Belladonna-class Clippers?

[mike wightman]

So if I understand the hull configuration table correctly a fusilier/lancer (144m long) will be ~4000t if needle configuration, or ~7000t if wedge.
The Belladonna (162m) will be ~6000t if needle configuration, or ~10000t if wedge.

By the way Dave, I take it the original Aurore and Maggart Clippers were designed using the x4 modifier for hull length from Brilliant Lances rather than the x3.5 from FF&S.

 

[ChaserCaffey]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
So if I understand the hull configuration table correctly a fusilier/lancer (144m long) will be ~4000t if needle configuration, or ~7000t if wedge.
The Belladonna (162m) will be ~6000t if needle configuration, or ~10000t if wedge.

Given that IIRC the Belladonna is supposed to be in the 6000-6500 ton range and given some other comments about the class's "look" that have been posted, the most likely configuration for me seems to be a 6250-6350 Dton needle airframe configuartion. It seems likely that the class would probably include integral staterooms, sickbays, machine shops, fuel tankage, and refining machinery that the Aurora class carries in pods, with maybe 1000 Dtons or so left over for a mission-configurable bay.

Here's a stumper for the gearheads out there- J3 or J5? I'd be inclined to say 3, given that it can be made within the RC and that relying on finding the right-sized jump drives for your hull could be a poor plan if the class is intended for series production. Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[mike wightman]

The counters for the Fusilier and Lancer in Battle Rider look like wedges to me, so I'd go with that configuration for them.
Where did you find out that the Belladonna is in the 6-6.5kt range? That would give her the needle configuration.

As for jump performance, both the Fusilier and Lancer have jump 2 accosring to Battle Rider, but the Belladonna is meant as more of an exploration vessel so jump 3 would be the choice for me. There may be variants fitted with relic jump drives, but these would be rarities IMHO.

 

[Uxi]

For my design, that's exactly what I did. 6250 displacement tons in a streamlined needle configuration (FF&S2 hull form). With 1000 dT multi-mission bay.

I chose J5 jump drive figuring this was gonna be a ship with a small enough run (at least initially) that the RC would be able to use a combination of Hiver support (if not outright subsidization) and salvage of TL14 and TL15 drives to be able to manage that.

That said, I only left 39 G-turns using that full J-5. I figured SOP would have called for Jump 4 as the standard "max jump" to keep 52 G-turns available for manuevering (and avoiding the BR penalty). It also followed what I developed as the Hiver Doctrine to save enough jump fuel to tuck-tail-and-run if necessary (though not quite as severe... as I was giving their J4 vessels aother J1 extra tankage).

 

[mike wightman]

I've just sat down with FF&S and a calculator to determine exact hull volumes from the known hull length.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Ship length hull config. volume

Lancer/Fusilier 144m needle 4136t
wedge 6946t

Belladonna 162m needle 5889t
wedge 10176t</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[ChaserCaffey]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The counters for the Fusilier and Lancer in Battle Rider look like wedges to me, so I'd go with that configuration for them.
Where did you find out that the Belladonna is in the 6-6.5kt range? That would give her the needle configuration.

I don't have a direct source for the Belladonna, but from the Battle Rider cards we know that the Lancer class destroyers are in the 6250-6500 dton range. Since the Belladonna is a related design, it seemed reasonable that she would be of a similar tonnage. Does that seem logical?

As for jump performance, both the Fusilier and Lancer have jump 2 accosring to Battle Rider, but the Belladonna is meant as more of an exploration vessel so jump 3 would be the choice for me. There may be variants fitted with relic jump drives, but these would be rarities IMHO.

That's a possibility, but I can also see wanting to have a Hiver-supplied J5 drive onboard. Basically, the design I have right now has an 1100 dton multimission bay, J5, and 25 G-turns of fuel, which is a bit lower than I'm comfortable with. I might try a J3 variant and see what that does in terms of freeing up more interior cubage and manuever fuel.

What I'd really like to do is find space for a hangar for one of the modular cutters, but that would be tricky. Being able to swap out modules on a long mission would be a definate plus, though.

 

[Dreadnought]

ChaserCaffey--

Re: your design. Remember that in TNE we did not continue the rule that said any jump of any distance consumed all of the fuel required by the ship's maximum jump, or however that went. In TNE you only consume the fuel required for the jump made (excepting perhaps microjumps, where there could be a 1 pc minimum, but I don't remember). The idea would be if your ship routinely only did J3s or 4s it would have that much more fuel remaining for G-turns as a routine matter. You just have to be more careful making a J5. That was a rationale that I fell back on a lot when designing high-jump ships.

Beyond that, I can't speak to the design without some books in front of me, and that not until after I finish this real-world proposal I'm working on.

Dave

 

[kaladorn]

That rule Dave mentions I saw in an errata for I think it was CT. But I'm thinking it didn't even make it into MT. I mean, you can justify from pseudo-sci, but it was annoying for gameplay and exploration. I think the TNE rule (and I think MT too) is more sensible.

Here's another question: Do different alien technologies change the volume/mass/energy/fuel requirements for systems of similar TL and performance? Would a Hiver system, or Vargr, or Aslan of TL X take up a different amount from an equivalent Imperial system?

 

[Dreadnought]

Kaladorn--

Here's another question: Do different alien technologies change the volume/mass/energy/fuel requirements for systems of similar TL and performance? Would a Hiver system, or Vargr, or Aslan of TL X take up a different amount from an equivalent Imperial system?

I would say, "Yes, No, and No."

Yes, it would be logical to think that different races would come up with different solutions that would play out differently in terms of game values. We see this all the time in different national technologies.

No, in that the ability of technology to do a thing is simple, universal physics, which do not change with the race that you are. Where you would see racial variations is in different standard design trade-offs in terms of safety, efficiency, etc., but any race could reproduce that effect if it made different choices. One way that this was "enforced" in other game lines, such as 2300 was that different races had different tolerances to radiation, and could therefore avail themselves of different technologies that were present for all, but simply could not be used by all. This notion was never established for Traveller.

No, in that Traveller didn't touch on it. The FF&S design sequences represented universal principles that would apply to any race. The only accommodation we made to racial differences was somewhere we had rules for different difficulty levels for races using other races equipment. We could possibly have made more rules for different interfaces, like a cramped workstation for a Hiver was a different value than for a human, but that always seemed to be less important than getting out design sequences in general.

Dave

 

[TheDS]

My figuring of the BR counters is that they are mostly AF cylinders in looks, somewhat similar to the Mary Ellen Carter, but not as fat in the forward section (almost making it needle-like). But I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a needle just yet.

OTOH, if they are based on Clippers, they should be AF boxes, or whatever a fully loaded clipper was (unless it was Close Frame).

 

[mike wightman]

theDS said:
My figuring of the BR counters is that they are mostly AF cylinders in looks, somewhat similar to the Mary Ellen Carter, but not as fat in the forward section (almost making it needle-like). But I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a needle just yet.

OTOH, if they are based on Clippers, they should be AF boxes, or whatever a fully loaded clipper was (unless it was Close Frame).

A fully loaded Clipper is a Close Frame configuration. Unloaded, and going by hull length, it is an Open frame.

Making the Lancer or Fusilier with a cylinder configuration as you suggest would mak the ships displace 14000t
That's a bit big if they are meant to be in the 6-7kt range - for which you need to use wedge configuration

 

[Uxi]

Huh? Earlier in the thread, you said that work twice, didn't you?

And it also worked for me... I switched to FFS2 Hull forms so I could customize the dimensions to my desire.