PAR
Yacht Designer/Builder
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 19,126
- Reaction score
- 507
- Location
- Eustis, FL
It seems to me, since you made the decision to employ a steel wing spar (box), you can have all the stiffness you desire, with a fairly simple laminate schedule, relying on the spar(s) to essentially hold everything up, including the cannons. I wouldn't over engineer this puppy, so much as insure it fits what you need, in terms of accuracy and demount-ability. If it was me, I'd concentrate on the disassembly aspect first, while working up a practical set of hinges, pins, connections, etc. for the welded assembly. Then just foam the crap out of it, gluing up blocks as required and shape as desired. A simple laminate schedule, just enough to insure the thinner stuff is stiff enough and fair your brains out.
On a engineering level, I've always found this particular "spacecraft" design a bit of a joke, though it might look good to some on the big screen. Guns (cannons, really?) wouldn't have a kink in them and a cannon certainly wouldn't, even if it was particle weapon technology. I also find the engine cant ridiculous, as vectored thrust currently exists and is a much more logical approuch than simply canting the burners. Don't crank me up on the number of wings or why they'd need to be stowed. Lastly, given unknown fuel storage, how does one expect this puppy to reach escape velocity, with the shapes employed, even on the lowest of gravity worlds?
Petty, I know, but engineers are an odd lot. We're the ones that point out that Cesar, as portrayed in the movie, likely didn't own the Converse sneakers, that were seen peaking out from under his robe (actual thing I saw a few decades ago). Or the onion shaped water tower or high tension power lines seen in the back ground of one of John Wayne's greats. I've screwed many a movie for the other half, but also created a monster, who now also sees these inconsistencies and improbabilities. Don't start me up on the catamaran rig used in Water World . . .
On a engineering level, I've always found this particular "spacecraft" design a bit of a joke, though it might look good to some on the big screen. Guns (cannons, really?) wouldn't have a kink in them and a cannon certainly wouldn't, even if it was particle weapon technology. I also find the engine cant ridiculous, as vectored thrust currently exists and is a much more logical approuch than simply canting the burners. Don't crank me up on the number of wings or why they'd need to be stowed. Lastly, given unknown fuel storage, how does one expect this puppy to reach escape velocity, with the shapes employed, even on the lowest of gravity worlds?
Petty, I know, but engineers are an odd lot. We're the ones that point out that Cesar, as portrayed in the movie, likely didn't own the Converse sneakers, that were seen peaking out from under his robe (actual thing I saw a few decades ago). Or the onion shaped water tower or high tension power lines seen in the back ground of one of John Wayne's greats. I've screwed many a movie for the other half, but also created a monster, who now also sees these inconsistencies and improbabilities. Don't start me up on the catamaran rig used in Water World . . .