Starfleet Design Bureau

[Tank man]

Yah know, with a flat profile could we duel phaser bank broadside in all directions? Wait do we have phaser arrays? Im not familiar with TOS era technology.

Click to shrink...

We have phaser banks, a bank comprises two emitters (ball turrets) with an Xarc of 75° which is superior to the canon TOS firing arc by 30°. We can fire one bank at a time.

Not sure the Y axis capabilities, probably only limited by how far they can turn.

Phaser arrays are TNG era (technically slightly before, going by the Ambassador-class) technology, they combine the firepower of each of the individual emitters (iirc) and whilst individually weaker and as a whole much more powerful, the longer the better.

 

[Derpmind]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[WCSII]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Some_guy_161]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[cailco]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Model DC.14F]

Back of the napkin math: The space frame can only handle two engines if "both of their maximum thrusts to be dialled down to around 60% of standard"; which would result in the total thrust output from both being the equivalent to 120% of a standard thruster.
That means we would be paying 200% the cost of a single thruster for only a 20% increase in output. Frankly it's not worth it for a ship that isn't meant for Front-Line duties, and IMO probably not even for one that would be.

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Tank man]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

Even if we go for a more expensive weapons fit, we'll be able to afford an extra hull compared to two engines!

 

[Onionjones]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Candesce]

[x] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[zac1]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Estro]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Derek58]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

High is plenty for a Science Ship.

 

[luckless21]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Wootius]

[x] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[RighteousRancor]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Sara hunter]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Chiperninerm]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Nevis]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Tylonius]

[x] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Endorfinator]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Ebiris]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[KlavoHunter]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

Having the combat maneuverability of a Newton is pretty impressive for a science vessel, and the double engine setup is just wasteful in engine power, cost, and module space.

If we get the option for photorps, forward tube(s) wouldn't be bad, we could get them on-target fairly reliably at High Maneuverability, as opposed to going for a rear-firing run-away tube.

 

[Tank man]

If we get the option for photorps, forward tube(s) wouldn't be bad, we could get them on-target fairly reliably at High Maneuverability, as opposed to going for a rear-firing run-away tube.

Click to shrink...

Whilst our choices will obviously have butterflies it'd be funny if a RFL-2/3x phaser Darwin ends up in the same situation as the Grissom in Star Trek III, assuming enough are made to get a TMP refit I'd bet good odds on it killing the BoP.

 

[Chargone]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

 

[Arbit]

[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]