Streamlined Vs. Partially Streamlined

[aramis]

No, spheres are stonger than ellipsoid solids (eggs) overall...

but the ellipsods have stronger and weaker areas.

And yes, it's all about keeping the CM/CG above the gear profile., and as close to the ground as possible increases stability.

Assuming the Type S uses three equal legs (possible, looks absurd on the ground, but posssible, and some IMTU use that), it's INCREDIBLY stable.

A cylinder, horizontal on the axis of symmetry, has one "Cheap" gear location, and two "Not Cheap" locations. In fact, the best gearing configuration structutrally is going to be a long thin rectangle or triangle. Not unlike many aircraft... most of which use the triangle. (Two large carriages aft, one forward of somewhat less.)

Many military airframes flatten the cylinder, to enable better landing gear aerodynamics.... Hercs (C130) put them in sponsons for the after gear. This adds mechanical complexity, but is an example of what the streamlining cost is paying for...

Flattened spheres (which range wildly) could include B2's and F19's, by some interpretations, as well as saucers, can range from simple pegs (for a disk), to tripod wheel systems... the thicker "wing" allows more stuff out the wings, and a wider, and more stable, ground profile.

Cones, Needles, and Wedges: The Type S is a wedge in ALL CT incarnations. That wedge is a low ratio based pyramid. It's not unlike the point of a battleaxe... the problems are similar, but less, dynamically, to a cone or cylinder. A straight leg can be folded out and down, and possibly even put a footprint further out than the wide edge. It's a good design, and similar to many hypersonic models that have been tested. If you do not require the base to be a parallelogram, and use a belly angle of say, 160°, and dorsal angle of 130°, you start looking more and more like an F19... and reduce the length of the fold-outs dramatically.
Cones are all the problems of a cylinder, except that, by flattening one side slightly, you can simulate a wedge, and make a very "Body-close" landing gear with minimal material use.
A Needle is just a long wedge with a cylinder behind it... think Concorde...

The addition of wings is NOT something mentioned in Bk2 nor Bk5. It is implied that you CAN do it by the Type R and Type T, both of which are Bk2 Streamlined; for reference, in T20, both should be Airframes. Those wings are why the 5% cost-in-displacementTonnage is there.... (It's part of why I suggested that 5%. It wasn't covered in HG, and was in MT, in a vague sense, and I felt it was important...)

And here's a counter thought on the Type S: put the third strut right under the aft airlock! puts the tripod around the center of mass.... and provides a reason it's not on the plans... it's below the deck!

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
No, spheres are stonger than ellipsoid solids (eggs) overall...

but the ellipsods have stronger and weaker areas.

I remembered they were two of the strongest shapes.

It is good to know my memory isn't totally shot.

And yes, it's all about keeping the CM/CG above the gear profile., and as close to the ground as possible increases stability.

Assuming the Type S uses three equal legs (possible, looks absurd on the ground, but posssible, and some IMTU use that), it's INCREDIBLY stable.

Only if the Tripod is around the CM/CG Like I said looking at a Type-S one could easily argue the CG/CM line is at or behind the rear legs making it less than stable if there is a front leg.

A cylinder, horizontal on the axis of symmetry, has one "Cheap" gear location, and two "Not Cheap" locations. In fact, the best gearing configuration structutrally is going to be a long thin rectangle or triangle. Not unlike many aircraft... most of which use the triangle. (Two large carriages aft, one forward of somewhat less.)

Hence the B-52 design (Very narrow rectangle). At least it has the added advantage of being able to land in serious cross wind situations with the wheels on an angle to the nose of the aircraft.

And carrying that to the Broadsword, where the design of the landing gear is a square out at the edges of the structure, as wide as possible and therefore quite stable.

Many military airframes flatten the cylinder, to enable better landing gear aerodynamics.... Hercs (C130) put them in sponsons for the after gear. This adds mechanical complexity, but is an example of what the streamlining cost is paying for...

