Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Wed, 7 Jun 1995 04:09:18 -0700

Message no. 1 acgetche@****.ucdavis.edu (Adam Getchell) wrote:

>Not in and of itself, no, a Barrier spell doesn't hurt much of anything.
>It's just when the Banshee's doing 720 kph at medium altitude and strikes
>something solid like that it tends to radically alter its aerodynamic
>properties. A vectored thrust vehicle by definition requires
>microturbulent airflow over the hull and a relatively static pressure
>wave in the intake nozzles. Slamming into a magical barrier disrupts
>both of these, causing flame-out and loss of lift/maneuverability. In
>addition, the resultant turbulence vortices in the intake nozzles
>interfere with the process of restarting the engines.

Well, the barrier is going to give. Just like a fence or stone wall
would slow a tank down. It won't stop it completely. I haven't
played for a while, but I remember that the barrier would give if
a large enough object rammed into it.

And Vectored thrust vehicles don't generate lift by forward airspeed. They
generate lift by vectoring thrust down towards the ground in excess of their
weight. I imagine that the intakes are armored and multiple, as those of
a tank should be. It's a fighting vehicle, not an airplane.

>A Vectored Thrust vehicle is basically a flying brick, so the loss of
>lift is distressing, but not fatal like the loss of engine power.

They don't generate lift via airspeed. They are not aerodynes.

>The U.S. Air Force has lost several combat aircraft due to mid-air
>collisions with birds.

Yes, they have. But when has a bird strike crippled or destroyed an
armored fighting vehicle? I know the bird wouldn't scratch the paint
on an APC. Unless you shot it out of a cannon at close range. And it
still wouldn't affect the operation of the vehicle.

Modern combat aircraft are very light. Especially when compared to
armored vehicles. And that's what the Banshee is. An armored fighting
vehicle.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:14:45 -0400

Message no. 2 William Frierson wrote:

>And Vectored thrust vehicles don't generate lift by forward airspeed. They
>generate lift by vectoring thrust down towards the ground in excess of their
>weight. I imagine that the intakes are armored and multiple, as those of
>a tank should be. It's a fighting vehicle, not an airplane.

(Snip, Snip)

>>The U.S. Air Force has lost several combat aircraft due to mid-air
>>collisions with birds.

>Yes, they have. But when has a bird strike crippled or destroyed an
>armored fighting vehicle? I know the bird wouldn't scratch the paint
>on an APC. Unless you shot it out of a cannon at close range. And it
>still wouldn't affect the operation of the vehicle.

William you are both right and wrong. A vectored thrust aircraft does fly
aerodynamically at higher airspeeds. They have to since all of their thrust
is being vectored aft to drive the plane, but you are correct at lower
airspeeds the nozzles are aimed more downward to allow the thrust to carry
the weight of the airplane. So when the computers sensed the new airspeed
after the barrier they would merely readjust the nozzles to keep the plane
flying, but the poor pilot(s) may have suffered a bit by the unexpected
change in flight profile.

Bird strikes are an all to common occurance in (military) aviation. I've had
several and have not lost an airplane yet. BUT I've never taken a bird
directly on the windscreen or down an intake. So you are quite right, a
heavily armored (for an airplane) aircraft would not be affected by even a
large bird. Unless the bird hit squarely on the front windscreen with the
plane moving at hight speed (even "bullet proof" glass shatters and the
support frames give way under that stress), or the bird goes down the engine
intake. I'm sure the engines in 205X are better than todays and could
probably continue to produce thrust, but that bird would certainly reduce the
amount of thrust that engine could produce. And take it from me pilots do
not hang around with a bad engine!

Duke (Rogue Dragon)

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:12:05 -0400

Message no. 3 As a little sidenote, the father of a friend works at the intake
design department of Lockheed. In a conversation with him once, he
talked about a device called "the Rooster Booster" that was used for
intake ingestion/flameout tests. Basically, they spool the jet up to
speed in a lab tunnel and then this device lobs a sixteen pound bird (not
sure whether it's alive, frozen or whatever) into the intake. An F-16
can take this kind of punishment without flaming out.
Alternately, My father, an airman in Viet Nam, saw a firehose
being sprayed through the running engine of an F-4 Phantom. It wouldn't
flame out under those circumstances, but if it sucked down an intact
sheet of water (like that when you splash a bucket on someone), it was
all over. Weird.

