Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 10:35:00 2001
I was perusing through the wonderful world of riggers and a few things caught
my eye.
1. In the vehicle subsystem damage section (pg 77), it says "To determine if
subsystem damage occurs, compare the highest die roll result of the Damage
Resistance Test to the number of boxes of damage AFTER STAGING UP OR DOWN."
(emphasis mine) Then on pg 79 the example compares it to the damage before
staging. Am I reading it wrong or is the example wrong?
2. In the Flight manuevers table pg 74, it lists the amounts of fuel left
after STOL, VSTOL, VTOL take offs and landings. I am unfamiliar with real
world aircraft so I am asking any experts out there. Do you really use up
400 liters (see example on pg 74) of fuel simply taking off? A VSTOl or
VTOL aircraft would need an enormous amount of fuel since appox. half of it
is used in takeoff!

Anyway, thanks for the help.

Big Q
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 14:15:01 2001
According to Trollrunner@***.com, on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 the word on the
street was...

> 1. In the vehicle subsystem damage section (pg 77), it says "To determine if
> subsystem damage occurs, compare the highest die roll result of the Damage
> Resistance Test to the number of boxes of damage AFTER STAGING UP OR DOWN."
> (emphasis mine) Then on pg 79 the example compares it to the damage before
> staging. Am I reading it wrong or is the example wrong?

IMO, these sorts of things usually result from someone changing the main
text and forgeting to update the example, which implies the text is correct
and the example isn't.

> 2. In the Flight manuevers table pg 74, it lists the amounts of fuel left
> after STOL, VSTOL, VTOL take offs and landings. I am unfamiliar with real
> world aircraft so I am asking any experts out there. Do you really use up
> 400 liters (see example on pg 74) of fuel simply taking off? A VSTOl or
> VTOL aircraft would need an enormous amount of fuel since appox. half of it
> is used in takeoff!

Maintaining a certain speed doesn't cost as much energy as increasing your
speed. Since an aircraft goes from 0 to very fast in a short amount of
time, and in two directions (forward and up) but then usually remains at a
fairly constant speed and altitude, a lot of fuel is burned during
take-off, compared to what is consumed during the rest of the flight.

Unfortunately, I don't have actual figures (or first-hand experience :) to
say whether or not the values given in Rigger 3 are too high, too low, or
about right... David can help out, maybe?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 15:15:01 2001
At 07:43 PM 4/3/01 +0200, Gurth wrote:
>According to Trollrunner@***.com, on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 the word on the
>street was...
>
> > 2. In the Flight manuevers table pg 74, it lists the amounts of fuel left
> > after STOL, VSTOL, VTOL take offs and landings. I am unfamiliar with real
> > world aircraft so I am asking any experts out there. Do you really use up
> > 400 liters (see example on pg 74) of fuel simply taking off? A VSTOl or
> > VTOL aircraft would need an enormous amount of fuel since appox. half
> of it
> > is used in takeoff!
>
>Maintaining a certain speed doesn't cost as much energy as increasing your
>speed. Since an aircraft goes from 0 to very fast in a short amount of
>time, and in two directions (forward and up) but then usually remains at a
>fairly constant speed and altitude, a lot of fuel is burned during
>take-off, compared to what is consumed during the rest of the flight.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't have actual figures (or first-hand experience :) to
>say whether or not the values given in Rigger 3 are too high, too low, or
>about right... David can help out, maybe?

Just about any plane is at full throttle during take off and for a
significant portion of it's climb out to cruising altitude.

Non VTOL planes use less fuel when landing then during cruising speeds, as
the goal is to slow down to a few knots above your stall speeds on approach
(and then stall the plane when the wheels are a few inches above the runway).

VTOLs, on the other hand, are at full throttle on takeoff *and* landing.

A VTOL is at full throttle when it lifts off, and stays at full throttle
until it gets up to speed, and is at near full throttle until it reaches
the desired altitude. This burns up a lot of fuel, and a lot of coolant
(which in the case of the Harrier is water).

Likewise, a VTOL is at full throttle/near full throttle from the moment it
starts its approach till it's wheels touch the ground. If it starts it's
approach a half mile out, that's a long time at full throttle.

Something else to consider is that an airplane's engines are designed to be
most efficient at cruising speed, and take advantage of the fact that
incoming air is being rammed into the engine at several hundred miles per
hour. When a VTOL is hovering/landing/lifting off it has to suck air in,
in addition to providing thrust. This takes a lot more energy (fuel) then
when running at cruising speed.

So yes, the figures are close to being in line with real life.

Be happy that the game rules don't take coolant into account. Remember
that I said that the Harrier uses water to keep the engines cool during
takeoff and landing? If for some reason a Harrier runs out of water to
keep the engines cool it can't do a vertical landing or hover, because if
it tries it will burn out it's engines and fall like a big piece of metal
with stubby wings that's meant to fly but currently isn't.

