--- On Fri, 7/22/11, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brandon replied to me:
> > MA Lloyd addressed this in his unofficial vehicle
> expansions after VE2
> > came out. IIRC, a sub need to be at least 80% maximum
> displacement or it
> > couldn't sink.
> 
> that is exactly what my formula gave -- when ballast tanks
> 
> add 25% to displacement, so they are 20% of the total 
> component and tank volume. If all of the tank volume is 
> filled with water, the remainder must be between 80% and 
> 100% of flotation. 
> 
> Making subs this heavy is not a house rule, I simply keep 
> away from exploiting a loophole in Vehicles.

I'll note that the G:WWII line introduced bilges, which is as easy way to 
increase a ship's weight. It's mostly for surface ships, but can be useful for 
subs too.
 
> > This may be where the planes of Sky Captain start
> becoming impossible
> > while the Russian project remains vaguely plausible --
> the Russian fyling boat,
> > as best I could tell, only flooded the pontoons, with
> wings, budy and
> > engine pods sealed. The conning tower may or may not
> have taken on water to
> > improve submerged performance.
> 
> Imagine a tiny submarine, with HP gas engines instead of 
> diesel. Instead of a screw propeller in the rear, it has 
> an aerial propeller in front. Add free-flooding wings. 
> 
> Why shouldn't that work just as well as any other small 
> submarine?

Do the rules allow for an aerial propeller to provide hydrodynamic thrust?I 
think you'll need a prop for the air and a screw or hydrojet for the water.

Not sure I'd want to flood the wings, since that's where fuel tanks usually go.

> The submersible option doubles the weight and cost of the
> hull. You ought to get something for that ...

On the Soviet sub, I'd only require the pontoons to use the submarine option, 
the body and wings would merely be sealed.
 
> > You may want to look at how Graham Hawkes _Deep
> Flight_ submersible works
> > as an alternative.
> 
> That gets into house rules.

I'm not certain the amphibious planes from Sky Captain can be done without 
house rules.
 
> > Bigger wings, STOL wings!
> 
> They already were STOL, and much more than 10 cf means it
> won't
> have the prop fighter look.

There were large single-engined fighters ;)

> > The biggest problem I see with the Sky Captain planes
> is the transition
> > between land and water. 
> 
> Six G for one second should be enough to lift the plane out
> of 
> the water and accelerate to 100 mph. A solid rocket would 
> require 2.7% of Lwt per use. 

I'm thinking more of crashing into the water and not having the plane shatter 
on impact.

Brandon 
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

Reply via email to