Atmospheric operation of small craft, incorrect assumptions

[far-trader]

Speaking of induced drag and basic aeronautics...

...this all started with the standard hull. A non-aerodynamic body. Lots of drag to factor there if you want to bring that into the equation. Drag that is going to be fighting your supposed turn-on-a-credit spin to thrust in a different direction. Big time. No, if you want snappy performance maneuvering in an atmosphere, even with grav drives, you're going to need an aerodynamic body and control surfaces and the structure to back it up. Something more than a standard hull.

 

[rust]

ETA: at least, as far as i understand the tactic...

Yep, that is the point, both to stay low and fast to avoid being spotted and
attacked and to avoid to continue to fly in a predictable straight line once
the bombs have been dropped - and to have the smoke and dust of the
blast blocking the sight on the retreating aircraft also helps.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

As written on pg. 56 High Guard:
"A standard–hull small craft may still enter atmosphere, but is
very ungainly and ponderous, capable of only non–lift generating
powered flight."

This is a VERY strange statement. A vehicle using a gravitic drive to maneuver in the atmosphere has much better options than a craft that requires lifting surfaces to operate. Our Air Force would LOVE to get rid of lifting surface fighters and exchange them for gravitic, non-lifting surface maneuver craft. Also, a cylinder rounded on both end with NO lifting surface would be much more aerodynamic than a craft designed as a lifting body due to induced drag.

The config section of the books needs to be rewritten.

I always thought that the ponderous maneuvering had to do with the small craft being less aerodynamic than a similar sized winged aircraft, and that they were thus more severely affected by weather conditions while in flight. YMMV.

 

[DFW]

With your vision of the way grav drives work perhaps,

Not my vision. See Vehicles supplement.

 

[DFW]

DFW, why exactly do they become instantly obsolete.

I can't fully explain without giving you more extensive info on aeronautics as a subject. Sorry, this isn't a possible without MUCH time and effort.

 

[DFW]

I always thought that the ponderous maneuvering had to do with the small craft being less aerodynamic than a similar sized winged aircraft, and that they were thus more severely affected by weather conditions while in flight. YMMV.

No, a small craft in the shape of a cylinder rounded on the front without wings is like a missile. More aerodynamic than a regular aircraft, less drag.

 

[rust]

See Vehicles supplement.

Where in the table on page 8 of Civilian Vehicles the gravitic drives have
a base agility of 0 while flyers with rotors, propellers and jets have a base
agility of 1 ?

 

[barnest2]

I can't fully explain without giving you more extensive info on aeronautics as a subject. Sorry, this isn't a possible without MUCH time and effort.

I know some aeronautics, give it a try...

ETA: hell, PM me if that makes it easier...

 

[DFW]

I can't fully explain without giving you more extensive info on aeronautics as a subject. Sorry, this isn't a possible without MUCH time and effort.

I know some aeronautics, give it a try...

ETA: hell, PM me if that makes it easier...

1st Q to test your knowledge level: Why was the Immelman turn developed and how does this relate to basic aeronautics?

 

[far-trader]

DFW, why exactly do they become instantly obsolete.

I can't fully explain without giving you more extensive info on aeronautics as a subject. Sorry, this isn't a possible without MUCH time and effort.

You keep coming back to this style of "winning" your little debates and it's damned annoying. None of us here are idiots. But then we don't claim to be experts in several fields like yourself either. I'm not saying you aren't, but if you are I'd think you'd be able to explain your points clearly and concisely. Or at least make the attempt.

If you can't be bothered to show the claimed proofs of your position then don't pull this lame "I'm an expert, you wouldn't understand, and it would take too long to explain to you idiots why you're wrong." Just concede the argument and move on.

 

[barnest2]

1st Q to test your knowledge level: Why was the Immelman turn developed and how does this relate to basic aeronautics?

