Hello Ethan,

> On August 19, 2019 at 2:07 PM Ethan McKinney <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jump fuel is simple to calculate, right? That may have been the reason for sticking them together. (Minimizing

> calculations I'm multiple locations.)

> By contrast, you have to do a lot of calculations to figure power plant fuel.

CT power plant fuel requires a little more calculation than for the jump fuel. The jump fuel tankage is not included in the jump drive volume.

MT Referee's Manual Craft Design page 83 10 - Fuel 1 Required Fuel tankage: "Total required fuel (in kiloliters) from all parts of the craft. Note endurance of the craft (in hours, days, or weeks)."

On MT Referee's Manual page 89 the directions for filling out the Other block states "List the cargo capacity of the craft in kiloliters, the fuel capacity of the craft in kiloliters, the object size, the emission level, and any other pertinent design notes.

JD3 fuel = 202,500

TL 14 Fusion Power Plant fuel = 340,420

Total Fuel = 202,500 + 340,420 = 542,920 kl

In the example the jump fuel volume is included in the jump drive volume.

Checking the total fuel tankage on the Regal's UCP is listed in the Other: block as 408,285 kl. Total fuel Volume - Power plant fuel volume should = Jump Drive Fuel volume. 408,285 - 340,420 = 67,865 kl.The 67,865 kl is for the jump fuel and power plant purification systems.

The UCP does not show "total required fuel"

I calculate the jump drive and power plant fuel tankage with the jump drive and power plant. The fuel calculations are totaled in the fuel tankage section.

> It wouldn't hurt anything to move jump fuel to the same section as all the other fuel, though.

At least moving the jump fuel into the fuel section would provide a, in my opinion, more accurate fuel tankage volume. Personally, I would list the purification plants separately in the UCP and not part of the fuel tankage.

Tom Rux