Marc

From:	cocheese <ZKLJ1@****.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Wed, 7 Jun 1995 15:27:25 EDT

Message no. 4 ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
acgetche@****.ucdavis.edu (Adam Getchell) wrote:
>Not in and of itself, no, a Barrier spell doesn't hurt much of anything.
>It's just when the Banshee's doing 720 kph at medium altitude and strikes
>something solid like that it tends to radically alter its aerodynamic
>properties. A vectored thrust vehicle by definition requires
>microturbulent airflow over the hull and a relatively static pressure
>wave in the intake nozzles. Slamming into a magical barrier disrupts
>both of these, causing flame-out and loss of lift/maneuverability. In
>addition, the resultant turbulence vortices in the intake nozzles
>interfere with the process of restarting the engines.
Am I to understand that a GMC Banshee flying into a magical barrier will be
affected by it? I thought that a physical object could go through a magical
barrier, for example, several buildings (hotels for instance) have barriers
"surrounding" them but this doesn't stop PCs from entering the building. Now,
if a PC was in astral then he couldn't enter but if he was in the physical, he
could.
How does a magical barrier affect a flying object?

CoCheese

From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 14:58:56 +0930

Message no. 5 cocheese wrote:
> Am I to understand that a GMC Banshee flying into a magical barrier will be
> affected by it? I thought that a physical object could go through a magical
> barrier, for example, several buildings (hotels for instance) have barriers
> "surrounding" them but this doesn't stop PCs from entering the building.
Now,
> if a PC was in astral then he couldn't enter but if he was in the physical, he
> could.
> How does a magical barrier affect a flying object?

Depends on the kind of Barrier spell... Mana Barrier, for example, only
stops people, and other living things (and anything astral). Physical
Barrier stops EVERYTHING. Anti-Bullet Barrier only stops bullets.

There's also Astral Barriers (aka Wards), which only stop astral
intrusion.
--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***

From:	WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:21:28 -0700

Message no. 6 DukeDragon@***.COM (Duke Diener) wrote:
>William you are both right and wrong. A vectored thrust aircraft does fly
>aerodynamically at higher airspeeds. They have to since all of their thrust
>is being vectored aft to drive the plane, but you are correct at lower
>airspeeds the nozzles are aimed more downward to allow the thrust to carry
>the weight of the airplane. So when the computers sensed the new airspeed
>after the barrier they would merely readjust the nozzles to keep the plane
>flying, but the poor pilot(s) may have suffered a bit by the unexpected
>change in flight profile.

Looking at the illustration of the Banshee shows that there are two stub
wings at the rear of the vehicle. But they don't look large enough to
provide enough lift to keep the vehicle aloft. The nozzles are slanted
aft, but not even close to horizontal. You are right when you talk about
aircraft like the Av-8b Harrier and the Yak-36 Forger, both of which
transition to forward flight, with lift being generated by actual wings.

The Banshees down't look like they can trnasition to full flight at all.
Quite frankly, I think the whole idea is a bit off. Harriers can't take
off vertically with a full load of ordinance, and when they do, they burn
a _lot_ of fuel, shortening their mission radius and time in the air.

The idea of vectored thrust vehicles is very prevalent in Cyberpunk (RTG),
but I haven't seen any real world parallels (except the "Flying Bedstead"
test vehicle that led to the Harrier). The supposed advantages of no
rotors are that they can land in urban environments without worrying about
rotor strikes. This "advantage" is heavily outweighed by range, payload and
fuel considerations. Not to mention you'd have to worry about the landing
surface being smooth and/or FOD (Foreign Object Damage) if you landed on
a dirty lot.