Ok first off, which one?
The combat version allowed for two high speed diving passes, which in world war one aircraft was the best angle of attack (speed, exposed enemy pilot, and engine), as it would normally be performed after a first diving attack. However, it assumes an inferior enemy aircraft, as they had to be unable to follow the attacking aircraft in its climb. It also allows for a rapid reversal of the aircrafts facing.
The aerobatics version is simply pretty and entirely irrelevant for modern combat, but it looks pretty from the ground because of the loop and spin.

Relation to aeronautics? umm... well its mainly based on pilot skill because you have to know exactly when to apply full yaw, just before the stall (in the combat version) and so rotate the aircraft into a downward facing position. Otherwise, please reword your question to make it clearer.

 

[DFW]

Relation to aeronautics? umm... well its mainly based on pilot skill because you have to know exactly when to apply full yaw, just before the stall (in the combat version) and so rotate the aircraft into a downward facing position. Otherwise, please reword your question to make it clearer.

It exists because it allows efficient exchange of energy and because you have to maintain sufficient air speed to keep from losing lift. With grav vehicle there is no need to develop such maneuvers as you can just yaw 180 and apply thrust. This is FAR superior for obvious reasons. Without the need to maintain air speed for lift, the entire game changes in favor of the craft with grav tech.

 

[barnest2]

I don't think efficient energy exchanges was that Max Immelmann had in mind when he discovered a trick for shooting down enemy pilots. to him it was all about being able to get into a firing position faster and better than his opponent, therefore winning a dogfight. If you just span and thrusted out of a diving attack, surely this would leave you below your enemy, and therefore in a less advantageous position for dogfighting. The enemy would then be in the better position...

 

[DFW]

You keep coming back to this style of "winning"

Has nothing to do with "winning". I've referenced basic aeronautics. Do you REALLY want me to start explaining Bernoulli's principle which is needed to be understood before dissecting why airplanes behave the way they do? Also, I never claimed to be an expert on anything. Just claimed to have basic understanding of the principles involved. Don't ask me about nuclear physics
as I'd fall flat on my face...

 

[DFW]

I don't think efficient energy exchanges was that Max Immelmann had in mind when he discovered a trick for shooting down enemy pilots.

Not in those words but, conceptually, yes.

 

[barnest2]

So in terms of basic aeronautics yes its not important for a grav engined aircraft, but in terms of dogfighting, why would these manoeuvres be obsolete? or is that not what you are arguing?

 

[DFW]

So in terms of basic aeronautics yes its not important for a grav engined aircraft, but in terms of dogfighting, why would these manoeuvres be obsolete? or is that not what you are arguing?

Dog fighting maneuvers were/are developed around the absolute necessity of maintaining forward speed, angle of attack, etc., sufficient to sustain flight.

When you take out that part of the equation you no longer have turning fights
trying to get behind your opponent, etc., etc. An airplane can't stop, go below stall speed, change facing without regard to maintaining lift. It goes on and on and on.

 

[Jon Brazer Enterprises]

As I understand it (and I admit, I may be wrong) the closest approximation we have to a grav drive today is 1) helicoptors 2) other vertical takeoff aircraft (i.e. the AV-8B or the V-22.

So to the OP's point, for our home game we just give a penalty to rolls in atmosphere for non-streamlined hulls and call it good enough.

 

[barnest2]

I think you would still have turning fights, because you will still be trying to stop the enemy from getting into their optimum attack position. I think the best example of this i've ever seen is BSG (the new one), not grav, but they have the whole turn on a penny, huge manoeuvrability thing going for them.

I also agree that helicopters are probably the closest real world equivalent, and as far as i can remember there has only ever been one heli on heli engagement, though i cant remember when it was :S (possibly a war in the middle east, one of the ones involving Israel)

 

[DFW]

As I understand it (and I admit, I may be wrong) the closest approximation we have to a grav drive today is 1) helicoptors 2) other vertical takeoff aircraft (i.e. the AV-8B or the V-22.

So to the OP's point, for our home game we just give a penalty to rolls in atmosphere for non-streamlined hulls and call it good enough.

Helicopters would be closer. Imagine being able to build a supersonic helo and take out lift requirements... Bye, bye, opponent.