Low Altitude Vehicles, What exactly are they? Options

[Maximum]

It seems to me that most of Shadowrun is at least based in part on the real world. But what are LAV's? Do LAV's exist in real life, even as theoretical vehicles? How does a t-bird fly? I dont get it. Could someone please shed some light on this for me?

[crizh]

The basic idea.

[Dumori]

So how high can they fly? Are they just cool looking hovercraft that can jump?

[Naysayer]

From what I understand, they're more like an unlikely cross-breed between a Harrier and a moderately hung battletank...

[Earlydawn]

Thunderbirds combine a variety of characteristics found in various aircraft. Its propulsion system seems similar to a Harrier's VTOL thrust vectoring, perhaps relying more on thrust-to-mass then aerodynamics once airborne. Equipment-wise, T-Birds exhibit characteristics of fixed wing aircraft, particularly the "titanium tub" A-10 Warthog, as well as attack helicopters. (Both the firepower of a tank hunter such as the Apache, and the troop capacity of a Hind.)

As far as altitude, I've never seen a specific figure. Crizh may be right by labeling it as a Ground Effect Vehicle, although LAVs have always struck me as more based on aerodyne principles then a WIG design. They're also almost universally noted as atrocious fuel guzzlers. If you've played Crysis, they're probably functionally similar to the Marine transport jumpjet, or perhaps a lower altitude, better armed and armored Halo Pelican dropship.

[Edit: I don't know where I pulled the term "aerodyne" from in the context as-used. I had once heard it used as the technical term for an aircraft that uses raw thrust in place of aerodynamic lift to produce flight. Oh well. You get the point.]

[Method]

Rigger 3 lists a "Thunderbirds" flight ceiling as 1500 meters.

[edit] Also Rigger 1 describes the CAS/GD "Stonewall" MBT as using a "combination vectored thrust/ground effect drive" which would also seem to imply that the vectored thrust technology used by LAVs is distinct.[/edit]

[WearzManySkins]

Rigger 3 lists a "Thunderbirds" flight ceiling as 1500 meters.

[edit] Also Rigger 1 describes the CAS/GD "Stonewall" MBT as using a "combination vectored thrust/ground effect drive" which would also seem to imply that the vectored thrust technology used by LAVs is distinct.[/edit]

Correction
There is no Rigger 1 titled book.
From the Guns of the South Thread
Rigger Black Book page 95
Pure Vector-thrust or combination vector/ground effect drive

So that leaves the Devs some wiggle room as for what one is.

WMS

[MYST1C]

I don't know where I pulled the term "aerodyne" from in the context as-used. I had once heard it used as the technical term for an aircraft that uses raw thrust in place of aerodynamic lift to produce flight.

"Aerodyne" is the name for such vehicles in Cyberpunk 2020 - they are actually quite common in that setting but usually much smaller than SR's thunderbirds (think SUV- or van-sized) and used not as flying tanks but rather as faster-going helicopter replacements.

[Method]

Correction
There is no Rigger 1 titled book.

I know. I happen to own 2 copies. I was just being lazy but I avoided the abbreviation RBB because it is easy to mistake for BBB.

Rigger Black Book page 95
Pure Vector-thrust or combination vector/ground effect drive
So that leaves the Devs some wiggle room as for what one is.

I fail to see how that changes my point.
- The Stonewall (which is not an LAV) may have a combination vectored thrust/ground effect drive which thus implies that VT and GE are different entities.
- The fluff clearly states that LAVs are vectored thrust and makes no mention of ground effect.

Thus I would conclude that LAVs are not ground effect vehicles, but thats just my interpretation of the Rigger Black Book, published by Fasa under the stock number 7108 in 1991 (in case you weren't sure to which book I was referring). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[WearzManySkins]

@Method

Not all here have RPG libraries that go back as far as ours. I was pointing out those that do not, that there is no such title called Rigger 1. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

The quote you first quoted was not the entire important part of the quote. But since the source material for the few details on the Stonewall suffered corruption during transmission. Any material listed from there is suspect.

As for using Fluff as a basis for your that decision the Stonewall is not a LAV*shrugs* To each there own. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

As for you listing of the Rigger Black Book, I have flat files on the discussion of said book from the GEnie forums there from the Holy Three. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

WMS

[Jackstand]

It would be pretty strange if there was one called Rigger 1. It's not often that the first of a series is numbered. Usually the numbers start showing up with the second book. I think it's pretty clear that it just means the first rigger book, or the first edition rigger book, or both, as the case may be.

[Method]

Not all here have RPG libraries that go back as far as ours. I was pointing out those that do not, that there is no such title called Rigger 1...

Ah... a very good point.

As for using Fluff as a basis for your that decision the Stonewall is not a LAV*shrugs* To each there own.

Well I guess it is one of those "if it walks like a duck..." kind of things. I've always thought it was odd that they don't call the Stonewall an LAV but they don't.

As for you listing of the Rigger Black Book, I have flat files on the discussion of said book from the GEnie forums there from the Holy Three.

Wow!! Thats impressive... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/notworthy.gif)

[CircuitBoyBlue]

Ah... a very good point.

Would you two stop arguing like civilized people and get to the flames? This is the internet; you're both supposed to have some crazy and convenient graduate degree in the exact esoteric subject we're discussing, plus really small vocabularies and a general contempt for mankind (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

More on point, though, wouldn't hte fact that LAVs are described as "VSTOL" rather than "VTOL imply that they're not vectored thrust? I'm not sure, but I thought the vehicle creation rules in Rigger 2 and Rigger 3 said that if you made something vectored thrust, it was automatically VTOL.

[WearzManySkins]

Would you two stop arguing like civilized people and get to the flames? This is the internet; you're both supposed to have some crazy and convenient graduate degree in the exact esoteric subject we're discussing, plus really small vocabularies and a general contempt for mankind (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

More on point, though, wouldn't hte fact that LAVs are described as "VSTOL" rather than "VTOL imply that they're not vectored thrust? I'm not sure, but I thought the vehicle creation rules in Rigger 2 and Rigger 3 said that if you made something vectored thrust, it was automatically VTOL.

Why you..... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/embarrassed.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif) person who reads computer screens and......@#!@#@#!!!!!

there feel better now?

WMS

[BishopMcQ]

More on point, though, wouldn't hte fact that LAVs are described as "VSTOL" rather than "VTOL imply that they're not vectored thrust? I'm not sure, but I thought the vehicle creation rules in Rigger 2 and Rigger 3 said that if you made something vectored thrust, it was automatically VTOL.

You're expecting internal consistency from a system with page references to other references and no index?

When I have run them in the past, I put a t-bird with a maximum cruising altitude of about 1,000 feet. The truth though is that the pilots are running almost a map of the earth to stay under radar which means a ground effect system is a good approximation to about how high they will be. T-birds use speed and maneuverability to counteract their lack of subtlety.

[crizh]

[Fluff]

Nickname t-birds, LAV's rely on ground effect lift and very short wings to give them lift.

Arsenal p100/101

[/Fluff]

Additional, the Banshee is listed as a V/STOL in the vehicle tables rather than a LAV, so isn't a t-bird despite being described as such in it's text block.

If you look closely at the MiG and less closely at the Skraatcha you'll notice that both images have skirts running around the bottom of the vehicle.

The designers have never really given LAV's much thought but they would seem to be intended to work like hovercraft with a limited VTOL capability similar to the 'Panzers' in Hardwired.

[Method]

Hmm. Nice catch there crizh.

Apparently the devs either:
a.) don't see any difference between ground effect and vectored thrust
b.) aren't really clear on whether LAVs use ground effect or vectored thrust (BBB p. 21 and numerous previous edition books state clearly that LAVs are vectored thrust vehicles)
or
c.) are somehow trying to retcon away the flight ceiling rules in Rigger 3 that say LAVs can fly up to 1,500m high.

And the Banshee is the quintessential SR LAV/T-bird. It is described as such in SR1 (where they also refer to LAVs as panzers) and no less than 5 other rule/source books from previous editions. If it magically turned into a jump-jet or something in the 4th Ed that would be lame. Thankfully it does say "t-bird" in the text on page 341 and Thunderbird in parentheses in the BBB table on p 342 and Arsenal table on p 193. So as far as I'm concerned it is still a LAV.

Also, other than the inclusion of the Banshee under the VTOL/VSTOL category in the BBB I can't find anything in the 4th Ed rules that states that LAVs in general are VTOL. The Mig-67 and Skraacha do not list "Improved Takeoff and Landing 2" as a standard option, and I can't find anything in SR4 that states "vectored thrust = VTOL". Maybe the devs just take for granted that people are familiar with the concept of vectored thrust? Maybe someone with better Search-fu can find something I missed?

Anyway, I guess I never realized how vague the descriptions of LAVs/Thunderbirds/T-birds/Panzers are in SR. I think if you've played previous editions you start to formulate a certain image of them but I can definitely see now where a new player might be confused.

[Fix-it]

[Fluff]




[/Fluff]

Additional, the Banshee is listed as a V/STOL in the vehicle tables rather than a LAV, so isn't a t-bird despite being described as such in it's text block.

If you look closely at the MiG and less closely at the Skraatcha you'll notice that both images have skirts running around the bottom of the vehicle.

The designers have never really given LAV's much thought but they would seem to be intended to work like hovercraft with a limited VTOL capability similar to the 'Panzers' in Hardwired.

disagree with that last. I don't remember the Panzer in Hardwired having ANY VTOL capability whatsoever. it was just a Air Cushion Vehicle that was armed to the teeth and built like a brick shithouse. (see the PACVs from the Vietnam war).

LAVs/T-birds on the other hand, should be the illegitimate child of an MBT and a Harrier Jump-jet.

think an MI-24 Hind, only with more maneuverability and able to hover.

[Kyoto Kid]

...I actually stated up an Ekranoplan for my RiS campaign that was used by smuggler NPC.

[kigmatzomat]

Rigger Black Book page 95
Pure Vector-thrust or combination vector/ground effect drive

So that leaves the Devs some wiggle room as for what one is.

I don't see the confusion. Any vector thrust vehicle can operate in ground effect, assuming it has sufficient response time to avoid turning into a giant Lawn Jart. Heck, every airplane goes through a "ground effect" phase during take off and landings, it is apparently one of the hardest things to learn how to deal with as a pilot.

Let's take a hypothetical Banshee and say that in pure vectored thrust mode (i.e. at altitudes of more than a hundred meters) it devotes ~80% of power to lift and only 20% to thrust. Now it descends to ground effect elevations where its "lift" is maybe twice as efficient, meaning it can devote a mere 40% to lift and 60% to thrust. Barring differences in air density, in ground-effect mode the Banshee would be 3x faster. It also, of course, has to dodge trees, buildings, hills, and would give a much more roller coaster like ride.

IANA aerodynamic engineer so I don't know what the actual boost in "effective lift" ground effect gives, especially when you're discussing a vehicle that is relying on jet exhaust rather than wing-based lift, but regardless, the general logic will hold.