I ask because in Book 3, an Air Raft can reach orbit. It takes one hour per size number (so a size 8 takes 8 hours). That suggests a size F takes 15 hours. But it, of course, makes no mention of the G rating of the planet.
1g Ships and Size:7 worlds...
- Thread starter infojunky
- Start date
- Status
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
In Striker terms it would have about 0.1 G over local gravity. By Striker it would be considerably faster than 100 km/h in low gravity, or unloaded.
IIRC, not enough to accelerate the craft to orbital speeds fast enough.
LBB3 grav vehicles are obviously not built using Striker, so take all of the above with a shovel of salt...
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, that is a general problem with table based systems.
With FF&S there is no problem whatsoever, if you want 1.4 G, you can get that...
High Guard isn't table based, and you can't get 1.4g out of it either.
Try those numbers on a Harrier jump-jet; if necessary, consider the ski-ramp launch method for takeoff used when combat-loaded weight>thrust.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Isn't it?
LBB5'80, p23:
If they had given a simple formula, like M = (G × 3 - 1)% of the ship, we could have done whatever we wanted. But, no, they had to give us a quantified table instead.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No real difference, it has a slightly smaller wing than the Gripen, and is lighter:
2000 / 14 × 22.6 ≈ 3200 m2 Free Trader equivalent.
With 105 kN (~10 "tonnes") of thrust in can only take off vertically at 9.5 tonnes.
They had to [ed: use a table that yielded integer results], since the combat system for which the construction system is written, relies on integer values.
The same "if it was a formula" issue applies to LBB2, even though that system can and does use non-integer values elsewhere.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
By rolling down a runway.
At full combat load its "short take off" and "vertical landing".
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Doing things that reduce the "universal sameness" of YTU tends to lend greater texture and detail to an otherwise "bland" setting.
Can EVERY AIRPLANE make a water landing repeatedly?
No. Some can ... specifically seaplanes that are designed for it ... but most won't. In fact, you need to go out of your way to engineer aircraft to enable water landings, which usually involves compromises in other parts of the overall design.
Can EVERY AIRPLANE take off after having landed in the water?
No ... obviously not.
Just because SOME can, because they were specifically designed for it, doesn't ipso facto mean that ALL can (by default assumption).
A similar fallacy in thinking would be to assert that because SOME starships can safely enter atmosphere, then ipso facto that means that ALL starships can safely enter atmosphere ... which is an obviously erroneous and incorrect assertion to make.
Also, that waterborne take off run kind of requires something of a relatively calm wave action as the prevailing condition in order to get "enough flat runup to liftoff speed" before rising above the water's surface. Too much wave action/choppy water ... and you aren't making that run up without taking on some major risks (depending on wave heights and running room). In other words, harsh weather conditions in an austere landing location can preclude you from taking off when dependent upon aerodynamic lift and surface conditions. By contrast, Gravitic VTOL performance (of sufficient power) renders most of those take off hazard conditions moot (because you can just "FALL UP" to gain altitude instead).
Same thing applies to terrestrial runway takeoffs. If you're out in the boonies somewhere with not a lot of runway room, it's a lot safer to just VTOL straight up/down than trying to move horizontally in order to enable vertical lift off. There are plenty of movies involving stories of needing to clear out wilderness runways long enough to attempt a takeoff from a wilderness location. STOL performance helps, by making the runway distance you need in order to take off ... but maximum flexibility in as wide a variety of environments as possible is going to rely on gravitics (which do not require atmosphere to operate effectively) powerful enough to achieve VTOL performance in any terrestrial gravity well.
For our purposes, that means 2G minimum to always have a "maneuver fraction margin" over local terrestrial world gravity at the planetary surface (gas giant gravity wells are a different problem!).
1G maneuver is "good enough" for MOST terrestrial worlds (Size: 7-) ... with the remainder (Size: 8+) being No Guarantees locations, depending on context and choice of landing spots (some yes, some no).
2G+ maneuver is "definitely enough" (with margin to spare) for ALL "typical" terrestrial worlds (except for the most uniquely exceptional).
Which was my point.
Water can be a runway.
With ground effects, a flat plain can be a runway.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Once drop tanks were introduced, drive performance is non-integer at some point.
Do what you want and round drive performance rating down? But that would be to easy...
No, all you'd need is 1.3Gs and patience.
Except the build rules in Classic don't let you build for fractional Gs even if that's the obviously preferable option.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, but with a bumpy runway you have to land and take off slower, not to break the landing gear, so need a bigger wing, not no wing...
Landing several thousand tonnes on wheels on soft ground would be "interesting", at a guess.
Lifting body. As noted, this isn't how they're depicted.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, by RAW it's an integer, and damn the consequences.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
A lifting body gives some lift, not as much as a massive wing.
An X-24B had a specified "wing area" of about 31 m2 for a mass of about 6 tonnes.
In Free Traders that would be:
2000 / 6 × 31 ≈ 10 000 m2. A 30 m by 300 m Free Trader with a height of 0.3 m?
With that wing it didn't take off normally, but was dropped from a carrier aircraft...
The idea here is to get within "suspension of disbelief" range. This is science fiction, after all.
- Status
Similar threads
