I am a longtime player of the shadowrun system and have quite often played the "Rigger" on most missions since hackers/technomacers pretty much did not exist until 4th. I have just bought arsenal and I noticed that it seems like you can no longer Vector Thrust upgrade a vehicle. Am I missing something or has this just been dropped out of the system. I used to love vectoring my motorcycle and even have an awesome drawn up picture for it (looks similar to the Lamprey in arsenal). Is this just going to be something that they are dropping from canon or what? For the record I notice that the CD Dalmation is vectored thrust so why can't a motorcycle be?

What you are looking for is the ”Improved landing & Takeoff 2” which is only available for Aircrafts nowadays.

But, if you are like me, you completely disregard vehicle restrictions and give a good explanation about this cool new brand of flying bikes and cars.

Before I answer you, I would need you to verify something for me: Is this a serious question or are you just trying to pull our collective legs?

I don't get it...

According to SR4 pg. 350. The Dalmation vectored-thrust recon drone features a unique limited hover capability and a sturdy frame for its light weight design. I don't see how I'm pulling anyone's leg.

Yes, he really wants a flying motorcycle. Seriously.

Ahh I see, yes I do like my V-T Motorcycle it was always so useful for landing in small areas and avoiding lone-star.

The only drawback I see for a flying motorcycle is that it is no longer an actual motorcycle.

When it has VTOL capacity it is an aircraft.

The simple thing is to do this:

Name: SigZeur Tornado Aerial Motorcycle
Vehicle: Dalmatian Flying large Drone
Modification: Manual Controls +4
Metahuman Adjustment (Non-Troll) +0

With a Body of 4 (With similar models you can change it to 5) it can easily carry a metahuman, with manual controls you can also steer the thing. Metahuman adjustment add a basic seat and foot pedals etc.

If you could get one – wouldn't you, too?

I was just confirming it for D2F that that is what the OP really wanted..

Because you asked why, based on that design, rocket bikes make no sense. But I'll just assume you are sincere with your question, so I will treat it as such and attempt to explain in detail, why that makes no sense:

1.) Vectored thrust is effectively a Jet engine. While modern day technological nomenclature subsumes vectored thrust jet engines and tilt rotor fans under the same term, SR differentiates between the two (tilt rotor fans fall under the tilt wing category in SR). That leaves LAVs as jets.

2.) Jet exhaust fumes are warm. VERY warm, indeed. On the lower end, we are talking about 500-750°C (~900-1,400°F) and they would need to be ejected in the opposite direction you intend to travel. They would be your only means of acceleration and decelleration, as well as need to keep you afloat in the first place. Chances therefore are, that your legs or other parts of your body will be near those exhaust fumes. That could prove to be very painful. Not to mention the fact, that your supply of oxigen might be compromised (since the fumes will burn up all the oxigen around you and the heat will not exactly be favorable to your lungs.

3.) Jet engine acceleration is terrible. Most people think about afterburners and high end speeds but are completely oblivious to the slow acceleration pase. An electric car leaves a MiG jetfighter in the dust, when it comes to acceleration.
Naturally, the same holds true for deceleration (which is why most combat jet fighters have extra parachutes to assist in breaking, as well as brakes on their actual tires. A LAV bike, by the base standard wouldn't even have tires. It is pretty safe to assume that a LAV bike would be unsafe for urban traffic. Your stopping distance would be abysally long compared to other craft.

4.) Given the lack of road adherence and ground effect, your cornering abilities would be equaly bad. Regular streets would most likely not provide enough open space for cornering maneuvers at speeds higher than a mild jog (I'd have to do the math on it, so this is just a personal estimate and not nescessarily the case but your cornering would be considerably worse than that of a wheeled or tracked ground vehicle)

5.) The Dalmatian works, because it only has to lift its own weight. The bike would also have to lift you on top of that (plus your gear). In addition, the Dalmatian is already larger than your bike (as it approaches the size of a regular car) and would have a considerably broader wingspan than your bike (which would be limited to a 2.5m (~8tf)). Also, keep in mind that other LAVs in SR, like the Banshee are considerably lager, with considerably bigger jet engines and are fully enclosed to protect the crew from the exhaust fumes.

