Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sturgeon

Competition Topic Suggestions

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Given all the talk about OA-X, a mudfighter competition might be fun.

Thinking the same thing.

 

My pitch would be an Expedient Light Attack Aircraft (ELAA) competition; where your mud bird has to be designed so that most of its components can be made by light industry with minimal ramp-up time. It should also have design features and systems which make it flyable by pilots with a sports licence or equivalent. This would all be in addition to the usual load capacity, short field capacity and maintenance requirements. 

 

The overall idea is that you can stockpile major components (engines, cabins, control systems) for use as spares, then quickly slot them into new-built airframes if a fight looks likely. The pilots would come off their assembly line around the same time as the planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 10:24 AM, Toxn said:

Thinking the same thing.

 

My pitch would be an Expedient Light Attack Aircraft (ELAA) competition; where your mud bird has to be designed so that most of its components can be made by light industry with minimal ramp-up time. It should also have design features and systems which make it flyable by pilots with a sports licence or equivalent. This would all be in addition to the usual load capacity, short field capacity and maintenance requirements. 

 

The overall idea is that you can stockpile major components (engines, cabins, control systems) for use as spares, then quickly slot them into new-built airframes if a fight looks likely. The pilots would come off their assembly line around the same time as the planes.

 

I'd be game for this, though I'm not sure how to satisfy the sports license requirement without making it a drone. A 172 would make a shitty CAS plane (unless we gave it a RADIAL ENGINE), and that's higher performance than what a sport pilot license lets you fly. (Unless the term "sport license" means something different in South Africa).

 

Edit: via https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/frequently-asked-questions-about-sport-pilot

 

Quote

 

 

 

A light-sport aircraft is defined as:

  • 1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
  • 1,430 pounds maximum takeoff weight for aircraft intended for operation on water.
  • A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (V H) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.
  • A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
  • A single, reciprocating engine.
  • A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
  • A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
  • Maximum airspeed of 120 knots.
  • Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
  • Fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
  • A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (V S1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.


 

Examples of Light Sport Aircraft: https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/light-sport-aircraft

 

 

 

Granted, we can fudge those requirements a lot if we're in a third-world warzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

I'd be game for this, though I'm not sure how to satisfy the sports license requirement without making it a drone. A 172 would make a shitty CAS plane (unless we gave it a RADIAL ENGINE), and that's higher performance than what a sport pilot license lets you fly. (Unless the term "sport license" means something different in South Africa).

 

Edit: via https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/frequently-asked-questions-about-sport-pilot

 

 

Granted, we can fudge those requirements a lot if we're in a third-world warzone.

Sorry, I was being less than precise in my wording. I meant more that the pilot skill requirements were lowered using an always-on flight instructor or something - so that a dude with very basic flight training could reliably fly the aircraft and perform missions.

 

4 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I vote for something more conventional and less crazy than Toxn's idea. I think the simpler proposal would be easier for people to get excited about.

I'm trying to avoid us all making armed cessnas and crop dusters, because that's been done already.

 

What are you thinking about for specific requirements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toxn said:

Sorry, I was being less than precise in my wording. I meant more that the pilot skill requirements were lowered using an always-on flight instructor or something - so that a dude with very basic flight training could reliably fly the aircraft and perform missions.

 

I'm trying to avoid us all making armed cessnas and crop dusters, because that's been done already.

 

What are you thinking about for specific requirements?

 

I'll mull over it. Higher performance than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Less than that. More than an armed crop duster.

Cool. Hit us with a detailed suggestion - I'm looking forwards to another competition and aircraft are one of my favourite things to design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given WWII examples, materials advances, and recent technology demonstrators I think 30mm is the very bottom baseline for autocannon tech. I'd personally not submit anything less than 40mm CT, with 50mm supershot looking super interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Belesarius said:

Given WWII examples, materials advances, and recent technology demonstrators I think 30mm is the very bottom baseline for autocannon tech. I'd personally not submit anything less than 40mm CT, with 50mm supershot looking super interesting.

 

30mm rail gun or GTFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking something in a size bracket where the use of either turboprops or turbofans would be practical. So perhaps about the same size as or maybe a bit larger than OA-X.

 

In the vein of how the  "modern day medium tank" was to the Sherman this would be "a modern day mudfighter", as with respect to, say, a Typhoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low Intensity Close Air Support (LICAS)

 

Requirement description: For a fixed-wing single- or two-seat aircraft intended to directly support friendly Infantry by attacking targets with precision and unguided weaponry in environments of low aerial and air defense threat, which is designed to be inexpensive, reliable, robust, maintainable, and operable from a wide variety of local airways and roads.

 

Specifications:

Crew: 1 (one or two places acceptable)

Cruise speed: Not less than 340 miles per hour

Stall speed: Not more than 110 miles per hour

Radius: Not less than 250 miles to 2 hour loiter and return

Powerplant: Turbine (e.g., turboshaft or turbofan)

Maximum external ordnance load: Not more than 5,500 kg, not less than 2,200 kg

Hardpoints: No less than 6 underwing, 1 under body

Internal armament: One or two single barrel cannons of no more than 30mm caliber. Multi-barrel cannons of 23mm or less are acceptable. Cannons should be emplaced in modular stations (removable)

Armor: Cockpit and engine proof against 3 hits of 14.5mm or greater at a range of 100m or less. Canopy proof against 3 hits of .50 caliber M33 or greater. Canopy protection against 3 hits of .50 caliber M8 API preferred.

