Thanks!

I accidentally deleted a working file while being in a hurry. It's not that tragic since I still got the unedited raw file. So I decided to trail off a bit and experiment on reducing file size and other other drawing options. This is needed for the large (flight) decks. And already hit some realization troubles
I guess I'll create some special versions for those who want to play around with the flight deck. I just haven't put much thought into it yet. Maybe something like those boardgames with little "markers" or better.

Here's a little illustration to show the size problem of a federation fighter design in general.

I have added the Star Fleet Academy Trainer and the Airbus A300 for comparison. Don't mind the Klingo/Romulan "Agressor" unit color schemes.
As you can see even the desired size of the Valkyrie has a tight cockpit compared to the A300 not to mention the size determined to be useable within the Akira class deckplans. There certainly is enough space for the pilot seats but the space in-between is very tight. If you don't move the seat back or turn them around it's just difficult to get into the seats.
With the Federation's obvious (space efficiency) requirement for two pilots for warp-capable crafts there's just no way to design anything smaller. A fighter without warp is useless as target ships can easily "avoid" them. Note: the trainer is not warp-capable! The same goes for the Reman Scorpion. The Venture class is probably the best representative of a "small" combat fighter while the Peregrine being the "medium" size. (Makes me want to design a new one again )

Very cool, I also like the ideas behind the graphic! Great.

Thanks.
I was a bit indecisive which kind of painting rule to follow Air Forces or Navy. I figured Squadron Numbers and ship numbers are a must. Carrier name/number is not necessary as a Space Wing gets assigned to this or that ship at different times and needs of the Fleet. Also it's part of the game to obscure assignment. I used squadron colors since that also makes sense. It only serves for people on the "ground". In space it's all not visible anyway. Note that general regulation is that nose color & art will be removed in war time.

Here's the nacked "flydeck".

The only thing new compared to earliest design are the arrows. Not that anyone would be able to see them, though.
The side cargo bays aren't meant to be used as shuttle bays unless there's no choice.
I haven't decided on a bunch things there, hence, I haven't make any marking yet.

Imho with all the ship structure (nacelles, weaponspod etc.) surrounding the shuttle bays landing on the ship is more dangerous than enemy fire. In WWI more pilots died on landing than by enemy fire because the early runways were bad and difficult to see, especially at night. Even the lights or beacon fires weren't much helpful. In order to land on the Akira, I guess pilots need a longer final run and have no choice but to go straight from the back. It makes them predictable and a perfect target for enemy fire. A clean & unobstructed (e.g. Intrepid class) bay would allow pilots to approach from any vector and high speed. This would be relatively safer.

The same could be said about launching auxiliary crafts/fighters/shuttles to the front. All the enemy needs to do is just fire away at the bow and any shuttle leaving the ship will be hit even without need of targeting. Whether the carrier has extra shields or not doesn't matter. As soon as a shuttle leaves the ship & shield it will be hit. Veering away after launch is not going to help. And in that case why not launch to the side to begin with.

That is true, and you can have a festival of fire down your enemy. Really very detailed thinking!

A quick update!
deckplans for standard Akira class version and the Akira-P version
Since these are from bottom up, I included the deck curvature indication lines to the net upper deck.


This plan is an exception to the rule as it's not a full sized deck.
Here the outer line marks 0 m difference; the mid line marks -0.848 m below the floor of the upper deck; the center area marks -2.142 m below the floor of the upper deck
A: deflector & warpcore secondary cooling loop; deflector can serve to divert heat
1: forward tractor emitter
2: tractor beam generator
3: antimatter manifold injector
4: antimatter emergency purge vent & supply conduit manifold
5: warpcore ejection hatch
6: antimatter loading hatch
7: antimatter ejection hatch
8: explosive bolt
9: access hatch to main lift shaft
10: coolant reserve tank and reallocation tank for maintenance purposes


This is the standard plan I'm going to apply. See descriptive figure in the lower right corner. Outerline marks 0 m; mid line 0.5 m above deck floor; center area if the actual floor
A: deflector primary cooling loop
B: future sensor expansion; modular sensing element module bay
C: tertiary pneumatic ejection system
D: future expansion; support system/extra fuel
E: future expansion; support systems
1: central turbolift shaft fore
2: central warpcore; coremantel
3: antimatter tank; medium: 100 cubic meters; large: 1250 cubic meters;
3a: rails on ceiling
4: antimatter supply conduit system & manifolds
5: catwalk
6: cargo transporter support; transporter buffer
7: ladder
8: lift

A: Deflector room
B: auxiliary system monitoring room
C: observation room
D: airlock
E: changing room
F: cargo processing room
G: sensor workshop
H: Van space/future expansion
i: (reserve) contingency mess
J: (reserve) contingency accomodations
K: bath/rest room
L: Van space/future expansion
M: emergency air supply; environment control/air filtering&recovery
N: future expansion (bath/rest room)
P: spare parts storage (deflector)
1: central turbolift shaft fore
2: central warpcore; coremantel
3: antimatter tank; medium: 100 cubic meters; large: 1250 cubic meters
3a: rails on ceiling
4: main elevator shaft
5: Signal (Pre) Processing
6: deflector generators
7: multipurpose filter/gas generator (e.g. CO2); Nitrogen/Oxygen Recharge System (NORS)
8: emergency lockers; Standard Extravehicular Work Garment (SEWG) suit lockers
9: small cargo transporter
10: catwalk
11: self destruct package/device; ~10 t TNT equivalent
12: ladder
13: lift

Compared to the original plans I only moved some stuff around a bit. Not too far that you would see much of a difference.

Wow wow wow!!!

Thank you.

Now, that I'm more or less done with finalizing the essentials I present some guide sheets for the engineering (cadets).

This is the Akira-class turbolift network map in simplified form. It's a fail-safe network, hence all vertical shafts are double shafts. So it's actual 18 shaft placements, slightly more than a Galaxy. The left/right connectivity within the primary hull are not displayed.


A sheet on the power system. Actually, it's a lesser variation from the Prestige project. The Quninary grid isn't really a grid on it's own. It's just the link between the two bio-reactors. All in all it's more or less to general aeronautics standards.

Oh well, other projects have been and are keeping me busy. Since the plans are interconnected it will be a while longer.

Anyway, the news today is capacitors are closing the gap on the batteries.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6267/1508
Ideally in the far future both are as good as one and the same. However, I will keep going with having the extra considerations. It could be viewed as extra improvement or expansion options with no need of extra space.

Very cool work on the Akira Class

Well, I haven't been able to work on this for some time. Meanwhile my computer died along with most of my backup drives, too. I dunno why the comp and HDD died, I know why the backups died, though. There's a huge loss, setback so I just didn't feel like reworking. Sorry, for this human psychological weakness. I'll return to this, though.