Jump to content
Celestial Lizards

K-Wings On Ice

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:

The K-wing was created by Kube-McDowell, who wrote the Black Fleet Crisis Trilogy (so novel, not  comics). This design for the K-wing was dreamed up by Wizards of the Coast when WEG lost the license for the Star Wars RPG several years AFTER the books were published (although specs for the ship were listed in Cracken's Threat Dossier for the WEG RPG, the book was rushed and the artwork was never completed, so a visual depiction wasn't included in CTD). And the WotC artists either didn't bother with reading the book's description (AND McDowell's notes on his website), or if they did just plain ignored him and did their own thing. This design for the K-wing looks NOTHING like what McDowell described.

I was going to say this! (In fact, I think it was you who originally brought it to my attention.)

Things the Wizards design got right:

  • "K" shape when viewed from front or back

I think Wizards made up the two side-by-side cockpits. Which I personally find to be very dumb. Why put your crew in the same fuselage space and then give them separate cockpits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yakostovian said:

I was going to say this! (In fact, I think it was you who originally brought it to my attention.)

Things the Wizards design got right:

  • "K" shape when viewed from front or back

I think Wizards made up the two side-by-side cockpits. Which I personally find to be very dumb. Why put your crew in the same fuselage space and then give them separate cockpits?

Correct, the design described by McDowell has the pilot and weapons officer seated in tandem within the same cockpit. Additionally, the center engine is NOT slapped on top of the hull, but mounted along the centerline, with a vectored thrust nozzle (it's used to help the ship break off after releasing ordinance).

More details:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I guess I'm the only one here who thinks the K-Wing is kinda cute?

Like, if it weren't some stupid overpowered grudgefest, I'd probably fly my K-Wings a lot. I think if the TIE Punisher was the stupid broken ship of that wave, we'd all be sitting around saying how ugly the Punisher is and how cool the K-Wing is and trying to come up with K-Wing fixes. I think sometimes our knowledge of the meta changes our perception of the ships' aesthetics.

I like the K-wings look! Reminds me of a WW-2 bomber (more than that thing we got in TLJ). 

I agree though, meta shame has made me keep the K-wing on the shelf. Although the gunboats in my local meta have made me decide to pull it out for our next tournament. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

With that in mind, it was likely intended to fire forward or to the sides.  K-Wings are supposed to be fast enough to get the **** out of Dodge if anything gets behind them. 

True. And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm at work so I can't look at my model) can't the chin turret fire backwards between the skis if it wanted to? I don't remember anything blocking it on the model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phoenix5454 said:

True. And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm at work so I can't look at my model) can't the chin turret fire backwards between the skis if it wanted to? I don't remember anything blocking it on the model.

I don't see any reason why it couldn't.  It hangs low enough to have a very clean field of fire between them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:


Well, the Dorsal Turret is responsible for covering the space "above" the aircraft, not directly behind it.

It might help if the turret wasn’t sitting directly between the twin cockpits as well.  A set up like the BTL-B with high mounted turret behind the cockpit(s) would seem to be a more sound design choice.  

 

Also if the SLAM engine was moved lower and the ‘ski’ wings were placed on either side or even mounted on the dorsal side you can still have a K shape but have a more traditional or at least aesthetically pleasing layout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a practical standpoint, the ventral and dorsal turrets should each cover completely opposite angles of fire. With that placement of the central engine, the forward turret should be mounted on the top of the ship at the nose, with it's 180 degree spherical firing arc about 23 degrees from the ship's waterline. The ventral turret, likewise, would be best placed on the aft-end of the ship, also with an inclined field of fire to cover the 180 degrees the forward dorsal turret would miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eMeM said:

 

I like it, especially flying in formations, but cute is not the word I'd use :D

That dorsal turret is a complete disaster, tho.

mN11vFL.gif

I can't help imagine Han Solo flying one of these with his Father as they escape the Nazis Imperial Officers.

"Sorry Son, they got us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eMeM said:

I'm more concerned about the field of view of that turret being extremely limited by both the engine and the thick "wing", also directly behind it.

 

This is pretty backwards from how turrets were put on aircraft.  Typically, the airframe was designed first, then they looked for places to put turrets.  Both the waist guns and the top turret on a B-17 could hit parts of it's own plane if fired at the wrong angle.  It's not super weird that the SW universe would have a similar approach to turret design and just put them on wherever the frame would allow it instead of having intentional concessions in the design to allow for better fields of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kieransi said:

I guess I'm the only one here who thinks the K-Wing is kinda cute?

Like, if it weren't some stupid overpowered grudgefest, I'd probably fly my K-Wings a lot. I think if the TIE Punisher was the stupid broken ship of that wave, we'd all be sitting around saying how ugly the Punisher is and how cool the K-Wing is and trying to come up with K-Wing fixes. I think sometimes our knowledge of the meta changes our perception of the ships' aesthetics.

