It's possible to make something that looks... utilitarian for lack of a better word, but that still looks good. The Millenium Falcon is a perfect example of a ship that looks crappy, but everyone still loves it.The K Wing is the result of an undisciplined and uncontrolled creative mind. It misses the aesthetic ideals of the other fighters and I don't mean in an in-universe kind of way, I mean from an artistic development kind of way. When something HAS to look a certain way, like the Lancaster or the A-10 mentioned above, then all is forgiven in terms of appearance. When you're dealing with a purely fictional ship, then form is much more important than function because function effectively doesn't exist. As an artistic choice, mimicking the 'form over function' appearance of certain real-world military vehicles is fine, but only if you hit the nail on the head. It's such a narrow target to hit, and if you miss it you wind up with a ship, like the K Wing, that just looks silly.

Fiction or nonfiction doesn't really matter in my opinion.

Having a ship that looks like it's designed to fill a roll rather than just look pretty helps to bring a fictional universe to life I find

I find beauty in function but that's me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Most, if not all, design in the Star Wars films is aimed at conveying an emotion. The K-Wing fails to do that. This is not disastrous ar anything, but it's just not a very good design.

The K Wing is the result of an undisciplined and uncontrolled creative mind. It misses the aesthetic ideals of the other fighters and I don't mean in an in-universe kind of way, I mean from an artistic development kind of way. When something HAS to look a certain way, like the Lancaster or the A-10 mentioned above, then all is forgiven in terms of appearance. When you're dealing with a purely fictional ship, then form is much more important than function because function effectively doesn't exist. As an artistic choice, mimicking the 'form over function' appearance of certain real-world military vehicles is fine, but only if you hit the nail on the head. It's such a narrow target to hit, and if you miss it you wind up with a ship, like the K Wing, that just looks silly.

Yet Star Wars is pretty heavily grounded in realism, so the function is important. This isn't Harry Potter where you can do whatever because magic, this is Space WWII. Vader wears a Stahlhelm, Hoth was Dunkirk, the Death Star was the Bismarck, Yavin was the Dambusters raid, Endor was a cross between Midway and Operation Crossbow, and dogfights are the Battle of Britain. If a piece of military equipment exists, it should fill a logical purpose that would exist if Star Wars were reality.

If the B-Wing didn't exist and you were told that the tiny little A-Wing was designed as the Alliance's primary heavy strike fighter at Endor, you wouldn't believe it, would you? Sure, the slim arrowhead shape of the RZ-1 is pretty, but it doesn't fit the part.

In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage.

The K-Wing isn't supposed to look fast, it isn't supposed to look maneuverable, it's supposed to look like it blows big things up and brings its crew home.

Also, every modern real-world military vehicle's design is dependent on its function - even the 'pretty' ones. Take the F-22 for example - it's a mix of low-speed agility, high-speed performance, range, payload capability, and pilot awareness, shaped by area rule and current understanding of stealth technology.

Star Wars is also space-wizards fighting with laser-swords. Don't take any of this too seriously.

Most, if not all, design in the Star Wars films is aimed at conveying an emotion. The K-Wing fails to do that. This is not disastrous ar anything, but it's just not a very good design.

According to many people on these forums, the emotion conveyed by the K-Wing is angst.

Most, if not all, design in the Star Wars films is aimed at conveying an emotion. The K-Wing fails to do that. This is not disastrous ar anything, but it's just not a very good design.

According to many people on these forums, the emotion conveyed by the K-Wing is angst.

especially when they finally come out and start blowing holes in their squadrons

Star Wars is also space-wizards fighting with laser-swords. Don't take any of this too seriously.

It is an interesting mix. But the "space-wizards with laser-swords" tends not to apply during military engagements during the OT - it's more of a neat side-show. After all, Wedge Antilles and Lando Calrissian - two people who I'm pretty sure weren't space-wizards - would have made the end result of the Luke/Vader/Palpatine Death Star II duel irrelevant.

And that is one of the things I like about Star Wars: the fact that in a galaxy far, far away, normal people can have as much of an impact on galactic events as Jedi and Sith. Sure, Force-users are special, but they aren't all-powerful.

Why do people rag on the A-10? I think it looks awesome.

I dunno. Don't forget that the A-10 is a big ****ing gun that they decided to put wings on it. Its simplistic in its design. You can't say that for the Krack wing.

There is literally no pleasing everyone. Star Wars has been around for dern near 40 years at this point. If someone were to pitch episode 4 today, teh internetz would ridicule them all day long. (Laser-swords and we call them "light-sabers"? Really?)

If a designer stays too close to the existing ship ideas, we say they are being "lazy" (See countless posts on the punisher) If a designer strays too far from some arbitrary Star Warsy feel, then we complain about that. The sweet spot is a moving target that will differ from one fan to the next.

If you love the K-wing, good for you. To me, it just has the same over-the-top lack of restraint shown in my kids doodles. That said, if "The Bullwinkle" is fun to fly, I will be buying and flying. Casually of course.

To me, it looks like it was drawn by a 33 year old. I don't draw very well...

Concept art often bears little resemblance to the final version. Both images have forward cockpits and lots of ordnance and two pairs of wings.

Star Wars is also space-wizards fighting with laser-swords. Don't take any of this too seriously.

Heresy!!!!!!

Concept art often bears little resemblance to the final version. Both images have forward cockpits and lots of ordnance and two pairs of wings.

I can't even begin to count how many craft across all fictions and reality fit that description.

Concept art often bears little resemblance to the final version. Both images have forward cockpits and lots of ordnance and two pairs of wings.

I can't even begin to count how many craft across all fictions and reality fit that description.