Flattened spheres (which range wildly) could include B2's and F19's, by some interpretations, as well as saucers, can range from simple pegs (for a disk), to tripod wheel systems... the thicker "wing" allows more stuff out the wings, and a wider, and more stable, ground profile.

Absolutely. However remember that C130s are, by Traveller definition, Close Structure and therefore are incapable of operating in an atmosphere. (Contrary to obvious observed data.)

The most stable design possible is the Tripod. (Again assuming that the CG/CM is somewhere in the middle of the tripod.) Which is why most aircraft use it for landing gear. Primarily because three points determine a plane. If the ground isn't flat then three points will still work but 4 will not.

Cones, Needles, and Wedges: The Type S is a wedge in ALL CT incarnations. That wedge is a low ratio based pyramid. It's not unlike the point of a battleaxe... the problems are similar, but less, dynamically, to a cone or cylinder.

The HG stats for the Type-S, as presented in Supp-7 and Supp-9 state that it is a cone. LBB 2 does not define the shape except to state that it is Streamlined. Now "Introductory Adventure, The Imperial Fringe" does state that it is a wedge but it is the only source I can find that states such and is definitely contradicted by Supp-7 and Supp-9.

To me it does look more like a Flattened cone that a wedge. A pyramid is a squared cone (Or triangled cone). A wedge generally has a 2 dimensional point not a three dimensional point. (Like the edge of a battleaxe or a sword edge.) If you were to go out and buy something that was wedge shaped it would look more like a door wedge, a splitting wedge or something similar. True Hypersonic test aircraft tend to be wedge shaped but they have a fairly blunt nose. The best example is the latest test vehicle the X-43.

A straight leg can be folded out and down, and possibly even put a footprint further out than the wide edge. It's a good design, and similar to many hypersonic models that have been tested. If you do not require the base to be a parallelogram, and use a belly angle of say, 160°, and dorsal angle of 130°, you start looking more and more like an F19... and reduce the length of the fold-outs dramatically.
Cones are all the problems of a cylinder, except that, by flattening one side slightly, you can simulate a wedge, and make a very "Body-close" landing gear with minimal material use.
A Needle is just a long wedge with a cylinder behind it... think Concorde...

The addition of wings is NOT something mentioned in Bk2 nor Bk5. It is implied that you CAN do it by the Type R and Type T, both of which are Bk2 Streamlined; for reference, in T20, both should be Airframes. Those wings are why the 5% cost-in-displacementTonnage is there.... (It's part of why I suggested that 5%. It wasn't covered in HG, and was in MT, in a vague sense, and I felt it was important...)

And here's a counter thought on the Type S: put the third strut right under the aft airlock! puts the tripod around the center of mass.... and provides a reason it's not on the plans... it's below the deck!

They have wings but they are definitely too small to be functional, though the pictures of the Type-T an Airframe definition is possible, if it is also a lifting body. The Type-R is definitely not a lifting body and calling it anything but a Cylinder as the base shape is stretching the definition of the other shapes something awful.

However the drawings of the Type-T that are in widespread use are based on the FASA "Adventure Class Ships, Volume 2" and came out long after LBB-5 was published. So that is putting the cart before the horse. LBB2 didn't define any shapes other than state Streamlined and capable of landing and fuel skimming and Unstreamlined and capable of neither. (And I have yet to find Canon Deckplans other than the FASA ones.) So while the ship was defined in LBB2 and again in each rendition of Traveller that followed, it isn't used widely in the adventures. The funniest thing about the Type-T is that even though it is as close to an Airframe as you are likely to get in the "Standard Ships" it is the toughest one to put landing gear on. Those Stabilizers hang down too far and don't appear, in any of the drawings to fold. Nor is there landing gear on the deckplans.

By the way in that configuration if we were dealing with an aircraft and no countergrav that Type-T would be unstable as all hell. I doubt it could get off the ground, and it would depart controlled flight as soon as flight in an intended direction.