ISR: Modular ISR payload station compatible with current and future independent multispectral sensors

Ordnance compatibility: No less than four pylons compatible with AGM-65, AGM-114, GBU-31, GBU-38, GBU-39, GBU-53, GBU-54, Paveway series, LAU-10, and requested legacy ordnance. No less than two pylons compatible with AIM-9X and AIM-92 anti-air missiles. No less than two wet pylons. All pylons compatible with LAU-61 and LAU-68 rocket pods.


That's all for now. Hopefully it's kind of obvious what I'm getting at.

As I was thinking about it, I'm wondering if Toxn's contest idea might not be more stimulating. I guess we'll see.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Low Intensity Close Air Support (LICAS)

 

Requirement description: For a fixed-wing single- or two-seat aircraft intended to directly support friendly Infantry by attacking targets with precision and unguided weaponry in environments of low aerial and air defense threat, which is designed to be inexpensive, reliable, robust, maintainable, and operable from a wide variety of local airways and roads.

 

Specifications:

Crew: 1 (one or two places acceptable)

Cruise speed: Not less than 340 miles per hour

Stall speed: Not more than 110 miles per hour

Radius: Not less than 250 miles to 2 hour loiter and return

Powerplant: Turbine (e.g., turboshaft or turbofan)

Maximum external ordnance load: Not more than 5,500 kg, not less than 2,200 kg

Hardpoints: No less than 6 underwing, 1 under body

Internal armament: One or two single barrel cannons of no more than 30mm caliber. Multi-barrel cannons of 23mm or less are acceptable. Cannons should be emplaced in modular stations (removable)

Armor: Cockpit and engine proof against 3 hits of 14.5mm or greater at a range of 100m or less. Canopy proof against 3 hits of .50 caliber M33 or greater. Canopy protection against 3 hits of .50 caliber M8 API preferred.

ISR: Modular ISR payload station compatible with current and future independent multispectral sensors

Ordnance compatibility: No less than four pylons compatible with AGM-65, AGM-114, GBU-31, GBU-38, GBU-39, GBU-53, GBU-54, Paveway series, LAU-10, and requested legacy ordnance. No less than two pylons compatible with AIM-9X and AIM-92 anti-air missiles. No less than two wet pylons. All pylons compatible with LAU-61 and LAU-68 rocket pods.


That's all for now. Hopefully it's kind of obvious what I'm getting at.

As I was thinking about it, I'm wondering if Toxn's contest idea might not be more stimulating. I guess we'll see.

 

 

 

Joke's on you - I'm going to enter something that fits with my competition suggestion anyway :anticipation:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Joke's on you - I'm going to enter something that fits with my competition suggestion anyway :anticipation:

 

Does it kinda make sense what I'm going for, and does it seem interesting to people?

On the one hand, the general concept is pretty much a snoozefest. On the other hand, folks took something similar and really ran with it in the last contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Does it kinda make sense what I'm going for, and does it seem interesting to people?

On the one hand, the general concept is pretty much a snoozefest. On the other hand, folks took something similar and really ran with it in the last contest.

We have a few aerospace people here, so hopefully we can have some interesting submissions that aren't just 'tape two A-29s together'.

Which, come to think of it, would actually be pretty interesting in and of itself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, grab a bunch of OV-10 air frames from the boneyard, put the most engine and fuel as you can into the air frame, high tech max armored cockpit, AH-64 level electronics/designation equipment, a bunch of hardpoints, add Hellfire IIs, APKWS II, SDB2s and small JDAMs, and then giggle away to non-glamorus, cheap ISIS shredding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Uh, grab a bunch of OV-10 air frames from the boneyard, put the most engine and fuel as you can into the air frame, high tech max armored cockpit, AH-64 level electronics/designation equipment, a bunch of hardpoints, add Hellfire IIs, APKWS II, SDB2s and small JDAMs, and then giggle away to non-glamorus, cheap ISIS shredding.

0s2oODO.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2016 at 8:40 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

Why would 3D printing help make drones? There's nothing a 3D printer can do that a machinist can't do better.

 

Ermmm other than form impossible to machine geometries etc of course... And kinda a ton of other things to boot.

 

For example IDC how good your machinist is he can't repair high wear rub areas etc on helos in the field without just replacing the part he can't repair especially not insitu...

 

Coldspray does exactly this actively for the military in various exotic third world locales.

 

Impossible geometries and cold spray are just the start btw... "3d printing" can do a metric fuck ton of stuff machinists can't*

 

*note: the really fun printers are often ran by machinists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I'm game for the contest for sure just don't expect sanity or for me to use milspec components... Fuck y'all if i wanna build a supercluster out of nokia lumias I'll do it god damnit!

 

P.s: any objection to my doing a sorta halfbakery laden cartercopter mu dicking slowed rotor autogyro thing?

 

Backup plan is a straight up james bond is real narcissist fucktard slaying magnus effect and more conventional propulsion hybrid amphibious stol death weasel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×