Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Collimatrix

Forum Nobility
  • Posts

    7,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    185

Everything posted by Collimatrix

  1. I have read that Kornet does something similar to avoid the missile hitting obstacles on the way to the target.
  2. Have you ever thought that the ideal shape for an anti-ship or anti-tank missile is a large, angry sphere? https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f1/72/89/634aacb6736f87/US3045596.pdf Well, neither has anyone else since the 1950s. Enjoy this bizarre patent.
  3. I don't see how this is a problem. What's the risk; that the Australians carve out the core of their own submarine to make a bomb?
  4. Clearance during powerpack removals may also be a factor.
  5. Hi, welcome to SH AriesV. IIRC, the equations for estimating performance of long rods against homogeneous armor include a fractional exponent on the inverse cosine of the obliquity. Long rods normalize into sloped armor significantly, and you can actually see this in some test pictures: So I would expect a monolithic sloped armor to perform less efficiently than a flat one vs. APFSDS. A series of spaced, sloped plates might be a different story. As I understand it, it is very difficult to get APFSDS to ricochet. Exact angle at which ricochet occurs is a fairly complex question which involves the density and moment of inertia around the long axis of the penetrator as well as the hardness and probably elastic modulus of the armor, rather than just a fixed angle. As APFSDS penetrators have gotten ever greater aspect ratios and switched from steel to tungsten/uranium, it has become correspondingly harder to make them bounce.
  6. Tests of aluminum/steel composite plates by the US in the 1930s: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953774.pdf
  7. A quick search didn't turn anything up, so I apologize if this has already been asked before. Most sources credit the Leo 2's hull ammo rack with 27 rounds, in a hexagonally packed arrangement of two rows of six rounds and three rows of five rounds for five rows total. This is illustrated schematically: but actual photos show only 22 rounds, with four rows alternating six and five like so: What gives?
  8. The numbers he's getting for that test though; ~50% reduction with a large and variable amount of fragments, are in line with other estimates I'd seen published of APS vs APFSDS.
  9. I'm somewhat sanguine on radar stealth for ground vehicles. Aircraft stealth is a formidable engineering problem, of course. But consider that aircraft are very often being illuminated by radars against the backdrop of the sky, which might as well be pitch black as far as a radar is concerned. The contrast is nearly perfect. Aircraft have to worry about being lit up with many different frequencies of radar waves too, which makes the problem harder because not all RAM works well against all frequencies, and different frequencies respond differently to different sized features on the aircraft. A ground vehicle is, well, on the ground. It's hiding out amongst a bunch of ground clutter, so its RCS reduction will have to be somewhat less extreme for it to blend in vs. against a cold, featureless sky. Furthermore, the range of frequencies used for fire control and detection radars against ground targets is much smaller; typically millimetric-wave. So I suspect that useful reduction in detection and targeting range against the sorts of radars seen on attack helicopters is possible for tanks without anything like the extreme shaping seen on stealth aircraft.
  10. I've noticed a lot of ballistics FEA simulations popping up on Youtube lately. A result of the ever-dropping price of number-crunching power? Who knows. I cannot, of course, vouch for the accuracy of these simulations. They sure are pretty to look at though.
  11. Hello, and welcome to the forums. The standard J2M definitely had a mechanically driven supercharger; basically all WWII piston engines do. I believe that little accessory case strapped to the back of the engine has the supercharger in it somewhere: The heat dissipation finning on WWII radial engines is truly a magnificent form of art. AIUI, the engine cowling cooling fan reduces power at low airspeeds, since it's strapped to the engine crankshaft and is therefore taking some power to generate cooling airflow, but that this power loss basically goes away at high airspeeds as the ram air pressure of the incoming airstream forces the fan around and offloads and power loss it would otherwise cause. I don't think it does much, if anything, for manifold pressure. The FW-190 and the Raiden both have exceptionally tightly wrapped radial engine cowlings. In order to ensure adequate airflow for cooling at low speeds, that fan needs to be there to actively shove more air over the cylinder fins. As for why high altitude favors the Jack over the Hellcat, according to this site, the Jack has 1,800 horsepower at takeoff and 1,410 horsepower at 15,700 feet. Per this very good book, the F6F3 has 2000 horsepower at takeoff, 1800 at 13,500 feet and 1650 at 22,500 feet. In other words, the Hellcat has a slightly higher percentage of its takeoff power rating (82.5% vs 80%) 6,800 feet higher than the Jack. So, that big P&W mill is clearly capable of maintaining a better percentage of its power at altitude, on top of being a more powerful (and larger) engine to begin with. However, the Raiden was a land-based fighter, you know, despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy. The F6F has gigantic barn door wings to ensure good handling during carrier approaches. The Raiden has teeny tiny little wings, since as a land-based fighter it can afford much higher landing speeds.
  12. Part of my brain still refuses to accept that "solutionize" is an actual piece of metallurgical terminology and not something that George W. Bush came up with. He's not a problemifier, he's a solutionizer.
  13. Paul Hazell has a patent on ERA that uses a ceramic flyer plate which fragments shortly after interacting with the jet or penetrator, with the idea being that it reduces collateral damage. Other than that, I am not sure.
  14. That's a good question, and I'm not sure. Per the spec sheet N-L-M posted, it is a solution hardening (which is the same thing as "age hardening;" metallurgical terminology is nonsense sometimes) alloy. I bet that small titanium addition is what's doing the trick. So the precipitation hardened part could be reset. However, it also has a bit of carbon in it, unlike a lot of other maraging steels. If you tried to "reset" the heat treatment, that carbon could cause some problems. Some carbides form at higher temperatures than the intermetallic precipitates, and if the metal is hot enough that the carbon is mobile and can diffuse (basically, the hotter the alloy gets, the more random kinetic energy the carbon atoms have, and the more they can drift around), then the carbon may start to form larger and larger carbide inclusions through a process called Ostwald Ripening. There's an ideal size of carbide or intermetallic inclusion particle size. If they're too small, they don't do much of anything. If they're too big, they tend to embrittle the steel because the carbides themselves are very hard but brittle. If they're just right they tend to pin dislocations and prevent plastic deformation thereby.
  15. I've seen some papers demonstrating that it can be done at a small scale, but I haven't seen anything saying yea or nay about large-scale, long-term durability. So I don't know for sure. Assuming that the weld itself is sound, one of the interesting properties about maraging steels is that the heat treatment can be "reset." The strengthening mechanism in maraging steels is the precipitation of tiny inclusions of intermetallic compounds (which is why maraging steels usually have weird shit in them like titanium; that's what helps form the intermetallic). By heating up the steel, these intermetallics can be re-dissolved, the steel cooled back down, and then heated up again to a somewhat lower temperature to re-precipitate out the intermetallics and re-harden the metal. It is my understanding that doing this will basically erase any HAZ from a weld, although it doesn't get rid of any mechanical defects of the weld if it has incomplete penetration. This also assumes that you have a big enough oven to fit the entire object that you stir-friction welded together out of maraging steel.
×
×
  • Create New...