Graph of Hovercraft Engines

[Goose]

The game has existed long enough I don't feel dirty for asking "Do we have a plot, featuring all the guardrails, recommended engines for hovercraft?"

… I guess we need a way to proof how eating the engine minimum is the best of a bad set of options.  :-\

[Wolf72]

I've designed hover vehicles with less than %20 engine size so they would go slower.  To make up the remaining engine weight I just added the missing tonnage as part of engine compartment.

a graphic of the "closest to %20" for all HV weight ranges would be nice. At 1 ton increments it may get a bit large.  Or have two tables for x<50 tons and 51<x<100 tons (for super heavy vehicles).

(not sure about support hover vehicles, been a while ... I think you can 'add padding' as well ... I really didn't need my hover trolley personnel transport to go above 6/9 so I went with a slower speed and and added in the needed mass)

[Goose]

 :ugly_stupid: So I pushed in the main table, by which I mean "standard fusion engines;" Someone else can deliberate how CBT Rounding works with minimum engine weight …

After I figure out how to host a Excel file.

[Goose]

 xp

[Daryk]

Why is the 5 ton row blank?  ???

[Wolf72]

Look, I'm out of school for the remainder of the academic year ... god help my students.

My graph brain has shut down!

So the vertical/left is Hover Veh tonnage

the Horizontal/top is Flank speed.

right?

inside is engine weight?

(I may edit this if my brain clicks on, probably not gonna happen ... I still know the difference between 'a lot' and allot, ... this uncut hair is sapping brain power though).

[Goose]

If you can track Daryk's post, you are ahead of me…

 ;)

"We control the Vertical, which is Size, And We control the Horizontal, which is Speed."

Ergo: A 49-ton craft would need a 19.5- ton standard fusion engine to move 10.

[Wolf72]

Thank you!

... And you know what else I knew, but didn't consider

[edit #328]: Suspension Factor!

And holy cow, that number gets crazy.

... and, (oh never mind, it makes more sense now.)

... wait, I got it: I know at 5 tons, a Hover can go 10/15 with a 1 ton 10-ICE engine (or fusion for that matter, they both weigh 1 ton)

[Goose]

:yikes: I guess you were right to ask for "even smaller" …

[Wolf72]

FYI McAfee does not like your download ... it doesn't like anything, however.

Anyway, thanks for that table!

Correct me here: The speed listed is the flank speed (1.5 cruise) or just the cruise speed?

Now we need a simple table that lists the slowest possible speed for Hovers.

Mass  SF  Cruise/Flank   Engine Rating (even if smaller than 10 ... can always round up and/or add some padding)

[Wolf72]

Reply part 2

ok working on a table that I can code to the forums ... so far slowest I can get is 5/8, with a very small engine.

Basically getting to a multiple that goes just over the SF.  ER's of 1-9 become ER 10, the rest are rounded as TM says "the engine is automatically increased in weight—but not performance—to meet this requirement." (53 becomes either an 50 or 55, I tend to round 3's and 4's to 5 and 7-9's to the next 10)

(apologies for posting some easy to find or basic knowledge, but I need to type/talk it out to keep it straight in my head)

Code: [Select]

Mass S.F. Cruise/Flank Engine Rating (round up to 10)
1 40 N/A N/A
2 40 21/31 2 (10)
3 40 14/21 3 (10)
4 40 11/16 4 (10)
5 40 9/14 5 (10)
6 40 7/11 2 (10)
7 40 6/9 2 (10)
8 40 6/9 8 (10)
9 40 5/8 9 (10)
10 40 5/8 10

So that's on the small side ... 1 ton Hovers are not feasible.  You can get a 2 ton hover with 0 armor ... might make a good unit for target practice or to see what kind of damage you can do at ramming speed.

(fractional accounting would be of help here).

[edit: 1 x many] ...
The fastest 'Slow' I can go:
11-20 tons 8/12 (11 tons), down to 5/8 (20 tons). 
21-30 tons 7/11 (21 tons), down to 5/8 (30 tons).
31-40 tons 6/9 (31 tons), down to 5/8 (40 tons).
41-50 tons 6/9 (41 tons, down to 5/8 (50 tons).

Super Heavies some other time.

[Col Toda]

To me this is an ERA specific question  . After 3072 Combat Fuel Cell engines become the hovertank's  best friend . 50 ton going 9/14 Vs ICE 8/12 . Fusion engines require extra shielding that adds 50 percent to engine weight so a fuel cell engine has approximately the same motive power as a light fusion engine at approximately 1/3 the price  . An XL engine would get your 50 ton unit to move 10/15 but the engine  as the most expensive component  would  be wasteful on what supposed to be an attrition unit.  In combat a fuel cell unit explodes on a fuel tank or ammo crit . Engine crit it becomes  immobile.  With CASE  ammo explosions do not kill the crew . Do not understand why not more Inner Sphere  vehicles  do not have CASE as standard  . That is 20 percent plus whatever is needed to the next movement point . If you are not doing fractional accounting in your design best having  a specific tonnage that control tonnage is not rounded up to the nearest half ton .

[Wolf72]

Finished 51-100t last night ... I don't need to go to bed on time! (nothing has been on time since our NY Pause)

51-75t gets a SF of 280, and 76-100t gets a SF of 325: Can get down to 4/6 on many tonnages (and a lot of wasted space, but "Fluff!" pun included!)

Col Toda: Agreed, I made an expanded table in word with engine weights -Std, light, XL, XXL ... then added Cell, ICE, Veh Fusion, then Veh XL.  Trying to finish Veh XXL, but I got bored (months ago!).  If I did my math correctly, a Vehicle XL engine is the same weight as a Mech Light engine.

(shoot, I need to make a new table ... no room to fit a Vehicle Light Fusion engine in ... which seems to come in at or just below a Fuel Cell Engine.)

Unless you need Heat Sinks, Fuel Cell is the way to go (barring fluff reasons).  Range wise it gets you 666 km vs ICE's 1,000 km.

[Col Toda]

Over 50 tons a Support Vehicle seems the way to go. My unit with Nova Cat techs took a 100 ton Buffalo Hover transport  put an E tech level fuel cell  engine and with the saved tonnage put in a lift hoist  . Made it a flatbed instead of a cargo container  .  Also had 6 tons for ground hog armored  Exoskeleton  techs . It would pull up at speed 5/8 to up to 40 tons of salvage and hoist it on the flatbed a  secure it and drive away  .That was before I could get Tunbo Support VTOL

[Wolf72]

Over 50 tons a Support Vehicle seems the way to go. My unit with Nova Cat techs took a 100 ton Buffalo Hover transport  put an E tech level fuel cell  engine and with the saved tonnage put in a lift hoist  . Made it a flatbed instead of a cargo container  .  Also had 6 tons for ground hog armored  Exoskeleton  techs . It would pull up at speed 5/8 to up to 40 tons of salvage and hoist it on the flatbed a  secure it and drive away  .That was before I could get Tunbo Support VTOL

had to look that up on sarna.  I like it.  I made a Cruise Missile ammo carrier 100t hover support (it carries one extra shot) ... I wish I would have looked that up first! BAR-2 Armor scares me, but it's not like my homebrew hover would survive anything much longer anyway.

Looking at the numbers, for a combat unit with fair armor you might get 35 tons of weapons on a 100 tonner, possibly up to 6/9 or 7/11 w/o putting everything towards the engine.