Volume in FT

Actually, the only reason I was able to "pin" a volume to FT was because
they came up with Cargo Space in FT II.  Once you are given a specific
formula (in this case 1 mass = 50 CS) then it begins to happen - things
can be "calculated" and mass errors and volume errors can be made to
become "logical".
  Like Mike says, composites can change the amount of volume that can be
involved for the same "mass".  Also, like someone mentioned, I was
trying
to use "mass" to equate to "volume", and that just doesn't cleanly work.
Points to be considered in the debate regarding the WW II ships...
  
1) more "weight" and thus volume, needs to be below the water line, or
the
ship winds up going "turtle".  If there is too much of a weight
imbalance
potential, ships would go turtle during storms a lot more often than
they
do (or so I have been told).  Thus, at least 1/2 of the ship's volume
has
to be centered near the waterline or else...

2) Whereas you can't say 100 tons of steel will hold exactly 2500 cubic
feet of volume, you can say that generally speaking, each cubic foot
will
weigh on average X lbs. based on "current" engineering practices.  I
came
across a webpage that describes a space plane (ie single stage surface
to
LEO interface like the space shuttle).	It states that X lbs of thust
have
to be generated, and that each amount of volume will probably, if
aeronautical engineering practices as currently practiced are followed,
then the plane will weight XY weight...
  So, while I can't give precise values for the actual WW II ship
conversions, I should be able to get a close enough value.  By the by,
displacement tons for a ship is for the total ship, not the part that
rests in the water.  If the Hull weighs X lbs, and you put it in the
water, it will (assuming it floats!) ride a set height from the water
line.  Add a deck, equipment on the deck, engines, ect... it will ride
lower in the water, because the hull weighs more (the weight of the top
being pulled by the center of the Earth via Gravity).  In some cases, if
the hull rides too high out of the water, it's center of gravity is bad
and the ship can topple!

3)  I am not advocating that the ships have to equal WW II
clasifications
in size per se.  Nor do I feel that a DD should take as long as WW II
construction times for FT.  What I do feel, however, is that if a DD in
FT
is 1/3 the size of a Normal DD from WW II, that the time required will
be
about 1/3 the time of a DD from WW II.	As I mentioned before, the ships
will be more complex than their WW II counterparts.  They need to be
sealed from the air, they need more complex electronics emplaced, or
even
more equipment than did the WW II counterpart.	In addition, as even FT
acknowledged, most Sci-Fi combat games borrow HEAVILY on World War II,
so
using the construction from WW II does make sense.

  Having said all of the above, I fully feel that the campaign rules
should be FUN.	I remember playing STARFIRE with the campaign rules they
first came out with.  It was fun and enjoyable, and could be played in a
relatively short amount of time.  IMPERIAL STARFIRE almost requires that
you have a Personal Computer, and/or a college degree to play...

  Please don't assume that I am pushing for "MY" rules for the campaign
rules (which FT promised would come out by the way...).  I am just
stirring up the dust, waiting to see how it settles...

Hal