I'd love a ship that, when disembarked, folds into a flat pack.
Edit: on a second thought, it would be inferior to an inflatable cargo hauler
She's a beauty! (New ship revealed--Mandalay)
- Thread starter Shurimal
- Start date
Edit: on a second thought, it would be inferior to an inflatable cargo hauler
The wrong ship bug... Anaconda rotating 90 degrees.
Going be interesting watching someone try to land manually in a Coriolis with a 90° turn.
I believe that the suggestion is that in the same way as the ship automatically centers on the pad (even with manual landing) when you are close enough to it, it may also automatically do the 90-degree rotation at the same time.
I use this one to make my visual, but as you can see, if the pad is 150 meters, mamba is longer that 72 meters, what means some calculations are wrong.
But I realized that 72.2 meters are official, sooo, I need to draw it again with proper sizes. Proportions between dimension lines are 100% accurate, it comes from graphc design program.
Following to the offical mamba size, here is what it comes from measurement in design program.
Of course it is a 1:1000 scale and dimensions are like 0,5-1 mm accurate.
But that means this well-knowing picture with landing pad sizes is wrong, even if we make a corrections for perspective etc.
I found something unexpected in the official table.
Type-7 is smaller than Type-8, I thought Type-7 is too high for M pad/hangar, but maybe this is because of moving parts/landing gear?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As did I (as I was transcribing the vessel information into Excel for later use) - the moving parts (engine nacelles I expect) make the difference.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The folding may occur when the landing gear is deployed rather than at touchdown - so as not to encroach onto adjacent pad limits prior to touchdown.
I really hope that vertical engines, landing gear and wings are not connected.... because I often fly above the planet surface with nose down and landing gear deployed and of course vertical thrusters looks great with this configuration, but folded wings definitely are not what I want to see at screenshots and movies
If it does, it will leave Conda back in the dust. cause it will easily go 90-100ly Jump range.
Sure, depending on what internals Mandy will have, Anaconda may still be attractive for explorers that want to pack everything, including the kitchen sink, when going out in the black.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It very much depends on the hull mass and the size of the internals (which dictates their base mass) - of course it could be in the 90LY to 100LY range, but I doubt it - I expect it'll be in the 70LY-80LY range (without GFSB).
Funny thing, The Gannet used a Mamba Engine
from the wiki:
The Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba engine consisted of two Mamba engines that were mounted in a side-by-side arrangement and coupled through a common gearbox to coaxial contra-rotating propellers. Each engine drove its own propeller, and power was transmitted by a torsion shaft which was engaged through a series of sun, planet, epicyclic and spur gears to give a suitable reduction ratio and correct propeller-shaft rotation.[25] The ASMD.1 engine (2,950 hp; 2,200 kW) was used in the Gannet AS.1; ASMD.3 (3,145 hp; 2,345 kW) in the AS.4; and ASMD.4 (3,875 hp; 2,890 kW) in the AEW.3 variant. The Double Mamba engine could be run with one Mamba stopped and its propeller feathered, to conserve fuel and extend endurance when cruising; stopping one engine on a conventional twin-engined plane would normally create thrust asymmetry, whereas the centreline-mounted propeller arrangement avoided this
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Apparently not: https://edsy.org/s/vKP3oq9Which would make it 90+ Ly with GFSB , that is more than what Conda can do
A some ships have additional animation once grounded (courier nacells engines exhaust close up, only after touchdown) - but since ship is technically show already how it looks like when landed and when about to land and during "flight" ready so thats 3 stages already, I cant see any diffrence in ship, such as any moving parts apart of F-35 vertical thrusters. These mentioned thrusters seems to be independ from landing gear (unlike DB), so its probly going vertical only in planets, if near ground and once slowed enough, that being said I wonder how it will be work in end.
But... despite being medium ship, its very high and wide, it seems being higher and certainly wider than T7, so prehaps, large pad only? Or it will really need to land sideways?
Ok, Now I don't know where I did a mistake. I think I need to be more careful to perspective.
Official dimensions:
Mamba - 72 m
Type-7 - 99 m
Yes, that's why I spend a time making fun with predictions. It really doesn't bother me what Mandalay will be in all that particular stuff, I will buy it anyway, because I am an explorer/exobiologist and I like have a lot of exploration ships, so new shiny toy especially for explorers are what I want since the first announcement about 4 ships this year
So my every post in this topic is like kid looking for lego catalog in '90