How big are FC compared to capital ships?
- Thread starter Krash
- Start date
It's a good question.
Based on these large 8 landing pads, I'm guessing the FC size is between the Majestic and the Farragut.
Using calipers on the length of the Cutter in that first image, it takes about 4 cutter lengths on the Imperial Capital ship from the nose to the first protrusion which, I am assuming, is the bridge. That's Cutters nose-to-tail, so allow a little more plus 25% total for the other parts of the FC would put its length to somewhere about the center of that circular structure at the stern of the Capital ship.
So I'd say, shorter than the Imperial Capital Ship.
There again, I could be completely wrong
Based on these sizes:
the 8 large are probably ~230m length each, given the lack of buildings at the front of them, so theres ~1km accounted for, just on pads, given the gaps between them, call it 1.25km for the landing deck, which appears to be about between 1/3 & 1/2 of overall length of the carrier including the aft propulsion and fore special modules in nose, so its length would bearound two kilometers, akin to the length of a farragut, maybe a smidge longer, but overall less wide than a farragut. Where the farragut is roughly 800m wide, I suspect the carrier is about 600m wide, but the farragut is 800 wide at its widest tpering into about 350m, the carrier is 600m wide for its full length.
the 8 large are probably ~230m length each, given the lack of buildings at the front of them, so theres ~1km accounted for, just on pads, given the gaps between them, call it 1.25km for the landing deck, which appears to be about between 1/3 & 1/2 of overall length of the carrier including the aft propulsion and fore special modules in nose, so its length would bearound two kilometers, akin to the length of a farragut, maybe a smidge longer, but overall less wide than a farragut. Where the farragut is roughly 800m wide, I suspect the carrier is about 600m wide, but the farragut is 800 wide at its widest tpering into about 350m, the carrier is 600m wide for its full length.
Last edited:
Seeing the images of the FC of the official post, I was able to get a distance of approximately 4,739m in length, why that length? Each large landing pad is 213m, then I took a ruler and measured the pad and then the length of the ship and made a ruler of 3
My initial guess was about 3-4km, but I watered down my numbers as I through it would be very unlikely that these don't use the existing cap ship docks assets.
heres some other views to aid with speculation:
Note the length of that fore section,
So each of those sections looks like a klick in itself?
heres some other views to aid with speculation:
Note the length of that fore section,
So each of those sections looks like a klick in itself?
It was the last image that I used to measure.My initial guess was about 3-4km, but I watered down my numbers as I through it would be very unlikely that these don't use the existing cap ship docks assets.
heres some other views to aid with speculation:
Note the length of that fore section,
So each of those sections looks like a klick in itself?
Look at my comment, the mathematics do not lie, it may be something more than my comment or something less, the capital ships now look like cutters.
I'm inclined to agree with you extreminatus, I make that bow section as about 1500m, then the four large pads give you another kilometer, and I'd say from the aft large pads to the thruster nozzles is at least another kilometer, so thats 3.5km+
I initially balked at those numbers as I thought they were destined for the capital class docking pads outside stations, but they are probably more like megaships than capital ships.
I initially balked at those numbers as I thought they were destined for the capital class docking pads outside stations, but they are probably more like megaships than capital ships.
The superpowers certainly need more impressive capital ships if the civilian market catches up like this.
Yes, I had neglected that very long nose section in my estimation, which is a very significant increase.
I hope the official term will be bow section rather than nose.
Damn, now when I look at those model pictures, I sure hope that there is a version with less landing pads. I mean, a ginormous pancake like that sure doesn't look like cozy base FC.
Damn, now when I look at those model pictures, I sure hope that there is a version with less landing pads. I mean, a ginormous pancake like that sure doesn't look like cozy base FC.
Last edited:
10 forward ... and 11 ... and 12 ... and ......I hope the official term will be bow section rather than nose.
I hope the official term will be bow section rather than nose.
I know what you mean, I've got a nautucal leaning due to my background working on oil rigs, but the WWII dogfighting flight mechanics make us think more of these vessels as akin to planes rather than ships. When loading out a fer de lance, do you refer to the right hand pair of medium hard points, or the starboard pair of meium hardpoints, as being where you put your rail guns with [engineering] effect?
Having said that, I once confused the bejesus out ofa forklift driver when I said "Aye, just stick that little pallet on the starboard aft corner of my trailer"
Well I would use the starboard hardpoints, but then I would refer to the starboard wing of a plane. The right hand side in a plane is a term related to the seats in an airliner especially when directing self loading cargo.