Now tilt-rotors, on the other hand, are a great improvement over the basic
helicopter, improving speed, range and payload over helicopters. I'm pretty
surprised that there haven't been more orders for the Osprey and smaller
variants (though there is a special operations variant on order for the Air
Force).

>Bird strikes are an all to common occurance in (military) aviation. I've had
>several and have not lost an airplane yet. BUT I've never taken a bird
>directly on the windscreen or down an intake. So you are quite right, a
>heavily armored (for an airplane) aircraft would not be affected by even a
>large bird. Unless the bird hit squarely on the front windscreen with the
>plane moving at hight speed (even "bullet proof" glass shatters and the
>support frames give way under that stress), or the bird goes down the engine
>intake. I'm sure the engines in 205X are better than todays and could
>probably continue to produce thrust, but that bird would certainly reduce the
>amount of thrust that engine could produce. And take it from me pilots do
>not hang around with a bad engine!

Yeah, but again, looking at the illustration shows _no_ windscreen that
could be hit bu a bird. And the intakes are spread out and pretty small.
They would have to be armored and filtered to avoid FOD, especially since
they are supposed to operate at low and very low altitudes. I don't think
a bird would be able to fit into an intake. And ones that were small
enough, would be chewed up by the turbines (hopefully). Unfortunately,
FASA doesn't really delve into very deep detail about the vehicles (weight,
engine type and performance, etc.).

BTW, I finally grabbed the book and checked out the rules about barriers.
There is a test, per p. 97 (blast vs. barriers) to see which goes down
first. It would be a test of the barrier rating, plus another half (1.5
x Barrier rating) vs the body of the vehicle + half of armor rating, in
the Banshee's case 18 Body + 9 (18 x .5) for a total of 27. Even a
force 10 barrier is probably going to go down before the Banshee does.
I see it as slowing the Banshee down, like driving a tank through a wall
of a building (and a tank _can_ do that). Now, if the Banshee were more
like a jet fighter or Harrier, I'd say that the barrier would hold and
the pilot would be in a world of hurt as his light vehicle slammed into
a wall, crumpling it and causing a rapid decelleration to 0 mph. Followed
by a rapid descent into terrain. :)

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:11:09 -0400

Message no. 7 William Frierson wrote (alot):

Ya the write up does not support the drawing. I mean if there are no windows
how does the pilot "see"? Can this plane only be flown by a jacked rigger?
Still I don't really mind when FASA does this, it gives me lots of room to
have a bit more fun with my PCs!

Duke (Rogue Dragon)

From:	Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 15:17:03 GMT

Message no. 8 Duke Diener writes

> William Frierson wrote (alot):
>
> Ya the write up does not support the drawing. I mean if there are no windows
> how does the pilot "see"? Can this plane only be flown by a jacked rigger?
> Still I don't really mind when FASA does this, it gives me lots of room to
> have a bit more fun with my PCs!
>
>
> Duke (Rogue Dragon)
>
The pictures in the riggers black book have an annoying tendancy to
bear little resemblance to the statistics, ok some are reasonable but
beware.

Mark

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:38:29 +0200

Message no. 9 >>The U.S. Air Force has lost several combat aircraft due to mid-air
>>collisions with birds.
>
>Yes, they have. But when has a bird strike crippled or destroyed an
>armored fighting vehicle? I know the bird wouldn't scratch the paint
>on an APC. Unless you shot it out of a cannon at close range. And it
>still wouldn't affect the operation of the vehicle.

A bird inside an engine can cause serious malfunctions, which, I think, is
what Adam was aiming at... loss of an engine, not having a bird crash
through your canopy and injure the pilot. Think of what would happen if you
destroy the engine on a hovering Harrier, can we say "EJECT!"?

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Leave the making of mistakes to the government
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:39:14 +0200

Message no. 10 > Alternately, My father, an airman in Viet Nam, saw a firehose
>being sprayed through the running engine of an F-4 Phantom. It wouldn't
>flame out under those circumstances, but if it sucked down an intact
>sheet of water (like that when you splash a bucket on someone), it was
>all over. Weird.

