Box-truck Scout-Courier

[Patron Zero]

IMTU 100 Ton Scout-Couriers can be seen operating with a 'box-truck' modification allowing for a larger freight capacity.

Drives and powerplants moved outward, now in two (2) fuel-processor, M-drive/J-drive and powerplant compartments, also the upper and lower decks refitted for fuel tankage.

The large rear hatch of the cargo section is configured to act as a 'lift-gate' giving the vessel an ability to transfer cargo on landing fields not fully equipped for such activities.

The large open bay allows for four (4) standard cargo containers to be stowed easily or a mix of pallet loads and-or other materials.

The Scout-Courier deck layout is classified as a Frontier Scout, details provided upon request to any interested parties.

 

[Reban]

I like it. Reminds me of the Blakeway rescue vessel.

 

[esampson]

IMTU 100 Ton Scout-Couriers can be seen operating with a 'box-truck' modification allowing for a larger freight capacity.

Drives and powerplants moved outward, now in two (2) fuel-processor, M-drive/J-drive and powerplant compartments, also the upper and lower decks refitted for fuel tankage.

The large rear hatch of the cargo section is configured to act as a 'lift-gate' giving the vessel an ability to transfer cargo on landing fields not fully equipped for such activities.

The large open bay allows for four (4) standard cargo containers to be stowed easily or a mix of pallet loads and-or other materials.

The Scout-Courier deck layout is classified as a Frontier Scout, details provided upon request to any interested parties.

Speaking as a huge fan of repurposed Scout/Couriers I like the general idea though I'm not completely sure of the practicality of the execution. For one thing I usually try to minimize shifting of large components (under the assumption that it would be more work and greater expense, even though the rules don't really support that). Also the rear hatchway would be about 4.5m off the ground (the main deck of the type S is the second deck which makes it 3m from the lowest point of the ship. Since the landing legs hold the bottom of the ship off the ground that would add even more height).

Since the type S only has 3 tons of cargo normally what has been given up to make this one a more practical vessel? Also, what rules system are you devising this under? CT? MgT? T5? I've been looking at some ideas where the type S basically has around an extra 100 tons of 'drop tanks' that are used to carry cargo or extra fuel at reduced performance (the specific tanks can't be used for either fuel or storage but have to be dedicated. That still means you can take an extra 25 or so tons of fuel in external fuel tanks to support a second jump and extended duration and still gain 75 tons of cargo space from external cargo pods).

 

[Patron Zero]

Thanks Reban, added a rear-view.

 

[tinker123]

By eye, I'd say the changes are:
reduced crew common area (so it's a bit more cramped to live in)
narrow-track undercarriage (legs closer together, so a bit trickier to land safely)
new drives, configured as a pair (rather than a single drive with two thrust nozzles), which introduces a chance of one drive failing and the ship going around in circles
probably reduced fuel capacity, but that's hard to check

As far as the tail-lift goes, that's a bit like the under-floor lift on the Beowulf, and addresses a general problem with loading cargo into a ship that sets down on legs. For Class D starports and above you may be able to rely on a fork-lift being available to load, but even the classic type S seems badly suited to loading & unloading on the frontier worlds it's supposed to be scouting.

 

[BlackBat242]

There is also no air/raft. That's 4dt right there.

Add in the 3dt cargo bay and corridor space (~1dt), another dt from the reduced common area, and that's 9dt total.

Then note the lack of the narrow upper deck of the CT Type S design and the lower deck (Patron Zero said that fuel was moved from the sides to there), and that's a bunch more (another ~15dt) - for about 24dt.

 

[tinker123]

I'd not seen the loss of upper & lower decks. They were always awkward to use. Does that mean (a) no turret (since it's not accessible) & (b) the only airlock hatch is accessed through the avionics crawlway. That'll make it fun for the customs guy to come aboard from the patrol vessel!

 

[esampson]

There is also no air/raft. That's 4dt right there.

Add in the 3dt cargo bay and corridor space (~1dt), another dt from the reduced common area, and that's 9dt total.

Then note the lack of the narrow upper deck of the CT Type S design and the lower deck (Patron Zero said that fuel was moved from the sides to there), and that's a bunch more (another ~15dt) - for about 24dt.

Unfortunately the upper and lower decks don't constitute ~15dt. That's always been a problem with the T&G deckplans (of which I only became aware of this past year). While the outlines are correct they are not 3m tall areas as that would extend well outside the bounds of the ship. They are actually crawl spaces.

 

[GypsyComet]

The upper Gallery would have full height right at the tail, but lose it evenly as you move forward. The classic Upper Gallery stops where *any* room for it stops, just behind the Bridge.

 

[esampson]

Worse than that, it is only at full height at the center right at the tail. Move to either the port or starboard and the outer roof slopes down.

There is a certain amount of separating between the outer roof and the 'deck roof' where cables and pipes run and I forget how big that space is (.5 or 1m) so you would have some flat roof overhead but it doesn't reach all the way to the port and starboard walls. Exactly how big that area is is debatable since we don't have an exact thickness of the external bulkhead (and there might be a facade in front of the bulkhead to cover up cables and pipes).