Let's Discuss the Romulan Bird of Prey!

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Albertese, Jun 1, 2013.

  1. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    Why couldn't the Feds be copying the Roms?

    We tend to assume the espionage, or even just the flow of information, goes only one way --radially outward from the Federation. I doubt this to be the case. Even if the notion of a compact saucer comes from the Romulan encounter by NX-01, it's still Romulan influence.

    Of course, one could argue that the NX-01 was already a Miranda-like design.
  2. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    I've been doing a series of calculations concerning the possible fuel tank volumes of a TOS Rom BOP, the kinds of fusion fuels she might use and their implications, both as a warp vessel and as a straight-up, unmodified fusion rocket. The most interesting implications of these calculations is that a rocket's range increases as the percentage of fuel mass is increased, but that of warp ship increases as the mass of the fuel.

    This is to say that a large and small rocket using the same fuel with the same efficiencies can have exactly the same ranges if they have the same percentage of mass dedicated as fuel.

    A warpship, however, seems to be limited by the total amount of fuel it carries. Thus smaller ships using the same fuel at the same efficiencies can not hope to have the same range as a large ship, though she may have the same max speed.

    Of course, our knowledge concerning the equations of warp power usage is basically nil.
  3. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    Forcing monospaced font?

    Is there a way, to anyone's knowledge, to force at least part of my post into a monospace font?

    I would like to post some rocket-power-usage tables here but the regular font makes it difficult to understand.

    If you copy and paste the above into your favourite text editor and change the font into something monospaced, you should find it lined up and easy to read.

    I have seven such tables I'd like to post and most of them are too large to make sense of without monospace.

  4. YJAGG

    YJAGG Captain Captain

    Jun 3, 2013
    Baltimore, MD
    I always thought htis ship was smaller than the primary hull- with maybe a 45 man crew - again the submarine hand was played really hard. I always wondered about other romulan ships
  5. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    TOS Rom BOP as a pure fusion rocket

    Before I begin, I had to transfer the previous gif animation of the BOP and the Miranda here.


    This conversation made me reconsider the difference in energy intake between Warp Drive and Newtonian Drive, aka Rocket Propulsion, aka Impulse. (This latter is an assumption I adhere to. See my previous post on this thread concerning my assumptions.)

    Calculating the energy requirements of a Star Trek warp drive needs quite a few assumptions. And I will get into this in a later post, when I feel more comfortable with my calculations. But we *have* the equations to predict how a fusion rocket will act, even under the influence of special relativity, and it requires fewer assumptions.

    To understand what I'm talking about below, you need to look at "BOP-Rocket_Tables.txt". It has a short introduction to why rockets have the specific limitation they do. But more importantly, it itemizes the results of a series of calculations I did to get a grasp the limitations of a BOP fusion rocket. To view the tables in the file you'll need a text editor that allows you to turn off word-wrap and that has a monospaced font. Your browser might display it well in a new tab. My firefox does, but who knows... Please don't attack my opinions without looking through and understanding the tables in this text file. Below are my speculations from those calculations.

    With some google searchers and some approximations, I have learned that military sea vessels have densities on the order of 100 kg/KL --some are much more, some are a little less, but this is a good average. A compared to jumbo jets which are around 50 kg/kL --again, some more, some less. I therefore speculate the density of a Rom Bop is between 50 kg/kL and 100 kg/kL. Let's say 75 kg/kL. [Scenario D in the "empty masses of a BOP" table.] (Remember that a kilo-liter is the same as a cubic meter. I use "kL" because it's an easier abbreviation than m^3.)

    Given the (R) ratio table, a BOP rocket will likely use the nacelles, wings and the hull's bottom curvature for fuel storage, giving a fuel-to-total volume-ratio of about 1/3. [Scenario 4 in the fuel volume table.] (It is perfectly possible a "real" BOP-rocket would dedicate more of its volume to fuel. I did not calculate for this, however.)

