Flyers in Vehicle Maker

[Timerover51]

I spent some time this past weekend looking at my copies of US Civil Aircraft by Juptner and the Flyer design in T5, seeing if I could at least plug the following aircraft into the system without really designing them inside of Vehicle Maker: the Curtiss Condor T-32 biplane transport, the Stimson Trimotor, and the Waco S3HD-A.

The Curtiss Condor was a good-size biplane transport capable of carrying 15 passengers at 145 mph for about 600 miles. It received its Approved Type Certificate on March 16, 1933.

The Stimson Trimotor was an 8 passenger, plus 2 pilots and a stewardess, light transport with 3 engines, and excellent Short Take Off and Landing abilities. It received its Approved Type Certificate on September 25, 1934.

The Waco S3HD-A was a high-performance (at the time) 2-place biplane marketed as a multi-role military aircraft primarily to South American countries. It was just about as fast as the current crop of biplane fighters, and carried two .30 caliber machine guns in the lower wing firing outside of the propeller arc, a .30 caliber machine gun in the back for the rear gunner, and had racks for 10 fragmentation bombs under the fuselage. It was quite a nice fighter-bomber. Its Approved Type Certificate was issued on July 26, 1935. A slightly later version did very well with sales to South America.

While doing this, I did run into some problems.

Wilderness Kit. The Flyer (usually Winged) is adapted to landing on open flat ground and does not require a runway. This kit includes STOL capability. Available on Heavy or smaller Flyers.

This shows up in the Flyer Options text, but does not appear on the Options chart. I am not sure why this is viewed as an Option, as just about all aircraft up to roughly the mid 1930s could operate off of open flat ground.

The Waco can carry 3 machine guns, along with 2 bomb racks. Does each of the machine guns and bomb racks count as a weapons mount? Would the Waco qualify as a "Protector" with respect to mission or as an "Attack/Combat" Flyer?

Standard or larger Vehicles can carry operators and passengers equal to tonnage.
Free or available transport tonnage on a Vehicle can be modified to carry passengers (appropriate seating, access doors) at up to 4 passengers per ton.

I am not sure what "free or available transport tonnage" is.

Dimensions should be reasonably compact; adjust them as necessary. Ignore wings and wing tonnage.

Both the Condor and the Stimson have wing-mounted engines that are not exactly small. Am I correct that the engines and nacelles would count as tonnage?

Both the Stimson and Waco are capable of STOL performance, does that mean that the cost increases by 50,000 Credits? The Condor and the Waco could be equipped to floats? Is the 100,000 Credit cost for the floats included as well, or only when equipped with them? Note, periodically in Juptner, the cost of floats are mentioned, generally running for under $1000 in the 1920s and 1930s. I am not sure how much the floats for the Condor cost.

Lastly, I do have prices for the aircraft in 1930s US Dollars. As I see it, I have several options to convert those into Imperial Credits. I could use the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator ti convert from 1934 Dollars to 1977 Dollars, and figure that is the cost in Credits. I could use the value of an ounce of gold, at this time, $35 per ounce, divide the cost of the aircraft by 35 and then multiply by 200, which is the value of an ounce of gold in Credits given in Research Station Gamma. I could use the conversion tables given in the Trade and Commerce article in JTAS 4 for the value of a credit from a Tech Level 5 World. I could try to figure out the cost under Vehicle Maker. I could simply give the price in Dollars, and let the user decide.

I am ignoring the whole Beast Power chart, as it does not seem to have either a cost effect or affect the volume or load.

 

[David Johansen]

I think you're over thinking it. The makers just give benchmark performance for broad classes of vehicles. I lean towards vehicle mounts as a total tonnage but I really think that they need to adjust with the size of the vehicle. So a light vehicle would only have a quarter the mount tonnage that a heavy has.

All in all, weapon mounts are extremely under described and fuzzy.

