Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:09:53 +1000
Firstly, my apologies if this has been discussed before (I only rejoined
ShadowRN last Friday).
I've been doing a bit of thinking about t-birds in the past
couple of days and have spent some time poring over my copy of Rigger 2
with calculator in hand.
There are a couple of books (The Denver set and Aztlan come to
mind here) that deal with the topic of smuggling using t-birds. From the
way it is portrayed, it's a really cool area (although it basically
straight out of Walter Jon Williams "Hardwired" novel IIRC), but there
is not a lot of decent information on the topic.
The problem is the logistics with it. Given the stats in Rigger
2, it would be impossible for a jammer to turn a profit on a long
distance run unless they were shipping something VERY expensive. This is
basically because of 2 things:
1) small cargo areas. The GMC Banshee only has 30CF worth and the Aztech
Lobo 25CF. Given that 1CF corresponds to only 0.125m^3 (0.5m*0.5m*0.5m).
Once you start packing crates into the back, you would fill that up
pretty quickly. This basically means you are going to have to be REALLY
picky about what you are shipping; and
2) Range. If you punch the numbers through a calculator, a Banshee with
a full tank of gas is going to go only *350km* before it runs out of
juice. Now, given the speed rating of a Banshee is 1000m per combat
round (or 1200km/h for those who think better in those terms), this
means on a full tank of gas, you have about *15-20 minutes* flying time
total before you run out of juice. I reckon it would take longer than
that to refill the gas tank. If you have a decent long haul run, then
you are going to need to fill up a few times while going from point A to
point B. So that is going to seriously eat into your profit margin for
the run. When you combine this with really small cargo areas, it makes
the whole idea rather pointless.
One thing I can think of to fix it is to increase the fuel
economy of the t-bird. Both the Banshee and the Lobo are quoted as
having the base fuel economy (0.05km/L), while the best economy for the
t-bird jet turbines is 0.3km/L (which is still not that great), but it
is still 6 times better than the base model. This means a Banshee would
be able to go about 1500km, which is an hour and quarter, which is
probably a little more interesting in terms of smuggling.
The down side is that it means a 500% percent increase in
economy (which in design point terms is 1000pts). Considering the
already high cost of a t-bird, this is going to jack the price up that
much further.
Something else which might help alleviate the problem are
conformal fuel tanks, ala the current USAF F-15 Eagles). These would be
streamlined bolt on fuel tanks. It would probably make the t-bird go
much slower (it would be a lot heavier on take off), but it would
probably be cheaper than rebuilding/replacing the engines completely.

Admittedly, it might make it more worthwhile to steal one, then
have the engines rebuilt completely. Could make for an interesting run
for a rigger anyway.

Has anyone else got any thoughts on the topic?
cheers
Geoff
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 2
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:07:57 -0700
Geoff Skellams wrote:
/
/ Firstly, my apologies if this has been discussed before (I only rejoined
/ ShadowRN last Friday).

Welcome!

/ I've been doing a bit of thinking about t-birds in the past
/ couple of days and have spent some time poring over my copy of Rigger 2
/ with calculator in hand.
/ There are a couple of books (The Denver set and Aztlan come to
/ mind here) that deal with the topic of smuggling using t-birds. From the
/ way it is portrayed, it's a really cool area (although it basically
/ straight out of Walter Jon Williams "Hardwired" novel IIRC), but there
/ is not a lot of decent information on the topic.
/ The problem is the logistics with it. Given the stats in Rigger
/ 2, it would be impossible for a jammer to turn a profit on a long
/ distance run unless they were shipping something VERY expensive. This is
/ basically because of 2 things:

Everything in SR comes in small packages these days. The cyberware
for Wired 3 reflexes would fit in a shoebox (or smaller). BTL chips
are even better. And then there are drugs. And don't forget human
passengers. And then the highest priced commodity of all in SR,
information.

/ 2) Range. If you punch the numbers through a calculator, a Banshee with
/ a full tank of gas is going to go only *350km* before it runs out of
/ juice.

All it has to do is cross a border and make it to the droppoff point
on the other side. If it starts just this side of the border (within
20 km) that makes for a *huge* search area once it's on the other
side.

The advantage of the Banshee is that it's fast (enough), flys *low*
to the ground, and has enough armor to get out of trouble with most
border guards.

-David
--
"The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer somebody else up."
- Mark Twain
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 3
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:28:48 EST
<snip technical Panzer stuff>

and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece of military
hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ¥? if they can afford that,
why the hell would they be smuggling? they might be able to cut a deal with a
corp for it, but i doubt that a Fixer would float them a loan of that size.

Mgkelly
Message no. 4
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:06:38 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, MgkellyMJ7 wrote:
> <snip technical Panzer stuff>
>
> and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece of
military
> hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ¥? if they can =
afford
that,
> why the hell would they be smuggling? they might be able to cut a =
deal
with a
> corp for it, but i doubt that a Fixer would float them a loan of that
size.
>
> Mgkelly

Like I mentioned in the post yesterday, you could steal one. And not
necessarily from the military, either.
Granted, it would not be easy, but it would be a hell of a lot easier
than finding 8Meg.
It would make for an interesting run trying to acquire one. Not
only that, I am sure you could have a string of equally interesting =
runs
as the previous owners do their damnest to get their multimillion nuyen
t-bird back again...

cheers
Geoff
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 5
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:26:12 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, David Buehrer[SMTP:dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG]
wrote:
> / Firstly, my apologies if this has been discussed before (I only
rejoined
> / ShadowRN last Friday).
> Welcome!
>
Thanks.

> Everything in SR comes in small packages these days. The cyberware
> for Wired 3 reflexes would fit in a shoebox (or smaller). BTL chips
> are even better. And then there are drugs. And don't forget human
> passengers. And then the highest priced commodity of all in SR,
> information.
>
What's the point in running information in a t-bird when you
could ship it with far less cost and far less risk through the matrix?
But I will admit that running things like BTLs would make for a
greater nuyen/volume ratio than a lot of other things. Which is
interesting as I remember reading recently (I think it was in one of the
Denver books) that most jammers only stick BTLs in the little nooks and
crannies of the t-birds. The rest of the cargo hold is filled with other
stuff.

> / 2) Range. If you punch the numbers through a calculator, a Banshee
with
> / a full tank of gas is going to go only *350km* before it runs out of
> / juice.
>
> All it has to do is cross a border and make it to the droppoff point
> on the other side. If it starts just this side of the border (within
> 20 km) that makes for a *huge* search area once it's on the other
> side.
>
Maybe so, but this also goes against a lot of the published
information, especially in the Denver and Aztlan sourcebooks, which
mention routes such as the Autobahn and the Ho Chi Minh Trail up and
down the length of the Rocky Mountains.
I'm not full up on the geography on the US, but I am sure it
would be a hell of a lot further than 350km from say Denver to Aztlan.