Not really, if you use a fire hose the engine still gets air; if you use a
"sheet" of water you cut off its air supply completely, so the flame goes out.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Leave the making of mistakes to the government
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:39:27 +0200

Message no. 11 >Am I to understand that a GMC Banshee flying into a magical barrier will be
>affected by it? I thought that a physical object could go through a magical
>barrier, for example, several buildings (hotels for instance) have barriers
>"surrounding" them but this doesn't stop PCs from entering the building.
Now,
>if a PC was in astral then he couldn't enter but if he was in the physical, he
>could.
>How does a magical barrier affect a flying object?

You're confusing wards with Barrier spells. The former are only astral
barriers, the latter are spells that form a barrier on both planes.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Leave the making of mistakes to the government
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:07:48 -0700

Message no. 12 On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, WILLIAM FRIERSON wrote:

> Well, the barrier is going to give. Just like a fence or stone wall

Yes, the barrier will give. However, it still messed up the flight
characteristics and slammed a pressure wave down the intake nozzles which
caused a flame-out in the engines. A flying vehicle still obeys the laws
of aerodynamics, after all.

> And Vectored thrust vehicles don't generate lift by forward airspeed. They
> generate lift by vectoring thrust down towards the ground in excess of their
> weight. I imagine that the intakes are armored and multiple, as those of

> They don't generate lift via airspeed. They are not aerodynes.

An aerodyne also does not generate lift via airspeed. It generates lift
from air being blown over the curved upper surface by the engines. It
may gain additional lift from airspeed, but aerodynes can hover quite
well, thank you.

And as a matter of fact, this is how I see the Banshees working. Using
raw engine power would be extremely fuel-prohibitive, especially if you
want to tack on extra weight like armor.

Using the aerodyne concept would increase fuel efficiency, especially in
conjunction with Ground-Effect. This is how I viewed these machines as
working. They certainly do have the power to maneuver for sprints on raw
engine power, but remember that thrust being used for lift is unavailable
for flight. The less thrust used in lift, the better.

> Yes, they have. But when has a bird strike crippled or destroyed an
> armored fighting vehicle? I know the bird wouldn't scratch the paint
> on an APC. Unless you shot it out of a cannon at close range. And it
> still wouldn't affect the operation of the vehicle.

A 2 kg bird approaching at Mach 1 is a fair imitation of cannon shot.

Armored vehicles don't travel all that fast compared to aircraft, so your
comparison is invalid.

> armored vehicles. And that's what the Banshee is. An armored fighting
> vehicle.

An armored _flying_ fighting vehicle that obeys aerodynamics.

> William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:13:05 -0700

Message no. 13 On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Duke Diener wrote:

> William you are both right and wrong. A vectored thrust aircraft does fly
> aerodynamically at higher airspeeds. They have to since all of their thrust
> is being vectored aft to drive the plane, but you are correct at lower
> airspeeds the nozzles are aimed more downward to allow the thrust to carry

The Banshee was at cruising speed, which would indicate aerodynamic flight.

> the weight of the airplane. So when the computers sensed the new airspeed
> after the barrier they would merely readjust the nozzles to keep the plane

Well, the nozzles were a bit crushed by impact (armored or not) and since
the Banshee immediately hit some trees, filled with bio-gunk. Would that
be a dicey situation for a pilot? (Since you have experience in this)

> Duke (Rogue Dragon)

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:39:36 -0700

Message no. 14 If we go by illustrations, there are also slots in the Banshee. These
could be used in aerodyne-fashion. An aerodyne does not necessarily
require wings, just a curved surface for the fanjet to blow air over.

Pure vectored thrust vehicles, even with advances in engines and fuel,
are still too expensive. The aerodyne concept is, I feel, a lot more
workable. The vehicle could devote power to either the turbine blower or
to the jets (one wouldn't really want to use jet engine effluent for the
blowers, as the air is hot, corrosive and not very dense).

If you don't mind increasing your signature and debris count, ground
effect is another fuel saver. The stub wings might also capture extra
energy from air vortices in the same way fish swim.

Of course, I like to scientifically speculate on issues that I'm pretty
sure FASA hasn't considered, but that's just me.

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html

From:	Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:53:45 -0700

Message no. 15 On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Gurth wrote:

> Not really, if you use a fire hose the engine still gets air; if you use a
> "sheet" of water you cut off its air supply completely, so the flame goes
out.

Exactly. I ruled (or wrote, rather, as it's on my web page under "Death
of A Banshee") that the collision of the barrier sent a massive pressure
wave down the intakes.

Actually, the full explanation was the barrier sent a supersonic shock
wave down the intake. The intake was dilated for (barely) subsonic
flight so the supersonic pressure wave dispersed (since the venting
was large area to small area, which is a subsonic compressor but a
supersonic diffuser) producing another shock and flaming out the engine.
Plus, I used lift augmentation by microturbulent vortices (say that ten
times fast!) or in plainer terms, the Golfball effect, and that was also
ruined.

Oh, and Tigger wasn't feeling too happy from the feedback. ;-)

> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html

From:	Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 18:45:22 -0700

Message no. 16 >If we go by illustrations, there are also slots in the Banshee. These

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the RBB illustrations are, well,
kinda substandard. I mean, maybe it's just me, but looks like "luxury"
cars in 205? are -ugly-. And the drones... and the military vehicles...
and the trucks...

Ohwell...

-E

From:	Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 19:08:52 -0700

Message no. 17 >Oh, and Tigger wasn't feeling too happy from the feedback. ;-)

To put it mildly.

The story was also colloquially known as the "Bug on a Windshield" story.

-E

"Sometimes you're just cruisin' through life, free as a bird,
and then SOME GODDAMN MAGE THROWS A BARRIER IN YOUR WAY....."
-Tigger "Deep Thoughts" the Rigger

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Thu, 8 Jun 1995 23:04:02 -0400

Message no. 18 Adam Getchell asks (about crashes):

If the nozzles were crushed they would most likely freeze in the position
they were in when hit. The change in the shape of the nozzles would not
affect the trust noticable. When the Banshee hit the trees the nozzles might
be further jammed but would not clog. The big problem for the pilot would be
that he would now be traveling at a very much reduce speed (trees slow planes
down fast!) with his nozzles in a thrust rather than lift configuration and
no way to rotate them. So I would have to venture in my professional opinion
that your pilots would be in a world of hurt! The very best they might be
able to do is get their banshee to limp back into the air after bouncing
(with a lot of luck) off the trees, but in all likelyhood they would be
cutting a new fire-break with their aircraft (and maybe starting the fire to
test their handy work), and the airplane would be destroyed.

Hope that helps.

Duke (Rogue Dragon)

From:	Andy Butcher <Fiend@*********.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Fri, 9 Jun 1995 11:16:50 +0100

Message no. 19 Somone wrote:

>Ya the write up does not support the drawing. I mean if there are no windows
>how does the pilot "see"? Can this plane only be flown by a jacked rigger?
> Still I don't really mind when FASA does this, it gives me lots of room to
>have a bit more fun with my PCs!

Modern tanks don't have windshields, either, and their drivers certainly
aren't jacked in ;)

Andy Butcher | "Whether you think you will succeed
PC Gamer Magazine | or not, you are right."
Fiend@*********.co.uk | Henry Ford

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Fri, 9 Jun 1995 10:02:46 -0400

Message no. 20 Andy Butcher wrote:

>Modern tanks don't have windshields, either, and their drivers certainly
>aren't jacked in ;)

They also are not traveling at 400+ KPH and don't require instant access to
360 degree field of view. I would not even think about trying to land a
craft in a hot LZ using a periscope or TV camera! The Banshee may be armored
like a tank but it is still an airplane.

