WC Mk I/II "Wiuca"

[Popo]

OUT OF CHARACTER INFORMATION

• 
  Intent: Because propeller planes in space and I wanted to see different ways canon technology can be used and utilized.
  
• 
  Image Source
  
• 
  Canon Link: N/A
  
• 
  Restricted Missions: N/A
  
• 
  Primary Source: N/A
  

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

• 
  Manufacturer: Tenloss Corporation
  
• 
  Model: WC Mk I/II
  
• 
  Affiliation: Tenloss, Open Market
  
• 
  Production:
  
  Mk I - Mass
  
• 
  Mk II - Limited
  

[*]
Material: Alusteel, durasteel, and other starfighter components.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

• 
  Classification: Starfighter
  
• 
  Length: 9m
  
• 
  Width: 11m
  
• 
  Height: 3.6m with landing gear down
  

Armament:

WC Mk I

• 
  Armament Rating - Very High
  
• 
  4x X-RMB “Rumbler” cannons w/ 120 round belts (two in each wing)
  

WC Mk II

• 
  Armament Rating - Extreme
  
• 
  8x X-RMB “Rumbler” cannons w/ 120 round belts (Three in each wing, two mounted on the nose)
  

• 
  Defenses: Very Low
  
• 
  Squadron Count: 6
  
• 
  Maneuverability Rating:
  
  Flaps Raised - Average
  
• 
  Flaps Combat - Moderate
  
• 
  Flaps Landing - High
  

[*]
Speed Rating:

• 
  Flaps Raised - High
  
• 
  Flaps Combat - Average
  
• 
  Flaps Landing - Very Low
  

[*]
Hyperdrive Class: N/A

SPECIAL FEATURES

• 
  Uses the RER-01 engine
  
• 
  Uses weapons using X-CL ammunition
  
• 
  Selectable speed/maneuverability modes
  

Strengths:

• 
  Space/Atmospheric capable - Able to operate equally in space and atmosphere.
  
• 
  Highly Versatile - Able to tailor armament to mission parameters to an extent
  
• 
  Optional speed modes - Pilot can trade speed for maneuverability and vice versa depending on the need in and out of combat.
  
• 
  Hard hitting, lethal armament - Multiple X-RMB cannons provide a devastating amount of direct firepower able to shred most targets with relative ease.
  

Weaknesses:

• 
  Little armor - Designed primarily to be fast and versatile, the Wiuca features very little armor. What armor exists is primarily to protect the pilot in the form of armor plating behind the cockpit chair and beneath the seat.
  
• 
  Physics - Utilizing etheric rudders for both atmospheric flight and space capable “flight”, the Wiuca is unable to maneuver similar to a small number of specially designed space craft, such as spinning in place laterally or flying backwards.
  
• 
  Physics #2 - As the etheric rudders installed provide friction in atmosphere and “friction” in space, pilots must be wary of maneuvers and mechanical limits. For example, switching from raised flaps to landing flaps at maximum raised flap speed (speed 2) is a good way to rip said flaps off said starfighter.
  
• 
  Limited ammunition - As the X-RMB cannons utilize X-CL ammunition types, the weapons only have 120 rounds per belt. Pilots must be highly aware of their ammunition expenditure or else run the risk of being rendered combat ineffective in the field.
  
• 
  No tracking - The distinct lack of guided weapons or smart munitions means this fighter is limited to direct (cannons) or indirect fire (bombs/unguided ordnance) only.
  

Description:



The WC series of starfighter is both a proof of concept for Tenloss as well as a foray into a different avenue of approach for starfighter combat.

Starfighters have utilized etheric rudders for eons to aid in starfighter maneuverability, creating starfighter combat as it is seen today.

Technological advancements have resulted in the starfighters seen in today’s galaxy, most of which feature the same general outlines such as rear mounted thruster-type engines and often asymmetrical or even boxy characteristics. With the production of the RER-01 engine and the primary use of installed, mechanical etheric rudders, the top researchers at Tenloss believe they’ve created a new turn on old technology that places what was previously thought to be obsolete on par with modern technology.

