The Chieftain: Ruined

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
IndigoWyrd said:
It's a great ship, don't get me wrong - the price is nice, it's quite capable, but I'm going to have to ruin it...

Screenshot_0259.png


With the landing gear in the rear nacelles, when it's parked it looks like a dog taking a dump.
Click to expand...

Thats an awesome screenshot. You you make that all by yourself...?

:D
 

Bryan K

Bryan K
The only thing that bugs me about the Chieftain is that the front nacelles don’t pivot. That was a major let-down for me.
 

Imgran

I
Flimley said:
Plus, how does all that gear fit into the space with the engines.

Flimley
Click to expand...
https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/lylewellingtona.jpg
http://airportjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/0607040_2.jpg

Most Allied heavy bombers in WWII placed their landing gear in the nacelle and worked the ducts required to get fuel to the engine around the need to fill up that space with landing gear. Having the landing strut in the nacelle was worth the structural risk because the wider spacing gave the landing gear more stability, and helped prevent the aircraft from tipping while on the ground in rough weather. It's a similar principle to when a man wants to lift a heavy object, he stands with his feet further apart in order to brace himself and counterbalance the weight he's lifting

The wider the ship, the more it will benefit from having its landing gear a certain distance from ceter mass
 

Faybs

Faybs
Imgran said:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/lylewellingtona.jpg
http://airportjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/0607040_2.jpg

Most Allied heavy bombers in WWII placed their landing gear in the nacelle and worked the ducts required to get fuel to the engine around the need to fill up that space with landing gear. Having the landing strut in the nacelle was worth the structural risk because the wider spacing gave the landing gear more stability, and helped prevent the aircraft from tipping while on the ground in rough weather. It's a similar principle to when a man wants to lift a heavy object, he stands with his feet further apart in order to brace himself and counterbalance the weight he's lifting

The wider the ship, the more it will benefit from having its landing gear a certain distance from ceter mass
Click to expand...

What is this "weather" thing you speak of?
 

damon8r351

damon8r351
Imgran said:
https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/lylewellingtona.jpg
http://airportjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/0607040_2.jpg

Most Allied heavy bombers in WWII placed their landing gear in the nacelle and worked the ducts required to get fuel to the engine around the need to fill up that space with landing gear. Having the landing strut in the nacelle was worth the structural risk because the wider spacing gave the landing gear more stability, and helped prevent the aircraft from tipping while on the ground in rough weather. It's a similar principle to when a man wants to lift a heavy object, he stands with his feet further apart in order to brace himself and counterbalance the weight he's lifting

The wider the ship, the more it will benefit from having its landing gear a certain distance from ceter mass
Click to expand...

It's a configuration in continued use with modern turboprop aircraft like the P-3 Orion and E-2 Hawkeye.
e-2c-tr-hawkeye.jpg

162315-us-navy-lockheed-p-3-orion_PlanespottersNet_264145_8981030b7c.jpg


Having seen these aircraft disassembled, I can assure that there's more than enough room for an engine and landing gear strut to share a nacelle, and will continue to be able to by 3304.
 

smiths121

S
WR3ND said:
Just never land it... Problem solved. :)

For me it's shaping up somewhere between a Vulture and a Python. Bit of a combat capable explorer and mission runner. Heavy loadouts on maneuverable ships kind of seems to be my thing. Python is a bit too sluggish for me, so I don't prefer using weapons on it.

Think I'll keep my Vulture as my main combat capable explorer. I just like the way it handles in supercruise too much.

I can see myself messing around with some of the Engineer resource gathering in the Chieftain.
Click to expand...

I have not actually got one yet, a little out of my price range. When you positioned the ship, what were you referring to "between Vulture and Python". I am guessing combat.
Base prce is double the Python, so I was hoping it could trade or mission run and protect itself somewhat better than the Python at the cost of outposts. Sort of Anaconda--.

Thanks for any insight.

Simon
 

Loskene

L
The only thing that bugs me about the tilting nacelles is the same thing that bothers me about the diamondback. Throwing your thrust vector off to one side like that should send the ship into a spin! Instead the ship behaves like nothing's changed, it's purely a visual aspect.
Why didn't they make the front and rear nacelles actually rotate a full 90 degrees for landing? The ship still has forward/reverse thrusters on the main hull, that's what it looks like it's supposed to do, but it just doesn't. Would make an awesome tank-SRV dropship for high-G worlds like that.
 

Cmdr Esteban

Cmdr Esteban
CMDR Pugwash said:
No matter how old we get poo jokes will always be the best. :)
Click to expand...

"How is it zat you English find ze toilet so amusing?

For us Germans it is mundane and functional item.

But for you English, ze basis of an entire culture.

Anyway, enough of zis banter. As you say in English, I must fly!"

- Baron Manfred von Richthofen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom