Slow CLAC's - fast SD(P)'s

I am puzzled by the acceleration figures given for the RMN CLAC's and SD(P)'s in House of Steel. Specifically, the CLAC's of about the same building era are, despite lower tonnage, slower than the SD(P)'s. Figures for the CLAC's are about the same as slightly older DN's, but the last DN classes started well before the first CLAC ones, so it's hard to make much of that comparison.

Full accel figures:
Minotaur CLAC (1912-): 428.2 g
Hydra (Minotaur-B) CLAC (1914-): 428.5 g
Covington CLAC (1915-): 476.7 g
Medusa SD(P) (1914-): 502.8 g
Invictus SD(P) (1919-): 562.6 g

So - what's going on here? The Medusa/Invictus difference can be accounted for by technical improvements in the intervening years. But the gap between the RMN CLAC's and the GSN one is peculiar, as is particularly that all three CLAC classes are slower than the larger SD(P)'s.

JeffEngel wrote:I am puzzled by the acceleration figures given for the RMN CLAC's and SD(P)'s in House of Steel. Specifically, the CLAC's of about the same building era are, despite lower tonnage, slower than the SD(P)'s. Figures for the CLAC's are about the same as slightly older DN's, but the last DN classes started well before the first CLAC ones, so it's hard to make much of that comparison.

Full accel figures:
Minotaur CLAC (1912-): 428.2 g
Hydra (Minotaur-B) CLAC (1914-): 428.5 g
Covington CLAC (1915-): 476.7 g
Medusa SD(P) (1914-): 502.8 g
Invictus SD(P) (1919-): 562.6 g

So - what's going on here? The Medusa/Invictus difference can be accounted for by technical improvements in the intervening years. But the gap between the RMN CLAC's and the GSN one is peculiar, as is particularly that all three CLAC classes are slower than the larger SD(P)'s.

HoS figures are supposed to be for the initial rates as of first commissioning; there are some errors. I hope Tom Pope or Dukk clarifies it for you.

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:I am puzzled by the acceleration figures given for the RMN CLAC's and SD(P)'s in House of Steel. Specifically, the CLAC's of about the same building era are, despite lower tonnage, slower than the SD(P)'s. Figures for the CLAC's are about the same as slightly older DN's, but the last DN classes started well before the first CLAC ones, so it's hard to make much of that comparison.

Full accel figures:
Minotaur CLAC (1912-): 428.2 g
Hydra (Minotaur-B) CLAC (1914-): 428.5 g
Covington CLAC (1915-): 476.7 g
Medusa SD(P) (1914-): 502.8 g
Invictus SD(P) (1919-): 562.6 g

So - what's going on here? The Medusa/Invictus difference can be accounted for by technical improvements in the intervening years. But the gap between the RMN CLAC's and the GSN one is peculiar, as is particularly that all three CLAC classes are slower than the larger SD(P)'s.

HoS figures are supposed to be for the initial rates as of first commissioning; there are some errors. I hope Tom Pope or Dukk clarifies it for you.

Rob

Yes, as ANB said, the initial production model acceleration rate is given as Bu9, Duckk have said.

This makes sense as there are numerous ships in the same class with vastly different acceleration rates. Look no further than the Reliant class. Been in production for a long time. Multiple different compensator BLOCK upgrades.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:I am puzzled by the acceleration figures given for the RMN CLAC's and SD(P)'s in House of Steel. Specifically, the CLAC's of about the same building era are, despite lower tonnage, slower than the SD(P)'s. Figures for the CLAC's are about the same as slightly older DN's, but the last DN classes started well before the first CLAC ones, so it's hard to make much of that comparison.

Full accel figures:
Minotaur CLAC (1912-): 428.2 g
Hydra (Minotaur-B) CLAC (1914-): 428.5 g
Covington CLAC (1915-): 476.7 g
Medusa SD(P) (1914-): 502.8 g
Invictus SD(P) (1919-): 562.6 g

So - what's going on here? The Medusa/Invictus difference can be accounted for by technical improvements in the intervening years. But the gap between the RMN CLAC's and the GSN one is peculiar, as is particularly that all three CLAC classes are slower than the larger SD(P)'s.

HoS figures are supposed to be for the initial rates as of first commissioning; there are some errors. I hope Tom Pope or Dukk clarifies it for you.

Rob

I talked to Tom Pope about this at the last Honorcon. I had wondered if the CLACs 'fatter' hull form might be why they were so much slower, or if it was an error.
He didn't have his notes but thought that the hill form might have had a slight effect, but that it wasn't the explanation for the bulk of the difference. He couldn't remember if BuNine had worked out a rational for why the initial RMN CLACs would have been build with old stock compensators (in which case the low accel was deliberate) or if it might have been an error (someone pulled their mass into the old accel curve)

Certainly the Culverin-class DD is using a too new accel curve (1908-9 era; about 30g quicker that it should be when built)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:HoS figures are supposed to be for the initial rates as of first commissioning; there are some errors. I hope Tom Pope or Dukk clarifies it for you.

