Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see a definitive
statement either way: when figuring the construction time for a ship,
the hull has a time listed in months (which I convert to weeks at
1:4), and the CT Drive Potential table has a single column at the far
right which is headed "build time". When working out the build time
for a ship, do I use the _longer_ of the two times (which the standard
designs listed appear to do), or should I really be _adding_ the times
(which would make the standard designs listed severely underestimated
for build time)? I'm analyzing some ship designs that are slightly
house-ruled; they're severely overpowered (larger M-Drive and PP than
the rules nominally allow; the ships in question are more or less
"tugboats" for a shipyard), and the build time for the M-Drive and PP
are actually longer than the time given for laying the hull.

(Cepheus Engine gives build time in weeks, and seems consistent with
CT after the 1:4 conversion, but CE only gives hull construction
times, nothing else has a construction time.)

®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)