> The advantage of the Banshee is that it's fast (enough), flys *low*
> to the ground, and has enough armor to get out of trouble with most
> border guards.
>
Actually, a Banshee is BLOODY fast for something that low. It
has a speed rating of 1000m/combat turn. This equates (as I mentioned
before) to 1200km/h (using the conversion value of (speed*1.2)=km/h on
P22 of Rigger 2). Now, considering the speed of sound at sea level is
1188km/h, it means the average Banshee runs at a bee's dick above Mach
1. If you're using the variable fuel consumption rates in Rigger 2
(P81/2), you can push this up to 1800km/h (Speed*1.5).
For speeds like that, you are going to need one hell of a
Terrain Following Radar. There's no way that a t-bird could operate in a
smuggling run with ALL of its electronic sensors off. At a bare minimum,
you are going to need the TFR. I don't care that a rigger has a beefed
up reaction rate, I don't think that anyone zipping over the country
side at low altitude at Mach 1 could do TF using their reflexes alone.
And if you are using a TFR, you are going to be emitting something,
maybe not a lot, but enough to be picked up.
Just a matter of interest, just how low does a T-Bird fly? I
presume it would fly within a meter or two of the surface, and use the
ground effect envelope to keep it of the ground (in much the same way as
that massive Russian transport I saw once in passing on the news a
couple of years back). If it's going to be out of the ground effect,
then it's going to need one HELL of a powerplant to push it along at
those speeds.

anyhow, enough of my ramblings
cheers
Geoff

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 6
From: Christian Bryndum <d96403@***.LYNGBYES.DK>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:31:58 +0100
At 16.28 04-03-98 EST, you wrote:
><snip technical Panzer stuff>
>
>and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece of=
military
>hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ¥? if they can afford=
that,
>why the hell would they be smuggling? they might be able to cut a deal with=
a
>corp for it, but i doubt that a Fixer would float them a loan of that size.
>
>Mgkelly


Ever heard of shadowruns into military complexe's?

Chaszmyr
Check out my homepage on:
http://delfi.lyngbyes.dk/~d96403



"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
Yet with strange aeons, even Death may die."
Howard P. Lovecraft
Message no. 7
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:41:37 EST
In a message dated 98-03-04 16:29:46 EST, MgkellyMJ7@***.COM writes:

> and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece of
military
> hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ¥? if they can afford
that,
> why the hell would they be smuggling? they might be able to cut a deal with
> a
> corp for it, but i doubt that a Fixer would float them a loan of that size.
>
You are correct, a Fixer might not. But a Rigboss??? That is something
entirely different. Vehicles can, like cyberdecks, outlive their users on
occasion. And maybe they owe someone (contacts like the Yakuza or Mafia,
Rigbosses, Corporate Overwatch...) for the cash they needed to get the T-
Bird...

-K
Message no. 8
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:07:00 EST
In a message dated 98-03-04 18:35:45 EST, you write:

<< Ever heard of shadowruns into military complexe's?
>>

true enough. it would be very difficult, but could be done. given what i have
read in the Denver Sourcebook as well as in the novels, a lot of Panzers would
go missing if the Panzer running community was a large as dipicted. and i'm
sure that a lot of the original owners would do their damndest to get their
extremely expensive hovertanks back.

but i digress....
==================================================================
Mgkelly *BEEP* *BEEP* "You're fragged...."
Message no. 9
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:12:53 EST
In a message dated 98-03-04 20:42:25 EST, you write:

<< You are correct, a Fixer might not. But a Rigboss??? >>

very good. i never thought of a loan from an organized crime syndicate. the
Mafia in particular is very big on smuggling and selling swag, even nowadays.
it would definitely be an investment if they could get a rigger to run 10 mill
worth of BTL's (or whatever) into another sector. their investmetn on the
Panzer would be paid after a few runs. of course, the rigger would still be
paying them back for it. and probably would be paying on it for quite a while.

Mgkelly
Message no. 10
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:44:10 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, MgkellyMJ7 wrote:
> In a message dated 98-03-04 20:42:25 EST, you write:
>
> << You are correct, a Fixer might not. But a Rigboss??? >>
>
> very good. i never thought of a loan from an organized crime
syndicate. the
> Mafia in particular is very big on smuggling and selling swag, even
nowadays.
> it would definitely be an investment if they could get a rigger to run
10 mill
> worth of BTL's (or whatever) into another sector. their investmetn on
the
> Panzer would be paid after a few runs. of course, the rigger would
still be
> paying them back for it. and probably would be paying on it for quite
a while.
>
> Mgkelly

If you were running a Mafia campaign ala the Underworld Sourcebook, you
wouldn't even need to have the rigger paying off the t-bird. If he/she
was a made man, that could be the role they playing in the organisation.
Who said he had to be a runner? The rigger is just the pilot.
The organisation owns the bird.

Geoff
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 11
From: MgkellyMJ7 <MgkellyMJ7@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:58:19 EST
In a message dated 98-03-05 00:48:18 EST, you write:

<< Who said he had to be a runner? The rigger is just the pilot.
The organisation owns the bird. >>

that's a good point as well. never thought of that ;] <EGMG>

Mgkelly
Message no. 12
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 04:30:58 EST
Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,

> > / 2) Range. If you punch the numbers through a calculator, a Banshee
> with
> > / a full tank of gas is going to go only *350km* before it runs out of
> > / juice.
> >
> > All it has to do is cross a border and make it to the droppoff point
> > on the other side. If it starts just this side of the border (within
> > 20 km) that makes for a *huge* search area once it's on the other
> > side.
> >
> Maybe so, but this also goes against a lot of the published
> information, especially in the Denver and Aztlan sourcebooks, which
> mention routes such as the Autobahn and the Ho Chi Minh Trail up and
> down the length of the Rocky Mountains.
> I'm not full up on the geography on the US, but I am sure it
> would be a hell of a lot further than 350km from say Denver to Aztlan.

FWIW, the upcoming Target: Smugglers' Havens sourcebook should have a section
that covers different T-birds runs and routes. (I didn't write any of those
routes, so I have no idea yet as to any specific details about them).
Hopefully this should provide some more detailed description when it comes out
(April or May, IIRC).

In the meanwhile, I have a couple of suggestions as to how those long-range
runs to and from Denver can be possible. Conformal fuel tanks certainly help,
but, providing only an additional 2,000 liters per pair, this can only provide
at best about a 27% range increase per pair (a Banshee has an internal fuel
capacity of about 7,500 liters).

Another option would be to have refuel/refit stations at various waypoints
along the route. A t-bird run from Seattle to Denver flies over Colorado,
Idaho, Wyoming, and/or Montana, all of which are pretty sparsely-populated
states. A contact (or group of contacts) could maintain a refuel point
(possibly a reconverted truck stop on an inactive highway) somewhere, that
could evade authorities by its low profile (small building - big country).

Several list members have also suggested enlisting the aid of an air elemental
or a nature spirit. Using its Movement power, a spirit can increase or
decrease a vehicle's speed by multiplying or dividing its current speed by the
spirit's Essence. So a t-bird assisted by a Force 3 air elemental could triple
its effective speed, thus tripling the distance covered without consuming more
fuel.

> Just a matter of interest, just how low does a T-Bird fly? I
> presume it would fly within a meter or two of the surface, and use the
> ground effect envelope to keep it of the ground (in much the same way as
> that massive Russian transport I saw once in passing on the news a
> couple of years back). If it's going to be out of the ground effect,
> then it's going to need one HELL of a powerplant to push it along at
> those speeds.

T-birds can fly at any height above ground level (AGL) up to about 1,500
meters (about 4,500 feet). That's still pretty low, compared to other aircraft
(helicopters can have a flight ceiling as high as 18,000-20,000 feet, and most
fixed-wing jet aircraft can fly as high as 36,000 feet). T-birds get their
lift partly from ground effect, but also some supplementary lift from some
stubby auxiliary wings as well (hence the reason it has a stall speed).

For tactical reasons, t-birds will probably fly no higher than 200 meters AGL,
in order to hide from most radars. Of course, flying at such a low height
poses a lot of risks and hazards (witness the accident in Northern Italy last
month, when a USMC Prowler severed the cable of a ski tram during a low-level
flight).

Target: Smugglers' Havens will have some additional supplementary rules
covering low-level flights and special operations for t-birds (both of which I
did write).

Hope that helps,

-- Jon
Message no. 13
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:03:24 +0100
>Several list members have also suggested enlisting the aid of an air
elemental
>or a nature spirit. Using its Movement power, a spirit can increase or
>decrease a vehicle's speed by multiplying or dividing its current speed by
the
>spirit's Essence. So a t-bird assisted by a Force 3 air elemental could
triple
>its effective speed, thus tripling the distance covered without consuming
more
>fuel.