All in all, a rocket bike simply makes no sense. It would be inferior in pretty much all aspects to a regular bike, consume massively more fuel and put the driver at lethal risk of being burned or suffocated.

Do you now understand why I wasn't sure as to whether your question was serious?

It can easily be changed into a “Directional Turbofans” similar to the Moller Flying Car design instead of jet engines.

60+ years of aeuronautics design and lightweight materials could very well be feasible, especially with more efficient lightweight batteries as fuel cells.

Body 4 drones size can be from Motorcycle and to a small car.

The Lockheed Sparrow is a flying machine for individuals but is not a motorcycle, it has a body of 3 and can take a person so a body 4 drone shouldnt have a problem depending on design.

The Lockheed sparrow IS on the other hand larger than a motorcycle in the illustration, especially with those 4 large propellers – exchange them for four smaller directional turbofans and it would look smaller.

After reading through the sparrow entry again, I have to concede that SR4 considers jet propellers properly a part of vectored thrust technology, so the request is a bit more sensible, now.

But even if we considered tilt wing aircraft rules for the bike, the majority of problems would still remain. It would still not be safe for traffic. It would still have horrible acceleration and decelleration rates and it would still have an abysmal conering radius.

Not to mention that would require a different driving license (pilot aircraft), and it would be subject to air corridors and airspace surveillance. Not exactly a commuter vehicle.



smaller directinonal turbofans won't be able to achieve enough thrust to even lift it off the ground. Not to mention the additional noise they would create.


So far, my conclusion is: A LAV bike would be unsafe for traffic, have a horrible fuel economy, would require a pilot aircraft license and skill, would feature abysmal acceleration and stopping distance, would have trouble cornering in city streets and be too loud to conform to legally allowed parameters.

That all said: If you want a LAV bike, buy a sparrow.

Uhm… it's about replacing two turbofans with four slightly smaller ones.

And the request is about a slightly bigger, more powerful Sparrow, essentially.

It's not about four "slightly" smaller ones. That wouldn't cause any problems, but about four "small" ones.
And as I said in the post you replied to: he should just buy a sparrow, then. Take one of the provided alternatives and assume it uses a four-fan design and you're done.

On a sidenote: Mythbusters tried to build a thing that looked exactly like the sparrow. It didn't fly. Not enough lift.

Unsafe is fun, not to mention that the people manning these flying deathtraps will be criminals and go-gangs mostly.

Besides, 60+ years of aeuronautics developmetn might make the drone incredibly light and the engines more powerful - and silent. How advanced was the materials and engines of aircrafts in 1950 compared to today...

Otherwise one can just call the Lockheed Sparrow an airbike and make it look like a cool futuristic flying bike and go from there.

Interesting, but they are not aircraft engineers otoh,

A company in china has designed something close to a sparrow which is a personal backpack helicopter - that is as close to a sparrow you can get and that one works.

No, unsafe is dangerous. That is only fun for thrill seeker. Thrill seekers make piss poor shadowrunners.
And go-gangs drive motorbike as a sign of their affiliation and manhood. The sparrow, or even a LAV bike would no longer count as a motorbike. Go-Ganger would laugh you off their turf, if they caught you in one, regardless the shape.



That is what I suggested, so why did you quote my suggestion and replied to it as if you disagreed?

This is why my post count is so low, every time I post something on a forum there is always that one person that come back with why would you want (x) its stupid and makes no sense with physics. Nevermind the fact that elves can throw spells that can turn you into a pile of sludge and dragons have winged flight regardless of the fact that they weigh more than a small building. But I can't have a cool (call it whatever you want) that fly's at low altitudes and is fun...

Here is my picture of it btw...

Vector Bike

So, your logic goes, because Magic exists, I can have a magical hoverbike that doesn't use any magic?

