Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

{Drums, sounds of chanting in distance} "Rooikat, Rooikat, Rooikat..."   {Opposing chanting begins, in counterpoint} "Ratel, Ratel, Ratel"

Mini-competition suggestion: fix-a-tank   Contestants will be given an existing, flawed AFV design (or a selection to choose from), as well as a country and a time period. They will then be

The Lone Free State of Texas needs YOU! The year is 2255, and the Lone Free State is still recovering from how hard it got hit during The Big One. The geography and politics of the local area are

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

 

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:

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By CharlieAlphaVictor
      This may have already been answered, but why are so many modern assault rifles gas-operated, when blowback-operated designs are (generally speaking) simpler/cheaper to manufacture and require less maintenance? I've been doing some research and can't seem to figure out why for the life of me. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
    • By Toxn
      This is the competition entry thread.
       
      Please submit your complete entries here (all entries will be judged complete when judging begins in the first week of November) and keep the other competition thread for discussion and chatter.
       
      Once judging is complete I will make a post here to discuss the entries and announce a winner.
       
      Best of luck!
       
      Update: final submissions should be in hand by the 22nd of November 2020.
    • By Toxn
      You are an engineer at an Italian locomotive and tractor-making company in early 1943. The writing is on the wall for the Italian army in North Africa, with a lot of equipment having been lost and the enemy on the brink of kicking the axis out of Tunisia and then heading across the Mediterranean. In short, things are looking more than a little desperate. 
       
      However, all is not lost. Il Duce himself has stepped in and, with the assistance of the Germans, procured both some of their finest captured vehicles for use in the upcoming defense of the homeland. Since many of these vehicles have been... gently used, and the existing firms like Ansaldo are flooded with orders, your firm has been asked to work on them in order to bring them up to the standards demanded by modern warfare. 
       
      In addition to these vehicles, the Germans have also graciously agreed to sell weapons from their existing stock of captured equipment, as well as providing production licenses for some of their more modern equipment. You have also been given permission to work with local weapons manufacturers in order to modify existing artillery to suit your needs. Italian automotive and engine manufacturers are similarly available to help. Finally; your firm's experience in locomotives and tractors means that you can modify hulls and put together turrets and turret rings. You can also produce castings (although not very large ones) and weld armour plates.
       
      Your job, which you have no choice but to accept, is to choose a vehicle from among the captured stock being offered for sale, and propose a series of plausible fixes in order to give it a fighting chance against the American and British equipment currently in the field (specifically light tanks and light anti-tank weapons).
       
      It is not foreseen that any of these vehicles will be able to plausibly take on modern medium or heavy designs head-on. Instead, what is wanted are general, implementable improvements to the characteristics of the chosen vehicle. These improvements should be aimed at making these vehicles more useful in the initial battles which are foreseen taking place against airborne and landing forces, in general cooperation with infantry, and as scouts.
       
      The submission should include one or more drawings or blueprints (at least a side view of the vehicle, but preferably a 3-point view and isometric view), a description of the modified vehicle, a description of how the modifications would be accomplished and a description of how the modifications would improve the design overall. The text of the submission should short and descriptive rather than long and exhaustive, and should not exceed 1000 words in total. Images may be photoshopped using existing pictures.
       
      Judging will be done on the basis of plausibility and effectiveness, with innovative solutions being encouraged in order to get the most bang for buck out of the base vehicle. Beyond implementation, the fixes should prioritise combat effectiveness while also improving reliability, crew ergonomics, communication, mobility and protection as much as possible.
       
      The foreign vehicles available for modification are:
      Renault R35 (already in service) Hotchkiss H35/39 Somua S35 (already in use for training purposes) T-26 BT-5 T-28 (only available in very small numbers, so need to be extremely effective) Panzer II Ausf.C  
      The foreign weapons immediately available for purchase are:
      15mm ZB-60 25mm Puteaux and Hotchkiss 3.7cm KPÚV vz. 34/Pak 34 (t) 3.7cm ÚV vz. 38/KwK 38(t)
      3.7cm Pak 36 4.0 cm Pak 192 (e) 45mm M1937 (53-K) 4.7cm KPÚV vz. 38/Pak 38 (t) 47mm APX 7.5cm Pak 97/38 7.62 cm F.K.297(r) and  7.62 cm PaK 39(r) 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43  
      Licenses are also available for the manufacture of foreign engines (Maybach HL62 TRM, Maybach HL120 TRM and Praga Typ TNHPS/II), periscopes, sights, radios, cupolas and automotive subassemblies. All foreign vehicle weapons, subassemblies and components are available for reverse engineering and manufacture.
       
      IMPORTANT NOTE: This competition hasn't been finalised, and is waiting on your input! Vote to participate by giving this topic a 'controversial' (grapefruit-induced tears being the only currency of value), and if we get enough participants we'll pull the trigger. Ask any questions you want below, and when/if the competition goes forwards I will make a new thread for entries.
       
      Edit: thanks to excellent feedback, the competition proposal has been somewhat edited. If you want an idea of what my mindset is here, read up on the battle of Gela (bearing in mind that the wikipedia entry is shite) and ask how much better the counter-attack could have gone if the Italian vehicles had been equipped with radios and had the ability to move faster than jogging speed.
       
      Edit 2: since I failed to mention this above - this is not a one-man, one-entry sort of competition (although I'm not keen on the ten-men, one entry approach either).
      If you have two good ideas then you can submit twice. The only rules are not to test my patience and to keep it within the bounds of good taste.
    • By Toxn
      So I got a request recently from {NAME REDACTED} as to whether we have a how-to guide or something for competitions. After a few moments of bitter, bitter laughter at the decade-plus of my life that I've spent cobbling together things that can maybe, sort-of, squint-your-eyes produce a facsimile of a realistic vehicle, I thought I'd share my process:
       
       
      Note: I was half-right - we definitely have supplementary info for aspiring pretend tank designers pinned to this very board.
       
      Finally, I'm inviting our forum grognards and past winners to share their process for folk that haven't been here since before the last ice age, so that all can benefit.

×
×
  • Create New...