Urban legend on Firefly?

[Fritz_Brown]

B52's payload is greater than a B2. The B2 is limited to internal bays, where the B52 can carry a bunch of crap under its wings, too. The B36 Peacemaker was actually the largest of the US bombers - it had jet AND prop engines.

 

[jhulse]

Awe yes. On the military channel they say "internal payload" when comparing the B-2 stealth to the B-52, but I forgot about the B-52's wing pylons! DOH!

That airframes going to be 100 years old before they retire it!

 

[mike wightman]

It shows the strength of the old beast.

It's amazing what modern avionics, electronics, computers, weapon systems, engines, etc. can do when stuck into an old airframe.

 

[zakrol]

It's amazing where a thread can go...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

14 years ago, we had a guy in flight training at Castle AFB, CA who was going to be the 3d generation in the B52! His grandfather had flown it at the end of his career, his father throughout, and now him....

 

[jhulse]

Originally posted by Zakrol:
It's amazing where a thread can go...

Yeah the tend to do that… This tangent evolved in response to a comment earlier about the age and the number of the firefly class freighters still in operation. This was just a modern equivalent,

So how much would a working B-52 go for in Firefly?
Could Malcolm find a way to smuggle it???

Jak

 

[jonathonbarton]

Originally posted by Jak Nazrith:
Could Malcolm find a way to smuggle it??

Unlikely... the FF class has about a 27 ton cargo hold (45' x 30' - based on PDF deckplans easily found on Google), while the B-52's fuselage is 159'4" long.

However, I'm sure that medical "Helicopter" they salvaged out of the junkyard (looking startlingly like a Russian 'Hind-D') on Ariel fetched a nice price on the rim...
And I'm sure that someone has got those Thule Luggage car toppers (Oh, sorry..."Medical Air-Support Modules") on top of their ride someplace...

****************
Projections for the B-52's service life are simply *astounding*!

Updated with modern technology, the B-52 will continue into the 21st century as an important element of US forces. There is a proposal under consideration to re-engine the remaining B-52H aircraft to extend the service life. B-52 re-engine plans, if implemented, call for the B-52 to be utilized through 2025. Current engineering analysis show the B-52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. The limiting factor of the B-52’s service life is the economic limit of the aircraft's upper wing surface, calculated to be approximately 32,500 to 37,500 flight hours. Based on the projected economic service life and forecast mishap rates, the Air Force will be unable to maintain the requirement of 62 aircraft by 2044, after 84 years in service.

I wonder what they'd re-engine them with?
Can you imagine them junking the 8 turbojets and bolting on just *two* of the 'fans that power the 777 or the A380 in their place?
*evil grin*

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Jonathan, they would rip the wings off. It would significantly increase their endurance, though!

 

[jonathonbarton]

136,000 pounds of thrust in the B-52's 8 J57 engines...

Realistically, the engines off the A380 probably wouldn't fit under the wing all that well...
(Image of an A340 with an A380 engine tucked in for testing)

But they *could* replace them with 4 CFM56-5C's off of the A340-200 and A340-300.
Same performance, better gas mileage, political disaster...

 

[jhulse]

[/QUOTE]Unlikely... the FF class has about a 27 ton cargo hold (45' x 30' - based on PDF deckplans easily found on Google) [/QB][/QUOTE]

Ok, I just downloaded and printed it out. Don't forget though, a traveller ton is volume 1.5m x 3m x 3m. That's about 5' x 10' x 10'. But the firefly's hold is at the very least two decks high. I've tried to judge it, and I'm guessing around 25 feet or so. So I would double the tonnage. I was being facetious about the B-52... , but if anyone could figure out a way to smuggle something, Mal could!

By the way, the deck plan for the fire fly IMO is poorly laid out. WAY to much space is taken up by corridors, stairs, and catwalks. And the guest suites are actually INSIDE the Massive engine "bulb". It doesn't make a lot of sense. (shrug)
Someone in the firefly role-playing game design team needs some lessons from us travellers.
Anyway, it could be easily converted into deckplans based on Traveller design mechanics. So, realizing that a Firefly is not Jump capable, what Jump rating would you give this frontier freighter? And I have no idea how to explain the maneuver drives. It would burn reaction mass, but how would you explain the huge turbo fan intakes???
Since my friends are huge firefly fans, inevitably they would love to see a firefly class transport, Travellerized that is. Any thoughts?