 

[aramis]

The type T is a Bk2 design, and the picture well predates any deckplans. It was in The Traveller Book, which puts it ©1982 or earlier. It's not in 1st ed CT, so that shoves the date to probably 1980ish, It's not in Mayday, either.

I need to buy the %&^%^%^ big floppy book of supplements... mine supp 7 is awol!

As for stability of the T's design: doesn't look that bad, and the paper model I made flew ok... (once I balanced the weight)

Putting landing skids down might be difficult, but it is doable. IMTU, the skids unfold from long below-deck tracks, rather than being hydraulic cylinder style (For example of that, see the Millenium Falcon). They use a three skid design, 2 forward, one aft, which rotate 120 degrees on the below-deck pivot (with a 60 degree for the actual pads). I don't have webspace, or i'd illustrate it. The aft also includes the ladder from an aft center low engineering hatch.

And the type R subbie has the same wing profile as the shuttle, which does get aerodynamic lift... not much, but it does. But where the shuttle has a rounded rectangualr profile, the subbie has a big oval...

Most of my non-airframe designs tend to be bullets.
Most of my airframe designs tend to be flying wings.

I like the look, and know the computational requirements to fly those....

But be warned, taking Bk5 as the understanding for T20 is dangerous. There ARE differences, and they are subtle. (Ok, they break down into three areas: Computers, almost obvious; Airframes, added, not obvious to many; combat resolution, obvious it's different, not obvious its VERY VERY VERY different.

 

[BetterThanLife]

HG2 vs. T20? The computer difference is not at all subtle, especially the first time you get into a Starship combat using the advanced rules. Someone is firing on you. But they are well outside your Type 1 computer sensor range, even though it is a Scout you are flying. You are effectively blind unless you can visually see the target. (That is about how close a Type-S or Type-A or Type-R has to be to the target to even see it much less fire on it.) Combat differences? Two equal fighters can hit each other. Meson Bays will kill Cruisers and most Drednaughts. Meson Spinals kill everything 52.5% of the time unless you have the PMOS skill for gunnery then Spinal Meson's get to take 10 and crit on every shot. (ALthough that rule is subject to interpretation and is highly subject to serious misuse if it isn't disallowed.) And then there is Airframes. (Which makes no real sense to me since an Airframe, in the usual sense of the word is unimportant in a counter gravity technology since you have no real reason to generate lift.

 

[mike wightman]

Then there's the maneuver drive requiring EPs and smaller power plants - plus nothing to say you can't build and operate separate power plants, one for the drives and computer, and one for weapons and screens (which you can then carry less fuel for ).

 

[rvatsaas]

Design of the landing gear for the "golf ball" spherical space crafte was quite simple. There are four identical legs. I have been working on a simmilar model for the Type S, and let me tell you that those are far more complicated. one is the mirror of the other, and third forward one is totally different, and has to span a much further distance to the ground than the other two. Go HERE to see what the landing gear on the golf ball looks like

The golf ball further simplified by making the doors part of the mechanism.

 

[aramis]

Airframes make perfect sense: increased in-atmosphere safety margins, plus the ability to land when the Contra-grav is out, and/or the maneuver drive.

Whether that is cost effective or not is another matter entirely.

 

[BetterThanLife]

A nice theory but dead stick landings have been pretty much impossible in modern aircraft, especially combat aircraft for some time. Most modern aircraft use a fly by wire system, which have multiple redundant computers and wiring still require the wires to be powered. Many of the modern combat aircraft are designed to be inherently unstable, which means that without power they proceed to depart controlled flight. (Aviation jargon for travelling in a random direction, usually down, at a high rate of speed, with uncontrolled attitude and yaw movements, or in laymens' terms tumbling out of the sky!

)

Virtually all the streamlined canon starships, pictured in various canon publications, have the same aerodynamic proberties of a brick. Only the FASA Ninz class scout and the GDW Animal class Safari Ship appear to generate any lift and neither of those appear to have yaw stabilizers or flight control surfaces. Those two, without power have potential for an actual glide slope but would probably start tumbling without power before long, they are not stable shapes. (Though at least they are lift generating shapes.) The rest of the ships definitely appear to be at best Bricks that will travel in a straight line without tumbling, if they encounter no outside forces. However that straight line appears to be in the direction required by gravity.

