Should RAFM build 'nefs?

[Dewbakuk]

Well having messed about with these in the past I'll give my 2p.

I like the overall concept and I love the keel deck. Not sure of a need for folding landing gear though when that deck is under the hull. I also don't like the rounded hull, it doesn't match the styles of the bridge and keel at all.

[The_Beast]

And I'm still adjusting to the keel deck. 

Does seem like it could do landing skid duty, though I'd think external bracing would be called for, but some landing gear seems right, just something more skid-like? For balance as landing?

As for the main hull, "I also don't like the rounded hull," by which I assume you mean half-hull, the forward half. Are you okay with the cylindrical engine fairings? I think I'd prefer round-edged (what's the round version of a chamfer? oh, a round) box, but just a bit.

As far as the fore, I'll be the first to admit taken aback by the curves and reversed curves, but curious to see how it'd look in real life(tm) .

And, yes, I know, Servitor, my curiosity doesn't pay the bills. Well, not yours... 

Doug

[former user]

Does seem like it could do landing skid duty, though I'd think external bracing would be called for, but some landing gear seems right, just something more skid-like? For balance as landing?

I don't see why it should land - after all it is meant to be lighter than air
sell a mooring tower

[The_Beast]

I don't see why it should land - after all it is meant to be lighter than air
sell a mooring tower

...except in an emergency, perhaps damage to whatever the heck lifts it. ;->=

Otherwise, no gear.

Doug

[former user]

sorry, but no

dirigible airships had no landing gear either, and that is what Aeroneffs are emulated after, or not?

I think a landing gear would seriously compromise the concept. Either they are lighter than air or not - you just can't switch it on or of.
Otherwise it is SF and not VSF

[Dewbakuk]

Have to agree, I don't see a need for landing gear on a nef, especially not folding landing gear. There is a sub deck, why retract higher than that?

As for the main hull, "I also don't like the rounded hull," by which I assume you mean half-hull, the forward half. Are you okay with the cylindrical engine fairings? I think I'd prefer round-edged (what's the round version of a chamfer? oh, a round) box, but just a bit.

As far as the fore, I'll be the first to admit taken aback by the curves and reversed curves, but curious to see how it'd look in real life(tm) .

I think I'd prefer something more square for the engine fairings, would have to see it I think. But yeah, the front half just doesn't look natural.

[former user]

I would like to add the following to this:
IMHO - it is important to keep the design consistent in order to have it iconic - however it doesn't matter whether it is the late Victorian historicism, which is basically flat and angular with a lot of brick-o-brack, or the streamlined Art-Deco with curved and homogeneous integrated lines. It just shouldn't mix.

Of course historically it can mix a lot, but since we want to derive something unhistorical, it should stay stylistically centered, otherwise the transfer doesn't work

but this is only important for the start, because as soon as there are enough modules available, everyone can have their own mix.

That's why I would agree with @Dewbakuk (for the start) to keep the first concept angular, as this is what most of us recognize with VSF

[The_Beast]

I think a landing gear would seriously compromise the concept. Either they are lighter than air or not - you just can't switch it on or of.
Otherwise it is SF and not VSF

Understand your objection, but will agree to disagree. The liftwood of Space 1889 COULD be compromised, and I believe the Edison rays of Aeronef could be switched off, though that is less clear to me. But you're welcome to claim them beyond VSF.

Doug

[former user]

well, everyone is of course free to not glue them on, the concept is modular anyway.....
 
obviously none of us has yet grasped the full implication of modularity....
the only question now is which components You release first, cost related.

Any concepts yet regarding the number of components?
Bow/Aft section, deck house, keel house, propulsion nacelles, landing gear ?

[Servitor of RAFM]

The concept of the design is a ground support aeroneff, thus the landing gear. This of course is because we want to use it in our miniatures games with all the lovely British Soldiers we have painted. See our link here http://rafm.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=598
It sounds like we will have to make them modular to keep everyone happy.
In terms of modules we picture the bow, bridge, undercarriage, landing gear and engine nacelles as modular.
Of course the guns will be separate pieces allowing different armament based on nationality or purchasers preference.

Now I can't claim to know what a 'nef is or what one's meant to look like but personally I like my airships ship-shaped, so aside from minor aesthetic issues (like you yourself mentioned, the windows), what I'm seeing here is something I'd happily do some skypirating with.

I'm OK with boat-shaped as well.  I'm just stoked that someone is going to do a large scale nef kit.  Hopefully I can get a few. 

Thanks for the positive remarks as yes we are stoked about getting something done and available for the general public as that is our goal.

I think a landing gear would seriously compromise the concept. Either they are lighter than air or not - you just can't switch it on or of.

I think a landing gear would seriously compromise the concept. Either they are lighter than air or not - you just can't switch it on or of.
Otherwise it is SF and not VSF

In our concept you can switch it on or off, does that make us not Victorian SF but rather just SF?? I did not know this  I believe Robar the Conquerer landed his ship to perform a kidnapping and then later for repairs, but he was forced to do that.
Thanks everyone for all the input, the artist will be coming up with a second design and we will get that out to you for a vote sooner or later.

[Servitor of RAFM]

Pics of our "prototype" Aeroneff's in action on the weekend.
Notice the use of landing gear. They looked awesome floating above the battlefield.

[Dewbakuk]

I don't use landing gear on my fliers but have no problem with people having them. I just don't see the point in landing gear that retracts up into the hull when the hull is much higher than the lowest point of the ship.

[Bullshott]

The Union Flag is still upside down on one of the nefs 

[Servitor of RAFM]

New concept art is posted on the rafm forum here http://rafm.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=598&p=2182#p2182
We added some walk out wings on the Bridge, made the side deck more angular, fixed the bridge windows and put the gun into the bow of the ship. Enjoy.
In our vision of the Victorian aeroneff the landing gear would not be retractable, that would be too modern and therefore not era representative.

[former user]

nose gun is a definite improvement, walk out wings too
now I understand what the side bulges were on the first concept  

go side gun/MG casemattes on them, at least as an option

so, landing gear is a must....

how about one front spur on the keel deck and pull down the vertical stabilizers into landing gear position?
this way they are totally incorporated

something like this