 

[Reban]

The Enhancers chart has a lot of problems and as far as I can see was rarely updated through the draft phases despite changes to the body of the text and some errata being being offered.

The one that annoys me is "Stubs" for grav and lift vehicles. Its been there from the start with no explanation of what the enhancement is and I've included it in every call for errata.

Now to offer some contructive help.

Wilderness kit

This shows up in the Flyer Options text, but does not appear on the Options chart. I am not sure why this is viewed as an Option, as just about all aircraft up to roughly the mid 1930s could operate off of open flat ground.

For a low tech level Flyer its probably fair to assume they can land on prepared grass strips and cultivated fields etc. I think the point of the wilderness kit is to give the same capability to heavier higher tech Flyers, the kind that might sink on unprepared surfaces, or ingest debris into their engines, or be unable to clear a hedge or treeline close to the end of the runway, hence the mention of STOL

The Waco can carry 3 machine guns, along with 2 bomb racks. Does each of the machine guns and bomb racks count as a weapons mount? Would the Waco qualify as a "Protector" with respect to mission or as an "Attack/Combat" Flyer?

My house rule on this based on the the GunMaker description of mounts that plug into these weapons mounts is this: A vehicle can carry up to 200Kg of weapons without needing a weapons mount.

This takes account of fixed and ring mounted machine guns.

The ejector rack would depend on whether the bomb load falls within the 200Kg or less allowance or is greater. I assume that an "empty" weapons mount would function in a similar way to an empty Firmpoint; allowing up to 1dton of external ordnance to be carried or acting as an internal bomb bay capable of ejecting up to 1dton per turn.

I am not sure what "free or available transport tonnage" is.

I believe this is a clumsy way of referring to "Load". For civilian vehicles one unit of Load can be converted to carry 4 passengers.

Both the Condor and the Stimson have wing-mounted engines that are not exactly small. Am I correct that the engines and nacelles would count as tonnage?

The key concept here is the "Design Box". The design box is divided into quarter dton cubes. I'd demount the nacelles (either as a thought exercise or by drawing them) and place them with the vehicle hull (fuselage) and consider them.

If they fill one or more quarter dton cubes I'd include them in the design tonnage, if they fill less than one cube then discount them.

Both the Stimson and Waco are capable of STOL performance, does that mean that the cost increases by 50,000 Credits? The Condor and the Waco could be equipped to floats? Is the 100,000 Credit cost for the floats included as well, or only when equipped with them? Note, periodically in Juptner, the cost of floats are mentioned, generally running for under $1000 in the 1920s and 1930s. I am not sure how much the floats for the Condor cost.

If you're converting a real world vehicle and it comes "straight from the factory" with capabilities on the Enhancer chart I wouldn't include the cost.

The float landing gear option is designed to allow take off and landing from suitable bodies of water. I'd assume that includes amphibian capability unless the designer specifies otherwise. For water only gear half the cost.

i'd also assume that the float option also covers all the other modifications and gear required for water operations: increased control surfaces, trim gear, a lifeboat and water survival gear, fenders, engine and electronics modification for liquid environments.

So you could assume floats only are 50,000 but include all the neccessary modifications and extra equipment, plus the cost of converting your factory model to a floatplane model.

I am ignoring the whole Beast Power chart, as it does not seem to have either a cost effect or affect the volume or load.

The Beastpower chart seems to be an orphan idea as it has no practical effect on performance.

 

[Timerover51]

The Enhancers chart has a lot of problems and as far as I can see was rarely updated through the draft phases despite changes to the body of the text and some errata being being offered.

The one that annoys me is "Stubs" for grav and lift vehicles. Its been there from the start with no explanation of what the enhancement is and I've included it in every call for errata.

Now to offer some contructive help.

I did notice some other things in the Enhancer chart, but I was focused primarily on the Flyers.