The WC Mk I/II is a standard starfighter with multipurpose options for combat missions much like its counterparts in the galaxy. However, there is where the similarity ends.

Dubbed the “Wiuca”, Huttese for “Lightning”, after it’s letter designation the two versions of the starfighter are identical in all aspects save weaponry, where the Mk II variant sports twice the armament rating as the Mk I. Both craft use the RER-01 engine and feature installed etheric rudders on the wings and tail of the fighter allowing it to operate both in space and atmosphere equally.

The Wiuca series is armed with the latest in Tenloss technology, sporting the X-RMB “Rumbler” cannons which utilize X-CL series ammunition granting the starfighter a versatile and devastating direct fire armament. The fighter can also mount a number of ordnance both in the form of bombs and unguided munitions in special racks mounted beneath the fuselage and wings.

The fighter sports decent shielding, though little armor, forcing the pilot to rely primarily on their skills and agility in the Wiuca. Lastly, the Wiuca can adjust its speed and maneuverability depending on the situation by adjusting the etheric rudder flaps on the craft. This can allow the pilot to trade speed for maneuverability and vice versa as the situation permits allowing greater versatility in combat and noncombat situations.

The drawbacks of the starfighter are fairly apparent. The Wiuca relies primarily on shields rather than armor, and even then it relies primarily on agility over shielding. The only armor plating evident on the fighter is armored panels behind and beneath the pilot’s seat to help protect the pilot from shrapnel and small arms. In addition, the Wiuca’s limitations are fairly evident when compared to starfighters solely designed to operate in zero-g environments, meaning that the Wiuca cannot turn on a dime, rotate in place, or fly backwards, for example. Also, as etheric rudders set to operate mechanically produce friction in atmosphere and “friction” in space, pilots must take care when operating the machine as adjusting raised flaps from top speeds to, for example, landing flap angles can and often will rip the flaps from the starfighter. Lastly, the Wiuca features limited ammunition inherent in the design of typical X-CL capable weaponry and features no “tracking” weaponry such as guided missiles, forcing the pilot to rely solely on the Wiuca’s substantial direct fire capabilities.

 

[Gir Quee]

RESEARCH REVIEW
-----
Star Wars Canon:
Pending initial review
------
Starwars Chaos:
Pending initial review
------
WITHOUT DEV THREADS
Pending initial review
------
WITH DEV THREADS
Pending Initial review
------
SUGGESTIONS
Pending Inital review

 

[Gir Quee]

WC Mk I Armament Rating 18 4x X-RMB “Rumbler” cannons w/ 120 round belts (two in each wing) WC Mk II Armament Rating 20 8x X-RMB “Rumbler” cannons w/ 120 round belts (Three in each wing, two mounted on the nose)

Armament: (You may provide your armament in list format and must provide your vessel an Armament Rating on a scale of 0-20, where 0 is no weapons, 1 is very light weapons, 5 is light weapons, 10 is average weapons, and 20 is heaviest weapons. Armament Ratings are scaled in relation to the class of ship, meaning a Starfighter will not equate to a Destroyer. Armament Ratings provide only basic weaponry unless the ship also has a breakdown of weapons. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Typically requires development: Anything above 16 for a max size vessel.

I bolded and underlined that last sentence for emphasis. I do see that you have a reduced squadron count, which I can see helping the armament rating being higher than the typical "10" given to standard starfighters.

Defenses: Shields - 12 Armor - 5

While it's fine to break down the defense rating to show how each individual element stacks up, I do need an overall defensive rating.

Uses the RER-01 engine

Intent: Because propeller planes in space and I wanted to see different ways canon technology can be used and utilized.

Long version:

On one hand, we do see propeller-driven craft in use by cultures that have access to standard repulsorlifts and ion engines, such as the Calian flier or the Wookiee dropship. This suggests to me that it's not entirely crazy to have a propeller-driven combat craft in Star Wars. The Calian flier in particular seems to be most analogous to the common cloud car and other high end airspeeders, which are known to use ion engines. This suggested to me that it's possible for a rotary type engine to get similar performance as an ion engine in an area where small scale repulsors don't function well, such as in the upper atmospheres or low-orbit areas of space (as the Talon I cloud car suggests).