Rob

I talked to Tom Pope about this at the last Honorcon. I had wondered if the CLACs 'fatter' hull form might be why they were so much slower, or if it was an error.
He didn't have his notes but thought that the hill form might have had a slight effect, but that it wasn't the explanation for the bulk of the difference. He couldn't remember if BuNine had worked out a rational for why the initial RMN CLACs would have been build with old stock compensators (in which case the low accel was deliberate) or if it might have been an error (someone pulled their mass into the old accel curve)

Certainly the Culverin-class DD is using a too new accel curve (1908-9 era; about 30g quicker that it should be when built)

Thanks, all. The figures as of initial commissioning explanation, if consistent, wouldn't quite do it: the Hydra and Medusa start dates (1914 PD) are the same, but the smaller one has only 85% of the larger's acceleration.

If the CLAC hull form penalizes acceleration that badly, then SD range ones would be a terrible idea - they'd slow down any fleet. If it's a problem for DN range ones but not SD range ones (more volume to play with for the hypothetical hull form constraint there), then everyone would have moved to SD range CLAC's in a hurry.

If there's any other reason to believe that the accel figures for CLAC's in HoS are just plain wrong, well, that does look like one of the more plausible explanations. I may see later if Echoes of Honor (for instance) has accel figures for Minotaur when it was maneuvering independently - it's one instance where nothing else would be forcing a CLAC to conform to another unit's accel rate.

Thinking aloud... Aside from mass, could the difference be related to what for lack of a better word, I would call "fixed points" systems vs. holding independent craft? As in the mechanized systems to align and fire missiles and missile pods" are likely much less "-G" stressable than LAC bays especially during launch & landing conditions, etc. similar to how any wet-navy non-AC landing hull can generally maneuver weight for weight more quickly than a same sized craft with a landing deck. (though that's water hull-form drag as well).

If that's the case at all, would that then require a higher percentage of the fusion core/wedge combination has to be put into the inertial compensator(s), slowing the ship's accel rate?

With the compensator you are either at zero g or exposed to the full acceleration of the ship. There is no middle state.

JeffEngel wrote:If the CLAC hull form penalizes acceleration that badly, then SD range ones would be a terrible idea - they'd slow down any fleet. If it's a problem for DN range ones but not SD range ones (more volume to play with for the hypothetical hull form constraint there), then everyone would have moved to SD range CLAC's in a hurry.

If the CLAC's hull form is the reason, I suspect that it would be less of a problem in a larger ship. At least part of the reason that a CLAC is "fatter" than other ships it's displacement is because of how long it's primary weapons system is. When a CLAC is loaded you have the following, from port to starbord:
Hatch
LAC
Docking ring
Maintenance area
Core Hull
Maintenance area
Docking ring
LAC
Hatch

The only part of that that can be reduced is the core hull. everything else is already as narrow as it can be. And there is an absolute minimum that the core hull could be to incorporate everything that it needs, thus forcing a wider hull than would be standard. An SD sized CLAC could get a lot "taller" with out getting much "fatter," and therefore maintain a more standard hull form, allowing it to operate closer to standard efficiency.

kzt wrote:With the compensator you are either at zero g or exposed to the full acceleration of the ship. There is no middle state.

?? Ya lost me, though that's also on me, not your thought. Asking my follow-on question because other Forum Dwellers likely won't understand either.

I'm thinking the reduction would be due to A) "percentage of the fusion energy / impeller wedge energy going into the "inertial compensator sump" in order to maintain the zero-added G environment of the ship, and maybe a B) any factors that might be related to the "free craft" launch-able under fleet battle acceleration conditions, perhaps a "transitional zone" from the CLAC's IC to n-space that the LACs launch through vs. an SD not needing a zone, etc.

Thoughts?

SharkHunter wrote:Thinking aloud... Aside from mass, could the difference be related to what for lack of a better word, I would call "fixed points" systems vs. holding independent craft? As in the mechanized systems to align and fire missiles and missile pods" are likely much less "-G" stressable than LAC bays especially during launch & landing conditions, etc. similar to how any wet-navy non-AC landing hull can generally maneuver weight for weight more quickly than a same sized craft with a landing deck. (though that's water hull-form drag as well).

If that's the case at all, would that then require a higher percentage of the fusion core/wedge combination has to be put into the inertial compensator(s), slowing the ship's accel rate?

I was wondering on some similar sorts of lines, if the large internal volumes of a CLAC meant less bracing and ability to handle higher accelerations. But that's not consistent with military freighters having no acceleration penalty relative to similar sized warships - those freighters would have, if anything, much less braced interiors than the CLAC.

It's hard to see the external hull form as causing a problem either. The dimensions of a Minotaur CLAC, for instance, are pretty similar to a Bellerophon DN - a bit stubbier, with about 12% less length but almost identical beam and draught.