    So, cross-referencing scenario [D4] with the d(V) table and the best fuel-density/fusion-cycle combinations, from better to worse, appear to be:
    1) Deuterated Propane / (D->Ni56) > 13%c
    2) Hydrated Propane / (p->Ni56) > 12%c
    3) Liquid Deuterium / (pCatD) > 4.6%c
    4) Liquid Deuterium / (CatDD) > 3.5%c
    5) Liquid Deuterium+Tritium / (DT) > 3.5%c
    5) Liquid Hydrogen / ppI > 2.7%c
    6) Liquid Helium / (He3) < 2.7%c
    7) Liquid Deuterium / (DD) > 1.8%c

    However, in order of difficulty, hardest to easiest, the fusion cycles can be listed as follows:
    1) (p->Ni56)
    2) (D->Ni56)
    3) (ppI)
    4) (pCatD)
    5) (CatDD)
    6) (He3)
    7) (DD)
    8) (DT)

    Thus the reaction (ppI) doesn't have what it takes: if you can do (ppI), you'd probably be able to do (pCatD) and you wouldn't bother. (At least not for a rocket. I've yet to find out what Warp has to say.) I should also mention that (DT) fusion, by far the easiest of the fusion cycles, puts most of its released energy into the momentum of a chargeless neutron, which is difficult to get energy from if all you have the electric fields which a burgeoning technology is likely to be limited to.

    Thus, (IMHO) the likely evolution of fusion rockets in fuel and cycles is:
    1st) L(D)/(DD)
    2nd) L(He3)/(He3)
    3rd) L(D)/(CatDD)
    4th) L(D)/(pCatD)
    5th) L(D)/(D->Ni56)
    6th) (C3D8)/(D->Ni56)

    For my money, the (pCatD) reaction is my bet for a TOS Rom BOP rocket. If you factor in efficiencies less than 100% as well as some energy being syphoned off for other things, you get a total d(V) between 2 and 3%c, which is pretty damned good. But it's not the best of the best, giving the Romulans further fusion fuel combinations to research.

    If she were powered by deuterized propane, however, she could have a total d(V) of around 10%c, even factoring in inefficiencies and other power drains. But I see this as a final step before the introduction of artificial quantum singularities.

    It should be noted that the (D->Ni56) cycle is the same cycle as the (p->Ni56) cycle save the first step, which turns protons into deuterium. (The multi-staged fusion cycles are not expounded upon in the tables. It seemed an unnecessary step, more likely to bore than edify.) In the process of turning deuterium into nickel, Carbon must be created and burned. Thus the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuels are also fused into Ni56 in these fuel cycles. This means not only that all the fuel is burned but that, by creating carbon from hydrogen, it is possible to create the storage hydrocarbon through nuclear and chemical processes. This hydrogen could be from the interstellar medium.

    Also note that though the total energy output of carbon burning is much less than hydrogen burning, carbon helps to make the fuel more dense, giving it higher energy densities than hydrogen alone --be it protium or deuterium. There are, of course, heavier hydrocarbons than propane and a cursory glance at the d(V) table should demonstrate that there is an eigenvalue that balances higher energy-densities of large hydrocarbons with their lower d(M). Indeed, I know room temperature RP-1, with an average chemical component of about (C12H24), has already crossed this balance compared to 100K propane. None the less, I really can't be bolloxed to find the exact balance point, as finding it would entail calculating densities by first principals instead of looking them up in text books. And I'm just too lazy for this.

    Another thing I have not gone to the trouble of calculating is the outcome of storing one's hydrogen fuel in "ultra dense" form. The announcement in 2009 and 2010 of discovering hydrogen --both light and heavy, aka protium and deuterium-- in its "Rydburg matter" forms indentured quite a bit of speculation about the ability to store hydrogen at densities on the order 100e6 kg/kL. This would drastically increase the calculated abilities and therefore drastically change any conclusions made.

    However, I did not calculate for ultra dense hydrogen for several reasons. First, while I was doing the calcs I didn't think of it. Second, after I thought of it, I realized I'd have to do half again as much work as I'd already done to include it in the tables. Thirdly, we know neither Ent-D nor Voyager used ultra-dense Rydburg states to store their deuterium. They used liquid deuterium. And though there are no information about how the Romulans store their fuel during TOS, that the Federation doesn't use this method during TNG despite it's obvious advantages indicates it's not easy to make it work. So, I'm using this third reason as an excuse not to have do the work to include it in the tables.

    In any case, I'd guess a TOS Rom BOP Rocket would use liquid deuterium as fuel, burn the fuel in the (pCatD) fusion cycle and have a d(V) of on the order of 2%c. Certainly other possibilities exist, this is just what I would choose from a story-telling perspective. However, her d(V) is not likely to be more than 20%c. (Calculating for 100% efficiency, using deuterated propane as fuel, 1100 tonnes as an empty weight and everything but the "Fin" and "Bridge" filled with fuel, the outcome was 22.8%c. However, this calculation left no room for an engines in the main hull, just tankage and is therefore unlikely in the extreme.)

    My final statement on this subject is that I find it unlikely the TOS Rom BOP was a pure Fusion rocket. She's just too slow compared to a warp vessel; just too limited. She might stil be STL, meaning that "impulse" is not fusion rocketry but a kind of reactionless STL drive. But she's probably not a pure fusion rocket.


    I hope to post similar calculations I've done concerning a fusion powered warp BOP soon.
  6. B.J.

    B.J. Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jul 14, 2004
    Huntsville, AL
    Re: Forcing monospaced font?

    Yes, use the [ CODE ] [ /CODE ] tags:
  7. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    Re: Forcing monospaced font?

    Awesome! Thank you! I will use this in future.
  8. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Apr 18, 2004
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    My God, zDarby, I hope you're actually an engineer or something. This is far more math than I'm used to. :rommie:

    That said, I'm enjoying your finding thus far. Also, being a graphically-minded fellow, that bird-of-prey/Miranda gif is rather compelling, though I do feel they need not be the exact same scale.
  9. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    No. I'm not an engineer. I was studying to be one: a rocket engineer. But I dropped out very early in my studies. (It's a long story no one, not even I, care about.) But what that really means is I'm not afraid of numbers. :borg: (In fact, I have a long boring speech I give to all those I tutor in math about it being a language. No one ever listens.) .... :borg:

    The calculations were time-consuming, don't get me wrong... and they were tedious and repetitive. But they weren't hard... Just time-consuming, tedious and repetitive... And they were worth it. I learned quite a bit about what a Rom BOP could and could not be. If she's a rocket, she has to be a pretty darn advanced one. Not impossible....Far from impossible. But I'm not sure I buy it.

    Thanks for the complement about the BOP/Miranda gif. I was excited when I looked at them superimposed in 3d. But the gif made me go, "Ah...Damn....It was such a good theory!"

    And I've done most of the calcs for a fusion powered warp BOP. Now I have to write up something to describe all those damnedable numbers. That will take about as much time as it took to do the calcs....And I had to do them twice. :wtf:

    By the way, your avatar makes me want to go into a transe and then into an epileptic fit. :rofl:
  10. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    I figured I'd post the base of my warp power calculations. The table below is measured from the warp chart found in the ex-astris-scientia encyclopedia's entry for warp factor under "W"; which, in turn, was a recreation of the warp-power curve found in the TNG Tech Manual. Thus the information is directly applicable to the Galaxy class only. How the warp-power scales for other ships is up for interpretation.

    However my investigations thus far indicate that if one speculates the curve does not scale to ship size, the numbers work rather well. I can make logical arguments for and against this speculation. Even so, I always use this speculation as an assumption in my warp power calcs so that they can easily be converted later when a better scaling factor is discovered.

    Here's wikipedias' rendition of the graphic...It has much less resolution:


    It's the yellow/orange curve I measured. I can describe my methodology to anyone who is interested. You can trust the numbers up to about two significant digits, but the table has three.... So I'm not perfectly scientific. So sue me! :rofl:

    Warp Power Table:

    |         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
    |         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
    |1wf hump |    14 e9 | 1c   |  14   e9 | 166   e-6|
    |1.0wf    |   220 e6 | 1c   | 220   e6 |   2.45e-6|
    |1.1wf    |   240 e6 | 1.37 | 330   e6 |   3.67e-6|
    |1.2wf    |   290 e6 | 1.84 | 532   e6 |   5.93e-6|
    |1.3wf    |   350 e6 | 2.4  | 839   e6 |   9.33e-6|
    |1.4wf    |   460 e6 | 3.07 |   1.41e9 |  15.7 e-6|
    |1.5wf    |   700 e6 | 3.86 |   2.7 e9 |  30   e-6|
    |1.6wf    |    1.7e9 | 4.79 |   8.14e9 |  90.6 e-6|
    |1.7wf    |    6.2e9 | 5.86 |  36.3 e9 | 404   e-6|
    |1.8wf    |   24  e9 | 7.09 | 170   e9 |   1.89e-3|
    |1.9wf    |   96  e9 | 8.5  | 816   e9 |   9.08e-3|
    |2wf hump |  200  e9 | 10   |   2   e12|  22.25e-3|
    |2.0wf    |    2.2e9 | 10   |  22   e9 | 145   e-6|
    |2.1wf    |    2.5e9 | 11.9 |  29.75e9 | 331   e-6|
    |2.2wf    |    3.1e9 | 13.8 |  42.8 e9 | 476   e-6|
    |2.3wf    |    3.8e9 | 16   |  60.8 e9 | 676   e-6|
    |2.4wf    |    5.1e9 | 18.5 |  94.3 e9 |   1.05e-3|
    |2.5wf    |    8.0e9 | 21.2 | 170   e9 |   1.89e-3|
    |2.6wf    |   16  e9 | 24.2 | 387   e9 |   4.31e-3|
    |2.7wf    |   47  e9 | 27.4 |   1.29e12|  14.3 e-3|
    |2.8wf    |  180  e9 | 30.9 |   5.56e12|  61.9 e-3|
    |2.9wf    |  520  e9 | 34.8 |  18.1 e12| 201   e-3|
    |3wf hump |    1.2e12| 38.9 |  62.25e12| 693   e-3|
    |3.0wf    |   19e9   | 38.9 | 739   e9 |   8.22e-3|
    |3.1wf    |   21e9   | 43.4 | 911   e9 |  10.1 e-3|
    |3.2wf    |   26e9   | 48.3 |   1.29e12|  14   e-3|
    |3.3wf    |   32e9   | 53.5 |   1.71e12|  19   e-3|
    |3.4wf    |   42e9   | 59.1 |   2.49e12|  27.7 e-3|
    |3.5wf    |   63e9   | 65.1 |   4.1 e12|  45.6 e-3|
    |3.6wf    |  110e9   | 71.5 |   7.87e12|  87.6 e-3|
    |3.7wf    |  270e9   | 78.3 |  21.1 e12| 235   e-3|
    |3.8wf    |  850e9   | 85.6 |  72.8 e12| 810   e-3|
    |3.9wf    |    2.3e12| 93.4 | 215   e12|   2.39e0 |
    |         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
    |         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
    |4wf hump |   4.8 e12| 102  | 484   e12|   5.38e0 |
    |4.0wf    | 160   e9 | 102  |  16.2 e12| 180   e-3|
    |4.1wf    | 170   e9 | 110  |  18.7 e12| 208   e-3|
    |4.2wf    | 220   e9 | 120  |  26.4 e12| 294   e-3|
    |4.3wf    | 260   e9 | 130  |  33.8 e12| 376   e-3|
    |4.4wf    | 320   e9 | 140  |  44.8 e12| 498   e-3|
    |4.5wf    | 430   e9 | 150  |  64.5 e12| 718   e-3|
    |4.6wf    | 670   e9 | 162  | 108   e12|   1.2 e0 |
    |4.7wf    |   1.75e12| 174  | 244   e12|   2.71e0 |
    |4.8wf    |   3.4 e12| 187  | 636   e12|   7.08e0 |
    |4.9wf    |   9.2 e12| 200  |   1.84e15| 20.5  e0 |
    |5wf hump |  18   e12| 214  | 3.85  e15|  42.8 e0 |
    |5.0wf    | 740   e9 | 214  | 158   e12|   1.76e0 |
    |5.1wf    | 820   e9 | 228  | 187   e12|   2.08e0 |
    |5.2wf    |   1.0 e12| 244  | 244   e12|   2.71e0 |
    |5.3wf    |   1.2 e12| 260  | 312   e12|   3.47e0 |