That arises some questions :

* Can spirit's movement power affect non-living being ?
* If so, it could be possible to accelerate things like bullets or
missiles... What would be the damage augmentation. Practicaly, at such a
speed, the target is killed by system shock.
My general opinion is that movement power is a bit too powerful... A
movement multiplier is really big ! Perhaps it would be better to add
spirit's essence to quickness for exemple (IMO, this power only affects
living beings).
* Whatever the target (living or not), when you reach really high speed,
which is quite easy, do you suffer from the effects of such speeds ?
I explained : Take the T-Bird and multiply its speed by 6. It gives it a
speed of approximately 6000 km/h. At such speed, I guess the structure of
the vehicle isn't adapted. It will heat and become liquid (I don't remember
the word...).


Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "Never trust an elf"
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:59:41 +0100
JonSzeto said on 4:30/ 5 Mar 98...

> Another option would be to have refuel/refit stations at various waypoints
> along the route. A t-bird run from Seattle to Denver flies over Colorado,
> Idaho, Wyoming, and/or Montana, all of which are pretty sparsely-populated
> states. A contact (or group of contacts) could maintain a refuel point
> (possibly a reconverted truck stop on an inactive highway) somewhere, that
> could evade authorities by its low profile (small building - big country).

Not to mention it could be a legitimate business ("Hey officer, somebody
needs to supply the locals and passing truckers with gas...")

Another way I can think of would be to only do the hard parts of a
smuggling run in a T-bird, that is the bits that involve crossing borders.
You could take off in Denver and fly about 100 km into Ute Nation, load
your cargo onto a truck that drives it to the Salish-Shidhe Council just
outside of Seattle, where it gets loaded onto another T-bird that flies
the goods into Redmond. That way you can evade border patrols and other
unpleasantness by the T-bird's high speed and armor, but save fuel on the
rest of the trip.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
I want to see the ground give way, I want to watch it all go down.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 06:13:55 EST
In a message dated 98-03-04 16:29:51 EST, you write:

> and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece of
military
> hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ¥? if they can afford
that,
> why the hell would they be smuggling? they might be able to cut a deal with
> a
> corp for it, but i doubt that a Fixer would float them a loan of that size.
>
> Mgkelly

Beacuse most of the time most riggers fly solo, and this means that there are
now 10 more CF (as the Banshees have a crew of 3, IIRC) ... and can even get
additional storage by making some modifications here and there ...

And as for the cost of flying ... the t-bird riggers would make sure they are
either carrying enough cargo to make some profit either on the way in or way
out (or both) ...

Mike
Message no. 16
From: CALMON PEDRO MARANHAO <calmpm1@*************.NICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:56:41 CST
> Actually, a Banshee is BLOODY fast for something that low. It
> has a speed rating of 1000m/combat turn. This equates (as I mentioned
> before) to 1200km/h (using the conversion value of (speed*1.2)=km/h on
> P22 of Rigger 2). Now, considering the speed of sound at sea level is
> 1188km/h, it means the average Banshee runs at a bee's dick above Mach
> 1. If you're using the variable fuel consumption rates in Rigger 2
> (P81/2), you can push this up to 1800km/h (Speed*1.5).
> For speeds like that, you are going to need one hell of a
> Terrain Following Radar. There's no way that a t-bird could operate in a
> smuggling run with ALL of its electronic sensors off. At a bare minimum,
> you are going to need the TFR. I don't care that a rigger has a beefed
> up reaction rate, I don't think that anyone zipping over the country
> side at low altitude at Mach 1 could do TF using their reflexes alone.
> And if you are using a TFR, you are going to be emitting something,
> maybe not a lot, but enough to be picked up.

I read somewhere that the new Panavia Tornado IDS and the
Brazilian/Italian AMX attack fighters ares supposed to be
equipped with a 'passive' TFR. How this thing actuaIly works
beats the hell out me, but that would give them the capability to
approach any target virtually undetected.
But maybe the Banshee might be equipped with a INS/GPS combo and a
sophisticaded navigation computer. All the topographic maps could be
downloaded into the navigational computer and the autopilot could do
the rest.

> Just a matter of interest, just how low does a T-Bird fly? I
> presume it would fly within a meter or two of the surface, and use the
> ground effect envelope to keep it of the ground (in much the same way as
> that massive Russian transport I saw once in passing on the news a
> couple of years back). If it's going to be out of the ground effect,
> then it's going to need one HELL of a powerplant to push it along at
> those speeds.

Yeah, and with such a HELL of a powerplant, it must also have a
HELL of an Infra Red signature, whcih would make a passive TFR
virtually pointless.
Pedro Maranhao Calmon
calmpm1@*************.nich.edu
PO BOX 2248
Thibodaux, LA 70310
(504)448-3863
Message no. 17
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:36:31 EST
In a message dated 98-03-05 06:00:40 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:

> Not to mention it could be a legitimate business ("Hey officer, somebody
> needs to supply the locals and passing truckers with gas...")

You know, there was this gas station I recall ....

> Another way I can think of would be to only do the hard parts of a
> smuggling run in a T-bird, that is the bits that involve crossing borders.
> You could take off in Denver and fly about 100 km into Ute Nation, load
> your cargo onto a truck that drives it to the Salish-Shidhe Council just
> outside of Seattle, where it gets loaded onto another T-bird that flies
> the goods into Redmond. That way you can evade border patrols and other
> unpleasantness by the T-bird's high speed and armor, but save fuel on the
> rest of the trip.

Actually, that is possible, as is the idea of a "running refuel", where the
Panzer intercepts a given tanker truck along a specific route. We've done
this, and it's kind of cool. IF a flatbed truck is traveling with, then the
Panzer can land while both trucks are moving (albeit slowly), and keep going.
It let's the refuel points do their job and not be nearly so detectable /
locatable.

Networks of refueling depots and the like is part of what we gave the
"Rigboss", and dissected parts of the world out into a particular, central,
individual. Pacnorwest was once "Aurora's", before she got into the
mercenary/political scene with others, We did an entire run based on the fact
that Aztlan had managed to grab the Texas/South NAN Rigboss and the party went
after him as a favor for their Rigboss.

LOTS of ideas quite literally explode from these theories...

-K
Message no. 18
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:47:26 +0100
Thunderbirds have tremendously powerful engines - like most military
aircraft it can carry many tons of weapons, but has little or no cargo space.

Any halfway competent mechanic should be able to put in a couple of decatons
of cargo at the cost of some handling, fuel consumption and some ordnance.
(If they can mount drop tanks of fuel, they can mount 'drop tanks' of cargo.)
Actually, carrying it in drop tanks might be doubly effective - easy to
discard evidence, or to drop it for retrieval later without having to land.
Message no. 19
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 09:56:08 -0700
JonSzeto wrote:
/
/ (April or May, IIRC). / / In the meanwhile, I have a couple of
suggestions as to how those long-range / runs to and from Denver can be
possible. Conformal fuel tanks certainly help, / but, providing only an
additional 2,000 liters per pair, this can only provide / at best about
a 27% range increase per pair (a Banshee has an internal fuel /
capacity of about 7,500 liters).

Also, a smuggler doesn't need all those weapons. Take them out and
replace them with extra fuel tanks. I'd take them out anyway to
avoid the extra jail time if I got caught. No need to add an illegal
weapons charge to the smuggling charge.

> Just a matter of interest, just how low does a T-Bird fly? I
/ > presume it would fly within a meter or two of the surface, and use
the / > ground effect envelope to keep it of the ground (in much the
same way as / > that massive Russian transport I saw once in passing on
the news a / > couple of years back). If it's going to be out of the
ground effect, / > then it's going to need one HELL of a powerplant to
push it along at / > those speeds. / / T-birds can fly at any height
above ground level (AGL) up to about 1,500 / meters (about 4,500 feet).