On the other hand, in the Star Wars media that I've seen, I have yet to see a propeller-driven craft in deep space yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't necessarily exist, however. Can you provide me with an example of one? Otherwise, we are left with the negative evidence conundrum to consider.

While it may be possible for it to exist, why don't we see it in use? If we don't see ever see one in canon use, how does Factory/Codex Rule 7: "All submissions need to conform to the general idea of Star Wars" come into play with this submission?

Short version
While I don't think it's uncommon to see some anachronistic-looking features in a craft, I think that this is pushing past the point of Factory/Codex Rule 7: "All submissions need to conform to the general idea of Star Wars" if there aren't any known canon propeller-driven starships.

Suggestion:
If you're deadset on making this a turboprop (and I'll admit that I do find Italian WW2 aircraft to aesthetically pleasing with the exception of a certain cargo plane), I'd consider turning this into an upper atmosphere/low orbit fighter (much like the earlier-linked Talon cloud car) using the vehicle template. Since this doesn't have a hyperdrive as is anyways, much of the practical use would be the same, but I don't think it'd cross the line of Rule 7.

Maneuverability Rating: Flaps: Raised - 3 Flaps: Combat - 2 Flaps: Landing - 1 With added ordnance - +1 Speed Rating: Flaps: Raised - 2 Flaps: Combat - 3 Flaps: Landing - 4 With added ordnance - +0 (though atmospheric climbing performance will suffer)

Standard speed and maneuverability for "X-wing"-like starfighters is now 3. This should be its base level of performance before tradeoffs start occuring.

 

[Popo]

[member="Gir Quee"]
First off, glad to see someone who appreciates WWII Italian aircraft

Alright, I wasn't really able to find examples of space capable propeller craft in the Wookiepedia (granted, I didn't really look very long as I'm between a work shift and a class at the moment), but I did find a culture that utilizes steam powered starships for inter-system travel, albeit slow inter-system travel. With the advent of steam powered starships going from planet to planet, I'd argue that Rule 7 isn't really being nudged at all, honestly. I can see why it appears that way, but Star Wars EU canon is a bit wonky at times. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to see propeller driven starfighters flying and fighting against or alongside X-Wings considering there are steam powered spaceships and even hyperspace capable space manta rays. If you think about it, it's kind of similar to how we may have Leopard 2 tanks and Abrams MBTs, but you can still find some countries using Shermans or T-34s.

While it may be possible for it to exist, why don't we see it in use? If we don't see ever see one in canon use, how does Factory/Codex Rule 7: "All submissions need to conform to the general idea of Star Wars" come into play with this submission?

Put simply, I don't think Rule 7 comes into play half because it's the reapplication of standard technology currently in use and half because it functions in almost all practicality as a standard X-Wing. As for why no one has done it before... Perception, in my opinion, if we're looking at it in an IC sense. Why try B or revamp C to work on par with A (or better than A) when A has worked consistently for X amount of years? It was good for my father and my father's father, so why should it change? Plus, maybe no one thought to put etheric rudders to use in such a way? Who knows? Maybe going out on a limb and taking an IC risk on a redone and reapplied canon technology to bring it on par with current, standard technology might just usher in a new technological fad? Kind of rambling, I know. Moving on.


The armament rating. I'm not adverse to modifying the sub to balance out such a high rating, but I'd like to make a case that it's already fairly balanced all things considered. At least in my view, that is. The armament rating is an 18 for the Mk I variant and a 20 for the Mk II variant, but reflects only the direct fire capabilities. Added bombs and munitions do not affect the rating at all and instead affect maneuverability in a negative way. There are no tracking weapons like guided proton torpedoes or homing missiles, so it solely relies on the pilot's skill and accuracy, which is hard enough to do as it is before you start tossing in typical space engagement ranges. In addition, the ammunition is very limited. The X-RMB cannon has a rate of fire set at 740 rounds per minute, but only has a maximum ammunition capacity of 120 rounds in a belt. That means you have less than 12 seconds of ammunition in a single engagement, which means that, potentially, someone using this craft without conserving ammunition is going to go from an equivalent rating of 18 or 20 to 0 in approximately 12 seconds, if not less. Also, the starfighter is designed with little defensive measures, relying mainly on a shield system. There's also no hyperdrive, limiting the range and deployment of the starfighter as well as the squadron count you've already noted.

