Solomani Fleet Courier (type SX)

[Renard Ruche]

I have always liked this ship. Good size for a group, nice 'legs', and the illustration looks really cool (CT Alien Module 6 {think something akin to the Star Wars B-Wing fighter} ) !

As I started pondering the SX, I began to wonder...the ship is streamlined, but I don't really see how it could land. Granted, the ship does carry a launch, so that makes planetary landings possible. Does anyone have any take on this ship having any planetary landing capability? I assume that at dedicated naval bases, there could be something like a 'landing gantry' for the ship to land on. Of course, space-docking would not be an issue.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of the launch being the only way to get from ship-to-surface without a dedicated landing structure, and the streamlining referring mainly to it's capability to skim fuel.

Player 1: 'Where's the %&*%@ launch!?!'
Player 2: 'I don't know! It was here when I came for you!'
P1: 'You locked the controls, right?'
P2: 'Ummmmm'

Just then, the locals come storming over the hill with torches and pitchforks....

 

[far-trader]

Yep, remember it is a book 2 design, Unstreamlined or Streamlined are the only choices and if Unstreamlined no wilderness refulling at gas giants (there is no Partially Streamlined in book 2 design). So it is Streamlined mostly for skimming I think. Beyond your own conclusions all I can add is it could land in deep water using the lower fin for ballast and stability. And I agree it is an interesting ship.

Looking at it again there is also the possiblity it could be a tail lander, if one so desired.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The wings could fold down, giving it three "legs" to land on.

 

[far-trader]

That would be cool, the illustration wouldn't work though, the wings are just stubs of about half the length of the lower strut. They could maybe have simple extensible balance struts though with all the weight on the lower strut.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The pod at the bottom is the Launch. With that detached they might be long enough.

Bugger. I want to model this now...

 

[The Oz]

I don't think that the wings are long enough to serve as landing legs, even with the Launch detached. Looking closely at the illustration I think I see some of the ship's lower fin extending below the Launch. I think the Launch docks into a half-circle docking ring/clamp that encloses the Launch on the starboard side (the side =away= from us in the illustration) and there is a small extension of the lower fin below that docking clamp/circle.

Either that, or the Launch has its own "lower fin" and you enter and leave the Launch through a hatch on the upper surface that mates to a shaft in the ship's lower fin.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It looks like the first method, but the second makes more sense.

 

[far-trader]

Yeah, I've always pictured it the first way too. Started deckplans once upon a long time ago that had cargo access directly over the launch in the lower strut between the strut cargo bay above and the launch cargo bay below, and a personal access shaft down the far side to the door and external with a shared airlock.

I could see that lowest fin being part of the launch which would allow the wings to swing down for landing but it'd be a nuisance to have to fly the launch away first and land it seperately then join up again after lifting. Tactically good sometimes but a hassle the rest of the time.

 

[mike wightman]

The MT version in S&A, and the GT version (link) are slightly different to the CT version.

The launch is smaller and more in proportion to the rest of the ship IMHO.

I still don't see how it can land though, unless the launch can take the weight...

hope it isn't windy

 

[far-trader]

Now why is this thread suddenly ringing bells?

Nope, no luck with a quick search but I have a feeling I've participated in this same discussion before

Anyway, thanks for the link Sigg. Jesse's take is cool.

 

[Ran Targas]

Leave it to Jesse to take a lame idea like that and make it really pretty. But as beautiful a job as he did, why can't we have ships that don't rely on Doug Chiang or that devil Lucas for inspiration!!! Or did the Solomani shipbuilders just happen across a copy of ROTJ and sneak it past the SOLSEC Gestapo?

 

[Ptah]

Nice picture. Maybe landing gear could fold out/down from the lower fin? To stabalize against wind maybe cable/grappnels could be deployed from the upper fin and side fins to tether it to the ground. You just might need to replace the grappnle tips, however, if an emergenct take-off becomes necessary (imagining explaoisve linkages in the tips for quick detachment).

 

[fredofmars]

As far-trader mentioned, it could be a tail-sitter. In this mode, it would land with the part that looks like a cockpit (in the middle) on the top, and the engines pointed at the ground. Landing gear could then come out of the ends of the wings, and very near the launch for four points of contact with the ground (and perhaps some number under the engine room area at the back). The engines look like they have thrust vectoring vanes at the back in Jesse's picture, but those would be hinge mounted so they could swing out of the way on landing.

 

[Renard Ruche]

Wow! Great ideas, all...and thanks for the pic, Sigg!
Even in Mr. DeGraffe's pic, it doesn't really look like the ship was designed not to land on a planet (it being a fleet courier, after all).
I really like the idea of water landings though. Imagine a 'marina' filled with them

 

[Scarecrow]

Here's another pic - which I prefer to Jesse's rendition.

It was taken from Hal Jordan's Elfwood Gallery

It's not a bad ship design actually and it's not so close to a B-Wing that it'd make you wince. I rather like it.

Tail landing - like Slave 1 makes the most sense but that engine cowling extends back a ways meaning landing legs from the wings would be pretty long, and the body of the craft would be supported high up off the ground. Not ideal for high winds - but still, much more stable than if it landed vertically.

Also consider specialised landing cradles. That makes it useless for frontier landing but then maybe it's not designed for that.

This is an interesting problem. It'll give me something to ponder whilst I sit here mindlessly shovelling vertexes around. If I have any interesting ideas, I'll post them later.

Crow

 

[mike wightman]

That's the picture from Solomani and Aslan isn't it?

I think Dan my be on to something with the idea that it can only land without the launch - then the lower fin can become more of a foot.

 

[Scarecrow]

That's the picture from Solomani and Aslan isn't it?

I have no idea! It's posted publicly though so I figured it was okay to reproduce it here with a link to it's source site (Elfwood).

What if it can't land. It's only streamlined for fuel skimming and maybe low orbit and atmospheric surveying (oops! Just realised, it's not a Scout - just a courier).

Actually, the name Fleet Courier suggests to me that it's designed for a specific purpose that brings me back to specialised docking cradles on-board bigger ships and naval bases.

Crow

 

[mike wightman]

It's a 200t courier - twice the size of the typical scout.

Specialised docking cradles, water landing - lots of Traveller pictures of water landings, even examples of ships designed to do so - tail landing, foot and tethers... anyone got any other ideas?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I don't think tail landing would work. You need the decks to be perpendicular to the direction of travel, which it doesn't look like they are.

 

[mike wightman]

I wonder if it flys "on its side" in an atmosphere?
Looking at the original CT version again, there appear to be windows in the vertical fin/hull.
On its side it would look like an asymmetric flying wing.