Naval ships landing gear
- Thread starter maitrejeanth
- Start date
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
Skids versus wheels, I have seen both. I think wheels are more reasonable if you can use them. The grav lifter the port has is going to be busy when you need it, or you may be at a port that has none, or they do and it broke down just yeasterday and they are awaiting parts. It seems to me that wheels would work out better, even if you do have grav tech. With power shut down, you can still move the craft, and do not have to depend on someone else for a high tech piece of gear. (You could carry your own grav lifter I guess, just in case.)
Skids and feet on many designs look cooler. And on heavier designs may be unavoidable. I still see this as second best.
I think the comment about struts was more in regard to where those struts are mounted. Remember the gear, whatever you use, has to support the entire ship.
Water landings are not a bad idea, but the ship would have to be designed for it. I am assuming here we are talking calm water landings. Heck, rig an external tanks with blower or HP air, and a vent valve at the top, and you got a submarine. So when the water starts getting rough, you go under the storm.
Below about 100 feet, its as calm as glass.
Skids and feet on many designs look cooler. And on heavier designs may be unavoidable. I still see this as second best.
I think the comment about struts was more in regard to where those struts are mounted. Remember the gear, whatever you use, has to support the entire ship.
Water landings are not a bad idea, but the ship would have to be designed for it. I am assuming here we are talking calm water landings. Heck, rig an external tanks with blower or HP air, and a vent valve at the top, and you got a submarine. So when the water starts getting rough, you go under the storm.
Below about 100 feet, its as calm as glass.
I think that if a starship is so damaged that it can't use it's grav wheels or skids ain't gonna be the real worry. How did it get there with no locomotion?
Emergency use of wheeled landing gear will get what? A longer smear on the ground where the thing crashed?
I frankly think it is entirely up to whoever cares enough to decide either or both or something else, but skids or pads is how we do the landing aroun' here.
Emergency use of wheeled landing gear will get what? A longer smear on the ground where the thing crashed?
I frankly think it is entirely up to whoever cares enough to decide either or both or something else, but skids or pads is how we do the landing aroun' here.
Tucker: wheels are best sited for Airframe designs, which exist in MT, TNE, T4, GT and T20 (though not in CT except by GM/designer fiat).
Straybow: The Serpent is a 100Td Airframe Type S... and masses about 800 Tons Metric under TNE. (I did a redesign back in 96, look for it in the TML archives for exact masses.) Typical masses run in the following ranges:
Cargo/Passenger vessels: 3-5 Tm per Td
research/long-range cargo/Tanker: 5-10 Tm per Td
Combattant: 10-15 Tm per Td (mostly due to armor!)
Major non-starship combattant: 10-20 Tm per Td
These are based upon TNE designs, but hold fairly true for MT as well. T4 effectively uses TNE ships.
Straybow: The Serpent is a 100Td Airframe Type S... and masses about 800 Tons Metric under TNE. (I did a redesign back in 96, look for it in the TML archives for exact masses.) Typical masses run in the following ranges:
Cargo/Passenger vessels: 3-5 Tm per Td
research/long-range cargo/Tanker: 5-10 Tm per Td
Combattant: 10-15 Tm per Td (mostly due to armor!)
Major non-starship combattant: 10-20 Tm per Td
These are based upon TNE designs, but hold fairly true for MT as well. T4 effectively uses TNE ships.
andyholzrichter
SOC-5
IMTU a lot of airframe ships have wheels. Partly it's so they can takeoff on a planet where their thrust is not enough, but a lot of it is because I like the idea of a busy port w/ some of the smaller ships taking off and landing like current aircraft. It gives the ship watchers more time to watch the ship moving when it is close.
andyholzrichter
SOC-5
IMTU a lot of airframe ships have wheels. Partly it's so they can takeoff on a planet where their thrust is not enough, but a lot of it is because I like the idea of a busy port w/ some of the smaller ships taking off and landing like current aircraft. It gives the ship watchers more time to watch the ship moving when it is close.
Andy brings up a great point: many traveller worlds are larger than earth... 3 in 36, to be specific, assuming random sectors. Average density should be similar, and so gravity at surface goes up (Gravity is generated relative to overall mass, which is the cube of the size, and decreases at sqare of distance, so larger worlds increase faster in G's at surface).
airframe craft can make rollinng T/O and Landing on worlds with more surface G's than they can generate. The Takeoff window is fairly narrow, as you need enough lift to make up the difference AND continue adding speed, but in general, if a 1G craft can land on a Size A (1.25^(3/2) or about 1.4 Gs surface at density of 1 earth. THis generates a minimum atmosphere of 5. There is thus enough air to make an airframe work. 1/2 G forward, plus 1/2g up, plus up to 2 G lift from wings... one can rapidly gain altitude without ever overpowering the thrusters.
Now, MT's solution was to simply allow up to 400% thrust on gravitics..., but that is suboptimal for many other reasons...
Without overthrust and without airframes, many of these ships should be unable to lift....
airframe craft can make rollinng T/O and Landing on worlds with more surface G's than they can generate. The Takeoff window is fairly narrow, as you need enough lift to make up the difference AND continue adding speed, but in general, if a 1G craft can land on a Size A (1.25^(3/2) or about 1.4 Gs surface at density of 1 earth. THis generates a minimum atmosphere of 5. There is thus enough air to make an airframe work. 1/2 G forward, plus 1/2g up, plus up to 2 G lift from wings... one can rapidly gain altitude without ever overpowering the thrusters.
Now, MT's solution was to simply allow up to 400% thrust on gravitics..., but that is suboptimal for many other reasons...
Without overthrust and without airframes, many of these ships should be unable to lift....
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Of course, hi-g worlds will put even more stress on the wheels/tyres. (And atmospheric pressure /composition will affect the tyres, too, especially if they're pneumatic).
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
IMTU, Technology is in most cases advanced enough to allow for "Passive" Grav thrusters, which means that some ships basically never touch down. They float above the surface. It requires a fraction of power to maintain the "hardwired" Landing Field, and the unit only draws more power when it neeeds it, like on a High Gravity world, for example. On ships TL 13+ this is pretty standard.
Others have the "skids" as an integral hardpoint on the hull. The ship VTOLs in to any flat surface that will hold it. There is no set aside Laqnding Mechanism on most, they are just designed to be able to land flat on one side, usually the bottom (or more rarely, aft...) Its only in cases where extreme Manuverability or a strong focus on Areodynamiics is required that you get into the Retractable systems and the like...
Wheels? Didn't cave people invent them?
Others have the "skids" as an integral hardpoint on the hull. The ship VTOLs in to any flat surface that will hold it. There is no set aside Laqnding Mechanism on most, they are just designed to be able to land flat on one side, usually the bottom (or more rarely, aft...) Its only in cases where extreme Manuverability or a strong focus on Areodynamiics is required that you get into the Retractable systems and the like...
Wheels? Didn't cave people invent them?
