Deckplan Illustrations: What is the issue??
- Thread starter mechascorpio
- Start date
far-trader
Mongoose
DFW said:
It's another of your many gifts to bring it out in me.
far-trader
Mongoose
DFW said:far-trader said:
Can't bring out what isn't there.
Peace though.
:lol:
Sure
It's in us all, some just prove particularly frustrating and able to get under my skin at times.
DFW said:far-trader said:
Can't bring out what isn't there.
Peace though.
You guys - get a room!
Back to the topic though, most scifi ships are designed for the Cool not the Practical. The fact that Trav boats are (generally) designed for the Practical is at odds with other designs, but it's not inconceivable that more than one person was involved in ship design during the "iconic ships" period of CT.
Some of my favorite designs (the old Type-T Patrol Cruiser, the "Super Dolly Parton" A-2 Far Trader) aren't practical but they look good. Others (the "boats", the Subsidized Trader, the Azhanti High Lightning) seem more practical but still have a certain coolness.
Thought the Tigress still makes me think of "Heavy Metal" (that's good nyborg, man!).
That new Vargr Salvage ship is further proof that a design can bring the Cool and the Practical at the same time, but it's not streamlined so has more freedom to be cool looking.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
DFW said:
Isn't there a corollary to CLark's LAw along the lines of:
"THe product of any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from art"
Basically, once you overcome the basic technological issues, you make things that look nice.
LBH
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
Somebody say' Type T'..... stay tuned....
Currently at a pause while I figure what to do next, got a few thing floating about in the space dock...
I did the Khoghue, because I thought the Vargr needed a Junker and something with a distrubuted hull... hmmm a Vargr Miner.... next maybe...
Currently at a pause while I figure what to do next, got a few thing floating about in the space dock...
I did the Khoghue, because I thought the Vargr needed a Junker and something with a distrubuted hull... hmmm a Vargr Miner.... next maybe...
why isn't a type 's' a lifting body?
Please give concrete reasons....
of all the shapes in traveller published ship designs. it would work better than almost any other for that purpose ( compare to the Martin X-24b lifting body, McDonnell/Douglass A-12, or the x-33 for general shape/layout )
for other ships, the type 'R' merchant does look a little like Russian Kliper spacecraft.
a saucer shape has a large speed range ( Vought XF5u ) but it would suffer at super/hypersonic speeds due to mach angle effects. It would also be less directionally stable that a type 's'
flat panels that reflect radar energies away from receivers seem to be the preferred method of reducing radar cross section so far. See 'Have Blue/F-117' or any off the 'stealth' naval warships.
I'd think that the Type 'S' would have a very small RCS from the front and sides, although the rear aspect would suck. Top and bottom aspects reflect away at an angle, so they might not be so horrible.
Please give concrete reasons....
of all the shapes in traveller published ship designs. it would work better than almost any other for that purpose ( compare to the Martin X-24b lifting body, McDonnell/Douglass A-12, or the x-33 for general shape/layout )
for other ships, the type 'R' merchant does look a little like Russian Kliper spacecraft.
a saucer shape has a large speed range ( Vought XF5u ) but it would suffer at super/hypersonic speeds due to mach angle effects. It would also be less directionally stable that a type 's'
DFW said:
flat panels that reflect radar energies away from receivers seem to be the preferred method of reducing radar cross section so far. See 'Have Blue/F-117' or any off the 'stealth' naval warships.
I'd think that the Type 'S' would have a very small RCS from the front and sides, although the rear aspect would suck. Top and bottom aspects reflect away at an angle, so they might not be so horrible.
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
lastbesthope said:
Perfect, pretty much somes up my design ethic.
)Ishmael said:
The Type-R definitely seems like a practical design to me. Someone out in webland did a 200dt relative called the Erin class (with far/free trader/yacht variants) that was similarly well-streamlined.
A Type-S that held the right angle of attack (nose slightly up) seems like it could generate lift, but my knowledge of aerospace engineering is limited to daydreaming about lifting bodies, X-15s and 60's era space capsules, and playing around with orbit shaping and rendezvous procedures in that Orbiter program.
With antigrav lifters aerodynamic lift is less important, though directional stability still is if you plan to operate in an atmosphere.
Ishmael said:
A disk could re-enter and decelerate with a circular cross-section, only flattening out once below hypersonic speeds. And it could lift/fly up to the edge of the atmosphere before turning on the acceleration when leaving.