Duke (Rogue Dragon)

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Fri, 9 Jun 1995 13:39:52 -0400

Message no. 21 On Thu, 8 Jun 1995, Gurth wrote:

> > Alternately, My father, an airman in Viet Nam, saw a firehose
> >being sprayed through the running engine of an F-4 Phantom. It wouldn't
> >flame out under those circumstances, but if it sucked down an intact
> >sheet of water (like that when you splash a bucket on someone), it was
> >all over. Weird.
>
> Not really, if you use a fire hose the engine still gets air; if you use a
> "sheet" of water you cut off its air supply completely, so the flame goes
out.

No, I grok the theory. It's just odd that airmen in Viet Nam
were so damn bored that they tried this stuff. :)

Marc

From:	Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 01:21:24 GMT

Message no. 22 > >If we go by illustrations, there are also slots in the Banshee. These
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else think the RBB illustrations are, well,
> kinda substandard. I mean, maybe it's just me, but looks like "luxury"
> cars in 205? are -ugly-. And the drones... and the military vehicles...
> and the trucks...

The helicopters are Godawful, and as for what is supposed to be a Harley...

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

From:	WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:06:56 -0700

Message no. 23 DukeDragon@***.COM (Duke Diener) wrote:

>Ya the write up does not support the drawing. I mean if there are no windows
>how does the pilot "see"? Can this plane only be flown by a jacked rigger?
> Still I don't really mind when FASA does this, it gives me lots of room to
>have a bit more fun with my PCs!

Well, I figured there were some kind of vision pick ups. I would expect
some kind of screens, maybe even a helmet mounted system, like the
ones that the Air Force are working on. Or the rigged system.

I mind the lack of detail, especially on this one vehicle. The other
vehicles are obvious in what they are (armored cars, fighter aircraft,
helicopters, etc). It gives you some room, though.

I don't think that the military would have their vehicles rigged, except
maybe for fighter-type aircraft. The military wants someone to be able
to step in and fill vacancies that occur in combat. If the driver bought
it, then someone would have to fill in, and unless every soldier is
rigged, then that might cause a problem.

During WWII, the US Army ran into problems when the replacements ran short,
and they were handing rifles to cooks that had never even cleaned one. So all
soldiers have to be able to do "common skills". Driving would probably
be one of those.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

From:	WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:09:39 -0700

Message no. 24 acgetche@****.ucdavis.edu (Adam Getchell) wrote:

>Yes, the barrier will give. However, it still messed up the flight
>characteristics and slammed a pressure wave down the intake nozzles which
>caused a flame-out in the engines. A flying vehicle still obeys the laws
>of aerodynamics, after all.

Barriers don't affect gas molecules, so the air would not bounce off the
barrier and cause a pressure wave.

>An aerodyne also does not generate lift via airspeed. It generates lift
>from air being blown over the curved upper surface by the engines. It
>may gain additional lift from airspeed, but aerodynes can hover quite
>well, thank you.
>
>And as a matter of fact, this is how I see the Banshees working. Using
>raw engine power would be extremely fuel-prohibitive, especially if you
>want to tack on extra weight like armor.
>
>Using the aerodyne concept would increase fuel efficiency, especially in
>conjunction with Ground-Effect. This is how I viewed these machines as
>working. They certainly do have the power to maneuver for sprints on raw
>engine power, but remember that thrust being used for lift is unavailable
>for flight. The less thrust used in lift, the better.

But aren't aerodynes more aerodynamically shaped? The Banshee looks like
you could blow air over it all day and not lift it all. It's not a lifting
body at all. I know how the difference in speed (length) on a wing
generates lift, but it is quite different between that shape and the
Banshee's.

>A 2 kg bird approaching at Mach 1 is a fair imitation of cannon shot.
>
>Armored vehicles don't travel all that fast compared to aircraft, so your
>comparison is invalid.

Well, the Banshee _is_ an armored vehicle (look at the difference in armor
ratings between a Banshee and an EFA). A bird that hits a Banshee is like
a bird hitting an APC more than an unarmored aircraft like an F-16. And
even if you fired a bird at Mach 1 at an APC, the APC is going to withstand
it (although there will be a bad odor as the bird pulp heats up and rots :)).