Now the old joke is that the F-4 was the Navy's proof that if you strap enough engine to it, then even a brick can fly. The F-16 is the real proof of the concept. (The plane is designed inherently unstable.) Without power it is actually worse than a brick.

An F-16 without power is likely to tumble along all 3 axis. (A B-2, F/A-18 and an F-117 are about the same.) The Starships in Canon are no better, and most are quite a bit worse than those choices.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Airframes make perfect sense: increased in-atmosphere safety margins, plus the ability to land when the Contra-grav is out, and/or the maneuver drive.

Whether that is cost effective or not is another matter entirely.

 

[RandyT0001]

Maybe all of the canon starships and small craft have that emergency paraglide wing like they are testing for small planes today?

1st Officer: "Captain, we lost power on approach, now we'll tumble like a brick to the ground!"
Captain: "Deploy the emergency parawing!"
1st Officer: "Done."
1st Officer: "Sir, the parawing got snagged by our tumbling brick of a ship."
Captain: "Well then, bend over and kiss your as....."

And to think all those people couldn't understand how a vacumn tube TL5 computer could control a sophisticated fly-by-wire system.

 

[kaladorn]

Two thoughts:

They're working on parachutes for mid-sized planes. They already have them working for small planes and ultralights. Something tells me by the 58th century, they might have a viable emergency back up landing system - single use separate contra-grav with self-contained power, big ass uber-fabric parachute, whatever.

Second, I find it funny people referencing Supp 7 as a good source. This is the same book where they couldn't even get a dtons size right for the deckplans! (Not just slightly off either!)

One more point: The Serpent Class Scout Ship was 'sort of canonical' (out of Scouts and Assassins I think...?). It had a good set of swing-wings on it.

I find the discussion fascinating, at any rate!

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
One more point: The Serpent Class Scout Ship was 'sort of canonical' (out of Scouts and Assassins I think...?). It had a good set of swing-wings on it.

It made an appearance in an early JTAS too.

There are also the 150t Wind class extended scout, and the 200t Avian class Far Trader that have the same "aircraft" design.

 

[Antony]

I would have the stabilisers on the type T hinge at the point they are attached to the short wings. In an atmosphere this would have the effect of increasing "wing area" while allowing use of undercarriage in the fixed part of the wings.

Before -| after --

In The Brilliant Lances Technical book the type S is listed as Wedgle SL the type T as Needle AF

Of course it could be that all illustrations of the type T have it inverted, if so the shorter part of the stabiliser would be to the ground. Though in this orientation it looks like a flying goose.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Two thoughts:

They're working on parachutes for mid-sized planes. They already have them working for small planes and ultralights. Something tells me by the 58th century, they might have a viable emergency back up landing system - single use separate contra-grav with self-contained power, big ass uber-fabric parachute, whatever.

Works for me. Though it isn't mentioned in canon anywhere.

Second, I find it funny people referencing Supp 7 as a good source. This is the same book where they couldn't even get a dtons size right for the deckplans! (Not just slightly off either!)

Though the deckplans, especially for the Far Trader are off in Supp-7, it is the most widely distributed Canon source of small starships. It is also a major source of "Standard Ship types in all future versions of Traveller. The Empress Marvara, Gazelle CE and Guardian Class SDB are standard ships in MT. There are conversions for them into TNE as well, and I know that without even owning a piece of TNE canon. THe GUardian and the Gazelle are not in the T-20 Material because apparently they are from after 993, though the Gazelle is mentioned. (SInce the Gazelle is a TL-14 craft and the Ramada has TL-15 parts I don't see why the Ramada is the forerunner of the Gazelle class.

