I have noticed that the angle of the engines on the Klingon ships varies. Some are straight, some flare out, some flare in. I have noticed this on the ADB painting guides for the mini's as well as in pictures I have found on the net.
I would say that the ADB painting guides for the mini's would indicate the proper "flare or no-flare" of the engines.
But I was wondering if there was any rational basis that set the engine "flare" or was it just artist conception at the time.
Am I correct that the only Klingon ship in the original series was the D-7 with the engines flared inward (just like the ADB painting guide)? So the engines on the other types of Klingon ships must have been designer's choice.
Klingon Engines
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
-
wedge_hammersteel
- Commander
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:42 am
- Location: Lafayette, LA
Only SVC could give the definitive answer.
The D-7 in the game was based in-part on the Michael McMaster blueprints (which, in-turn were of course based on the ship seen in TOS) and these did indeed have the engines canted inward slightly.
After that, it really boiled down to the sculptor working on the mini master, or the artist doing the drawing.
I do my art and minis with the engines canted in on all cruisers and bigger ships. I figure there must have been some engineering reason for it, so it would probably be consistent on all ships using those types of engines.
The frigates, I don't. I just leave the engines nearly parallel to the line of the "wings" (they do "droop" very slightly). One guy in my gaming group bends his down ("So it will look more like a Bird of Prey"), but I don't like that look - too skinny and it looks out of proportion, especially when viewed next to a D-7.
The D-7 in the game was based in-part on the Michael McMaster blueprints (which, in-turn were of course based on the ship seen in TOS) and these did indeed have the engines canted inward slightly.
After that, it really boiled down to the sculptor working on the mini master, or the artist doing the drawing.
I do my art and minis with the engines canted in on all cruisers and bigger ships. I figure there must have been some engineering reason for it, so it would probably be consistent on all ships using those types of engines.
The frigates, I don't. I just leave the engines nearly parallel to the line of the "wings" (they do "droop" very slightly). One guy in my gaming group bends his down ("So it will look more like a Bird of Prey"), but I don't like that look - too skinny and it looks out of proportion, especially when viewed next to a D-7.
My opinion is that although it is originally artistic impression, it has been rationalised by Trek-style pseudo-science.
In short, the ship's hull 'channels', forms if you will, the warp field into a certain shape.
Because of this, the shape of a ship - any ship, Fed, Klink, whatever - is influenced by the way in which the designer wants to 'channel' the warp field. In this way, the warp field dictates the shape of the ship, and is thenceforth dictated by the shape of the ship. I know that sounds a bit chicken-and-egg, but it's not if you think about it.
The angle of the warp nacelles is therefore just a part of the overall ship hull design and forms part of the designer's warp field shaping method - whatever that is!
Once the ship's shape is set, the warp field is more or less constrained by the hull. I like to extend that into thinking that this is one of the reasons why a High-Energy Turn damages the ship; the warp field is essentially a part of the hull, and when you 'twist' the field violently when performing a HET, there is a chance that you will break more than just the captain's potted plants
In short, the ship's hull 'channels', forms if you will, the warp field into a certain shape.
Because of this, the shape of a ship - any ship, Fed, Klink, whatever - is influenced by the way in which the designer wants to 'channel' the warp field. In this way, the warp field dictates the shape of the ship, and is thenceforth dictated by the shape of the ship. I know that sounds a bit chicken-and-egg, but it's not if you think about it.
The angle of the warp nacelles is therefore just a part of the overall ship hull design and forms part of the designer's warp field shaping method - whatever that is!
Once the ship's shape is set, the warp field is more or less constrained by the hull. I like to extend that into thinking that this is one of the reasons why a High-Energy Turn damages the ship; the warp field is essentially a part of the hull, and when you 'twist' the field violently when performing a HET, there is a chance that you will break more than just the captain's potted plants
DNordeen wrote:WOW Kang...that was impressive!
Thanks - although I can't actually find the main reference to where I got all that from, at least some of it is in the ST-TNG Technical Manual.It describes how the Ent-D's hull shape is designed to channel the warp field, much as I have described above.
Another thing I remember reading about the Klingon D6/7 hull shape was that it was also designed to look like some sort of predatory fish on the Klingon homeworld.
Quite where I saw that, I don't know. But at least the fish's shape was still conducive to the D6/7's warp field shaping, I guess....