Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James dillane <lakashim@*******.COM>
Subject: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 06:41:22 PDT
Hello again,

The numbers for jet aircraft fuel economy seem wrong. I know nothing of
real life (circa 1998) vehicle ranges and fuell capacities, but the ones
in Rigger 2 seem short.

Take the Lear-Cessna Platinum II vs the LAV-103 Striker Light Tank (page
160 R2). The Lear can carry 1500 ltrs of jet fuel, with an economy of .5
km/ltr. That gives it as total range of 750kms. The Striker carries 800
ltrs of diesel and has an economy of 2 km/ltr. That makes the tanks
range of 1600km. I always thought that a Lear jet would be able to
travel further than any tank, light or other wise.

As i said earlier, I don't have much real world experience with vehicles
of these types. Maybe it's the diesel fuel vs the jet fuel? But it comes
up again and again with jet or thrusted based vehicles. The GMC Banshee
stood out in my mind as another strange example. 7500 ltrs at .05
km/ltr? It could only 375 klicks before re-fuelling? Is that right? You
couldn't travel from Los Angeles to San Fransisco on one tank of gas? It
just doesn't feel right. If I was smuggling my self from New Orleans to
Mexico City via T-Bird, it would costs thousands in AV-fuel alone.

Do I have the right perspective on this or do the numbers bear out? Can
a lear jet only go 750 kms. According to the book, it could only fly for
One hour and 15 min at top speed before needing to land and re-fuel. Is
that right?

Thanks again.

"Sipping from the Spring of Immortality is only the Beginning..." Psalm
of Ananda


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 2
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:21:01 EDT
In a message dated 8/1/98 8:42:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
lakashim@*******.COM writes:

> The numbers for jet aircraft fuel economy seem wrong. I know nothing of
> real life (circa 1998) vehicle ranges and fuell capacities, but the ones
> in Rigger 2 seem short.

The Fuel Economies for various power plant types does seem a bit odd at times,
but overall it works okay.

> Take the Lear-Cessna Platinum II vs the LAV-103 Striker Light Tank (page
> 160 R2). The Lear can carry 1500 ltrs of jet fuel, with an economy of .5
> km/ltr. That gives it as total range of 750kms. The Striker carries 800
> ltrs of diesel and has an economy of 2 km/ltr. That makes the tanks
> range of 1600km. I always thought that a Lear jet would be able to
> travel further than any tank, light or other wise.

There is a difference between flying in an aircraft versus driving a ground
vehicle. A ground vehicle does not have to worry about keeping the speed
above a certain mark to stay in the air. Aircraft also burn more fuel than a
standard ground vehicle engine also. Oh, and

> As i said earlier, I don't have much real world experience with vehicles
> of these types. Maybe it's the diesel fuel vs the jet fuel? But it comes
> up again and again with jet or thrusted based vehicles. The GMC Banshee
> stood out in my mind as another strange example. 7500 ltrs at .05
> km/ltr? It could only 375 klicks before re-fuelling? Is that right? You
> couldn't travel from Los Angeles to San Fransisco on one tank of gas? It
> just doesn't feel right. If I was smuggling my self from New Orleans to
> Mexico City via T-Bird, it would costs thousands in AV-fuel alone.

Most tbird runs are short hops which require something that can either carry a
lot in terms of CF or load and has potentially a lot of armor. For the longer
flights, yes, you would want something that has a better fuel economy overall,
and a tbird does not do that unless you crank the fuel economy to 0.3 km /
liter, in which case the range becomes roughly 220 kilometers.

> Do I have the right perspective on this or do the numbers bear out? Can
> a lear jet only go 750 kms. According to the book, it could only fly for
> One hour and 15 min at top speed before needing to land and re-fuel. Is
> that right?

Yeppers ... unfortunately.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 3
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:05:54 -0500
>Most tbird runs are short hops which require something that can either
carry a
>lot in terms of CF or load and has potentially a lot of armor. For the
longer
>flights, yes, you would want something that has a better fuel economy
overall,
>and a tbird does not do that unless you crank the fuel economy to 0.3 km /


Standard off-the-shelf t-birds dont have great range. But what smuggler
worth a damn is going to fly an off-the-shelf model? The first thing a
smuggler is going to do is overhaul the system to make it more fuel
efficient. Max out the fuel efficiency and you have a max range of around
1400 miles. Throw in a couple drop-tanks (or an internal fuel bladder) and
you have plenty of range.

Speaking of t-birds, where do smugglers KEEP them? Surely you dont park
them in your garage in Seattle... perhaps semi-permanant mobile camps up in
the mountains? Maybe you pay a fee or something to park the bird at a
shadow truckstop or something? T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.

-Teeg
Who thinks t-birds are tres cool.
Message no. 4
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:48:38 EDT
In a message dated 8/2/98 12:53:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dukes@*******.NET writes:

> >Most tbird runs are short hops which require something that can either
> carry a
> >lot in terms of CF or load and has potentially a lot of armor. For the
> longer
> >flights, yes, you would want something that has a better fuel economy
> overall,
> >and a tbird does not do that unless you crank the fuel economy to 0.3 km /
>
>
> Standard off-the-shelf t-birds dont have great range. But what smuggler
> worth a damn is going to fly an off-the-shelf model? The first thing a
> smuggler is going to do is overhaul the system to make it more fuel
> efficient. Max out the fuel efficiency and you have a max range of around
> 1400 miles. Throw in a couple drop-tanks (or an internal fuel bladder) and
> you have plenty of range.

