Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1330977278' post='2934064'] I say use battery-run engines, and maybe use plastic? [/quote] That. A better engine is only of limited use, as I think the speed and performance cannot be increased by much before the Kukuruznik disintegrates. Batteries can quiten the plane somewhat. Otherwise, try to find a new use for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1330977605' post='2934068']A better engine is only of limited use, as I think the speed and performance cannot be increased by much before the Kukuruznik disintegrates. Batteries can quiten the plane somewhat. Otherwise, try to find a new use for it.[/quote]Not worried about performance that much. Only range and fuel but these could be done with a more efficient engine. And Stealth - anything for stealth! Edited March 5, 2012 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 It’s funny that something so low tech could be so stealth! Hey, what about ‘stealth’ paint - would it make the biplane more stealth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1330978292' post='2934077'] It’s funny that something so low tech could be so stealth! Hey, what about ‘stealth’ paint - would it make the biplane more stealth? [/quote] You're likely to increase your being detectable by using paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1330978927' post='2934086']You're likely to increase your being detectable by using paint.[/quote]Stealth paint would make it MORE detectable? How does that work>? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Use dark wood for night strikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Generalissimo' timestamp='1330979622' post='2934097'] Stealth paint would make it MORE detectable? How does that work>? [/quote] Stealth paint are used to hide material that have high visibility from radar. However, they have a higher visibility than wood or plastic when dealing with low-flying planes, which is the tactic you would use with biplanes. Hence, it's better off not painting your plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1330979638' post='2934100']Use dark wood for night strikes.[/quote]What's the best wood for aircraft construction? Money is not an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1330979816' post='2934103']Stealth paint are used to hide material that have high visibility from radar. However, they have a higher visibility than wood or plastic when dealing with low-flying planes, which is the tactic you would use with biplanes. Hence, it's better off not painting your plane.[/quote] Oh, that makes sense. Not a good idea~! Thanks for pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 im pretty sure some radar absorbing paints would increase your thermal footprint, since im pretty sure RAM turns radar energy to heat. Being a larger heat source would make you vulnerable to IR dependent short ranged air defenses. . . defenses designed to rape low and slow flying aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Not many air defenses are designed to detect plastic aircraft flying overhead. So if you can keep the speed low enough, it won't tip them off that there's an object looking like a large bird but is flying faster than a bird. Though the plastic needs to be camouflaged accordingly, bright blue plastic will stand out against dark clouds. The downside is you better fly high, because a large plastic machine will be a machine gunner's or sniper's target practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 What would a plastic aircraft look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Plastic aeroplanes wouldnt work extremely well because plastic melts under heat... engines produce heat. Edited March 15, 2012 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Electric motors. BTW, the B-2 is made up of composite materials, so we can use such for this, although I really don't see the point when we can use wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 He said plastic, I assumed acryllic. derp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It's Generalissimo. I don't assume he's using afterburning turbofans or some of the more extreme heat producing engines. You can as well get your Kukuruznik powered by electro-motor + propeller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) With my finally getting into space !@#$, I just went over the most recent [url="http://launchloop.com/slides/launchloop.pdf"]paper on launch loops[/url] written by Lofstrom (the guy who thought of it). Seems like based on his most recent calculations, we need a 17 GW power source to launch 3.5 million tons per year of 5 ton loads at a equatorial location. If you're higher than Baikonur in latitude, the payload shrinks to less than 3 tons. There you go gentlemen. I hope you understand the above numbers are theoretically perfect, and reality is bound to be more inefficient. Please consider that before RPing that you're firing 10 ton payloads, never mind hundreds of tons. Edited March 18, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 I'd just like to confirm what Kankou's saying, based on both my own knowledge of these shenanigans and Lofstrom's papers. Additionally, Loops more than about 5 degrees away from the elevator are subject to weather conditions - including potential hurricanes and powerful storms. That would lower their efficiency again, and heighten risk of damage. Just fyi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1332095408' post='2939800'] With my finally getting into space !@#$, I just went over the most recent [url="http://launchloop.com/slides/launchloop.pdf"]paper on launch loops[/url] written by Lofstrom (the guy who thought of it). Seems like based on his most recent calculations, we need a 17 GW power source to launch 3.5 million tons per year of 5 ton loads at a equatorial location. If you're higher than Baikonur in latitude, the payload shrinks to less than 3 tons. There you go gentlemen. I hope you understand the above numbers are theoretically perfect, and reality is bound to be more inefficient. Please consider that before RPing that you're firing 10 ton payloads, never mind hundreds of tons. [/quote] In a cnrp with enormous space habitats and unlimited resources on the moon I think reality is pretty much thrown away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 By that logic we should be throwing all reality out the window Keep to a single stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1332102387' post='2939863'] By that logic we should be throwing all reality out the window Keep to a single stance. [/quote] When it comes to space we basically have. Different standards for different playing fields, unlike the landbased cnrp we don't have wars in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 18, 2012 Report Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Not really. Having read Lynneth's threads, what he did are all possible, it's just that it would take decades. Time is about the only restraint there was for someone who isn't trying to run a world-wide police force. Frankly, I'm finding Earth-based RPs to be far less realistic than space-based RPs by now. EDIT: Okay, his !@#$@#$ space guns are not, but that's just about it. Everything Lynneth did could have been done easily with heavy lifters. Edited March 18, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Lynneth has been rping his space development for over 2 years. So decades it has been And he's never used his space guns in actual rp as he admits they are more or less non-canon. The one time he was considering using it he tied it to some sort of 2 nukes a day or something rule. So it's not like it's all powerful, and his big wiener ray from space isn't that useful, not like it can sweep miles of countryside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) TBM, I mean the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106348&view=findpost&p=2844091"]Verne guns[/url] used to launch 280,000 ton loads into LEO. He apparently uses 10 megaton bombs for the thrust. Edited March 19, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 The Verne gun (singular, by the way) uses what's proposed by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29"]Project Orion[/url], the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion"]Nuclear Pulse Drive[/url], except on a considerably larger scale. Note that on 'interplanetary scale', the nuclear bombs used would have a yield of 0.35 kilotons to propel a ship with the mass of 10,000 tons. Also note that a far larger vessel had been proposed, a so-called 'Super Orion', with a total mass of around 8,000,000 tons. Compare 10,000 kilotons propelling 280,000 tons into low LEO (80-160 km), to 800*0.35=280 kilotons propelling 10,000 tons into LEO (160-480 km). It's not as impossible as you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.