For a low tech level Flyer its probably fair to assume they can land on prepared grass strips and cultivated fields etc. I think the point of the wilderness kit is to give the same capability to heavier higher tech Flyers, the kind that might sink on unprepared surfaces, or ingest debris into their engines, or be unable to clear a hedge or treeline close to the end of the runway, hence the mention of STOL

That appears to be a reasonable interpretation.

My house rule on this based on the the GunMaker description of mounts that plug into these weapons mounts is this: A vehicle can carry up to 200Kg of weapons without needing a weapons mount.

This takes account of fixed and ring mounted machine guns.

The ejector rack would depend on whether the bomb load falls within the 200Kg or less allowance or is greater. I assume that an "empty" weapons mount would function in a similar way to an empty Firmpoint; allowing up to 1dton of external ordnance to be carried or acting as an internal bomb bay capable of ejecting up to 1dton per turn.

The bomb racks could carry ten 25 pound fragmentation bombs, so less than your 200 Kilogram base. I would have to add up how much 2500 of belted .30 caliber machine gun ammunition would weigh, as the plane could carry 1000 rounds for each wing gun, and 500 rounds for the rear flexible gun.

I believe this is a clumsy way of referring to "Load". For civilian vehicles one unit of Load can be converted to carry 4 passengers.

Okay, but my question is then, if I count the engines as part of the load of the aircraft, does that reduce the potential passenger load?

The key concept here is the "Design Box". The design box is divided into quarter dton cubes. I'd demount the nacelles (either as a thought exercise or by drawing them) and place them with the vehicle hull (fuselage) and consider them.

If they fill one or more quarter dton cubes I'd include them in the design tonnage, if they fill less than one cube then discount them.

The engines and nacelles on both planes occupy more than 1 cube, more like 3 cubes each, so 6 cubes or 1.5 Traveller dTons.

If you're converting a real world vehicle and it comes "straight from the factory" with capabilities on the Enhancer chart I wouldn't include the cost.

The float landing gear option is designed to allow take off and landing from suitable bodies of water. I'd assume that includes amphibian capability unless the designer specifies otherwise. For water only gear half the cost.

i'd also assume that the float option also covers all the other modifications and gear required for water operations: increased control surfaces, trim gear, a lifeboat and water survival gear, fenders, engine and electronics modification for liquid environments.

So you could assume floats only are 50,000 but include all the neccessary modifications and extra equipment, plus the cost of converting your factory model to a floatplane model.

For the light planes in the Juptner books, conversion to float gear was pretty simple, without a lot of modifications. For some of the Amphibians mentioned, going to straight water operations was as simply as removing the landing gear.

The Beastpower chart seems to be an orphan idea as it has no practical effect on performance.

That does appear to be the case. It also givens some very odd results when compared to Real World vehicles.

Thanks for your feedback.

I am working on a new table for Winged Flyer landing fields, which will be considerably shorter than the ones given.

 

[tjoneslo]

I spent some time this past weekend looking at my copies of US Civil Aircraft by Juptner and the Flyer design in T5, seeing if I could at least plug the following aircraft into the system without really designing them inside of Vehicle Maker: the Curtiss Condor T-32 biplane transport, the Stimson Trimotor, and the Waco S3HD-A.

Having spent several hours with the Vehicle maker attempting similar kinds of things I came to the conclusion the T5 Vehicle maker is a) broken, b) too abstract to accurately model real world vehicles.

If you like and accept the handwaves offered by Reban, similar operations can be performed to detail other grey areas or rule conflicts.

For many real world items directly converting their costs into Credits, especial with higher cost items like vehicles, results in many different values. And in comparison to other, similar, existing Traveller vehicles it will get even more confusing because everyone uses a different method of calculating it. I would pick one that you like and use it.

My preferred method is to use the costs generated by the Vehicle maker, even if they seem wonky, because that's easier to explain. But it's certainly not a satisfying result.

 

[Reban]

The bomb racks could carry ten 25 pound fragmentation bombs, so less than your 200 Kilogram base. I would have to add up how much 2500 of belted .30 caliber machine gun ammunition would weigh, as the plane could carry 1000 rounds for each wing gun, and 500 rounds for the rear flexible gun.