Maybe. But the K-Wing looks like it covered itself in glue and rolled around in a bowl full of missiles and bombs.

Concept art often bears little resemblance to the final version. Both images have forward cockpits and lots of ordnance and two pairs of wings.

I can't even begin to count how many craft across all fictions and reality fit that description.

That sketch looks a lot more like this.

Want to claim the Lancaster Bomber was designed by an American schoolchild?

What? The Lannisters have their own Air Force now? The dragons had best watch out.

No, it was obviously designed by a BRITISH schoolchild. Duh! (it actually was- check the history of British aircraft design)

You people with your high and mighty snotty attitudes about the K-Wing are getting borderline offensive.

I wouldn't let it bother you. It's the internet; there's always someone, somewhere waiting to tell you that you're having fun wrong.

True, but I get really sick of minority bashing on these forums.

:wink:

Concept art often bears little resemblance to the final version. Both images have forward cockpits and lots of ordnance and two pairs of wings.

I can't even begin to count how many craft across all fictions and reality fit that description.

Maybe. But the K-Wing looks like it covered itself in glue and rolled around in a bowl full of missiles and bombs.

Same with pretty much any modern mud-mover. Take the F-15E Strike Eagle for example - with more hardpoints than the K-Wing, when it's fully loaded it can look a bit like it suffered a case of overzealous child hobbyist.

In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage.

Like I said, taking an imagined role and designing how you might imagine a vehicle that fits that imaginary role might look is a very narrow mark to hit. Miss by even an inch and you wind up with a ship that just looks silly.

The designers of the K Wing missed.

They had two objectives:

1 - Make it look cool.

2 - Make it look real.

It just barely meets the second criteria (and that's being generous), and wildly misses on the first one.

In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage.

Like I said, taking an imagined role and designing how you might imagine a vehicle that fits that imaginary role might look is a very narrow mark to hit. Miss by even an inch and you wind up with a ship that just looks silly.The designers of the K Wing missed.They had two objectives:1 - Make it look cool.2 - Make it look real.It just barely meets the second criteria (and that's being generous), and wildly misses on the first one.

In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage.

Like I said, taking an imagined role and designing how you might imagine a vehicle that fits that imaginary role might look is a very narrow mark to hit. Miss by even an inch and you wind up with a ship that just looks silly.The designers of the K Wing missed.They had two objectives:1 - Make it look cool.2 - Make it look real.It just barely meets the second criteria (and that's being generous), and wildly misses on the first one.

Stop talking in absolutes.

To me it looks cool.

In-universe, the K-Wing is intended to fill a specific role, and the artistic design of the ship must reflect that. Sure, it's not pretty...but the requirements for close air support rarely lend themselves to beauty. Durability, redundant systems, a clear forward view, and firepower - those would be the tasks were the K-Wing real, and can you deny that it looks the part? A broad wing for stability, even with combat damage; plenty of hardpoints, including on secondary airfoils; defensive turret placement that allows for excellent defensive coverage (ventral turret can cover a lot of the forward arc, flanks, the belly, and a good portion of the aft between the lower wings, where the dorsal turret covers most of what the ventral misses, plus can overlap in the forward arc for maximum firepower); pilot and gunner in side-by-side seating, allowing both a clear view of the target; and what I see as an emergency back-up 'get home' engine that is protected from ground fire by the entire fuselage.

Like I said, taking an imagined role and designing how you might imagine a vehicle that fits that imaginary role might look is a very narrow mark to hit. Miss by even an inch and you wind up with a ship that just looks silly.

The designers of the K Wing missed.

They had two objectives:

1 - Make it look cool.

2 - Make it look real.

It just barely meets the second criteria (and that's being generous), and wildly misses on the first one.

First point is relative to the concept of cool that each observer personally has. That's far too subjective. I think it looks friggin awesome.

Second point is fine. We can discuss how realistic it looks in a rational way. It's a ship that exists in a fantasy space opera license, so I'm not sure how much realism actually matters. It is a believable design. This is a point we can argue in a rational manner, unlike the first point.

Starfighters in the Star Wars series are primarily used for combat in vacuum. The k-Wing design seems quite realistically suited for this. In fact, if it does need to enter atmospheric flight, it actually looks better than some of the other fighters (such as b-wings and all of the TIE series) because it has wings that look like they might actually sustain lift or at the very least allow for gliding. Of course some of the other fighters look absolutely unrealistic for this purpose- including the x-wing!

Back to the b-wing. While I think this ship is cool, I think it's fairly unrealistic and honestly impractical. I think it has managed to be the most practical of a certain type of ship in the Star Wars lore- ones where stuff rotates around a cockpit -but lets not bring Clone Wars era ships into this. Why does a ship who's primary focus being combat in vacuum need to rotate around its cockpit? What value does orientating the cockpit in one position and the rest of the ship in another position accomplish for in-vacuum dogfighting or bombing runs? Why do ships in Star Wars even need wings? It's not for atmospheric flight. Look at TIE fighters. There is no way that thing is aerodynamic but we have seen it in atmosphere flying just fine all the same. It is, however, quite well suited for vacuum combat where it doesn't need any fancy gizmos to keep it's cockpit relative to any plane because it's a vacuum. Just spin the entire ship.

I just don't see the point of bringing realism into a series where realism is not a primary focus. There has to be a tinge of realism. Things need to be believable enough to get by. I think the k-wing has that property just fine.

But does it look cool? Well, I think so... but that's subjective.

The Lancaster is a thing of beauty. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the same thread as the K Wing

They had two objectives:

1 - Make it look cool.

2 - Make it look real.

It just barely meets the second criteria (and that's being generous), and wildly misses on the first one.