Yep ... which sounds just like what current day tank crews do when they remove
the speed governor from the engines when they get a new one from the factory.
You would think someone would have turned around and told the factory to go
ahead and not install the things in anyway.

> Speaking of t-birds, where do smugglers KEEP them? Surely you dont park
> them in your garage in Seattle... perhaps semi-permanant mobile camps up in
> the mountains? Maybe you pay a fee or something to park the bird at a
> shadow truckstop or something? T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.

Personally, the governments are aware of -ALL- of the air fields, and this
would apply in the highly developed nations only or where the megas have
rather severe interest in the place. The only reason the governments don't
crackdown on the places is that the snugglers do perform services for the
governments and people in power, which this allows them to stay in place and
in operation as long as they do not piss off the local government.

Once here in the home game, a long time ago, about 3 years ago or so, the Air
Rig Boss for the Pacific Northwest (there was no name mentioned in CalFree
State at the time) had begun to accumulate more and more popularity and better
pilots and the like. Someone got jealous and one day the Salish government
sent a 8 hour eviction notice to her, Aurora at the time, and the base.
Needless to say, a lot of nearby truck stops and other large open parking lots
became filled up fast as all of the aircraft (40+) and gear and the like were
moved to them.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 5
From: Bai Shen <baishen@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 15:16:27 -0400
> Speaking of t-birds, where do smugglers KEEP them? Surely you dont park
> them in your garage in Seattle... perhaps semi-permanant mobile camps up in
> the mountains? Maybe you pay a fee or something to park the bird at a
> shadow truckstop or something? T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.

T:SH??
--
Bai Shen
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
http://www.series2000.com/users/baishen
UIN 3543257 (Don't ask to join if you aren't going to send me anything.)
Message no. 6
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:46:30 -0500
>> T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
>> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.
>
>T:SH??

Target: Smuggler's Havens, the most book put out by FASA.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 7
From: Bai Shen <baishen@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:11:20 -0400
> >> T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
> >> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.
> >T:SH??
> Target: Smuggler's Havens, the most book put out by FASA.

The most what book?
--
Bai Shen
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
http://www.series2000.com/users/baishen
UIN 3543257 (Don't ask to join if you aren't going to send me anything.)
Message no. 8
From: Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:15:05 -0400
On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Bai Shen wrote:

> > >> T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
> > >> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.
> > >T:SH??
> > Target: Smuggler's Havens, the most book put out by FASA.
>
> The most what book?
> --

Not to put words in someone else's mouth, but I'd guess most recent
Message no. 9
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:43:18 -0500
>> > >T:SH??
>> > Target: Smuggler's Havens, the most book put out by FASA.
>>
>> The most what book?
>
>Not to put words in someone else's mouth, but I'd guess most recent

Bingo. There are days I wonder why I bother dealing in a medium that
requires so damn much typing....

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 02:58:07 EDT
In a message dated 8/2/1998 2:37:19 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
baishen@**********.COM writes:

>
> T:SH??
>
Target: Smuggler's Haven

Newest of the Source books ...

-K
Message no. 11
From: Rick Watkins <tazzanator@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 00:03:43 PDT
>From owner-shadowrn@********.itribe.net Sun Aug 2 12:52:44 1998
>Received: (qmail 15402 invoked from network); 2 Aug 1998 19:46:32 -0000
>Received: from athos.itribe.net (HELO athos) (@***.49.144.202)
> by athos.itribe.net with SMTP; 2 Aug 1998 19:46:32 -0000
>Received: from LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET by LISTPROC.ITRIBE.NET
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
> release 1.8c) with spool id 2655852 for
SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET;
> Sun, 2 Aug 1998 15:46:25 -0400
>Received: from arnet.arn.net (204.177.232.11) by athos.itribe.net with
SMTP; 2
> Aug 1998 19:46:23 -0000
>Received: from vagabond (pm3-5-101.ama.arn.net [207.19.0.101]) by
arnet.arn.net
> (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA07013 for
> <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:51:36
-0500 (CDT)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Message-ID: <002601bdbe4f$020de200$650013cf@********>
>Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:46:30 -0500
>Reply-To: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
>Sender: Shadowrun Discussion <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
>From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
>Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
>To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
>
>>> T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
>>> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.
My big question about t-bird smuggling is:
1. How do the smugglers find them?
and
2. HOW DO THEY AFFORD THEM?
just curious

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 12
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:19:10 +1000
Rick Watkins writes:
(Hey, it's a small world, isn't it?)
> >>> T:SH although helpful as far as smuggling
> >>> goes, could stand a bit more detail on the t-bird stuff.
> My big question about t-bird smuggling is:
> 1. How do the smugglers find them?

Contacts, my friend, contacts... Army surplus dealers would be a source that
springs to mind.

> and
> 2. HOW DO THEY AFFORD THEM?

Umm... "business loans", offered by your friendly Family bankers?

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 13
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Rigger 2 Fuel Economy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:45:06 -0500
>1. How do the smugglers find them?
>and
>2. HOW DO THEY AFFORD THEM?
>just curious

I've always imagined t-bird smugglers as the very best of the best. They
spend years smuggling with boats, trucks, and planes before they can save
up enough money to build, steal, or buy a t-bird. And smuggling is VERY
profitable. Computer parts for example have around a 300% markup in the CAS
from Seattle prices. If you can cutout the mob middleman (rather dangerous
if they find out you are smuggling without their approval) you stand to
make an enormous profit.

-Teeg

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger 2 Fuel Economy, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!