Ishmael said:
The problem is having LARGE flat surfaces that an enemy's radar can be perpendicular to. That would be ALL the surfaces on a Type S. An F-117 breaks up the large flat surfaces into smaller flat surfaces with different angles. Space is even more of a 3D environment than flying in an atmosphere. So, the Type S would be a nightmare as far as radar cross section goes.
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
hdan said:
Well, its done and submitted, just wait and see... meanwhile.. an earlier effort. Sure she'd fly..
Just sure an interesting documentary on the Horten HO 229. And its stealthy characteristics....
IanBruntlett
Emperor Mongoose
Neat
Ishmael said:
It's not a lift generating airfolil in it's classic design - the new MGT design could be, with it's curvy hull, but not the classic wedgie type S. To generate lift you need lower pressure over the upper surface of the airfoil. This is usually achieved by having a larger airflow distance over the upper surface, hence wings lend to have a curved upper and flat lower surface. As the air passing over the top of the wing has to travel further it is "stretched" (yes, I know, crude and ugly description) and thus the pressure is lower overall and lift is generated (or up-suck is generated as I always thought of it). Look at the wings of the space shuttle -thick and curved on the leading edge that then taper down towards the trailing edge, but the bottom of the wing is flat.
The classic type S has a symetrical, flat airfoil with a lower thickness along it's leading than trailing edge (no idea what effect that has but all the wings I've seen have had thicker leading edges). It could probably glide for a bit, but as I understand it, she won't generate lift in her basic shape.
G.
DFW said:
I didn't say that it was totally stealthed up - I know she's nowhere near that faceted - I just said that the angled panels would increase stealth from certain angles. Sure, you get flat on and she'll light up like an Xmas tree, but I'm seeing that from a direct ahead position, the return would be scattered.
G.
GJD said:
sure it will generate lift so long as the angle of attack is greater than 0. The curved surfaces of ordinary wings for non-symmetrical profiles simple give different angles-of-zero-lift, which along with angle on incidence affect angle of attack for level flight.
The problem with the wedge shape is the high profile drag unless you assume various tricks like suction slots, vortex generators, etc. to smooth out the airflow over the blunt end. This would do the same thing that base-bleed does for some artillery shells. Without such tricks, Lift/Drag ratios would be lower than desired, perhaps.
But I envisage the sturdy Type 's' as being similar to present day waverider designs which generate much of their lift with compression lift anyways.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/waverider.shtml
DFW said:
I'm not sure that this is fully true. Here is a link to a webpage with a little bit on Radar Cross Section ( http://www.mythical-buddies.com/index.php?q=Stealth_technology ).
On thing the article notes is that;
"Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles."
I believe (?) that this is alos the concept behind the shape of the Tumblehome hullform and sloped superstructure used on the US Navy's DDG 1000, where, if I am understanding correctly, it looks like a lot of effort has been made to align as much of the surfaces as possible into only a relatively few planes.
Additionally, here is another link on RCS in general http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml.
In this article it gives a table showing how RCS of some simple shapes will vary as theangle to the radar waves is varied.
If I am understanding the references above correctly, the radar reflection at angles perpendicular to those few planes of a type S or DDG 1000 type hull will be very high, but at other angles it should drop off fairly quickly and be really very low. In comparison to this, if I am understanding this correctly, when you have a shape like a sphere (or a cylinder when looking perpendicular to its axis of rotation) the reflection from any angle around it would be the same. Thus, if the reflection is great enough to be detected by your sensors, it will be detected at any angle, whereas something like the Type S (or the DDG 1000) if your perpendiculr to any of the few angles in its surface, the reflection should be very large and easily detectable, but if your off those angles, then the reflection will be much, much lower.
If I'm not mistaken, for the Type S I'd guess that its RCS would be very low from directly in front, directly to the sides, or directly above or below. I guess the trick though would be trying to ensure that any enemy sensor isn't perpendiculr to your main hull surfaces (especially the flat aft end).
Anyway, just some additional info to consider, based on my limited understanding of the stuff.
Regards
PF
PFVA63 said:
Correct as planes and ships are involved in a much more "2D" environment than other outer space. Ships don't have to worry about radar from underneath, planes, rarely from above, etc., etc. Reread the 1st line quoted above. THAT is only possible if you are oriented in a VERY specific way from the search radar on a consistent basis...
