Lego scout ship

[Andrew Boulton]

I received this as a PM, but it's too much fun...

I have a few weeks before i start my next school term and came into a huge pile of used Lego, including the star wars star destroyer. So I thought immediately about making a type s scout, to scale!


So a few questions - which plans do u recommend I use? And at Lego scale, how big should the ship be? I would like to really do it right so any advice about making the ship will be most welcome!

God, it must be 30 years since I did that!

The problem I had with converting deckplans to Lego is that Lego walls are very thick, whereas on plans they're almost zero thickness. If you're only doing the outside it's much easier.

AFAIK the CT plans are fairly accurate.

 

[aramis]

I received this as a PM, but it's too much fun...



God, it must be 30 years since I did that!

The problem I had with converting deckplans to Lego is that Lego walls are very thick, whereas on plans they're almost zero thickness. If you're only doing the outside it's much easier.

AFAIK the CT plans are fairly accurate.

Only if the main deck is 2m clearance... at 3m, the forward cabins and bridge extend through the hull shell outboard... and the forward upper gallery has insufficient clearance.

 

[Mickazoid]

I can't confirm it, but a web site lists the dimensions of the Lego Star Destroyer (the Big, Ultimate Collectors one) as 37" x 23" (doesn't list height). Compared to the Type S dimensions in traders and gunboats (37m x 24m x 7.5m) that indicates a very straightforward 1" = 1m scale.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Only if the main deck is 2m clearance... at 3m, the forward cabins and bridge extend through the hull shell outboard... and the forward upper gallery has insufficient clearance.

Compared to the Far Trader problems that's trivial

A wedge 37.5m x 24m x 9m is near enough 1400m3. Yes, bits stick out, but I think I can fix it...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Behold - bits doth stick out!

Problem is, the inhabited volume is 81dt, leaving only 19dt for fuel. Unfortunately, a Bk5 version needs 23dt and a Bk2 version needs 40dt!

 

[Scarecrow]

Heh heh heh.

Deckplans were so much easier before us meddling 3D guys came along

Crow

 

[aramis]

Heh heh heh.

Deckplans were so much easier before us meddling 3D guys came along

Crow

I was doing the math on it back in 12th grade, using basic ratio-method trig, and drawing cross sections, and noticed that the forward 6m of the upper gallery had to be pretty much negative height.

Behold - bits doth stick out!

Problem is, the inhabited volume is 81dt, leaving only 19dt for fuel. Unfortunately, a Bk5 version needs 23dt and a Bk2 version needs 40dt!

Reduce it to 2.5 or even 2.1 m per deck

Oh, and don't forget, the deck space is 10 to 15 cm thick.

The canon plan is bad.

 

[Mickazoid]

Andrew, that visualization is very enlightening. Can we get a view of the underside as well?

 

[Scarecrow]

I was doing the math on it back in 12th grade, using basic ratio-method trig, and drawing cross sections, and noticed that the forward 6m of the upper gallery had to be pretty much negative height.

Aye, same here. I don't know about maths but I often extrapolated elevations from plans. I was crushed when I discovered the Type H Hunter (my favourite Traveller ship evAr!1!) was broken.

Crow

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The canon plan is bad.

Bad, but salvageable - the outline is correct.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Andrew, that visualization is very enlightening. Can we get a view of the underside as well?

Will do.

BTW, for an alternative take on the Type S, check out Scarecrow's gallery.

BTW2, anyone know where the plans I'm using came from? They're like the standard ones except the lower deck is aft (where it makes more sense) rather than forward.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

 

[rancke]

Problem is, the inhabited volume is 81dt, leaving only 19dt for fuel. Unfortunately, a Bk5 version needs 23dt and a Bk2 version needs 40dt!

I understood from Wil that the Bk5 needs 43T of fuel unless you want it to have a cargo capacity of 26T.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I understood from Wil that the Bk5 needs 43T of fuel unless you want it to have a cargo capacity of 26T.

20dt for J2 + 3dt for 4wks power.

Another 4wks power would make sense.

But yes, there's lots of space, but that's full of all the sensor gear that...er...CT doesn't mention. A bigger computer could be used, which in turn would need more power (and fuel).

 

[Mickazoid]

Will do.

BTW, for an alternative take on the Type S, check out Scarecrow's gallery.

BTW2, anyone know where the plans I'm using came from? They're like the standard ones except the lower deck is aft (where it makes more sense) rather than forward.

I was going to ask! Do tell!

 

[rancke]

20dt for J2 + 3dt for 4wks power.

Yes, I know that. I thought I'd managed to make that clear. Sorry for being unclear. What I was referring to was 23T of fuel +26T of cargo space OR 43T of fuel and 6T of cargo space.

(Mind you, the 3T for 4 weeks of operational fuel is IMO disbelief-suspension-destroyingly silly, but that's what the rules say.)

Another 4wks power would make sense.

Not really, but I know what you men.

But yes, there's lots of space, but that's full of all the sensor gear that...er...CT doesn't mention. A bigger computer could be used, which in turn would need more power (and fuel).

And changing the specs from the canonical figures anyway. Potato - potahtoe.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Hey, 3dt/month is better than Bk2's 20dt/month!

Any intelligent conversion to HG will change the stats.

 

[Scarecrow]

BTW, for an alternative take on the Type S, check out Scarecrow's gallery.

Aww, cheers, fella. The trouble with mine is the volumes are a mix of T20 and G:T. I was also never satisfied with the rear part of the upper deck with some sort of vague engineering section wrapped around the staterooms just to fill space. Very weak. Still quite proud of the loading ramp/universal air lock, though

Crow

 

[far-trader]

BTW2, anyone know where the plans I'm using came from? They're like the standard ones except the lower deck is aft (where it makes more sense) rather than forward.

No idea, though I did do that much myself as a quick fix ages ago after a brief look at the side elevation revealed there was no way any kind of cargo hold would go up front. I don't recall ever posting the altered plans but I might have shared them in some pbem and had them leak. Or I can easily see someone else coming to the same conclusion.

EDIT: Now on second thought I'm wondering if... Kitsune... or Peter... (can't recall the sites offhand) might have that up in the deckplans area. Found the sites but nope, neither of them seem to have it.

 

[far-trader]

Another take on the ubiquitous Scout/Courier

Not the one I was looking for, but...

Any intelligent conversion to HG will change the stats.

I will beg to differ on the assessment of my intelligence (I will not argue questions of my sanity though :rofl: ).

My intelligent conversion to HG does not* change the stats:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1293

* well, not significantly, imo, a very little armour and the option for actually defining the electronics by changing the base computer model

Granted, a bit sideways to this discussion, it is the fat wedge deckpans shoehorned into the alternate depiction, the thin wedge, which never (to my knowledge) had deckplans. But it is the way I think such "fixes" should be handled. Minimal impact on original ideas (B2) while adopting newer models (B5).

It's even got Scarecrow's forward landing ramp (loved it so much I nicked it)

I kept meaning to do it up in SketchUp to see if it fit but never got around to it. No guarantee it does. But it is more tonnage accurate for the deckplan areas, not so sure about the fuel, purifier, and armour volume remaining unmapped.