) It may have problems but it is Canon. I personally could quote FASA material but very few people actually have the Adventure Class Ships Vols. 1 and 2 or Aslan Mercenary Ships. (Matter of fact looking at those plans there is a third ship that might qualify as a lifting body, the Medical Scout in Vol 2.

)

One more point: The Serpent Class Scout Ship was 'sort of canonical' (out of Scouts and Assassins I think...?). It had a good set of swing-wings on it.

I find the discussion fascinating, at any rate!

Sounds like it is actually part of canon. I never claimed my list of canon material was exhaustive nor that the ships I mentioned were the only ones. BUt the lifting body ships in canon are few and far between.

The main point I was, and still am, looking at is the desigination of what can land and what can't appears to be extremely arbitrary and has no basis in actual aerodynamics. Which for a "Hard Science" game seems a bit odd. Just because a vessel (to use the T20 desigination) is a certain general configuration means it can't land. Especially since modern aircraft clearly are configuration 4, close structure. And the Broadsword is clearly designed to land on a planet.

 

[aramis]

Bhoins: wake up! I didn't say anything about dead stick! I said no motor. HUGE F&#**^G DIFFERENCE!!!!

Under all the combat systems, it's possible to have a situation where the MD is taken out, but the ship's already inbound.

It's an added safety margin. The chutes would be another added margin.

In air maneuverability also is desirable; airframes provide this.

Also, CG is, to say the least, NOT standard to everyone's TU... Airframes are there in T20 for that crowd, too.

Multiple redundancy is a good thing. Too bad NASA has had little use for it. (OK, there are multiple computers on the shuttle...)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bhoins: wake up! I didn't say anything about dead stick! I said no motor. HUGE F&#**^G DIFFERENCE!!!!

Under all the combat systems, it's possible to have a situation where the MD is taken out, but the ship's already inbound.

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that
attempting to land without a working engine was a deadstick landing. No thrust, no power adjustments to your glide path. So would you please explain the difference? HAving a powerplant but no maneuver drive is like losing your engines but still having your APUs. Your computers work, your electronic gages probably still work and you will know how fast and hard you are going to hit the ground while you attempt to glide. And in the vast majority of Canon Starships you are attempting to glide a brick. Of the remainder there are perhaps less than half a dozen of the designs, than can be, if you are generous, described as lifting bodies, the rest of the designs, that have some kind of flight surfaces, would be worse than trying to glide a brick because the small airfoils they actually have, unless they are lift neutral, will cause tumbling due to location of these airfoils.

Lifting bodies are notoriously unstable in unpowered flight, so even those few canon lifting bodies would be a bitch to land without a Maneuver drive or a working counter grav.

Forget about trying to slow down without an engine and without stalling. (And a stall without an engine is a quick recipe to departing controlled flight and that sudden stop at the bottom.)

It's an added safety margin. The chutes would be another added margin.

In air maneuverability also is desirable; airframes provide this.

With contragravity, in air maneuverability is not dependent on wings or lifting surfaces. A very crude example, since there is currently not contragravity technology, is VIFFing. Originally used with the Harrier and designed into the F-22. Using thrust for maneuvering instead of lifting surfaces or in conjunction with lifting surfaces.

A Harrier can rapidly change its direction by vectoring its thrust while in forward flight (VIFFing). Angular changes higher than 30 degrees per second have been reported, making for an extremely tight turning radius or the capability of a Pop-Up attack by a fixed wing aircraft. A Harrier can hover, take off vertically and land vertically, not because of its wings but in spite of them.

Using Countergrav and thrust in a similar manner would produce similar results. Actually better results because contragravity technology can also negate or allieviate G-Stresses on a pilot.

Also, CG is, to say the least, NOT standard to everyone's TU... Airframes are there in T20 for that crowd, too.

I agree it is in the rules, however airframe doesn't neccessarily mean wings or lifting surfaces.

Multiple redundancy is a good thing. Too bad NASA has had little use for it. (OK, there are multiple computers on the shuttle...)

