SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Jeff Zeitlin (03 Jul 2017 00:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Evyn MacDude (03 Jul 2017 00:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Jeff Zeitlin (03 Jul 2017 01:13 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Evyn MacDude (03 Jul 2017 02:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? tmr0195@xxxxxx (03 Jul 2017 05:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Jeff Zeitlin (03 Jul 2017 01:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? tmr0195@xxxxxx (03 Jul 2017 04:53 UTC)

Re: [TML] SHIPBUILDING: Maneuver Drive/Power Plant fuel? Jeff Zeitlin 03 Jul 2017 01:21 UTC

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 20:35:22 -0400, I wrote:

>This question applies to Classic Traveller (Books 1-3) designs.
>
>
>
>I've been running the numbers for confirmation on some ship designs
>that have been submitted, and I'm a bit confused all of a sudden. If I
>look at the example ships from Book 2, the fuel tankage quoted seems
>to be exactly what's needed for the specified Jump capability, but is
>cited as "supports _n_ Jump _m_ and four weeks of operation". Is four
>weeks of Power Plant/Maneuver fuel included in the allocation for the
>Power Plant? If so, how do I determine how much fuel to add if I'm
>designing the ship for extended-duration operations? If Power Plant
>fuel is considered to be part of the cited fuel allocation, then how
>can a 400td hull with J1 capability support 3xJ1 plus 4 weeks on 120td
>of fuel?

OK, I found the whoops: The sample ships in B2/1981 seem to all be
correct (as in, allocate extra fuel tankage for the Power Plant at
10*PP rating) *except* the one that I grabbed as being the most
representative for (other) design issues - the 400td Patrol Cruiser
(the others are standard hulls; the design submitted is a custom hull,
because it's overpowered for purpose-related reasons). It appears that
the correct fuel tankage for the Patrol Cruiser should be 150 tons;
I'm not sure what that does to the rest of the Type T design, but it's
not relevant for my purposes.

FWIW, the designer of the submitted ship got the tankage "right" in
that it covers jump usage plus extended operations, though his math
was a little weak and overstated the combined number of
jumps/operational weeks. (I've corrected those numbers in the
article.)

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2017. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)