Also, looking at that bike, It's going to be dumping 650 deg C exausts gasses onto your leg. That's not fun, that's hot enough that Aluminium is deforming.
As people have suggested, the Sparrow, modified to be something like This thing, might work and not kill you when you try to ride it.

This one is cuter.

I don't think lack of oxigen will be much of an issue there - you're throwing the exhaust gases away, which displaces fresh air toward you. Though the fuel consumption (and teh oxygen needed to burn it) will probably make using it indoors a bad idea unless you have a lot of room and/or good ventilation


Note on the 'vector bike' picture : looks like a great legburner to me too. And it gets me wondering : how is that thing supposed to generate enough lift to fly ? It lacks lifting surfaces (well, maybe the body could generate enough lift to keep airborne, but the required speed will rip any rider away), and the jet engines don't seems able to deflect down.

The only 'canon' way to get it airborne in an earth-level gravity would be a mage using a 'levitate' spelle on it. Not what I'd call convenient.

Awesome drawing. Nice work! That said: it would kill you =)
Besides: you asked why you couldn't do it anymore and I gave you a reason. If you still want it and your group is fine with it, just use the stats of the sparrow.

I have one slightly unrelated question: do you have any fun when you play Shadowrun?

That just screams SR to me.

1) Why is it asymmetrical?

2) What's that pod on the left-side spar supposed to be?

3) Most important, how does it stay up? There are no apparent lifting surfaces.

I'm pretty sure it's just a design exercise and not an actual prototype or anything. Asymmetry like that makes equipment look more functional and purpose-built, I assume that's why the artist designed it that way although obviously I'm in no place to say for sure.

I agree with Caadium though, it's pretty bad ass.

Also, Tsithlis, I think your drawing is also bad ass, and if I was running a game and you brought that to me I would bend over backwards as a GM to find a way to get it into the story.

It could be designed for racing on an oval track whereupon you only turn right (like Nascar only on flying motorcycles and way cooler...)

Tons of it.
And if you wondered about the statement you quoted: no thrill seeker ever survived even a single one of my adventures. I have problem with killing off the characters of my players if they make mistakes.

Sweet, I was wondering the same thing. Thanks for answering it.

Also: I think it's really awsome that you found a group which suits your GMing style. It's always nice when everything works out.

Now then, since you play your game your way, and other people play their games their way, why are you being so very, very negative on this person's jet bike?

Btw, I like your picture Tsithlis. I'm quite ok with: "How does this work?" "I don't know, I'm not a professional scientist, nor am I from the future. Is it balanced for your game?" "Sure, looks fun."

Isn't that how it should always be? I wouldn't run my campaigns that way, if my players had no fun in them. We just like figuring out extravagant solutions to difficult problems, so planning and charater interaction take up most of our advantures rather than nuzzle flash action.



I am not negative about his bike. He asked why the rules to build it aren't available anymore and I gave him a reason. Aside from that I even gave him an option to achieve his goal despite the missing rules: to simly use the sparrow as a template and call it by a different name.

If you think my comment towards his picture was negative, then you misunderstood me. I think his drawing is awesome and I might even copy it for one of our more sci-fi rp sessions. That said, he pictured his thrusters as jet engines. They'd roast his legs off, while active. That's why I said that bike would kill him. I still think it looks awesome, though. I wish I had that artistic talent.

Oh, silly internets. Normally we need a *sarcasm* button; in this case I apparently needed a *not sarcasm* one.

Yeah, if you asked for something like that in my game, I'd say maybe, Point out that JETS would fry you, and suggest something else as a mode of propusion, probably a prop based/ Super High Tech Ion drive.

Then, for stats, I'd go for a Similar Model to the Sparrow. Faster and less manuverable,

Something like
Entertainment Systems JetByke Handling +0 , Accel 15/40, Speed 110, Pilot 3 Body 4 Armor 2 Sensor 1 Available 12R Cost 20,000

Actually, if you had maglev capabilities built into gridlink systems, you could have pretty much anything "flying" along no problem as long it it stayed to the main roads.