Simply put, yeah it's a high armament rating, but you've only got 12 seconds or less of armament rating 18/20 and then you're armament rating 0, plus you're in a thin metal tube relying on arguably civilian grade shields and your own skill and starfighter agility to keep you alive. You're not going into drawn out slugfests with this thing.

As for the defensive rating, I'd average it out at a 9 or 10. I'm fine with either, however you want to set it.

Speed and maneuverability I'd like to see if I can keep where it is, half because the reference chart shows starfighters being ranged between 2.0 and 3.5 on speed/maneuverability and half because it reflects on the low defense rating while putting emphasis on pilot skill and starfighter agility/speed.

That all said, I'm open to negotiating and/or edits where needed.

 

[Gir Quee]

Alright, I wasn't really able to find examples of space capable propeller craft in the Wookiepedia (granted, I didn't really look very long as I'm between a work shift and a class at the moment), but I did find a culture that utilizes steam powered starships for inter-system travel, albeit slow inter-system travel. With the advent of steam powered starships going from planet to planet, I'd argue that Rule 7 isn't really being nudged at all, honestly. I can see why it appears that way, but Star Wars EU canon is a bit wonky at times. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to see propeller driven starfighters flying and fighting against or alongside X-Wings considering there are steam powered spaceships and even hyperspace capable space manta rays. If you think about it, it's kind of similar to how we may have Leopard 2 tanks and Abrams MBTs, but you can still find some countries using Shermans or T-34s.

Canon, especially the EU, definitely gets wonky at times, but you picked a good reference with the Ganathans. A quick google image search shows that their Robida Colossus appears to use propellers for propulsion (as seen here and here). That's good enough for me to be satisfied with this on a conceptual basis.

The armament rating. I'm not adverse to modifying the sub to balance out such a high rating, but I'd like to make a case that it's already fairly balanced all things considered. At least in my view, that is. The armament rating is an 18 for the Mk I variant and a 20 for the Mk II variant, but reflects only the direct fire capabilities. Added bombs and munitions do not affect the rating at all and instead affect maneuverability in a negative way. There are no tracking weapons like guided proton torpedoes or homing missiles, so it solely relies on the pilot's skill and accuracy, which is hard enough to do as it is before you start tossing in typical space engagement ranges. In addition, the ammunition is very limited. The X-RMB cannon has a rate of fire set at 740 rounds per minute, but only has a maximum ammunition capacity of 120 rounds in a belt. That means you have less than 12 seconds of ammunition in a single engagement, which means that, potentially, someone using this craft without conserving ammunition is going to go from an equivalent rating of 18 or 20 to 0 in approximately 12 seconds, if not less.

Speaking of the 300 lbs of bombs and other ordinance, they should probably be listed in the armament area as well (though I did see them in the modularity section).

How many laser cannons would you say that these X-RMBs are equivalent to?

It seems to me that while they are limited in ammunition, their various ammunition types seem to be much more powerful than standard starfighter guns.

I can get behind the Mark I version as is, though I'd like to see what you've just stated now (about how quickly this weapon uses ammunition) emphasized in the description. I really can't see the Mark II version being approved unless it has development and ] a much more minor production run. To me, It essentially seems like a starfighter with something the equivalent of at least 8 laser cannons, 2 warhead launchers, and the speed a base interceptor.

As for the defensive rating, I'd average it out at a 9 or 10. I'm fine with either, however you want to set it.

I'm flexible on this as well. For reference, a base starfighter has defense rating of 10, while a base interceptor has a defense rating of 8. I suppose it depends on how tough this is intended to be overall.

