Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

At 16:28 30/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>> 3) Planets with thick atmosphere.
>You have VTOL's gaining 5" of movement.  Yes, fans/props would be
moving
>more air, for a given rpm, but would need more power to maintain that
rpm
>compared with the lower pressure atmosphere.

	Yes but I thought that the extra drag on the fan was
insignificant to the
extra volume of air moved.

>I'd tend to think that
>with a thicker atmosphere, your VTOL's will
>a) perform better in the low speed/hovering regime
>b) consume more fuel doing it
>c) not be able to achieve maximum velocities as high as they could in a
>lower pressure atmosphere - though if your VTOL's are slow vehicles
anyway
>(analagous to present day helicopters relative to the other types of
>vehicles) it might not make any difference.
>d) you might see an increase in their maximum carrying capacity -
though

	Ok so lets say that VTOL's lose 5" movement in low mode but are
unaffected
in high mode. Also that normally a size of vehicle equal to the number
of
infantry stands the VTOL can carry may be airlifted by VTOL on a sling
underneath the aircraft but movement is reduced to half. In thick
atmosphere this is increased by one size, in thin it is reduced by 1. It
takes 3 turns to ready the vehicle (or gun, cargo) for airlift and 1
turn
to detach.

>Grav vehicles would see a decrease in their maximum speeds at low
altitude
>- or at least would use more power and get hotter achieving them...

	Yes which I think is what I said.

>As to GEV's - I think the same sort of effect would happen... they'd be
>able to carry more weight overall, but might use more fuel to do it. 
I'm
>not sure about the pop-up thing, though...

	Yes but as I though they gained some power through moving a
greater volume
of atmosphere the effects cancelled out (at least most of the time so as
to
make it unimportant enough to ignore). I think the Grav vehicles should
get
the pop-up attack anyway. My thought was that in thick atmosphere GEVs
came
close to acting like VTOLs.

>
>Anyway - just some thoughts, which could be completely wrong.	In days
gone
>by, I was an amateur pilot, not an aeronautical engineer /
aerodynamicist...
>
>Adrian
>
	You're one up on me in these things then. The whole idea was to
spark
thought and discussion.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au