.

[Knight26]

Are thise fins folding up during approach of the landing bay or after the landing? If it is the latter, I dunno if the below fins are hitting the ground.

And are those manouvering thrusters going to be painted in the fighter's color in the end? IMHO it's better if the starfighter doesn't look 'patched up'. But this is just cosmetics.

The lower fins do fold during the approach, the upper fins stay extended until after its landed, except in the case of a capture claw retrieval where they all fold up after capture. The thrusters will eventually take on a sort of burnt bronze color, just enough to make them stand out against the main hull, but I am not at that phase yet.

[Wabbit]

Are thise fins folding up during approach of the landing bay or after the landing? If it is the latter, I dunno if the below fins are hitting the ground.

And are those manouvering thrusters going to be painted in the fighter's color in the end? IMHO it's better if the starfighter doesn't look 'patched up'. But this is just cosmetics.

The lower fins do fold during the approach, the upper fins stay extended until after its landed, except in the case of a capture claw retrieval where they all fold up after capture. The thrusters will eventually take on a sort of burnt bronze color, just enough to make them stand out against the main hull, but I am not at that phase yet.

Thanks for your answers, good luck finishing the job.

[Knight26]

Yeah we can finally land. I made the landing gear and attached them. So, Pete and Grunt decided to come and take a look since they will be test piloting her. Tomorrow I will add the boarding ladder then start in on detailing the wings. Since the cockpit is common I will not add the interior until the end, hope you all don't mind. As always C&C are welcome.

[Lynx7725]

Hmm. I still like the basic design, but the fuselage intake looks a bit off.. maybe because there's a distinct gap between the intake and the wing directly beneath it.

Also, is there sufficient room in the wing for the main gear to be positioned there? I was expecting them on the main body or on the engine pod.. where they are now looks as if the struts can punch through the wings on a hard landing.

The "holes" on the engine pods are also a bit distracting from the otherwise great details you have on the engines.

[Knight26]

Lynx:

The gap you see is an old aero habit, you always want to put a gap between intake and fuselage or wing, this keeps boundary air from entering the intake and causing compressor stalls. True it is not needed anymore, I will look into a reshape.

Yes there is room in the wing for the main landing gear, infact there are about three inches of space above the roof of the landing gear well so there is plenty of structure above and around it. Heck look at the blackbird, it has its landing gear arranged the same way in the wing, but its fold inward instead of forward, don't ask I just like longitudanally folding gears.

Those "holes" are the missile tubes, I'll work on the endcovers later, and just like on the RAM launcher I work on they will pop off immediately prior to launch.

[Lynx7725]

The gap you see is an old aero habit, you always want to put a gap between intake and fuselage or wing, this keeps boundary air from entering the intake and causing compressor stalls.  True it is not needed anymore, I will look into a reshape.

Ah okay, good to know. It just looks... well, ugly.

One thing though.. what's the thrust-to-weight on this thing? If it's one of those "too much thrust for its own good" cases, then it's might be an irrelevant issue.

Heck look at the blackbird, it has its landing gear arranged the same way in the wing, but its fold inward instead of forward, don't ask I just like longitudanally folding gears.

No problems there.. It's just that it looks as if a hard landing will push the struts up through the wings. Didn't that happen to WWII fighters?

Those "holes" are the missile tubes, I'll work on the endcovers later, and just like on the RAM launcher I work on they will pop off immediately prior to launch.

Won't it be better if it's an actual cover and not a pop-off? (I assume you meant endcovers as in the cloth strips used on MGs on WWII aircraft) The holes look like they would create quite a large amount of drag in an atmosphere, even with the exhaust/ flow through. Less of an issue in space I guess, but FOD would still be troublesome though.

EDIT: I should read -- and remember! -- things better.

Edited September 29, 2004 by Lynx7725

[Knight26]

I swear these guys are always complaining, first they want landing gear, then boarding ladder, what's next seats, ha ha guys, sorry those will have to wait until you have atm control surfaces. I would do more tonight but after work today I am mentally exhausted. If I have time tomorrow I will start in on the wings, kaing the control surfaces and starting to detail it up. Plus I spent a good part of the night playing with my new BBI 1:18 F/A-18C Hornet very cool.

[Knight26]

Ok, wing details are added and I beefed up the docking lock area as well as added hump over the landing gears with an access hatch.

Edited October 1, 2004 by Knight26