Why not have the front two thrusters being turbo fans and the back two thrusters being jets?

This way you can still have forward propulsion and not burn off your legs.

That would work.

Smaller turbofans for maneuverability and lift and a jet for forward propulsion

I figured the front jets would be angled down to provide lift, thus saving the riders legs and actually allowing this contraption to make some sense. (its a very good drawing by the way... did you draw it yourself Tsithlis?)

That works up until the moment you have to brake...

Hmm, good point.

It might work if you have Airbrakes and a possibility to reverse the jet stream akin to vector thrust nozzles on some modern fighter jets - just make sure it avoid the drivers feet.

Wow this thread sploded while I was away! Okay to clear up a few things about this image of the bike...

The front thrusters are pointed back at the legs of the occupant of the bike but are not active in that state. The front thrusters are rotary and rotate down to maintain stable lift during the bikes VSTOL operations (They can also be used in braking operations by rotating forward to slow the bikes speed). They are also used as air intakes to power two air thrusters that are located underneath the bike that maintain lift during its operations (hence the very large open intake on the front of the bike as well). The main power thrusters as can be seen are on the rear of the bike and expel most of the exhaust away from the bikes passenger. These create power and slight lift thereby explaining its operations as best as I can without being an aeronautical engineer. I tried to make the bike as realistically plausible in the future of 2070 as I could but I am neither a physicist or an engineer.

I am actualy not sure, if fighter jets can inverse their engine thrust. I know jetliners can, but their jet engines work on a different principle. I'd have to do some extra digging there.

All things considered, the health risks to the driver are not even the biggest cons of a jetbike. Maneuverability and fuel economy are.

To give you a (horribly scewed, but approximate) excemple: If you were to use enough JetCat P-200 jet engines (each an exhaust temperature of 630°C or 1166°F) and assuming the jetbike (without engines) weighs about 200kg (you can't use carbon or plastics because of the exhaust temperatures, so you're pretty much stuck with aluminium and titanium) and the rider with gear weighs about another 100kg (so no Trolls or heavy Orks here), you'd need approximately 15 P-200 jet engines to merely get it off the ground. We're not even talking forward movement, yet. And since the jetbike has no wings and as a result no uplift of its own while moving forward, you need to provide thrust downwards and forwards, to even get moving. So, let us be generous and assume a directly proportional distribution and simply double the required lift: 30 P-200 Jet engines.

That yields a final fuel comsumption of 21.9 l/min or 5.79 gallons(US)/min. SR4 assumes a 6hr operation time for each vehicle. As a result, the nescessary fuel tank would need a max volume of 7,884l or 2082,73 gal(US) or 49,59 bbl.

Also, keep in mind that we didn't factor in the weight of the fuel, while calculating the nescessary engines and uplift. To lift a 7 ton jetbike, you'd need around 330 P-200 jet engines... So even if we completely ignore the weight of the fuel, nescessary to operate the bike, the fuel consumption would still be around 6 gallons a minute. Now compare that to your average bike...

It should be pretty obvious, why a Jetbike has not been developed in a world that uses LAVs for military applications already.

Wait your complaining about how much a jet bike would take to get off the ground but you're okay with the fact that a MIG 67 is using what appears to be only 6 engines and is effectively a flying house?

I agree, and even LAV’s that don’t even have “Vertical Takeoff And Landing” are fuel guzzlers and require a landing strip to takeoff. They would most likely require even more fuel if they need to be able to hover.

Let us assume that the 60+ years of aeuronautic development would cut down on:
A: Improved Engine Power
B: Improved Fuel Consumption
C: Lighter Materials
D: Heat Resistant Non-Metal Materials

We could make it easy and imagine a -60% requirement but jet engines would be a stretch.

I we take your 30 jet engines as a requirement we could assume that we instead require 12 jet engines and 8,8 litres/min. This would still require a fueltank of approximately 3000 liters for a 6 hour operation.

