a major kink. After some lengthy research of rl aircraft designs I've come to the realization that
NO significant alteration to the rules will actually recreate the real stuff. The problem lies in
the broad difference between the abstract simplicity of a mere game versus the ugly choices and
compromises of real world engineering. Because of the vagaries of aerodynamics, engine design and
the operational parameters of any given airframe, one cannot apply a few simple assumptions and
expect accuracy. For example in FF&S were rate design speed based upon "g-rating" derived from the
thrust-to-mass ratio, but rl aircraft are rated according to payload, aerodynamic efficiency and
optimum engine power ratio equations that are rather complex and beyond us mere laymen.
So what it boils down to is this: I can reasonably model the airframe and performance
characteristics of a rl system, but it is a matter of accident or coincidence for me to reconcile
the paper version's thrust or range numbers with that of the real aircraft. Being lucky two out of
three is probably the best we can go without making things more complex. On airframe I can
reasonably say that I can, using all other systems in FF&S, get within 10% of the published mass
for most rl airframes, and ballpark is all we have.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Traveller_TNE" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.