I think that if I were doing it I would put them belly to belly. This then
gives the landing platform much more head room. The only drawback that I see
is that the landing platform is asymmetrical. Having the angled side opposite
on the ships may make it look funny. Were you going to do two Inflexibles, an
Inflexible and an Arc Royal or two Arc Royals? If two Arc Royals, I would
probably only mount one boom.
When I rang it in the my FTSR Type 3 Ship Designer, I ended up with the
following: Abyss class Uber Carrier Brian Bell Tech: Human (FB) Govt: NAC
Mass: 400 Cost: 1380 (1596) Clas: Uber Carrier (CVU) Hull: Weak Strm: None
FTL: Std. MD: 4 Armr: 24
Damg: 80; 20/20/20/20
Crew: 20 Sens: Std. Systems
2 x Screen
4 x FCS
8 x PDS
4 x Class-2 beam (All)
4 x Class-1 beam (All)
12 x Fighter Bay Notes:
The ship ended up witht the same mass/cost as two Arc Royals. I would
think
that the flexiblity of two ships (including the quicker launch/recovery
time) would be better than one Uber-Carrier.
> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Bell, Brian K wrote:
> I think that if I were doing it I would put them belly to belly.
I was thinking that a tierd affect would work for the launch decks. If I
did two ark Royals, I'd definately do one Broomstick on it. Though a second
smaller cruiser sized broom stick on the other side would be a real idea
(smaller aux bridge, used for aircraft control and launching).
I've got one on my Arc Royal instead of the weapons battery spatula.
I'm not sure how I'd do things, further than that.
> Having the angled side opposite on the ships may make it look funny.
I was thinking Collosus Class would be fitting.
> The ship ended up witht the same mass/cost as two Arc Royals. I would
That is true, perhaps I should just go for a pair of Ark Royals to slap the
NSL around on fleet maneuvers.
> I was thinking that a tierd affect would work for the launch decks. If
Hmmm, I don't have a enough extras hanging around, but I may just have to
order up a batch of Arcs and try this out. I think it would have to have
another post to balance the weight better. Actually, I wish that many of the
larger ships had second posts - like the B5 stuff.
> > Abyss class Uber Carrier
Or maybe the Titan class.
> On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Chip Dunning wrote:
> Hmmm, I don't have a enough extras hanging around, but I may just have
I've found that even really big figures are pretty stable with the hole
drilled out and sunk deeper. The trick is to make sure its at center of mass.
This whole carrier thing has me thinking about typical carrier missions.
Specifically the use of Tankers to extend operational range of fighters,
the SWACS craft concept, and EW flights of aircraft.
One fighter bay with several mixed craft that launch separately would work
well.
I'm really just trying to figure out a carrier that has suffucient mass for a
full combat compliment of fighters and support craft.
On 8-Oct-99 at 13:47, Chip Dunning (edunning@spectra-research.com)
wrote:
> > I was thinking that a tierd affect would work for the launch decks.
If I
> > did two ark Royals, I'd definately do one Broomstick on it. Though a
No problem with the big FSE ship. Just find the center of mass, drill a hole
and insert the rod there. I'm using a piece of brass channel that fits into a
brass square tube that is epoxied to one of the circular bases. Not the least
hint of tipping. If you wanted to make a permanent base skip the channel and
insert the tubing into the ship.
Now that I have a scanner I'll have to take some pictures so I can show this
off, not that the bases are such a big deal, but with the base seperate from
the ship I have a really secure transport method. I could pack this with
luggage on the plane (if I weren't worried about them sending it to East
Timor) with no qualms.
I wish I could claim credit for thinking of this, but I can't.
> At 1:51 PM -0400 10/8/99, Ryan M Gill wrote:
Allow for lots of support craft in the hangar bay: SAR craft (should
affect the morale of the strike group), tankers and EW/Recon craft. A
quick look through my Star Blazers material (hey, the run more space carriers
than just about anyone) shows the following proportions of support craft to
combat craft:
EDF: 10% support craft
Comet Empire: 15-20%
Gamilon:10-15%
Other backgrounds to look at would be Wing Commander and Galactica, for which
I don't have reference material handy.
In a message dated 10/8/99 10:57:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
> Specifically the use of Tankers to extend operational range of
It would add more posibilties to what can happen with fighter ops, if you have
rules on those types of small craft I would be interested in seeing them.
-Stephen