Speed and maneuverability I'd like to see if I can keep where it is, half because the reference chart shows starfighters being ranged between 2.0 and 3.5 on speed/maneuverability and half because it reflects on the low defense rating while putting emphasis on pilot skill and starfighter agility/speed.

I'm going by the base starship templates right now. Fighters have a speed rating of 3 while interceptors have a speed rating of 2. I can see these flight performance high ratings if this is a glass cannon (with an overall defense rating between 1-5), Otherwise I see the defense rating as helping to balance out the high weapons. If its overall defense is close to normal, I would see this have the performance of a standard starfighter in the template.

 

[Popo]

[member="Gir Quee"]

Canon, especially the EU, definitely gets wonky at times, but you picked a good reference with the Ganathans. A quick google image search shows that their Robida Colossus appears to use propellers for propulsion (as seen here and here). That's good enough for me to be satisfied with this on a conceptual basis.

Good find, I didn't even think to look that up and didn't spot the tell tale propellers in the pic lol That's actually pretty interesting and kinda neat to see.

Speaking of the 300 lbs of bombs and other ordinance, they should probably be listed in the armament area as well (though I did see them in the modularity section).

I listed them only in the modularity area mainly because I didn't consider them to do anything to the armament rating at all, other than changing up their versatility to engage ground targets like light fortifications or maybe trench lines with bombs or rocket-type munitions. I can list them if you'd like.

How many laser cannons would you say that these X-RMBs are equivalent to?

I honestly never put much thought into a baseline equivalent since gun math has more or less gone the way of the Dodo in favor of armament ratings. Each gun would technically be a repeating cannon if I were to hazard a guess. It's the ammunition that adds in the extra punch depending on the ammo type chosen. Ion or blaster X-CL ammunition would add the heavy modifier while the disruptor ammunition would only be standard (I'm not that evil >.>). So, its technically a standard repeating cannon, but fires cartridges that operate as heavy versions of the standards, minus the disruptor ammunition that is.

To me, It essentially seems like a starfighter with something the equivalent of at least 8 laser cannons, 2 warhead launchers, and the speed a base interceptor.

Eh, yes/no. It has no dedicated warhead launchers. Bombs are literally dropped from hardpoints mounted and any rocket or rocket type munitions would be unguided and fired from installed racks. No target locks and no fancy shenanigans. Mostly they'd be used to hit maybe light defense works or clustered troops in the open, maybe a vehicle if you've a pilot with good dive bombing/bombing skills.


As for the Mk II variant, defenses, and speed... How about I meet you in the middle. What say I drop the Mk II variant to minor production and then drop the defense rating to 8 for both variants? It helps compensate for and explain the power/mass ratios and why the starfighter is somewhere between the standard starfighter and the standard interceptor in terms of speed/agility.

 

[Gir Quee]

I listed them only in the modularity area mainly because I didn't consider them to do anything to the armament rating at all, other than changing up their versatility to engage ground targets like light fortifications or maybe trench lines with bombs or rocket-type munitions. I can list them if you'd like.

Please do. I realize that they aren't meant necessarily for dogfighting, but they do have offensive applications to other targets.

I honestly never put much thought into a baseline equivalent since gun math has more or less gone the way of the Dodo in favor of armament ratings. Each gun would technically be a repeating cannon if I were to hazard a guess. It's the ammunition that adds in the extra punch depending on the ammo type chosen. Ion or blaster X-CL ammunition would add the heavy modifier while the disruptor ammunition would only be standard (I'm not that evil >.>). So, its technically a standard repeating cannon, but fires cartridges that operate as heavy versions of the standards, minus the disruptor ammunition that is.

While it's true that the official gun math is gone, with non-conventional weapons, I do like the ability to size up how people will be writing from them in comparative terms. I believe that's the intent of the armament ratings, but I find that sometimes the intended power isn't always readily clear to me. I do appreciate your willinginess to clarify this for me.