Considering the experimental nature of manned space flight, the potential for disaster, etc, I think NASA's 47 year 98.6+% success ratio in manned flights is actually a safety record to be proud of. (Especially since all of the Shuttles have exceeded their designed lifespan by a good margin.)

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kaladorn:
One more point: The Serpent Class Scout Ship was 'sort of canonical' (out of Scouts and Assassins I think...?). It had a good set of swing-wings on it.

It made an appearance in an early JTAS too.

There are also the 150t Wind class extended scout, and the 200t Avian class Far Trader that have the same "aircraft" design. </font>[/QUOTE]Peter Vernon has deckplans, etc., for all three on his website at:
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/peter/starships.html

 

[aramis]

Bhoins: almost ALL aircraft landings are controlled stalls. The Shuttle has to stall out to drop the final ground effect.

A sailplane actually has to apply air brakes until it stalls out, simpy to be able to hit the ground.

There are 4 canonical designs in the starship range I can think of that use airframes in CT: Type R, Type T, Safari Ship, and Serpent Scout. The serpent specifically mentions using the airframe for stealthy operation. The Type R is basically a scaled up shuttle... so it could probably do a motorless landing (the shuttle does; at least, once the de-orbit burn is completed, it lands completely on aerodynamic flight). The T is unique, but it's obvious its airframe is for in-air maneuver and pursuit, rather than landing. Dead-stick, for modern aircraft is no control output. In most prop-pushing transports, if all engines are out, there's no hydraulic pressure, so the controls go dead with the last engine, or at least really heavy. (My flight instructor chewed me out good for using Dead stick instead of power off; he flew f15's at work, and taught piloting as a hobby!) Landing an aircraft sans thrust is done daily. Student pilots have to do it. Glider pilots do it EVERY time.

Now, with Traveller ships, the aerodynamic controls are probably NOT linked to the engines. They are probably driven by separate motors, and so long as the power is working, so are they. The fact that controls add to agility directly and separately from thrust agencies (under both Striker and MT) supports this. Now, most MT and Striker aircraft designs are powered by their reaction motors, so those motors go out, no power, no controls.

Landing an airplane is the ability to stall it out so it lands on the wheels. Landing an airframe should be little different. If CG exists (it doesn't in CT nor MT; MT drives are gravitic thrusters), it will make airframe landings far safer. TNE and T4's CG is merely a cancellation of 98% of weight (not mass), and still requires those reaction drives or airframes inorder to land. And in TNE, the better reason for airframes is engine off landings, to save fuel. The stick is hardly dead, tho... just ask the NASA shuttle pilots. (Yeah, a 2:1 glide ratio sucks. But F4U Corsairs had a 1.2:1, and power-off landings were not terribly uncommon, and were required training.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually CG is available in all versions of Traveller. For proof of that point I offer the air/raft, G-Carrier and Gravbelt. For directional CG and fine adjustments to Gravity fields I offer the PGMP-14 and FGMP-15. THe existence of that technology in all reality renders lifting surfaces redundant. Right now wings are the most efficient means of generating lift, though rotary wings (Helicopter) and engine thrust (Harrier, Yak-36/38 and Osprey) are two other choices that are available and offer other advantages. They just aren't as fuel efficient.

While it never comes out and says how a maneuver drive works in CT, it does imply certain things. Since Maneuver drive requires no fuel or reaction mass it has to be something other than something that produces an exhaust. Now it can be something along the lines of an electric turbine or electric Prop, but those wouldn't work at all in space. Since they clearly aren't reaction engines that would imply something else, probably gravitic in nature. (I am open to other suggestions.)

The nature of Grav vehicles though implies that you don't need lifting surfaces to fly. So you can simply chose the most aerodynamic shape possible for the mission of the craft you are designing. Bullets, spheres, needles, and wedges <Edit: Forgot to add Disks.> would be capable of high speed within an atmosphere without worrying about the drag component of the coeffecient of lift. Or the drag created by the wings. Nor would you need variable thickness, shape, sweep and structure based on the planet you are attempting to deal with. It would no longer matter how dense the atmosphere is, at what altitude you are flying, or the atmosphere's composition.