I do believe it would be possible with small turbofans and electric engines that can (today) have incredible torque to get the turboprops up to speed and fuel consumption in fuel cells would be even less.

But yea, single human jet engines might be a stretch.

Makes we wonder how big feet you need to have those hoverfeet in augmentation…gotta be the size of tables to lift a troll…

The MiG-67 is a decaton military group transport with military grade vector thrust jet engines. Also, 6 engines is the minimum for the MiG-67, as we don't know whether or not it also sports additional englines beneath its hull for extra uplift.
If we considered 6 engines to be the case, the fuel consumption of a MiG-67 would average around 1.5 lb/lbf-hr with an plausible max thrust of somewhere around 270 kN (or the equivalent of around 1,300 P-200 engines).

You are not really trying to argue, that a BIKE (for crying out loud) can have the nescessary fuel tank to provide enough fuel to keep it in the air for more than just a few minutes. The MiG-67 is CONDSIDERABLY larger than what you are trying to build here, with a considerably larger fuel capacity and still piss poor fuel economy.

I can understand your desire on the basis of personal preferance. I can fully undestand your personal prference based on the visuals as I, myself think that picture looks awesome. I'd love to have jetbike like that, just for the looks of it. I can also understand that you are trying to make it fit within the SR universe.
But you can NOT expect anyone with at least an ounce of sense to consider your proposal plausible.

You asked why the rules weren't there anymore, I gave you the most plausible explanation. After that, I provided you with the means to still achieve your goal, within the limits of SR. But you are not content with a vehicle that looks like the one you want to have, but works on the mechanics of the sparrow. You really want a jet-bike. With real jet engines. And that is nonsense. It would be impractical, uneconomic, maneuverable as a brick and a direct hazard to the driver's health. Nothing you could POSSIBLY say will chage that fact.

Just use the base of the sparrow and be done with it.

I'm no expert on jet engines but I wonder if jet engines power output is equal to increase in size.

The output of an engine that is 10 times larger than another might be far more than 10 times the power of the smaller one.

Hence the 6 engines on a far larger vessel might be twelve to twenty times more powerful.

Way different, actually.

To give you a comparison:

JetCat P-200 RC Jet Engine: Max Thrust - 230N
Soloviev D-30KU-157 turbofan engine (MiG-31): Max Thrust - 103,000 N

So what are the usual Weight to Thrust Ratio then, is it linear?

How much does a JetCat RC jet engine weight?
And how much does a Soloviev D-30KU-157 turbofan engine weight?

Yes I know, I can probably find it on the net but...

Actually I think you are misunderstanding me, I am perfectly fine with using the sparrow and explaining that the lower thrust from the bottom of the bike that maintains altitude is similar to the fans of the sparrow. I was saying that the fact that they have made a small non-aerodynamic house vectored thrust seems just as implausible as a bike. Specifically with the same problems as the bike with maneuverability and stopping.

Well, they don't specifically say it is a JET POWERED vector thrust drone for example.

Even the NIMROD is pictured as having propeller based propulsion.

In fact i don't think ANY drone is jet powered in SR4, at least not through description.

Not to mention the Sparrow also says that it uses vectored thrust engines as well bringing up what exactly is vector thrust? I think this is causing a lot of the confusion I was stating vector thrust as being any engine that thrusts in a specific direction not necessarily rockets. The two engines on the sparrow are vector thrust engines yet they point directly at the driver and do not harm him.

*squints*

No, there are two large vector thrust turbofans on each side of the pilot. Neither fan points towards him. Since they are also large Turboprops and not jet engines they will only blow air close to him and not hot flames.

SR4 should clarify what they actually means in detail. We have several engine types to choose from and each vehicle should have a description of how it functions.

Propeller
Tilt Wing Propeller
Turboprop Vector Thrust

Jet Engine
Tilt Wing Jet Engine
Jet Engine Vector Thrust

Just to name a few