Eh, yes/no. It has no dedicated warhead launchers. Bombs are literally dropped from hardpoints mounted and any rocket or rocket type munitions would be unguided and fired from installed racks. No target locks and no fancy shenanigans. Mostly they'd be used to hit maybe light defense works or clustered troops in the open, maybe a vehicle if you've a pilot with good dive bombing/bombing skills.

I figured that 6 unguided rockets were basically equivalent to 6 warheads (which is roughly 2 launchers on the old guidelines). While I'd agree that they're not likely to be as effective as more "modern" munitions in many cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not as powerful or useful in some cases compared to standard munitions (for example, against a stationary or large target or if it's engaging in an area of effect attack).

As for the Mk II variant, defenses, and speed... How about I meet you in the middle. What say I drop the Mk II variant to minor production and then drop the defense rating to 8 for both variants? It helps compensate for and explain the power/mass ratios and why the starfighter is somewhere between the standard starfighter and the standard interceptor in terms of speed/agility.

I can go with a defense rating of 6 for the Mark I version to keep that flight performance.

I'd like to take a little more time to consider the Mark II. I really don't like shutting people's ideas down, but at the same time, I'm not certain about that balance. Give until tomorrow, and I'll come up with a yea or nay, or some other options for us to consider.

 

[Popo]

[member="Gir Quee"]

I figured that 6 unguided rockets were basically equivalent to 6 warheads (which is roughly 2 launchers on the old guidelines). While I'd agree that they're not likely to be as effective as more "modern" munitions in many cases, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not as powerful or useful in some cases compared to standard munitions (for example, against a stationary or large target or if it's engaging in an area of effect attack).

*waggles hand* I disagree to an extent, though I do see where you're coming from. I just don't consider them to count towards or against the armament rating is all. I see it more as fluff to help keep the thing versatile if that makes any sense. Sort of a change of pace from just hosing things with cannons in each mission.

I can go with a defense rating of 6 for the Mark I version to keep that flight performance. I'd like to take a little more time to consider the Mark II. I really don't like shutting people's ideas down, but at the same time, I'm not certain about that balance. Give until tomorrow, and I'll come up with a yea or nay, or some other options for us to consider.

Hmmmm... I know you wanna think on it a bit, but how about I propose something in the middle again. Taking into consideration that mass is a thing and guns are heavy which affects speed/maneuverability, how about this. I propose keeping the Mk I at 8, which would be an understandable place for combined defenses of shields and armor to be as it would have a halfway decent shield generator and enough armor plating behind the seat to protect the actual pilot to an extent. It's a solid balance point between attack and defense while leaving the starfighter in a speed/agility region between starfighters and interceptors. It'll perform on par with or slightly better than standard starfighters (X-Wings), but get outrun and outmaneuvered by standard interceptors (A-Wings) while having the defense rating of the aforementioned interceptors.

On the Mk II, why don't I drop the defensive rating to 6 instead of 8. That would reflect the trade-off required in regards to mass/power ratios by downgrading the shield generator to a smaller, lighter, and weaker model while using the the available mass to load the extra four cannons and ammunition. That would maintain the speed and maneuverability of the craft while allowing the higher armament rating, but balancing it OOCly with a low, low defensive rating and IC'ly explaining the balance as a mass/power ratio issue.

That way, it becomes a solid trade-off between the two variants and offers more balance to the Mk II, which is maxed out on rating. In addition, keeping it at minor production means there will always be more of the Mk Is than the Mk IIs.

That all said, if it helps (because I know this is all a bit wonky, I've been in your shoes with similar subs, and I'll readily admit that this is probably one of my crazier concepts), I'd be open to balancing it a bit more. I'd be willing to drop the Mk I variant down to Minor and then drop the Mk II variant down the Limited if that would ease your mind on the balancing issues.

 

[Gir Quee]

Hmmmm... I know you wanna think on it a bit, but how about I propose something in the middle again. Taking into consideration that mass is a thing and guns are heavy which affects speed/maneuverability, how about this. I propose keeping the Mk I at 8, which would be an understandable place for combined defenses of shields and armor to be as it would have a halfway decent shield generator and enough armor plating behind the seat to protect the actual pilot to an extent. It's a solid balance point between attack and defense while leaving the starfighter in a speed/agility region between starfighters and interceptors. It'll perform on par with or slightly better than standard starfighters (X-Wings), but get outrun and outmaneuvered by standard interceptors (A-Wings) while having the defense rating of the aforementioned interceptors.