At the speeds they fly at they could also theoretically "skip" out of
ground effect, kind of like a stone skipping off the water.

BTW Jon, could you do me a favor and set the word wrap/column width
on your mailer to 70. Otherwise if I reply to your posts ELM hacks
them pretty good (see above). Thanks.

-David
--
"The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer somebody else up."
- Mark Twain
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 20
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:00:37 -0700
MgkellyMJ7 wrote:
/
/ <snip technical Panzer stuff>
/
/ and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece
of military / hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ? if
they can afford that, / why the hell would they be smuggling?

The thrill of it? The dream of a lot of smugglers is to become a
panzer boy/girl. They work hard to save the money to buy a banshee.
IMO it's the elite of the smuggler's world. Imagine driving a semi
cross country as opposed to ripping through canyons in a banshee at
mach 1.

--
"The best way to cheer yourself is to try to cheer somebody else up."
- Mark Twain
--
ShadowRN GridSec
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 21
From: Da Twink Daddy <twinkie@*******.DMSC.K12.AR.US>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:30:04 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>


>>Several list members have also suggested enlisting the aid of an air
>elemental
>>or a nature spirit. Using its Movement power, a spirit can increase or
>>decrease a vehicle's speed by multiplying or dividing its current speed by
>the
>>spirit's Essence. So a t-bird assisted by a Force 3 air elemental could
>triple
>>its effective speed, thus tripling the distance covered without consuming
>more
>>fuel.
>
>That arises some questions :
>
>* Can spirit's movement power affect non-living being ?


IIRC, yes.

>* If so, it could be possible to accelerate things like bullets or
>missiles... What would be the damage augmentation. Practicaly, at such a
>speed, the target is killed by system shock.


Well, a bullet moving that fast would tend not to tumble too much, (-1 DL
for every 2pts. of speed increase) but would definately be able to punch
though _alot_ of armor/barriers/people (+1Power for every 1pt. of increase)
Note: these would be house rules that I just thought up right now so YMMV,
and these might not be completely in line with what the power actually does.

>My general opinion is that movement power is a bit too powerful... A
>movement multiplier is really big ! Perhaps it would be better to add
>spirit's essence to quickness for exemple (IMO, this power only affects
>living beings).


As I said b4, IIRC it works on anything, and I like the power how it is
written.

>* Whatever the target (living or not), when you reach really high speed,
>which is quite easy, do you suffer from the effects of such speeds ?
>I explained : Take the T-Bird and multiply its speed by 6. It gives it a
>speed of approximately 6000 km/h. At such speed, I guess the structure of
>the vehicle isn't adapted. It will heat and become liquid (I don't remember
>the word...). <-- melt?

Well, I rules that the power actually "thins out" the air/atmosphere in that
the target happens to be penetrating at the time so that it's power (living
or non-living) will push it that much faster with no increase of friction.
It would also help in that (when traveling _way_ too fast) dust particles or
small shards of anything. don't punchure the target like lots of
microbullets.
Message no. 22
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:45:05 -0500
Geoff Skellams[SMTP:geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU] wrote:
> > The advantage of the Banshee is that it's fast (enough), flys *low*
> > to the ground, and has enough armor to get out of trouble with most
> > border guards.
> >
> Actually, a Banshee is BLOODY fast for something that low. It
> has a speed rating of 1000m/combat turn. This equates (as I mentioned
> before) to 1200km/h (using the conversion value of (speed*1.2)=km/h on
> P22 of Rigger 2). Now, considering the speed of sound at sea level is
> 1188km/h, it means the average Banshee runs at a bee's dick above Mach
> 1. If you're using the variable fuel consumption rates in Rigger 2
> (P81/2), you can push this up to 1800km/h (Speed*1.5).
> For speeds like that, you are going to need one hell of a
> Terrain Following Radar. There's no way that a t-bird could operate in a
> smuggling run with ALL of its electronic sensors off. At a bare minimum,

I don't agree - what about some combination of GPS and a simple
3D GIS system? You look at satellites to see where you are, and then
grab the 3d chunk of terrain you're flying over. As long as somebody
hasn't erected a building in your flight path since the map was made
you should be fine. This could even build a market for high-detail
up-to-the-minute maps.

James Ojaste
Message no. 23
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:35:32 +0000
In article <20C567A0182@********.nich.edu>, CALMON PEDRO MARANHAO
<calmpm1@*************.NICH.EDU> writes
> I read somewhere that the new Panavia Tornado IDS and the
>Brazilian/Italian AMX attack fighters ares supposed to be
>equipped with a 'passive' TFR. How this thing actuaIly works
> beats the hell out me, but that would give them the capability to
>approach any target virtually undetected.

It's a combination of very accurate digital maps, a laser altimeter and
a precise navigation system, using GPS and occasional ranging fixes on
landmarks. You don't need the radar to tell you where the ground is, you
just check the map.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 24
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:15:55 -0500
At 11:03 AM 3/5/98 +0100, you wrote:
>That arises some questions :
>
>* Can spirit's movement power affect non-living being ?

That does bear some looking up, but I don't really see why not.

>* If so, it could be possible to accelerate things like bullets or
>missiles... What would be the damage augmentation. Practicaly, at such a
>speed, the target is killed by system shock.

The spirit would have to be able to perceive the projectile, not likely if
they have something close to human senses.

>My general opinion is that movement power is a bit too powerful... A
>movement multiplier is really big ! Perhaps it would be better to add
>spirit's essence to quickness for exemple (IMO, this power only affects
>living beings).

Perhaps, but spirits are meant to be fairly powerful. If it only added to
quickness, it wouldn't help the poor shaman stranded in the desert very
much. The multiplier, however, makes the drain of conjuring well worth it.

>* Whatever the target (living or not), when you reach really high speed,
>which is quite easy, do you suffer from the effects of such speeds ?
>I explained : Take the T-Bird and multiply its speed by 6. It gives it a
>speed of approximately 6000 km/h. At such speed, I guess the structure of
>the vehicle isn't adapted. It will heat and become liquid (I don't remember
>the word...).

I think the Movement power is supposed to make travel in the terrain type
easier. Therefore, it should protect against the effects of such high
speed (i.e., it's making air resistance lower to make speeding up easier,
and preventing the resistance effect you're describing).

losthalo
Message no. 25
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 17:16:18 -0800
losthalo wrote:

> >* Can spirit's movement power affect non-living being ?

> That does bear some looking up, but I don't really see why not.

Here's the SR2 snip. I'm not sure how much PAoE updated this.

MOVEMENT
The being may increase or decrease its victim's movement
rate within the terrain it controls, multiplying or
dividing the rate by the being's Essence.

The image I've always gotten is of a forest spirit allowing
friendlies (Tirs?) to cross its paths quickly, while enemies
are nearly rooted to the spot. It's not a question of physics
(much as I hate to drop 'real life' in SR), but of being sped
through Titania's queendom. Using it to target bullets
seems to be stretching the rules a considerable distance.

I'll agree with Bruce's comment that it's probably beyond the
spirit's ability to detect the bullet as its fired; it would
seem more appropriate to me to use a different power (say,
Concealment) to get this effect than Movement.

Presumably you would need an Air Elemental or Spirit of Mist
to pull this off (as air is the appropriate terrain.)