I love my K-Wings remind me of the A-10 ugly but

gets the job done... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

 

This is pretty backwards from how turrets were put on aircraft.  Typically, the airframe was designed first, then they looked for places to put turrets.  Both the waist guns and the top turret on a B-17 could hit parts of it's own plane if fired at the wrong angle.  It's not super weird that the SW universe would have a similar approach to turret design and just put them on wherever the frame would allow it instead of having intentional concessions in the design to allow for better fields of fire.

I'm not sure if it's true that turret placement on heavy bombers was an afterthought, but IMO it shouldn't be on fictional ships that can be of any shape as the laws of aerodynamics don't concern them. 

It's Star Wars, so I'd go for rule of cool in place of practicality any day, but this one just looks awkward to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eMeM said:

I'm not sure if it's true that turret placement on heavy bombers was an afterthought, but IMO it shouldn't be on fictional ships that can be of any shape as the laws of aerodynamics don't concern them. 

It's Star Wars, so I'd go for rule of cool in place of practicality any day, but this one just looks awkward to me.

Sounds like a call to arms!  The forum goers need to design their own K-wings, holding true to the original novel description that it needs to look like a K. Come on guys, I know there’s some talent out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronOx said:

A"K" from the front like the X and E wings or from the top like the A, U, and Y? Maybe from the upside down with a squint like the B-wing.

According to the text, it's K from the forward view. The upper and lower wings are also both swept aftward, and staggard (the larger upper wings are set aft of the smaller lower wings, so it's something of a canard configuration)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that size, it seems like the smaller wings would be attached to the sides of the cockpit if the others are further back. Also, with hard points on the wings I can start to see how designers and artists might opt for the 'skis'. My thought would be to add ordnance pods on the smaller wings or have them fold up for landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Water landings?

I don't know, the whole design of the K Wing is an ugly mess.  The giant shovel head on a spindly neck, the giant wings in a world where aerodynamics are irrelevant, the tacked-on turrets with godawful sightlines, the massive weapon racks in a world where very few ships carry external munitions, the skis, etc etc.

It looks like it was designed by someone with only a passing, cargo-culty understanding of both military design and star wars aesthetics.

Which given that it was designed by a 90s eu comic book writer, is... you know, true.

I think the skids are just there to keep it from bottoming out on the deck. 

If you want some historic perspective look at the AD-1 Skyraider, AKA, The SPAD. Thirteen external hardpoints and it was basically designed in a bar on cocktail napkin. A single engine, single pilot aircraft that could carry more bombs higher, faster and further than a B-17. No turret though. It did have retracts and a tailhook 'cause the Navy does not have repulsor lift technology. Yet.

For something a little more modern the A-7 Corsair II. A high wing jet with a big sugar scoop air intake. It could carry more bomb weight than the aircraft weighed empty.

I don't think either one would be considered aesthetically pleasing but they were functional.

As for the bad sightlines on the turrets, consider the SBD Dauntless with the twin .30 cal turret. No engine to shoot but the vertical stabilizer is in the way when shooting dead aft.

Edited by Stoneface
Additional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eMeM said:

I'm not sure if it's true that turret placement on heavy bombers was an afterthought, but IMO it shouldn't be on fictional ships that can be of any shape as the laws of aerodynamics don't concern them. 

It's Star Wars, so I'd go for rule of cool in place of practicality any day, but this one just looks awkward to me.

It's not so much that it's a complete afterthought, but the B-17's job is to deliver bombs, not turrets, so the turrets themselves wouldn't be added until later in the design process after they had figured out what kind of weight the plane could handle for payload/crew/ammo/electronics etc.  The would certainly try to optimize without those constraints, but I can't recall any airframe designs that changed to allow more optimal turret placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

It's not so much that it's a complete afterthought, but the B-17's job is to deliver bombs, not turrets, so the turrets themselves wouldn't be added until later in the design process after they had figured out what kind of weight the plane could handle for payload/crew/ammo/electronics etc.  The would certainly try to optimize without those constraints, but I can't recall any airframe designs that changed to allow more optimal turret placement.

I don't know if the designed changed, but the B-29 probably had the better layout. Ventral and dorsal turrets with the gunners in side blisters. Control was through linkage and an early analog computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Yakostovian said:

Why put your crew in the same fuselage space and then give them separate cockpits?

Maybe it has some killer Lazy-boy like seats? If you’re gonna fly in straight lines a lot might as well do it in comfort and style.

Honestly the only real reason I can come up with is passenger space. Like 3po gibbering to han while in combat. This way the guy holding the ordnance button doesn’t get spooked by a surprise booga booga. Weak I know but it does kinda make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...