Well, that could be misread out of context with my posts or if air/raft 'taking up' was read as meaning an air/raft bay. To rephrase, the Air/Raft itself as 4 dtons volume is ludicrous - not taking up that volume in a bay, which seems reasonable and is how it appears on most deckplans. If the Air/Raft itself was 4 dtons in volume, that would be impractical for 4 dton bays, which is the common objection.far-trader wrote:I'm afraid you'll need to specify that a littleBP wrote:An air/raft taking up 4 dtons volume would break most existing starship designs - and be ludicrously big compared to all illustrations.
Rephrasing my post before my last -> Mongoose Core only states 4 dton in ship section for the tonnage of a vehicle bay for an Air/Raft (p 111, and per that section, it can include extra space for maintenance and parts) - no tonnage at all is listed in the vehicles section (pg 103). I've used the phrase 'deckplan squares' to distinguish area vs volume ala your '4 dton area'.
As to CT Air/Raft tonnage (4 tons) and cargo tonnage (4 tons) - I addressed that too in said post. In the context of the CT page with a 6 ton Speeder and 100 kg cargo, it would be consistent that the 'tons' in the equipment section is mass, not volume. Nothing really about the size in the LBBs - 4 tons of feathers might not fit as well as 4 tons of lead (~0.35 cubic meters or 0.025 dtons per 1000 kg) - so it could be have a decent sized truck bed, or a compact trunk.
Just for grins - First Google hit for '4 ton truck' = http://www.usednissanudtrucks.com/inven ... mk260.html
Add 1/2 foot on either side, so you can chop off a couple feet on the back, make the cab deeper for more seating and cut the top half off (and the wheels) and you got yourself a pretty decent Air/Raft, IMO! (Of course, I've always gone in for the illustrations where it is more of a grav car than a truck, but I can see it either way.)
No house rule needed for Mongoose (Core anyway!)!far-trader wrote:It does make much more sense that the stated tons for a vehicle is the required shipping/minimal bay required, and that the actual vehicle itself is about half that (imo)... it probably wouldn't be Traveller if we didn't have to houserule a few things
And CT was mass, not volume. So no corrective house rulings needed there either.