-Matt

------------------------------------
I will work harder. -- Boxer: Animal Hero, First-Class

GridSec: SRCard
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 26
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:22:46 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, JonSzeto wrote:
> Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,
>
> > > / 2) Range. If you punch the numbers through a calculator, a
Banshee
> > with
> > > / a full tank of gas is going to go only *350km* before it runs
out of
> > > / juice.
> > >
> > > All it has to do is cross a border and make it to the droppoff
point
> > > on the other side. If it starts just this side of the border
(within
> > > 20 km) that makes for a *huge* search area once it's on the other
> > > side.
> > >
> > Maybe so, but this also goes against a lot of the published
> > information, especially in the Denver and Aztlan sourcebooks, which
> > mention routes such as the Autobahn and the Ho Chi Minh Trail up =
and
> > down the length of the Rocky Mountains.
> > I'm not full up on the geography on the US, but I am sure =
it
> > would be a hell of a lot further than 350km from say Denver to
Aztlan.
>
> FWIW, the upcoming Target: Smugglers' Havens sourcebook should have a
section
> that covers different T-birds runs and routes. (I didn't write any of
those
> routes, so I have no idea yet as to any specific details about them).
> Hopefully this should provide some more detailed description when it
comes out
> (April or May, IIRC).
>
I have been wondering whether this one was going to be worth
getting. For some reason, I thought it was going to be an adventure
(something I don't buy). But if it like Target: UCAS (which I only got
yesterday), then it should be worth getting.
BTW Jon: Is it going to have rules for making REALLY BIG
vehicles? It's not something the runners will ever own, but it is
something that should be interesting nonetheless. And are they going to
have rules for nuclear powerplants?

> In the meanwhile, I have a couple of suggestions as to how those
long-range
> runs to and from Denver can be possible. Conformal fuel tanks
certainly help,
> but, providing only an additional 2,000 liters per pair, this can =
only
provide
> at best about a 27% range increase per pair (a Banshee has an =
internal
fuel
> capacity of about 7,500 liters).
>
Well, 27% is better than nothing. It's still nearly 100km with
an unmodified Banshee.

> Another option would be to have refuel/refit stations at various
waypoints
> along the route. A t-bird run from Seattle to Denver flies over
Colorado,
> Idaho, Wyoming, and/or Montana, all of which are pretty
sparsely-populated
> states. A contact (or group of contacts) could maintain a refuel =
point
> (possibly a reconverted truck stop on an inactive highway) somewhere,
that
> could evade authorities by its low profile (small building - big
country).
>
Something that I had been keeping to myself but I may as well
bring out here is the possibility of airborne refuelling. T-Birds can
slow to 300km/h, so it makes sense to give them an air-to-air refueling
capability. A shadow group could conceivably own an antiquated USAF
KC-10 or KC-135 and use that to refuel t-birds up and down the line.
Alternatively, converting all the cargo space in a Lockheed C-260 gives
a fuel tankage of a whopping 150,000L (1CF/50L). If you fitted it with =
a
refuelling boom like the current USAF uses (or one of the drogue chutes
such as the USN, RAF or RAAF use), you could to a roaring trade along
the t-bird routes.
I don't know the throughputs of the fuel transfer system, but it
must be something reasonable. It might take a t-bird 10 minutes or more
to completely refill its tanks, but it makes more sense (to me at =
least)
to have t-birds fitted with such a capability. If they started to top =
up
when their tanks were around the 300-500L remaining mark, they would
have enough time to completely refill their tanks before they ran out =
of
fuel and crashed. It would also relieve the need to have fixed =
refueling
points along the trails that could be hit by a group of shadowrunners.
Admittedly, you are going to need a reasonable sized airstrip to take
off and land the tanker from, but it need not be on the route. It could
be hundreds of km in either direction. IIRC, the tankers have a very
impressive range (considering the KC-10 is a converted DC-10 airliner,
it should have something in excess of 7000-8000km on a full fuel load).
You can almost hear the satisfied sighs of the rigger as the
fuel started flowing. It would be like sinking a cold beer after a lot
of heavy work on a hot day.

> T-birds can fly at any height above ground level (AGL) up to about
1,500
> meters (about 4,500 feet). That's still pretty low, compared to other
aircraft
> (helicopters can have a flight ceiling as high as 18,000-20,000 feet,
and most
> fixed-wing jet aircraft can fly as high as 36,000 feet).

That's commercial jet airliners. Most current day military
fighter aircraft have a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet, and the
(now retired) SR-71 had a service ceiling of 85,000-90,000 feet.

> T-birds get their lift partly from ground effect, but also some
supplementary
> lift from some stubby auxiliary wings as well (hence the reason it =
has
a stall
> speed).

If T-Birds are going to use ground effect, they are going to
have to fly no more than about *20* feet above the ground. Otherwise,
the vortices from the wings do their normal thing, rather than =
squashing
and forming a cushion of air that the vehicle can ride on.
Have a look at
http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/whatswg.htm if you want
some more information on what the wing in ground effect is.

> For tactical reasons, t-birds will probably fly no higher than 200
meters AGL,
> in order to hide from most radars. Of course, flying at such a low
height
> poses a lot of risks and hazards (witness the accident in Northern
Italy last
> month, when a USMC Prowler severed the cable of a ski tram during a
low-level
> flight).
>
I dare say that a lot of them will fly a lot lower than that.
600' is getting close to the altitude that most radars would be able to
pick up a target. I would bet that most would fly at 200-300' instead.
Going off the topic a little, I read an article about the USAF
using drones for reconaissance during the Vietnam war. They were all
pretty primitive, having to have their entire flights preprogrammed
before launch. Apparently, there was more than one occasion when the
person programming the mission dropped a zero in some of the altitude
commands, so instead of do a 60' flyover, the drone did its pass at 6'.
More than once they came back carrying leaves and pieces of wire fence
with them. The best piece of footage was when a drone did a 6' flyover
straight down the main runway at the (IIRC) Kep airfield in North
Vietnam. At the time it went over, a NV MiG-21 was on a take off run =
and
the two went head to head. The camera footage from the drone shows the
front of the MiG getting bigger and bigger until it filled the entire
frame. Then it just disappeared. They have no idea what happened to the
MiG, but the drone came back unharmed.

> Target: Smugglers' Havens will have some additional supplementary
rules
> covering low-level flights and special operations for t-birds (both =
of
which I
> did write).
>
Hmmm, I will almost definitely have to buy this one now. It
seems really interesting...

cheers
Geoff

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 27
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:04:29 -0500
<snip: Aerial Refueling>

Bad idea. The flying gas stations would be big neon "Follow me to the
Secret Smugglers!!" signs in the sky. The T-Birds might not show up on
radar, but the refuelers will.

However, putting the fuel on trucks makes some sense. The T-Bird has
to stop to refuel, but it could be done like a Indy-500 pit crew... and there
are plenty of places to hide trucks, and if caught, gasaline isn't illegal.

A professional run that would require 3 refueling stops would use
maybe 15 trucks scattered around the route, each with encrpyted
radios. The rigger picks which ones to use based on where the heat
seems not to be, and the rest just return to the garage and wait for the
next run.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 28
From: Nexx <Nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:50:49 -0600
> However, putting the fuel on trucks makes some sense. The T-Bird has
> to stop to refuel, but it could be done like a Indy-500 pit crew... and
there
> are plenty of places to hide trucks, and if caught, gasaline isn't
illegal.
Yes, but what about the fuel a t-bird is gonna need? It may not be
illegal, but it will raise some eyebrows.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
aka Ellegon
ICQ 8108186
************
Why do they call this consensual reality? When did I sign a consent form?
I want the fuck off!
-Nexx Many-Scars
*************
"...and we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our
sacred honor. And we _shall_ keep the flame burning."
-The original Ellegon
***********
Am Moireach Mor!
Message no. 29
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:26:01 EST
In a message dated 98-03-05 17:27:36 EST, geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU
writes:

> That's commercial jet airliners. Most current day military
> fighter aircraft have a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet, and the
> (now retired) SR-71 had a service ceiling of 85,000-90,000 feet.
>
I think I should point out that the "retired" SR-71 is still in action, at
least two of them are anyway...NASA bought them and now uses them in
moderation for research...

