Author Topic: Nacelle Angles  (Read 6870 times)

Offline Edymnion

  • Veteran Member
  • Posts: 1,712
  • Stuck in the 80's
    • View Profile
Nacelle Angles
« on: January 27, 2011, 10:30:02 PM »
Does anyone know of examples of Federation starships, other than Voyager, that had their nacelles at an angle to the rest of the hull?

As in, the 1701-A had it's nacelles standing straight up [] , the Miranda had them straight up and down only beneath the ship.  The Excelsior had them laying sideways, more or less, but still at 90 degrees relative to the hull.  The Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign all have their nacelles laying flat, as did the Nebula and the Centaur.

Honestly, I can't think of a single canon ship that held it's nacelles at a slant other than the Intrepid, and it only carried it's nacelles that way when at warp.  Its almost enough to make me think there is a reason for this, in universe, only the Intrepid shoots most of them I can think of full of holes.

Offline Jon

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2011, 10:37:44 PM »
The Akira has angled nacelles, as does the Sabre and Steamrunner.

Offline Jimi James

  • So Say We All
  • Administrator
  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 9,322
  • Abandon Ship
    • View Profile
    • The New Haven Chronicles
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2011, 03:28:15 AM »
The Defiant's nacelles appear to be slightly angled, though I'm not entirely certain the warp coils are really angled.
https://www.patreon.com/JonMichaelMay
Help me make art, by joining me on Patreon. Various subscriptions tiers are in place, allowing you to support my addictive art habit for as little as $1 a month.

Offline Juvat

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 520
  • USAF Weapons Instructor
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2011, 12:35:23 PM »
Either way, as long as there's symmetry between the coils then it probably doesn't matter.
"In God We Trust"

Offline Jimi James

  • So Say We All
  • Administrator
  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 9,322
  • Abandon Ship
    • View Profile
    • The New Haven Chronicles
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2011, 12:38:18 PM »
You get better gas mileage with angled nacelles, or so I hear.
https://www.patreon.com/JonMichaelMay
Help me make art, by joining me on Patreon. Various subscriptions tiers are in place, allowing you to support my addictive art habit for as little as $1 a month.

Offline Juvat

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 520
  • USAF Weapons Instructor
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2011, 09:53:01 PM »
Maybe it's like camber and makes handling better. :P
"In God We Trust"

Offline Oztrekkie

  • New Member
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
    • Life, The Universe, And Everything
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2011, 11:09:51 PM »
I can't really see how that would help handling, because the guidance is affected by introducing irregularities in the ignition of the warp field coils.
I think that the only reason the nacelles would be tilted would be to make the warp field geometry more energy efficient.
"bortaS bIr jablu'DI', reH QaQqu' nay' "
"Revenge is a dish best served cold"

Offline Juvat

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 520
  • USAF Weapons Instructor
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2011, 05:41:51 PM »
I was being sarcastic. :P
"In God We Trust"

Offline Jon

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2011, 07:06:27 PM »
Maybe it's like camber and makes handling better. :P

Negative Camber FTW. Need's bags and a body drop  ;D

Seriously...I think it's just more aesthetics though. Technologically speaking, like said by someone else, the warp field geometry would be more efficient.

Offline TNC

  • Board Legend
  • Posts: 10,650
  • Stuck in the middle of nowhere...
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2011, 07:10:13 PM »
Maybe the angled nacelles on later vessels was one of Starfleet's solutions to the problem with warp drive destroying the space-subspace barrier.  (The reason for the Warp speed limit that was only mentioned twice during TNG.)
“Battle is not a simulation. It’s blood and screams and funerals.” – Capt. Georgiou – Star Trek: Discovery – “The Vulcan Hello”

Offline The Unbound

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2011, 07:01:38 AM »
That would make sense (especially considering how the Intrepid's tipping nacelles were supposed to fit in), if we don't accept the lower registry numbers of the Akiras as evidence that they were built before the Galaxy-class. Some of them anyway.
Steady on.

Offline Edymnion

  • Veteran Member
  • Posts: 1,712
  • Stuck in the 80's
    • View Profile
Re: Nacelle Angles
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2011, 04:55:51 PM »
Its entirely possible that the initial spaceframes for the Akiras were built before the Galaxies were.  We do seem to see evidence of ships with registry numbers lower than would normally be expected for a completed ship.

My personal pet theory is that Starfleet has production runs where starship components are mass produced, sort of a "Hey, we have the industrial replicators set for Galaxy class nacelles and it takes weeks to reset them, better make 50 million of the things while we're here" type deal.

If thats true, then perhaps hulls/spaceframes are given registry numbers at the time of production, not when the entire ship is made space worthy.  If that is in turn true, then the initial batch of Akira's could have had their frames built before the Galaxy and then mothballed for a while.  When they needed a new battleship, they went and grabbed the frames from cold storage, loaded them up, and kicked them out the door.  But then they went "Oops, we can't use this old nacelle pattern anymore.  Quick, bend the pylons and make 'em slanty!"

Would also go a ways towards explaining why we still Miranda's in the TNG era, but not Connies.  Perhaps the Connies were a limited run, or there was some disaster that destroyed the stock frames.  The Miranda's, on the other hand, could have been mass produced in such quantities that they're still working off the surplus frames even a century later.