AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Sure, but we are talking a few inches here. Deck plans are not that exact.
Type ST Transport Scout: 199Td, J4/2G (LBB2 2nd Ed.)
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
The longitudinal offset is 3m.
The width difference is 1.14m, or just under 5%. (Edited, originally said 6%.)
Yeah, not a huge difference. Probably under 2Td out of 85 or so.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The clip is about 1 square, so 1.5 m lengthwise?
If it's 24 m at 36 m length, its 25 m at 37.5 m. (It's 24.5 m on the deck plan.)
Sure, thats a few percent, but:
Deck plans need not be all that exact?
Each notch is about 3 m high, 6 m wide, and 1.5 m long, or about 4.5 m³ ≈ 0.3 Dt. Rounding error?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I think you are looking at your stretched 200 Dt ship here, not the S7 original?
Good catch. Need to clean up my desktop folder.
3x6x1.5 is 3Td.
Divide by 2 because triangle on one axis.
Divide by 2 again because triangle on another axis.
Multiply by 2 because one cut each side (2 notches).
So, half of 3Td.
0.75Td out of about 85. Close to a percent.
May as well call it statistical noise.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
3 × 6 × 1.5 = 27, divide by 6 for pyramid = 4.5 m³ ≈ 0.32 Dt each, for a total of 0.64 Dt?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
If we want to be exact it's 7.5 m × 25 m × 37.5 m ≈ 1172 m³ ≈ 83.7 Dt, or ~83 Dt without the notches.
Not close enough to 100 Dt to warrant pinpoint accuracy? S7 just isn't that exact, the Empress Marava is far worse...
At 9 m (as on p13) the Scout is actually fairly accurate:
9 m × 25 m × 37.5 m ≈ 1406 m³ ≈ 100.44 Dt, or ~100 Dt without the notches.
Not close enough to 100 Dt to warrant pinpoint accuracy? S7 just isn't that exact, the Empress Marava is far worse...
At 9 m (as on p13) the Scout is actually fairly accurate:
9 m × 25 m × 37.5 m ≈ 1406 m³ ≈ 100.44 Dt, or ~100 Dt without the notches.
Pyramid should be /3, no?
It's 0400 here and I've been up all night, so math skills may not be optimal at the moment.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, divide by 2 for the base and by 3 for the pyramid, for a total of divide by 6, just as you used for the gross hull volume.
83 or so (add protruding drives and turret bubble) is within the 10-20% allowance, and looks better IMO.
And yeah, it's nowhere near the worst example.
Base in this case is measured parallel to the sides though, not diagonally opposing corners.
I think. Again, 'tis late.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, and the ~24 Dt of usable space easily fit on a single 3 m deck within that hull.
More than that.
Staterooms (16)
Drives (15)
Air/Raft (4)
Cargo (3)
Cockpit, as-drawn (2.5)
Drives and cargo can squish a bit, and the cockpit is already squished. (Flight deck is the more genteel term for that space, but honestly it's just not big enough to warrant it!)
Computer goes "wherever" and fire control is explicitly declared to be in attic.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Base is measured perpendicular to the height. I doesn't matter if the pyramid is slanted
Not seeing it, but at this hour I don't expect to. Will probably get it later.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I don't count drives and bridge as "usable space", space that you can use for payload.
Drives, fuel, sensors (bridge), etc. can be in some cranny and doesn't necessarily need full deck height.
Yes I know that, I'm talking about the ship in the picture, not the ship in the plans. The profile of the Scout as described, and as drawn on page 28, is NOT the one in the Keith picture. The Keith version is much slimmer. If its not slimmer, and the Keith Scout height is 7.5m, then the ship is roughly twice as big as the scout in the plans.
I think you are applying the measurements of the pyramid base incorrectly. They're the diagonals of the rhomboid, not the distance between the faces. Treat it as two triangles sharing a base, each of half the total height.
If you take the Keith drawing, and assert that the distance between the top and bottom points centered on the hatch in the rear is 7.5m, then scale that measure on the drawing, which is an admittedly imperfect perspective drawing, but it's not too far distorted, then the width of the ship is roughly 50 meters vs 24 as drawn in the plan. Keeping the proportions fixed to the plan, 37.5 long x 24 wide becomes 78m x 50m.
When the height is closer to 3m, that scales the ship down to similar to the plans, but obviously without the thickness and headroom.