Oh but the toys Ares has hidden away...

-K
Message no. 30
From: Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:34:12 EST
In a message dated 98-03-05 18:10:46 EST, MikeE@*********.COM writes:

> Bad idea. The flying gas stations would be big neon "Follow me to the
> Secret Smugglers!!" signs in the sky. The T-Birds might not show up on
> radar, but the refuelers will.

We used to extrapolate ideas for "Bloats" and similar vehicles in our games
called "Clouders / Strats". BIG platforms with the capability of having a LOT
of screening and other interference-related material. Also, some corps on the
"shadowier side" would possibly sponsor such sites, especially if it was used
for only "their birds". Also, 'big flying fuel tankers in the sky" (to
paraphrase) are still capable of handling BIG countermeasure systems as well.
Also, though it isn't perfect, Jane's ATF Simulator has a relatively large
plane (I think it's a C-130, but don't quote me, I don't know planes that
well) flying NOE with an escort. Though it's fictional, in "non-combat"
situations, Riggers get a major bonus to controlling their craft. Much more
than is capable by normal pilots today.

> However, putting the fuel on trucks makes some sense. The T-Bird has
> to stop to refuel, but it could be done like a Indy-500 pit crew... and
> there
> are plenty of places to hide trucks, and if caught, gasaline isn't illegal.

Ah, Gasoline may not be, but what about JP-4 or JP-5??? The tankers would
require false tanks, perhaps a 50/50 design mod. A control switch operated
remotely could alternate the fuel pump access as to what tank is used and what
is not.

> A professional run that would require 3 refueling stops would use
> maybe 15 trucks scattered around the route, each with encrpyted
> radios. The rigger picks which ones to use based on where the heat
> seems not to be, and the rest just return to the garage and wait for the
> next run.

Oh yeah, been there, done that...another fun one is applying geographical
mayhem. Lakes and Larger Rivers are also another option for slower moving
craft or modified Banshees (like making the VSTOL something better, or
applying Water Landing capability to a Panzer). Yes, it's crazy, but the
ideas are there now. R2 can go a VERY long way towards helping this situation
out and getting a good idea how to create a "Rigger Route".

-K
Message no. 31
From: Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:56:09 +1000
On Shadowrun Discussion, Ereskanti wrote:
> In a message dated 98-03-05 18:10:46 EST, MikeE@*********.COM writes:
>
> > Bad idea. The flying gas stations would be big neon "Follow me to
the
> > Secret Smugglers!!" signs in the sky. The T-Birds might not show
up on
> > radar, but the refuelers will.
>
> We used to extrapolate ideas for "Bloats" and similar vehicles in our
games
> called "Clouders / Strats". BIG platforms with the capability of
having a LOT
> of screening and other interference-related material. Also, some
corps on the
> "shadowier side" would possibly sponsor such sites, especially if it
was used
> for only "their birds". Also, 'big flying fuel tankers in the sky"
(to
> paraphrase) are still capable of handling BIG countermeasure systems
as well.

Not to mention the fact you could do some serious mods to the airframe
and spray the entire thing in Radar Absorbant Material to make it that
bit harder to find. Team that up with some serious levels of ED and
maybe a few drones throwing signatures that look like other things (the
Israelis have been doing this for years), and any ground based radars
are going to be chasing shadows (if you'll pardon the pun).

> Also, though it isn't perfect, Jane's ATF Simulator has a relatively
large
> plane (I think it's a C-130, but don't quote me, I don't know planes
that
> well) flying NOE with an escort. Though it's fictional, in
"non-combat"
> situations, Riggers get a major bonus to controlling their craft.
Much more
> than is capable by normal pilots today.
>
IIRC, The Rockwell B-1B Lancer Strategic Bomber is capable of
supersonic (or near supersonic) NAE flight. From a quick scan of a
couple of websites earlier, the B1 has a useful payload of something
like 87000kg. Not to mention it has been designed with some stealth
capabilities (it is covered with RAM and the engine intakes shield the
actual turbofans).
Convert one of those suckers into a tanker and the damn Banshees
wouldn't even have to slow down. Mind you supersonic tankage linkups
could be ugly.

> > However, putting the fuel on trucks makes some sense. The T-Bird
has
> > to stop to refuel, but it could be done like a Indy-500 pit crew...
and
> > there
> > are plenty of places to hide trucks, and if caught, gasaline isn't
illegal.
>
> Ah, Gasoline may not be, but what about JP-4 or JP-5??? The tankers
would
> require false tanks, perhaps a 50/50 design mod. A control switch
operated
> remotely could alternate the fuel pump access as to what tank is used
and what
> is not.
>
I was going to mention this before. Gone are the days when
aircraft and automobiles used the same sort of fuel. Modern jet aircraft
(which includes anything with a turboprop or jet turbine engine), use
some sort of AVGas, which is a high grade kerosene. You can't get enough
power from petrol or diesel to keep jet aircraft off the ground (I don't
know if current light aircraft with piston engines still run on petrol
or diesel, or whether they use avgas as well).
I don't think jet fuel would be illegal either (remember, most
jet turbine engines, including those in helicopters) use it. But if the
authorities came across a whole load of trucks carring aviation fuel out
in the wilderness, it wouldn't take a great leap of deduction to figure
out what they were there for.

cheers
Geoff

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"The Stoat - pound for pound the most dangerous creature on the face of
the planet"
- Chris Irwin, spouting crap during "Over Port & Cigars..."
Message no. 32
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:29:35 -0005
On 4 Mar 98 at 15:09, Geoff Skellams wrote:

> The down side is that it means a 500% percent increase in
> economy (which in design point terms is 1000pts). Considering the
> already high cost of a t-bird, this is going to jack the price up that
> much further.

Actually it's only 500 points (5 points for 5%, thus 500% = 500 pts)
which multiplied by 7.5 (the markup on a Banshee) it 3750, which
multiplied by 100 is 375,000 nuyen. On a 8.44 mil LAV that's not much
extra but it increases the range from 375 km to 2,250 km (before figuring
for take offs and landings). I'm amazed GMC didn't just design them this
way in the first place. The big drawback to this is the change has to be
made by the manufacturer at the plant. Which means custom ordering to
spec.
--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 33
From: Bruce Ford <shaman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:24:11 -0700
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Ereskanti wrote:

> In a message dated 98-03-05 17:27:36 EST, geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU
> writes:
>
> > That's commercial jet airliners. Most current day military
> > fighter aircraft have a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet, and the
> > (now retired) SR-71 had a service ceiling of 85,000-90,000 feet.
> >
> I think I should point out that the "retired" SR-71 is still in action, at
> least two of them are anyway...NASA bought them and now uses them in
> moderation for research...

They use for research primarily because of their service ceiling. Which
reminds me I should dig out "Highway" a rigger character loosely based off
the show Highwayman from years back...love that semi <grin> Aural SIg 0
.... had a habit of playing Wagner's "Last Ride of the Valkyrie" full
blast from some speakers mounted outside when she wanted to get someone's
attention.

Her goal for running the shadows was to finish refitting an SR-71 frame,
rebuilding the plane to brand spanking new...she eventually did and
retired to.

------
Bruce Ford aka Rendar, the educated Ork Street Samurai.

"The Shadows are your friend. Intelligence, your ally. Negotiation, your
companion. Violence, your lover...but frag, chaos is your wife!"
-Summary of the run's results to a Johnson.