Since your maneuver drive is reactionless you also don't have to worry about air pollution. (Though Gravitic field pollution might be the new cause.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bhoins: almost ALL aircraft landings are controlled stalls. The Shuttle has to stall out to drop the final ground effect.

A sailplane actually has to apply air brakes until it stalls out, simpy to be able to hit the ground.

There are 4 canonical designs in the starship range I can think of that use airframes in CT: Type R, Type T, Safari Ship, and Serpent Scout. The serpent specifically mentions using the airframe for stealthy operation. The Type R is basically a scaled up shuttle... so it could probably do a motorless landing (the shuttle does; at least, once the de-orbit burn is completed, it lands completely on aerodynamic flight). The T is unique, but it's obvious its airframe is for in-air maneuver and pursuit, rather than landing. Dead-stick, for modern aircraft is no control output. In most prop-pushing transports, if all engines are out, there's no hydraulic pressure, so the controls go dead with the last engine, or at least really heavy. (My flight instructor chewed me out good for using Dead stick instead of power off; he flew f15's at work, and taught piloting as a hobby!) Landing an aircraft sans thrust is done daily. Student pilots have to do it. Glider pilots do it EVERY time.

Now, with Traveller ships, the aerodynamic controls are probably NOT linked to the engines. They are probably driven by separate motors, and so long as the power is working, so are they. The fact that controls add to agility directly and separately from thrust agencies (under both Striker and MT) supports this. Now, most MT and Striker aircraft designs are powered by their reaction motors, so those motors go out, no power, no controls.

Landing an airplane is the ability to stall it out so it lands on the wheels. Landing an airframe should be little different. If CG exists (it doesn't in CT nor MT; MT drives are gravitic thrusters), it will make airframe landings far safer. TNE and T4's CG is merely a cancellation of 98% of weight (not mass), and still requires those reaction drives or airframes inorder to land. And in TNE, the better reason for airframes is engine off landings, to save fuel. The stick is hardly dead, tho... just ask the NASA shuttle pilots. (Yeah, a 2:1 glide ratio sucks. But F4U Corsairs had a 1.2:1, and power-off landings were not terribly uncommon, and were required training.)

 

[robject]

Very enlightening, Bhoins. Your observations have given me something to think about.

That says to me that design rules which separate contragrav from thrust plates/helpar are probably 'better' (for some value of better).

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by robject:
Very enlightening, Bhoins. Your observations have given me something to think about.

That says to me that design rules which separate contragrav from thrust plates/helpar are probably 'better' (for some value of better).

Actually looking at the vehicle design rules and other aspects of Contra Grav that exists in Traveller, rendering a vessel virtually weightless doesn't require much mass or power. Shipboard Gravity, doesn't take up either space or power in an appreciable amount. The power used to drive a grav vehicle forward is allowed to be used at 100% efficiency which means that actual lift of the vehicle takes up negligible power and space. Or craft travelling at max speed, with 100% of their thrust to the rear would plow into the ground.

Starships already have this capability or they would either require a runway or be required to land tail down. Now according to the illustrations in CT, MT and T20 when it comes to accelleration and travelling sublight, shows turnover at the halfway point. So Maneuver Drives are implied to be directional and that direction is not, in most cases, towards the bottom, in terms of which way is down for the people on the decks of the craft, or which way is the landing gear, of the craft. (The AHL and Broadsword being two exceptions in canon deckplans, and the AHL doesn't have landing gear.) While they may be capable of limited VIFFing, they obviously aren't capable of 100% thrust 90 degrees off the plane of travel. (Or you wouldn't have to turn the ship around to slow down.) The Broadsword is the only canon ship I have seen pictured, in a canon source, as landing tail down.

Given all that something else has to be at work. ContraGrav being implied. Again I am open to other possibilities.