    |5.4wf    |   1.5 e12| 276  | 414   e12|   4.6 e0 |
    |5.5wf    |   1.9 e12| 294  | 559   e12|   6.22e0 |
    |5.6wf    |   3.0 e12| 312  | 936   e12|  10.4 e0 |
    |5.7wf    |   5.2 e12| 331  | 1.72  e15|  19.1 e0 |
    |5.8wf    |  12   e12| 350  | 4.2   e15|  46.7 e0 |
    |5.9wf    |  27   e12| 371  | 10    e15| 111   e0 |
    |6wf hump |  54   e12| 392  | 21.2  e15| 236   e0 |
    |6.0wf    |   3.4 e12| 392  |  1.33 e15|  14.8 e0 |
    |6.1wf    |   3.7 e12| 415  |  1.53 e15|  17   e0 |
    |6.2wf    |   4.5 e12| 438  |  1.97 e15|  21.9 e0 |
    |6.3wf    |   5.5 e12| 462  |  2.54 e15|  28.3 e0 |
    |6.4wf    |   6.4 e12| 488  |  3.12 e15|  34.7 e0 |
    |6.5wf    |   8.2 e12| 512  |  4.2  e15|  46.7 e0 |
    |6.6wf    |  12   e12| 539  |  6.47 e15|  72   e0 |
    |6.7wf    |  20   e12| 567  | 11.3  e15| 126   e0 |
    |6.8wf    |  41   e12| 596  | 24.4  e15| 271   e0 |
    |6.9wf    | 100   e12| 625  | 62.5  e15| 695   e0 |
    |         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
    |         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |
    |7wf hump | 170   e12| 656  | 111   e15|   1.23e3 |
    |7.0wf    |  18   e12| 656  |  11.8 e15| 131   e0 |
    |7.1wf    |  19   e12| 688  |  13.1 e15| 146   e0 |
    |7.2wf    |  21   e12| 720  |  15.1 e15| 168   e0 |
    |7.3wf    |  25   e12| 755  |  18.9 e15| 210   e0 |
    |7.4wf    |  30   e12| 790  |  23.7 e15| 264   e0 |
    |7.5wf    |  37   e12| 826  |  30.6 e15| 340   e0 |
    |7.6wf    |  52   e12| 863  |  44.9 e15| 500   e0 |
    |7.7wf    |  78   e12| 901  |  70.3 e15| 782   e0 |
    |7.8wf    | 140   e12| 940  | 132   e15|   1.47e3 |
    |7.9wf    | 270   e12| 980  | 265   e15|   2.95e3 |
    |8wf hump | 520   e12| 1024 | 532   e15|   5.92e3 |
    |8.0wf    | 110   e12| 1024 | 113   e15|   1.26e3 |
    |8.1wf    | 120   e12| 1067 | 128   e15|   1.42e3 |
    |8.2wf    | 130   e12| 1112 | 145   e15|   1.61e3 |
    |8.3wf    | 150   e12| 1158 | 174   e15|   1.94e3 |
    |8.4wf    | 170   e12| 1205 | 205   e15|   2.28e3 |
    |8.5wf    | 210   e12| 1253 | 263   e15|   2.93e3 |
    |8.6wf    | 270   e12| 1303 | 352   e15|   3.92e3 |
    |8.7wf    | 360   e12| 1354 | 487   e15|   5.42e3 |
    |8.8wf    | 520   e12| 1407 | 732   e15|   8.14e3 |
    |8.9wf    | 830   e12| 1461 |   1.21e18|  13.5 e3 |
    |9wf hump |   2.0 e15| 1516 |  3.03 e18|  33.7 e3 |
    |9.0wf    | 800   e12| 1516 |  1.21 e18|  13.5 e3 |
    |9.1wf    | 820   e12| 1579 |  1.3  e18|  14.5 e3 |
    |9.2wf    | 870   e12| 1649 |  1.43 e18|  15.9 e3 |
    |9.3wf    |   1   e15| 1701 |  1.7  e18|  18.9 e3 |
    |9.4wf    |   1.3 e15| 1759 |  2.29 e18|  25.4 e3 |
    |9.5wf    |   1.7 e15| 1882 |  3.2  e18|  35.6 e3 |
    |9.6wf    |   2.4 e15| 1909 |  4.58 e18|  51   e3 |
    |9.7wf    |   3.5 e15| 2115 |  7.4  e18|  82.3 e3 |
    |9.8wf    |   6   e15| 2365 | 14.2  e18| 158   e3 |
    |9.9wf    |  11   e15| 3053 | 33.6  e18| 374   e3 |
    |         | watt     | speed| Power    |  M/AM    |
    |         | \coch    | *c   | watts    |   g/s    |