If you ever look into Harrier use you'll notice that they rarely do VTOL
takes offs or landings. For one thing, a VTOL is hazardous. And, they
burn a *lot* of fuel. Given a choice a Harrier pilot will do a standard
take off or landing. Given short field conditions, the pilot will perform
a VSTOL (vertical/short take off/landing) over a VTOL. This uses a lot of
fuel, but less fuel than a VTOL. Harriers on British Carriers perform
VSTOL take offs and landings for this reason.

Hope that helped :)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
"Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
-Wally
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Michael Yacht)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 16:10:01 2001
> At 07:43 PM 4/3/01 +0200, Gurth wrote:
> >According to Trollrunner@***.com, on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 the word on the
> >street was...
> >
> > > 2. In the Flight manuevers table pg 74, it lists the amounts of fuel
left
> > > after STOL, VSTOL, VTOL take offs and landings. I am unfamiliar with
real
> > > world aircraft so I am asking any experts out there. Do you really
use up
> > > 400 liters (see example on pg 74) of fuel simply taking off? A VSTOl
or
> > > VTOL aircraft would need an enormous amount of fuel since appox. half
> > of it
> > > is used in takeoff!
> >
> >Maintaining a certain speed doesn't cost as much energy as increasing
your
> >speed. Since an aircraft goes from 0 to very fast in a short amount of
> >time, and in two directions (forward and up) but then usually remains at
a
> >fairly constant speed and altitude, a lot of fuel is burned during
> >take-off, compared to what is consumed during the rest of the flight.
> >
> >Unfortunately, I don't have actual figures (or first-hand experience :)
to
> >say whether or not the values given in Rigger 3 are too high, too low, or
> >about right... David can help out, maybe?
>
> Just about any plane is at full throttle during take off and for a
> significant portion of it's climb out to cruising altitude.
>
> Non VTOL planes use less fuel when landing then during cruising speeds, as
> the goal is to slow down to a few knots above your stall speeds on
approach
> (and then stall the plane when the wheels are a few inches above the
runway).

[Lots snipped]

In short, that's why the helicopter is so cool and VTOL jet craft haven't
become very popular beyond the Brits with the Harrier. Plus, by all
accounts that I've read/heard, they are a BEAST to control during VTOL. Use
a chopper and leave the VTOLs on the drawing board.

-Nog
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 16:15:02 2001
--part1_45.4898f04.27fb8931_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 4/3/01 3:22:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
davidb@***.100.100.99 writes:


> If you ever look into Harrier use you'll notice that they rarely do VTOL
> takes offs or landings. For one thing, a VTOL is hazardous. And, they
> burn a *lot* of fuel. Given a choice a Harrier pilot will do a standard
> take off or landing. Given short field conditions, the pilot will perform
> a VSTOL (vertical/short take off/landing) over a VTOL. This uses a lot of
> fuel, but less fuel than a VTOL. Harriers on British Carriers perform
> .

Keep in mind, too, that the Harrier has a very well earned nickname; The
Widowmaker. And not referring to its enemies, either. It's a cast-iron BITCH
to pilot, apparently.

John

--part1_45.4898f04.27fb8931_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 4/3/01
3:22:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<BR>davidb@***.100.100.99 writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">If you ever look into
Harrier use you'll notice that they rarely do VTOL
<BR>takes offs or landings. &nbsp;For one thing, a VTOL is hazardous.
&nbsp;And, they
<BR>burn a *lot* of fuel. &nbsp;Given a choice a Harrier pilot will do a
standard
<BR>take off or landing. &nbsp;Given short field conditions, the pilot will
perform
<BR>a VSTOL (vertical/short take off/landing) over a VTOL. &nbsp;This uses a lot
of
<BR>fuel, but less fuel than a VTOL. &nbsp;Harriers on British Carriers perform
<BR>VSTOL take offs and landings for this
reason</BLOCKQUOTE>.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>Keep in mind, too, that the Harrier has a very well earned nickname; The
<BR>Widowmaker. And not referring to its enemies, either. It's a cast-iron BITCH
<BR>to pilot, apparently.
<BR>
<BR>John</FONT></HTML>

--part1_45.4898f04.27fb8931_boundary--
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 17:15:01 2001
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John writes:

Keep in mind, too, that the Harrier has a very well earned nickname; The
Widowmaker. And not referring to its enemies, either. It's a cast-iron BITCH
to pilot, apparently.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'd imagine that they would get a lot easier to fly when rigger controlled.
After all a pilot would be able to react instinctively with balance.

Iridios
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Nexx)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 17:20:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iridios"

> Keep in mind, too, that the Harrier has a very well earned nickname; The
> Widowmaker. And not referring to its enemies, either. It's a cast-iron
BITCH
> to pilot, apparently.
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> I'd imagine that they would get a lot easier to fly when rigger
controlled.
> After all a pilot would be able to react instinctively with balance.

Not to mention they'd be FBW _and_ rigger controlled... not only would the
rigger react instinctively, the plane would already want to go that way.
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Tue Apr 3 19:20:01 2001
At 04:14 PM 4/3/2001 EDT, you wrote:
>
>.
>
>Keep in mind, too, that the Harrier has a very well earned nickname; The
>Widowmaker. And not referring to its enemies, either. It's a cast-iron
BITCH
>to pilot, apparently.
>
>John

I'm told, by actual USMC Harrier pilots, that one of the big problems was
engine failure, which has been fixed in the current version, known in the
US as the AV-8B

By the bye, these Harriers (or any jet with vectored thrust) are supposed
to be hellaciously manueverable, as they can use the thrust vector to snap
a real tight turn.

I imagine that a rigger could do even better than pilots today could do.

Dave
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Wed Apr 4 17:30:01 2001
>>>1. In the vehicle subsystem damage section (pg 77), it says "To determine
if
subsystem damage occurs, compare the highest die roll result of the Damage
Resistance Test to the number of boxes of damage AFTER STAGING UP OR DOWN."
(emphasis mine) Then on pg 79 the example compares it to the damage before
staging. Am I reading it wrong or is the example wrong?

Afiak, you are reading it right. That is quite similar indeed to the system
used in M&M.
The example does seem in conflict to the rules text.

>>>2. In the Flight manuevers table pg 74, it lists the amounts of fuel left
after STOL, VSTOL, VTOL take offs and landings. I am unfamiliar with real
world aircraft so I am asking any experts out there. Do you really use up
400 liters (see example on pg 74) of fuel simply taking off? A VSTOl or
VTOL aircraft would need an enormous amount of fuel since appox. half of it
is used in takeoff!

Yeah, the quicker the takeoff, the more fuel you use, because the methods
used are generally very inneficient. To make matters worse, all that fule
is heavy, so you need more power and fuel to lift it all...
Afaik, even normal planes consume a fair portion fo thier fuel just getting
into the air and up to cruising altitude. 400 liters actually seems pretty
good for a jet plane that nominally weighs 12 tons taking off in 150 meters.

-Mongoose
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Thu Apr 5 20:00:01 2001
--part1_8e.138c3d59.27fe6131_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have a rigger 3 question of my own. Anyone know where I can get one? Last
time I checked Amazon didn't have any. I believe that FASA didn't make many
before they quit, and I'm wondering if Wizkids is printing them. Any help?

Dragon Claw

--part1_8e.138c3d59.27fe6131_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I have a rigger 3
question of my own. Anyone know where I can get one? &nbsp;Last
<BR>time I checked Amazon didn't have any. &nbsp;I believe that FASA didn't make
many
<BR>before they quit, and I'm wondering if Wizkids is printing them. &nbsp;Any
help?
<BR>
<BR>Dragon Claw</FONT></HTML>

--part1_8e.138c3d59.27fe6131_boundary--
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Mon Apr 9 06:35:01 2001
DragonC147@***.com writes:

> I have a rigger 3 question of my own. Anyone know where I can get one?
> Last time I checked Amazon didn't have any. I believe that FASA didn't
> make many before they quit, and I'm wondering if Wizkids is printing them.
> Any help?

While I probably cannot assist you in finding any of them (unless you're in
Australia), they were actually produced by FASA. The final printing run for
the Shadowrun line was apparently 5000 copies of Rigger 3. This is also,
unfortunately, the only printing of Rigger 3, making it somewhat difficult
to find. Hopefully WizKids will publish the core SR3 books once they get
going.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 C++ US++>+++ P+ L++>+++ E- W+>++ N++ o@ K- w+(--) O-@
M-- V- PS+ PE(-) Y+>++ PGP-@>++ t+ 5 X++>+++ R+(++) !tv(--) b+ DI+++@
D G+ e++>++++$ h(*) r++ y-(--)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Robert Manning)
Subject: Some Rigger 3 questions
Date: Mon Apr 9 07:45:01 2001
At 07:00 PM 4/5/01, you wrote:
>I have a rigger 3 question of my own. Anyone know where I can get one? Last
>time I checked Amazon didn't have any. I believe that FASA didn't make many
>before they quit, and I'm wondering if Wizkids is printing them. Any help?
>
>Dragon Claw


Check Amazon again. I just ordered mine from them last week, and
it was shipped on Friday. I should be getting it today or tomorrow.

archangel@*********.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12 (Decipher at http://www.geekcode.com/ )
GU d- s+: a22? C++ UL P L+ E(----) W+ N++ o? K? w(---) O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+
PGP? t-- 5 X+ R+ tv b++(+++) DI++++ D++ G e h(--) !r y-
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some Rigger 3 questions, 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!