If an armament or defense rating is going to be above 16, it generally needs development unless it has a really, and I mean really, noticeable weakness. Even with development, it's expected to have some weakness compared to an average craft especially if it's going to be mass-produced. If you would like, I can point to my own Cyclone-class Bomber, which has a defensive rating of 18, as an example.

That being said, I can see a "8" working if this submission is backed by a solid development thread between 10-20 posts (The more quality in each the posts, the fewer that would it need).

On the Mk II, why don't I drop the defensive rating to 6 instead of 8. That would reflect the trade-off required in regards to mass/power ratios by downgrading the shield generator to a smaller, lighter, and weaker model while using the the available mass to load the extra four cannons and ammunition. That would maintain the speed and maneuverability of the craft while allowing the higher armament rating, but balancing it OOCly with a low, low defensive rating and IC'ly explaining the balance as a mass/power ratio issue.

I think that any rating of 19 or 20 is going to require development just as a matter of principle unless it has a really, really glaring weakness, like a defensive rating of 1 or 0 (and that's not hyperbole).

I can a defensive rating of 6 working with this at limited production with another 10-20 posts of development. The way I see it, this would would most likely be equivalent to the old "Elite" starfighter classification.

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member=Popo] [member=Gir Quee]
What is the status of this submission?

 

[Popo]

[member="Braith Achlys"]
Dev thread in progress

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member=Popo]
Alright. I am going to archive this for now, please PM either myself or another Admin or RPJ to have it pulled out once your development thread is completed.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Moved to Archives - PM [member="Spencer Varanin"] for removal / if denied for Second Chance please post and tag Spencer Varanin for review.

Thank you!

 

[Cira]

Moved from archives

 

[Popo]

[member="Cira"]
I think I got it all sorted.

 

[Cira]

[member="Popo"]

Assigned to [member="Raziel"] for review

 

[Raziel]

I'm sorry, but I'm not approving a space propeller plane.

You may second chance this decision

 

[Raziel]

<p>This submission has been denied and moved to the Archives.<br /><br />You may request a Second Chance within the Factory Discussion Forum and tag Cira for review.<br /><br />Thank you!</p>

 

[Cira]

Intent: Because propeller planes in space and I wanted to see different ways canon technology can be used and utilized.

Please consider your intent. I do not want an increase of propeller planes in space. This second chance is granted under the understanding that it is held to the niche precedence of the Robida Colossus.

Please limit the availability of this being used in space and hyperspace as well.

Also, please change the image to a more appropriate one that can reflect the design.

RPJ reviewing this is [member="Jamie Pyne"].

 

[Jamie Pyne]

[member="Popo"]

I am going to be very honest, the idea of this gives me a mild headache.

Anyway, as for the subject of the etheric rudder, which is what I believe you are basing your argument for the propeller on:

"Starfighters have an additional gadget called an etheric rudder that allows them to redirect their momentum while within an existing gravity field, making it possible to execute tight turns while in low orbit; the ship’s original momentum radiates as gravity waves, and any space battle is very noisy to grav sensors. The lower the gravitational gradient, the less useful the rudder is. Engineers call it an "etheric keel-rudder assembly"."

This is a quote I've lifted from this article, which I believe explains the etheric rudder much better than the vague Wookie article, and makes more sense, though in my interpretation, does not allow the ability for which you are describing in your argument, which I believe is free flying transportation throughout space. I would be okay granting this submission a bit of leeway in terms of the ability to perform flight within the gravity field of a planet, or other celestial body where momentum would be logically capable of being picked up and redirected, (Deployment from within the artificial gravity of a carrier, perhaps), but not outside of that, and not for an everlasting period of time. That momentum would expire if outside of the gravitational field quickly.

If that is amenable to you, I am willing to proceed judging this.