Wouldn't make any sense TO YOU.
Or to anyone else who complained about the issue when the Chieftan launched.
You keep forgetting that.
I'm not forgetting anything, I read the Chieftan discussions in detail. For some reason you don't seem to understand that this issue was discussed in detail at the time and is still a major design flaw.
The funny thing is, your diagram makes perfect sense to me. You keep calling it an "engine pod", but where does FDev call it that? Just because it contains engines doesn't mean it was meant to primarily be an engine pod. Likely, Lakon put them there to compliment the forward pods aesthetically. You forget that we are playing in an era where spacecraft design has evolved far beyond being purely functional (Gutamaya makes that quite clear). 34th century engineers can do whatever they want with ship designs and still make it work, because they aren't limited by our meager 21st century standards. Stop and use your imagination for a change.
Sorry but "use your imagination" isn't a substitute for common sense. Putting large engine pods on struts that primarily house landing gear is ridiculous. You really have to do better than that if you want to have a meaningful discussion here.
LOL. You're talking to someone whose favorite books in high school were the Star Trek TNG Technincal Manual and the Star Wars Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. I've forgotten more about sci-fi spacecraft design than you'll likely ever know.
No you really haven't. First, the TNG manual was nonsensical pseudoscience that used literally made-up chemical formulas and had almost no relation to actual science. Second, the Star Wars books were even worse and quoted ridiculous megaton yields for weapons that were clearly shown in the movies to have nowhere hear that level of destructive power. You clearly haven't read any "hard" sci-fi series if you're referring to Star Trek and the Star Wars vehicle guides as a "reference" for how much "sci-fi spacecraft design" you've read about.
In fact I have a picture right in front of me from the Colonial Marines Technical Manual going into detail about a ramjet intake for the Sulaco's dropship. Even that book had far better "hard" sci-fi in it than either Star Trek or Star Wars. Don't even get me started on The Expanse which is the best sci-fi series on TV.
Why would 34th century engineers want to put multiple types of engine on a ship like this, when the regular sub-light drives are clearly sufficient to propel the craft through an atmosphere? If you can show me official lore stating that the Chieftain has air-breathing engines, then I'll buy that.
I never said they had to be air-breathing. I said that there are many conceivable uses for an intake and you don't seem to have considered them at all simply because you viewed the ship entirely as a "space" vehicle without considering the obvious role for atmospheric operations.
You must not have a Cutter. The Cutter has nothing even remotely resembling an intake anywhere on it (a common feature across Gutamaya's ships). Despite this, they can equip a fuel scoop, and presumably also fly in an atmosphere. If these "intakes" are meant to serve either of those functions, then why are they not present across all ships? You keep making your own assumptions despite the fact that neither of us has any hard evidence whatsoever.
Do you even take a look at the ship exterior when fuel scooping? It doesn't use regular "intakes" at all, the ship opens up collection vents which are deployed when near a star. The intakes on ship engines are completely separate and would relate to the operation of the sublight engines.
Do you have any idea how little gas is out there in interstellar space? If you flew through the densest part of a planetary nebula, you might bump into a few stray atoms, but that's about it. Furthermore, why would you want to have multiple fuel scoop assemblies when one will do? Where's the logic in that? I'd believe it if the Chieftain was somehow superior at scooping compared to other ships with the same max optional internal size, but that isn't the case. And again, why are you so hung up on the idea of using air-breathing engines for atmospheric flight? How are those going to work on ammonia worlds, exactly?
First, if particle density was an issue, why wouldn't you simply assume the intakes would be opened when flying when near a star or gas giant, or when operating in an atmosphere, and would remained closed at other times? Second, you claim to be a Star Trek fan yet don't seem to understand that the glowing red Bussard collectors on the front of warp engines are simply hydrogen fuel scoops designed to operate in interstellar space. They can even be reversed to cause a flow of hydrogen to be released from the bussard collectors if necessary (which was used in a recent episode I watched again last week). I suppose someone should tell Star Trek to remove all the red glowing hydrogen ramscoops from all the Star Trek ships simply because you don't understand how they are theorized to work and assume they could never be useful?
It's like you don't even have a basic understanding of how these various sci-fi technologies are supposed to function. That is really essential if you want to have this sort of discussion.
Once again, the design is physically plausible, just not from your limited perspective. The "common sense" argument you keep using is relying on knowledge that is 1286 years out of date, so I take it with a grain of salt. Using your logic, the air data probe on the front of an F-14 must clearly serve the same function as a bowsprit.
Sorry but designing an engine pod to carry landing gear and two small engines makes no sense. It's simply an implausible design. The best excuse you can come up with is to "use your imagination" yet you don't seem to have even a basic understanding of the types of sci-fi technologies that would be involved in making such an engine actually function.