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

From:	WILLIAM FRIERSON <will1am@*****.ASU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:11:46 -0700

Message no. 25 gurth@******.NL (Gurth) wrote:

>A bird inside an engine can cause serious malfunctions, which, I think, is
>what Adam was aiming at... loss of an engine, not having a bird crash
>through your canopy and injure the pilot. Think of what would happen if you
>destroy the engine on a hovering Harrier, can we say "EJECT!"?

Well, I've heard of birds through the canopy incapacitating pilots. And
a bird in the engine would screw up an apc's operation too :). But they
have grill covers (1/4" mesh over heavy duty grills. Sometimes I've
slept on them. They are not as uncomfortable as the rest of the top is,
with tie downs and bolts all over).

The former Soviets used alternate intakes on top of their later aircraft
with louvers over the main intakes to prevent sucking in dirt and debris
on rough fields. I imagine something like this would be beneficial on
Harrier's (and any aircraft that have rough field capability). The RAF
use falcons to scare off any birds that hang around their airfields!
Since there is magic in SR, maybe the military would use an area spell
to repel birds and keep airfields free of birds. Maybe a modified Ward
or something.

Later

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Frierson Internet: WILL1AM@*****.asu.edu

From:	P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:05:24 BST

Message no. 26 > The helicopters are Godawful, and as for what is supposed to be a Harley...

Yeah, yellowjackets suck, and that huge cone-thiong that's supppsed to
be a harley davidson, what happened to the lack of aerodynamic, the
shitty mileage, etc.

Man, harley's used to be a status symbol in my party, until we picked
up the Riggers Black, and saw what they actually looked like. Now it's
Blitzens and Scorpions all the way.

(Mind you, they laughed at the term 'assault-bike' until they saw just
how much damage a HArley electraglid could do :-) Now that's a harley :-))

Phil (Renegade)

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:31:24 +0200

Message no. 27 >I don't think that the military would have their vehicles rigged, except
>maybe for fighter-type aircraft. The military wants someone to be able
>to step in and fill vacancies that occur in combat. If the driver bought
>it, then someone would have to fill in, and unless every soldier is
>rigged, then that might cause a problem.

The way I understand it, rigged vehicles still have normal controls as well,
so anybody familiar with them can take over. Also, to install rigger
controls, you also need a datajack link in the vehicle, so anybody with a
datajack can also plug in (though without all the rigger's advantages).
Furthermore, wouldn't the commander and gunner also be rigged? That solves
one more problem: driver dead? plug in the commander. Probably from the
commander's station, without him/her having to squeeze into the driver's seat.

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's explosive!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 13:31:26 +0200

Message no. 28 >The former Soviets used alternate intakes on top of their later aircraft
>with louvers over the main intakes to prevent sucking in dirt and debris
>on rough fields.

Only on the MiG-29, AFAIK.

>Maybe a modified Ward or something.

ANTI-BIRD BARRIER
This spell works like the normal physical Barrier spell (p.158, SRII), but
only blocks the passage of birds of all kinds. The barrier's effective
Barrier Rating equals the spell's Force Rating.
The personal form of this spell has a Drain Code of [(F/2)+2]L
Type: Physical Range: LOS Target: 6
Duration: Sustained Drain: [(F/2)+2]M

:)

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's explosive!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

From:	Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Banshee Bird Strikes
Date:	Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:53:28 -0400

Message no. 29 William Frierson wrote:

>The former Soviets used alternate intakes on top of their later aircraft
>with louvers over the main intakes to prevent sucking in dirt and debris
>on rough fields. I imagine something like this would be beneficial on
>Harrier's (and any aircraft that have rough field capability). The RAF
>use falcons to scare off any birds that hang around their airfields!
>Since there is magic in SR, maybe the military would use an area spell
>to repel birds and keep airfields free of birds. Maybe a modified Ward
>or something.

Those grills were only used for landing on unprepared airstrips. They
restricted the air flow severly but did in fact prevent the engines from
being damaged by foreign objects (the jargon for this is being FODDED for
Foreign Object Damage).

Duke (Rogue Dragon)

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer