Re: Fighters and Hangers

First, on the size of fighters:
--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> >One could argue that the bays are in fact all one big bay with
> >redundant systems. Overall cost is the same. 1.5 mass for the 
> >hanger for 1 mass of craft.
> 
> Except that according to St^3 Jon fighters aren't 1 mass; they're
> smaller...
> 

and

--- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> 
> A normal craft in a hangar bay is taking up 2/3 of it. The fighter
> is taking up perhaps half, and relatively more of the volume is 
> support equipment. <snip>
> 

Whatever Mr. Tuffley has written on this list or the test list, or said
in person, what he published is:

Fleet Book 1, pg 8, under "TUGS AND TENDERS"
"...at the same rate as for carrying fighters and other small craft -
ie: every 1.5 MASS used for hanger bay space provides capacity for 1
MASS of carried ship(s).  Note that this allows for support and
launching facilities, and is thus differntfrom plain cargo space."

and

Fleet Book 2, Kra'Vak section, page 10, "HANGER BAYS"
"Each Fighter Bay uses 9 MASS and costs 18 points [corrected to 27], to
carry up to 6 MASS of fighters, ie: one group; bays for other small
craft use 1.5 x the MASS of craft carried..."

So this shows an intention, at least up to the publishing of FB2, that
fighters are 1 MASS each.  If this has changed, then a two sentence
paragraph in FB3 will take care of the question.  Until that time,
however...

and also;
--- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> 
> Don't forget also that this isn't just "a bay" - it's the bay plus 
> the share of the power plant that operates it, and consumables 
> storage, and...
>

Which can be said about any FT ship component or system. 

Second, on cradles for small craft handling:
This is variable, and depends upon the tech level of your background.

For example, compare "Babylon 5" with "Andromeda".  Both use racks or
cradles for fighters.  The lower tech B5 setting has a physical bracket
holding the fighter.  The shape of the bracket and the locking clamp
limits the types of fighters that can be operated out of a particular
bay (e.g. the two-seat Badger cannot be loaded into the bays on B5
because of the aft crew position).  The higher tech Andromeda setting
uses a sled with pressor/tractors to hold the fighter.	In ths
situation there is a lot more freedom of design for new fighters as
they do not contact the cradle.  The only limits would be the power of
the pressor (liiting mass/dwt) and the size of the passages traversed
(limting oa dimensions).

 
Third, on the GENERIC Full Thrust system:
--- agoodall@att.net wrote:
> 
> My point is that Jon doesn't seem to want that option, 
[interchangeable fighter and hanger bays]
> and has
> fighter bays separate from hangars. For whatever reason, Jon's
> universe has a need for keeping them as separate systems. What I was
> listing was my PSB for Jon's rules.
> 

I don't play in the GZG-verse.	I don't even like the GZG-verse.  But I
do like the generic origin of the game.  As a generic game, I think it
s the best that I have found, but am concerned with the trend towards
tailoring FT to the GZG setting.  I prefer a generic set of rules that
give me the tools to customize a setting that my group likes, whether
that is something from TV/movies, books, an adaption of another game
setting (like BFG, Leviathan, or Battletech) or something home grown.

Part of the problem lies in that the GZG-verse uses ships that are
quite small combined with using large fighters.  This causes the
fighters to take up quite a lot of space in a ship design, and having
seperate launch/recovery and hanger facilities would make the problem
worse.

I would suggest having two seperate options for dealing with fighters. 
The current system for small ship/large fighter settings (like the
Fleet Books) and another for settings where the ships are very large
relative to fighters (like Star Wars, BSG, B5, and Andromeda).	In the
latter, the effectiveness of the individual fighter is redued, but it
allows for seperating flight operation facilities from service
facilities.

J