Since T5 generally discounts ammunition altogether you could ingnore this, but I can see why you want the fidelity.

For me it would come down to; does 2500 rounds occupy a significant volume (say greater than a quarter dton). If it did, then I would assume it affects other characteristics such as Load and performance.

Okay, but my question is then, if I count the engines as part of the load of the aircraft, does that reduce the potential passenger load?

Why would engines count as Load?

Load is a measure of the volume that can be used for cargo or passengers (or modification).

Engines would be counted as part of the overall vehicle volume.

 

[Reban]

Having spent several hours with the Vehicle maker attempting similar kinds of things I came to the conclusion the T5 Vehicle maker is a) broken, b) too abstract to accurately model real world vehicles.

If you like and accept the handwaves offered by Reban, similar operations can be performed to detail other grey areas or rule conflicts.

For many real world items directly converting their costs into Credits, especial with higher cost items like vehicles, results in many different values. And in comparison to other, similar, existing Traveller vehicles it will get even more confusing because everyone uses a different method of calculating it. I would pick one that you like and use it.

My preferred method is to use the costs generated by the Vehicle maker, even if they seem wonky, because that's easier to explain. But it's certainly not a satisfying result.

VehicleMaker is definitely not for modelling real world vehicles. If you have a real world vehicle you can convert it to the Vehicle Extension using the tables and tools in VehicleMaker.

The point of VehicleMaker is to provide a common reference for roleplaying.

Having said that, there are problems with VehicleMaker. I just wish we'd get an update to T5.09.

 

[cuTTer]

I think you're over thinking it.

As good a summation of T5 as I've read.

 

[tjoneslo]

Having said that, there are problems with VehicleMaker. I just wish we'd get an update to T5.09.

I have a proposal for an update that I am looking feedback. PM me an email address if you want to review it.

 

[Timerover51]

I am working on putting together a PDF file of the organization and manning of World War 1 Army Air Service squadrons and up, the organization of Air Corps units in the 1920s to include Dirigibles and Balloon Observation units, and World War 2 squadron and group manning an equipment. I anticipate that it will be too large to post on the forum, so once it is done, I will have to figure out where to post it.

 

[Timerover51]

For the individuals working with Vehicle Maker for Flyers, to include balloons and gliders, here are a couple of Real World examples to work off of.

The cost of a World War One French observation balloon, sold to the U.S. Army Air Service for use by a balloon company was about $5700 in terms of 5.45 Francs to the 1918 U.S. Dollar. That does include the balloon basket at 700 Francs, a lunch basket at 4 Francs, a seat (three-legged) at 30 Francs, and 2 Thermos Bottles at 60 Francs each. Parachutes would cost an additional 950 Francs, while the Harness for said parachute would cost an additional 95 Francs. The estimate for a year of operation allowed for 9 replacement balloons. Note, this would be a fairly large balloon. By 1918, helium recovery from Oklahoma gas wells had gotten into high gear, and helium could be had for 10 cents per cubic foot, with the hope of getting the price down to 5 cents per cubic foot.

Edit Note: Further reading of the cost to operate a balloon company for one year in France results in determining that Hydrogen gas cost in France $10 per 1000 cubic feet, or a penny per cubic foot. Not that expense, except you do use a lot of it.

In 1929, a light sport biplane, with welded steel tube fuselage and spruce wing spars, and wheeled landing gear could be had without an engine for between $1785 to $2095, depending on when in 1929 you bought it. The price was at the factory, with the buyer supplying the engine and propeller. While this might seem odd, the plane was designed to use a surplus WW One engine built by Curtiss, the OX-5, which was no longer being built and the surplus supply had been used up. It was up to the buyer to locate a usable OX-5 engine. The price without engine gives you an idea of what a glider might cost at whatever Tech Level you assign 1929 too.