E-mail: shaman@*******.com ICQ#: 4804267
Message no. 34
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:24:13 EST
In a message dated 98-03-05 21:27:42 EST, you write:

> > That's commercial jet airliners. Most current day military
> > fighter aircraft have a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet, and the
> > (now retired) SR-71 had a service ceiling of 85,000-90,000 feet.
> >
> I think I should point out that the "retired" SR-71 is still in action, at
> least two of them are anyway...NASA bought them and now uses them in
> moderation for research...
>
> Oh but the toys Ares has hidden away...
>

This also does not take into account any of the U2's still in use, and the
Aurora Drone Spy Planes (which are patterned after the SR-71's IIRC) ...
imagine what you could do with a Ultralight Glider with an electric power
plant and Suncell ... give it a wonderful sensor suite and the thing would
only need to come down for scheduled maintennance and upgrades ... and the
thing would be stealthy as hell ... and make it with no pilot in mind and the
cost of the glider drops even more (although the cost for the pilot rating
will be somewhat steep) ...

Guys, the small cheap drones are just some of the tips of the icebergs into
all of the toys that are in the corps and militaries usage during the 2050's
...

Imagine an entire sensor net made up of high flying Condors with wonderful
sensors all interconnected via FDDM and IVIS ... and a rigger coordinating the
entire effort along the border ... something trying to sneak in would have
enough problems as it is ...

Mike
Message no. 35
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:53:51 +0000
In article <199803060108.TAA09733@*****.interkan.net>, Nexx
<Nexx@********.NET> writes
> Yes, but what about the fuel a t-bird is gonna need? It may not be
>illegal, but it will raise some eyebrows.

Why? It's a gas turbine, unless FASA did something really weird.

It prefers diesel (the US forces are standardizing on JP-8, which is
simply diesel fuel), but it'll accept gasolene, kerosene, Jet-A or many
other fuels.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 36
From: Nexx <Nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:48:39 -0600
> > Yes, but what about the fuel a t-bird is gonna need? It may not
be
> >illegal, but it will raise some eyebrows.
>
> Why? It's a gas turbine, unless FASA did something really weird.
>
> It prefers diesel (the US forces are standardizing on JP-8, which is
> simply diesel fuel), but it'll accept gasolene, kerosene, Jet-A or many
> other fuels.

::opens mouth, inserts foot:: You see, this is what happens when you
attempt to work from the five year old memory of a glanced at Rigger
Blackbook, then assume that your memory is correct.

***************
Rev. Mark Hall, Bardagh
aka Pope Nexx Many-Scars
aka Ellegon
ICQ 8108186
************
Why do they call this consensual reality? When did I sign a consent form?
I want the fuck off!
-Nexx Many-Scars
*************
"...and we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our
sacred honor. And we _shall_ keep the flame burning."
-The original Ellegon
***********
Am Moireach Mor!
Message no. 37
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:50:03 -0600
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, AirWisp wrote:

> This also does not take into account any of the U2's still in use, and the
> Aurora Drone Spy Planes (which are patterned after the SR-71's IIRC) ...
> imagine what you could do with a Ultralight Glider with an electric power
> plant and Suncell ... give it a wonderful sensor suite and the thing would
> only need to come down for scheduled maintennance and upgrades ... and the
> thing would be stealthy as hell ... and make it with no pilot in mind and the
> cost of the glider drops even more (although the cost for the pilot rating
> will be somewhat steep) ...

IIRC NASA was working on a glider like this for high altitude long
duration research. The Military was look at them to replace the RadarStat
balloons, others would mount AnitMissle/Aircraft Missles for Airdefense.

> Imagine an entire sensor net made up of high flying Condors with wonderful
> sensors all interconnected via FDDM and IVIS ... and a rigger coordinating the
> entire effort along the border ... something trying to sneak in would have
> enough problems as it is ...

Add in a couple with Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground missle packs, routery
assault cannons ect. all connected into the network and BOOOOM!

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 38
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:58:39 EST
"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>

> In article <20C567A0182@********.nich.edu>, CALMON PEDRO MARANHAO
> <calmpm1@*************.NICH.EDU> writes
> > I read somewhere that the new Panavia Tornado IDS and the
> >Brazilian/Italian AMX attack fighters ares supposed to be
> >equipped with a 'passive' TFR. How this thing actuaIly works
> > beats the hell out me, but that would give them the capability to
> >approach any target virtually undetected.
>
> It's a combination of very accurate digital maps, a laser altimeter and
> a precise navigation system, using GPS and occasional ranging fixes on
> landmarks. You don't need the radar to tell you where the ground is, you
> just check the map.

To play devil's advocate, wouldn't that conjure up problems of its
own? If the map hasn't been updated, then there could be some
significant topographical changes that an outdated map wouldn't be
aware of (which can become VERY important in the Shadowrun world,
since there were supposed to be some major geological and
meteorological events that occurred during and after the Awakening).

Worse, in some cases, there could be several manmade structures there
that the map may not be aware of. Part of the reason might be due to
ongoing urban development (since the map's last publication), and part
could be because of simple omission. (IIRC, in the Prowler accident
last month, one of the reasons the pilot wasn't aware of the tram line
until it was too late, was because the tram line towers, at 100 m, was
not high enough to be marked on aerial navigation maps.)

It would probably be a better measure to use something that utilizes
both a "active" (normal TFR) and "passive" terrain-following system.
Maybe both the IDS and AMX really do have that, but I don't know.

-- Jon
Message no. 39
From: JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:02:51 EST
Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> wrote,

> I have been wondering whether this one was going to be worth
> getting. For some reason, I thought it was going to be an adventure
> (something I don't buy). But if it like Target: UCAS (which I only got
> yesterday), then it should be worth getting.

AFAIK, Target: Smugglers' Havens is going to be mostly a place book.
There *might* be a few short adventure seeds and plot hooks at the
back of the book, like there were in Target: UCAS, but I don't know
about that.

> BTW Jon: Is it going to have rules for making REALLY BIG
> vehicles? It's not something the runners will ever own, but it is
> something that should be interesting nonetheless. And are they going to
> have rules for nuclear powerplants?

Well, the ship construction rules (that got squeezed out of Cyber-
Pirates because it already had so much stuff) should be in T:SH. Other
than that, I'm not sure what you would consider as "REALLY BIG
vehicles."

> > T-birds can fly at any height above ground level (AGL) up to about
> 1,500
> > meters (about 4,500 feet). That's still pretty low, compared to other
> aircraft
> > (helicopters can have a flight ceiling as high as 18,000-20,000 feet,
> and most
> > fixed-wing jet aircraft can fly as high as 36,000 feet).
>
> That's commercial jet airliners. Most current day military
> fighter aircraft have a service ceiling of around 50,000 feet, and the
> (now retired) SR-71 had a service ceiling of 85,000-90,000 feet.

I know that. I was just trying keep things simple, just as a basis of
comparison. (Goodness knows how much bandwidth we use on this list for
esoteric hair-splitting.... *cough*Insects*cough*)

> If T-Birds are going to use ground effect, they are going to
> have to fly no more than about *20* feet above the ground. Otherwise,
> the vortices from the wings do their normal thing, rather than =
> squashing
> and forming a cushion of air that the vehicle can ride on.
> Have a look at
> http://www.io.tudelft.nl/~twaio/edwin/html30/whatswg.htm if you want
> some more information on what the wing in ground effect is.

The problem with t-birds is that, ever since Shadowrun first came out
in 1989, nobody has really given a good laymans' definition as to how
*exactly* a t-bird operates. Add in later authors who offered their
own interpretations of things (Nigel Findley, for example, for all he
did for Shadowrun, took a few occasional liberties with the game
universe), and things get very muddled indeed.

