Assembling NAC

> Brian wrote:
...Snip...(JTL)

Brian, No I did not do this. One could also reason that the 'ready' fighter
craft are protected by the hull and less likely to have an unpleasent accident
from enemy fire.

Bye for now,

Speaking of assembly, Did anyone else mount the Invensible class Lt Fleet
Carrier with the deck to the aft?

My reasoning is this: There are two openings to the hanger decks. One facing
the deck. And one open to space. Ships being launched would not need a deck to
launch. But a deck to land on would be a benefit (especially if you are low on
fuel and could grab it with a magnetic grappel). Trying to land in a tunnel in
a potentially damaged fighter does not thrill me. It seems to make more sense
to launch fighters to the fore (thus gaining the momentum of the carrier), so
I place the deck to the rear.

> Speaking of assembly,

This is one of the great things about SF models (at least those that aren't
copies of things in films or TV)  - no-one can tell you there is a right
or wrong way for them to look! A lot of the FT models (not just the Kra'Vak)
can be assembled in a number of ways, and we're quite happy for people to do
this.

> This is one of the great things about SF models (at least those that

Here here. I've taken and modified a few of my NAC CVLs by adding bits and
pieces from leftover stuff from my larger NSL ships - and have put or
not put various stuff on various ships that have come with the packages (eg,
the NSL dreadnoughts and the like), to give them that 'unique within the
class' look. For the most part they look really well with the new additions
(only can't figure how to use those thin 'wing' things that come with the NSL
ships; don't like 'em where they're supposed to be, but can't 'work' them
anywhere else very easily).

Mk