    **"hump" --The power peak that separates warp factors.
    **"coch" --Short for "cochrane", the standard measurement for subspace stress. The scale is calibrated such that the number of cochranes felt is equal to the speed traveled in multiples of the speed of light.
    **"M/AM" --The amount of mass to be converted to energy per second in order to supply the stated power requirements. 100% efficiency is assumed.
    ***"e" --Times ten to the power of. EG, 14e9 = 14 * 10^9 = 14,000,000,000 = 14 billion.
  11. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    Here are pix of the 4 sizes I'm calculating for.
    Give me your gut reaction: Which size do you like better?

    Scenario 1 - Small: The top bulge is one deck tall. This is the size indicated by the blueprints linked to earlier.

    Scenario 2 - Medium: The lip of the main hull is the same height as the lip of the Constitution's saucer --about two decks.

    Scenario 3 - Large: The breadth of her main hull is about same as the diameter of a Constitution's saucer. This seems to be the size most often quoted.

    Scenario 4 - Extra Large: The length of the nacelles are the same as the length of the nacelles of the Constitution.
  12. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    May 3, 2003
    Portland, OR
    I'm a fan of the littlest BoP.

  13. bullethead

    bullethead Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Feb 24, 2008
    The second looks like a good size for a small warship that would have enough fuel to do its job and go back home.
  14. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Feb 26, 2010
    I like option 2 (medium). Although the idea of the plasma weapon being some kind of spinal mount weapon seems to suggest a larger size, IMO.
  15. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    Forgetting the numbers and going with my impressions, the smallest just doesn't look formidable. It looks cute. A small personnel shuttle limited to one solar system. A transport. A gad fly. A sitting duck. I can't take it seriously.

    The third one, "large", looks ungainly instead of threatening. Which doesn't make much sense, really, as they're all the same shape. So what makes this one more ungainly than any other?

    The second one, "medium", looks sleek and capable. If I were to choose one for a stealth ship by its looks alone, this is the one I'd choose.

    But the forth one... XL... It looks Romulan to me. I know that doesn't make sense but there it is.
  16. Bernard Guignard

    Bernard Guignard Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Jan 25, 2005
    SFB uses all 4 sizes :lol:

    #1 Frigate/Corvette

    #2 Destroyer

    #3 Cruiser

    #4 Dreadnought/Battleship

    Roughly Nice comparisons by the way :techman:
  17. zDarby

    zDarby Lieutenant Red Shirt

    May 20, 2013
    In general, I am not a fan of having several classes of vesssel that are just scaled versions of each other. The Klingon bird of prey, for example, ticks me off.

    But in this case I think it might be practical. I mean, the TOS BOP has exceptionally simple topography: an extruded saucer with wings. And from the point of view of secrecy, if all your ships look alike then an enemy agent can't be sure she saw a Corvette or a Dreadnaught without scanners that would give her presence away.

    I'm not sure how much I buy the idea, but I'm not opposed to it... Which is odd.
  18. Unicron

    Unicron Continuity Spackle Moderator

    May 8, 2003
    The Red Church of Niah
    I don't mind scaled versions as long as there's a logical reason for it - the FASA take on the BOP is a good example IMO (all of the variants had different capabilities, and only looked superficially the same). Sometimes it's easier to build a larger or smaller version of an already existing design than to build a completely original one.
  19. Praetor

    Praetor Vice Admiral Admiral

    Apr 18, 2004
    The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
    Option 2 just feels right to me.
  20. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Aug 26, 2003
    FWIW, a British N class destroyer would have been about 110 m long and 11 m wide, while a German Type VII sub would have been 67 m long and 6 m wide... The respective displacements would have been 2,300 tons and 870 tons (submerged).

    If we ignore nacelles and pylons (or scale them in terms of the respective propulsive performances of the destroyer and the sub, rather than size), option 2 is probably the closest to the WWII comparison: the primary hulls are in similar length and height relationship to each other then. But a submarine's hull is usable to a much smaller degree than a destroyer's: the pressure hull is smaller than the overall hull, and there's no useful superstructure. In that sense, option 1 would be closer - and the difference in nacelle size would truly begin to approximate the propulsive disparity between a destroyer and a sub!

    The displacement ratio would probably favor something between options 1 and 2...

    Timo Saloniemi