I'm thinking Jump 3 with Manuver 2
JakNaz

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Actually, the CFM-56 would probably rip the wings off a B52. I love that pic - looks like a car with the spare on, or something.

The CFM-56, BTW, is Pratt&Whitney, not Airbus. At least, the one on the Boeing KC-135R is. (Flew one for 5 years and loved it.)

 

[Madarin Dude]

Wow I feel liek an old coot now. I used to work B-52's and then switched over to working F-4,s.
Anyways back to the tangent we were on. There are a number of early 50's designs that are still in use today besides the B-52. The P-3 Orion and the C-130 Hercules. For the Russians look at the Bear and Badger bombers.
Speakign of Bears they are quite an amazing plane. The fastest prop plane capable of speeds in excess of 550 mph. When I was workign F-4's in Iceland. We wer ehaving a problem with broken jets and we were joking that we should send one of our T-33 trainers after them. (based on the F-80 shooting star) the fact is althogh the T-33 is a jet it is incapable of catchign up with a Bear.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The C-47/DC-3 first flew in 1935. Over 11,000 were built, and many are still in use today. Fireflies always reminded me of them - obsolete, but they just won't go away.

 

[Maladominus]

With all this debate about the stats and capabilities of the Firefly.....has anyone managed to draw up a Traveller deckplan for the Firefly yet?


You know the saying... 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. And a deckplan is worth...

EDIT: oops. I just googled, and found at least 4 references to Firefly deckplans for Traveller. Never mind what I said.

 

[clementk]

See Firefly rpg resources thread for deckplans. I think the fleet section has some local ones as well.

 

[kafka47]

Just idle speculation here...perhaps, one could run Firefly in the TNE or Long Night eras where sufficient technology existed to Terraform but the secret to Jump Drive has been lost. This would also account for all the cultural mixing...as both of those eras see a significant cultural resurgence by those of Solomani descent.

 

[mike wightman]

There was a stab at modelling the Firefly drive for Traveller on this thread.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

An easter egg to look for that I just noticed. In the Battlestar Galactica pilot movie, a Firefly-class ship makes a cameo appearance in the far left hand side of the screen at the beginning of the scene where Secretary (soon to be President) Rosilynd is being told that she has cancer.

Can't stop the signal...

 

[jhulse]

Thrash, if I could, I would tell it to Joss. The interior of his firefly is poorly laid out, for a Traveller based ship. I'm sure that the deckplans for the game are a close representation of the set designs, but that does not make them a good design. Almost 20% of the ship is taken up in corridors. There are a lot of extraneous corridors, double-backed catwalks and lots of wasted space, especially around the sick bay. This is of course my opinion. And locating the guest staterooms in the engine bulb makes as much sense as crew quarters in a warp naccel on the USS Enterprise.
When the firefly engages full burn, exterior vents, or fins, (what ever they are) open around the entire circumference of the engine bulb. It appears a fusion reaction blasts out of the slotted openings from inside the bulb, and is focused directly aft. If you look at the deck plan, the staterooms are within the fusion/reaction chamber itself. Form follows function (Sorry, I am an Architect after all), and the function of guest rooms do not belong in the form of the engine of any starship.
These guest rooms would be better located on deck two near the common room.
Don't get me wrong. I love firefly. I bought the CD's, and I can't wait to see the movie. We are going to get the game when it comes out as well. But since I'm and architect, I know a dumb layout when I see one. Changes would need to be made with converting a ship based on a TV show, to a ship based on a game that's been around since the seventies. I'm not so sure you understood my comments a critique. I intend to take the hull design of the firefly, and convert it into a Jump capable Traveller based ship.
Ok, deckplan aside, I do like your explanation of the turbo-fan. I never noticed the intakes closing upon breaking atmo. I'll have to look for it the next time I have the CD's in!
If converted for Traveller, it could be argued that they are in fact fuel scoops and fuel processors. When in atmo, instead of the processed fuel being fed into the fuel tanks, the fuel is immediately diverted to the reaction drive. This would allow a firefly class ship to "fly for free" in most atmospheres. If the ship is at rest, the fan blades could still drawing air (or water) into the fuel processors to top off the tanks. OOPS! Just saw the time, got to run.
JakNaz