My current theory (as of 12:39:04 EST/6-MAR-98) as to how t-birds
work is this:

A t-bird is supposed to be a true vectored-thrust aircraft, relying
entirely on directed jets of rocket-jet thrust, kinda-likea that used
by space rockets lift satellites and such into orbit, to stay aloft.

Ideally, a t-bird would be completely wingless, as it doesn't need to
rely on Bernoulli's principles of air pressure to stay aloft. However,
in practice, this ain't so. Trying to generate the massive thrust to
lift a 25-35 ton t-bird, as well as moving it forward also, while
keeping the engine at a reasonably small size, is nigh impossible,
even with SR-era technology.

So to compensate for this, design engineers added narrow, stubby wings
to generate supplementary aerodynamic lift. This is why a t-bird has a
stall speed, and a relatively high one at that, because without the
added aerodynamic lift at high altitude, the t-bird quickly turns into
a falling brick. On the other hand, at relatively low heights (say
below 75 m), rocket thrust (combined with ground effect) alone is
enough to keep the t-bird aloft, thus allowing it to behave like a
helicopter when it's flying low.

> I was going to mention this before. Gone are the days when
> aircraft and automobiles used the same sort of fuel. Modern jet aircraft
> (which includes anything with a turboprop or jet turbine engine), use
> some sort of AVGas, which is a high grade kerosene. You can't get enough
> power from petrol or diesel to keep jet aircraft off the ground (I don't
> know if current light aircraft with piston engines still run on petrol
> or diesel, or whether they use avgas as well).

Just an interesting anecdote, interpret it as you will: when I was in
the Army (not too long ago), we used JP-8 (jet fuel) in our trucks and
launchers (which were originally designed to run on diesel). The
reason we did this, as given by our maintenance WO, was because JP-8
burns cleaner than diesel and doesn't have a tendency to encourage
water condensation in the tanks (which he said sometimes happens in
diesel tanks).

> I don't think jet fuel would be illegal either (remember, most
> jet turbine engines, including those in helicopters) use it. But if the
> authorities came across a whole load of trucks carring aviation fuel out
> in the wilderness, it wouldn't take a great leap of deduction to figure
> out what they were there for.

Again, that's an issue of big country - small vehicle. As anyone who's
driven or flown over the American West can tell you, someone could
drive (or fly) for miles and miles around without a sight of ANY sign
of civilization. The NAN (which has a relatively low population as it
is) can't afford to cover every square foot of land, so they focus on
the critical areas --- the cities and the borders. This should give
the fuelers (and jammers) a lot of freedom of movement within the
NAN interior.

-- Jon
Message no. 40
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:21:10 +0000
In article <01EE95C716A4D01180E50040053AD031200D3B@*****.towersoft.com.a
u>, Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU> writes
> I was going to mention this before. Gone are the days when
>aircraft and automobiles used the same sort of fuel.

Depends how you define "automobile". The US Navy and US Marines are
converging on JP-8 for damn near anything from trucks to helicopters to
tanks to fast jets, and avgas, petrol and/or gasolene is vanishing
rapidly.

>Modern jet aircraft
>(which includes anything with a turboprop or jet turbine engine), use
>some sort of AVGas, which is a high grade kerosene. You can't get enough
>power from petrol or diesel to keep jet aircraft off the ground

Turbine engines will happily burn petrol or diesel. Diesel or kerosene
are preferred because of their higher flash points, and for any length
of time you have to reset the engine management system,

>(I don't
>know if current light aircraft with piston engines still run on petrol
>or diesel, or whether they use avgas as well).

Avgas: it's higher octane than standard automobile petrol/gasolene and
can handle higher compression ratios.

Historical note from WW2, one advantage the Allies had was the
availability of 100 and even 130 octane fuel, compared to the 87-octane
stuff the Germans were forced to use (and they didn't have enough even
of that by late 1944).

> I don't think jet fuel would be illegal either (remember, most
>jet turbine engines, including those in helicopters) use it. But if the
>authorities came across a whole load of trucks carring aviation fuel out
>in the wilderness, it wouldn't take a great leap of deduction to figure
>out what they were there for.

Use diesel or kerosene, and you're _less_ suspicious. Though the high-
transfer-rate pumps might be a giveaway...

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 41
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:36:28 +0000
In article <21391423.35004761@***.com>, JonSzeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
>> It's a combination of very accurate digital maps, a laser altimeter and
>> a precise navigation system, using GPS and occasional ranging fixes on
>> landmarks. You don't need the radar to tell you where the ground is, you
>> just check the map.
>
>To play devil's advocate, wouldn't that conjure up problems of its
>own? If the map hasn't been updated, then there could be some
>significant topographical changes that an outdated map wouldn't be
>aware of (which can become VERY important in the Shadowrun world,
>since there were supposed to be some major geological and
>meteorological events that occurred during and after the Awakening).

Updating digital maps would be a major concern of the assorted
militaries: considering they're key to many other systems (TLAM being
only one very well-known example) then probable warzones would be
subjected to an intense mapping effort.

Why do you think Britain created the Ordnance Survey? Accurate maps are
key to warfare.

>Worse, in some cases, there could be several manmade structures there
>that the map may not be aware of. Part of the reason might be due to
>ongoing urban development (since the map's last publication), and part
>could be because of simple omission. (IIRC, in the Prowler accident
>last month, one of the reasons the pilot wasn't aware of the tram line
>until it was too late, was because the tram line towers, at 100 m, was
>not high enough to be marked on aerial navigation maps.)

It was on the Italian maps, but not the US charts, according to the
arguments on sci.military.naval.

It's alarming the mapping effort that goes into these systems. In early
1991, southern Iraq and Kuwait were probably the most accurately-mapped
places on the planet.

>It would probably be a better measure to use something that utilizes
>both a "active" (normal TFR) and "passive" terrain-following
system.
>Maybe both the IDS and AMX really do have that, but I don't know.

The Tornado GR.4 keeps the terrain-following radar of the GR.1, but adds
the passive TRN system. If you have confidence in your maps, you go in
quiet: if not, you radiate and trust in high speed and low altitude to
protect you.

There are also assorted laser systems like CLARA in the testing stage,
which are much harder to detect and have better resolution: enough to
spot power cables in time for evasion, for instance. Another
possibility.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 42
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:52:27 +0000
On 5 Mar 98 at 7:56, CALMON PEDRO MARANHAO wrote:

> > Just a matter of interest, just how low does a T-Bird fly? I
> > presume it would fly within a meter or two of the surface, and use the
> > ground effect envelope to keep it of the ground (in much the same way as
> > that massive Russian transport I saw once in passing on the news a
> > couple of years back). If it's going to be out of the ground effect,
> > then it's going to need one HELL of a powerplant to push it along at
> > those speeds.
>
> Yeah, and with such a HELL of a powerplant, it must also have a
> HELL of an Infra Red signature, whcih would make a passive TFR
> virtually pointless.

Just one sec. If I fly one meter AGL with a couple of turbofans pointing
down, I'd be toasting anything below me. Veeeeeery subtle.

"Say, Captain, how did you find the smuggler's t-bird?"
"Easy. We simply followed the burning trees."

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? 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-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 43
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: T-Bird Jamming...
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:52:27 +0000
On 5 Mar 98 at 10:00, David Buehrer wrote:

> / and here's another question, how the hell does a smuggler a piece
> of military / hardware that costs about a minimum of 8 million ? if
> they can afford that, / why the hell would they be smuggling?
>
> The thrill of it? The dream of a lot of smugglers is to become a
> panzer boy/girl. They work hard to save the money to buy a banshee.
> IMO it's the elite of the smuggler's world. Imagine driving a semi
> cross country as opposed to ripping through canyons in a banshee at
> mach 1.

The latter will attract far more SAMs. Thank you very much.
:)

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? 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-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about T-Bird Jamming..., 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!