Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Neal A Porter <nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:48:50 +1000
Adam Getchell commented :

>
> The Banshee was nap of the earth, maybe 5 meters from the
>treetops at the *highest*.
>

Uh, as a small aside here, 5 meters above tree top isn't NOE
(Nap Of the Earth), Is just low level flight. Now flying between the trees is
contour flying, and flying under the branches is real NOE.

A'Deus.
Message no. 2
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 01:17:33 -0700
On Thu, 23 Jun 1994, Neal A Porter wrote:

> Uh, as a small aside here, 5 meters above tree top isn't NOE
> (Nap Of the Earth), Is just low level flight. Now flying between the trees is
> contour flying, and flying under the branches is real NOE.

How many helicopters have you seen fly under tree branches? Yet
Apache gunships fly "nap of the earth".
The restriction on NOE flying is speed and avionics. Since
F-117s have a laser ranging system that "interrogates" the ground 16
times per second, they're real good at it. Airliners, on the other hand,
aren't.
Since you presumably know/do physics (at least that's what your
computer name is) you should know that the faster one flies, the quicker
one runs out of room. Therefore, the higher one should go.
"Sea-skimming" missiles fly 15-20 feet above the surface, as do
cruise missiles. F-16's usually fly more like 60. Only helicopters get
down and low, and only in hover mode.
Your "small point" is inaccurate. Please verify your facts
before posting.

> > A'Deus.
>

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 3
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:38:22 -0400
>>>>> "Neal" == Neal A Porter
<nap@*****.PHYSICS.SWIN.OZ.AU> writes:

Neal> Uh, as a small aside here, 5 meters above tree top isn't NOE (Nap
Neal> Of the Earth), Is just low level flight. Now flying between the trees
Neal> is contour flying, and flying under the branches is real NOE.

NoE is usually anything less than about 60 to 75 feet, give or take a bit.
It varies depending on ground cover, terrain, etc.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "It is a proud and lonely thing to be a
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | Stainless Steel Rat."
this space intentionally left blank | --"Slippery" Jim DiGriz
Message no. 4
From: "David L. Hoff" <DLHOFF@****.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 22:01:00 CDT
Someone made the comment that "only helicopters get down and low, and only
in hover mode." I choose to disagree.

My father was a bomber crewman in WW II. His last mission was a boming run
against Ploesti, Romania. The bombers took off from North Africa, and flew
at high altitude only when crossing the Med. Sea. Once they were over land,
they flew NOE to the target, rose _up_ to a bombing level of 200 feet, then
dropped back down to NOE as they left the target. Want to know how low these
cumbersome bombers were? As they left the target site, and closed the
bomb bay doors, several of the bombers got corn stalks caught in the doors.

(If you dont believe me, go to your local library. Several books have been
written about the raid.)

--Dave
dlhoff@****.wisc.edu
Message no. 5
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 23:23:46 -0700
Right. NOE can be *real* low, I just said that it might be as
high as 60/70 feet. And I suppose I should clarify -- I meant that *today*
choppers are *usually* the only ones to go so low. This is because we were
referring to Banshees/vectored thrust vehicles which have different flight
parameters than lumbering B-24s.
I believe B-24s could fly that low. After all, they aren't going
faster than 300 mph (I'm pretty sure -- without references, I could be
wrong -- that such planes didn't fly faster than 300 mph). And my note was
the avionics and speed were the limit on NOE.
There are some aircraft, called Wing-in-Ground aircraft, that are
*designed* to fly low and skim the ground, due to the extra lift they get
by placing the engines topside and generating a sort of dynamic air
cushion between themselves and the ground. Such planes get more lift
than conventional ones and the old Soviets have a few (Ekranoplan?
Something like that -- code named "Caspian Sea Monster") that could carry
quite a few troops (600 or some outrageous number). They also had a
variant that carried 6 SS-N-2C Styx anti-ship missiles on regular
launchers -- note Soviet Missiles are much bigger than Western counterparts.

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 10:56:45 -0400
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
writes:

Adam> Right. NOE can be *real* low, I just said that it might be
Adam> as high as 60/70 feet.

6 meters above treetop level is well above what is considered NoE. NoE
altitudes depend upon terrain and can be as high as 20 meters, but it
varies quite a bit.

Adam> And I suppose I should clarify -- I meant that *today* choppers are
Adam> *usually* the only ones to go so low.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The A-10 was /designed/ to fly that low, and the
"A-16" is being tested in that role.

[...]

Adam> There are some aircraft, called Wing-in-Ground aircraft, that
Adam> are *designed* to fly low and skim the ground,

The only fixed-wing WIG aircraft in current service is the A-10. It's the
/only/ one designed that way.

Adam> due to the extra lift they get by placing the engines topside and
Adam> generating a sort of dynamic air cushion between themselves and the
Adam> ground.

Engine placement has nothing to do with it; dorsal engine mounts put the
fuselage between the engines and an IR tracker on the ground.

The effect described is caused by any low-flying aircraft. Aircraft that
make use of the effect have downward curved leading and trailing edges on
the wings to increase the pocket effect.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "Always remember, no matter where you go,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | there you are." --Buckaroo Banzai
Message no. 7
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 23:50:00 -0700
On Fri, 24 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Adam> And I suppose I should clarify -- I meant that *today* choppers are
> Adam> *usually* the only ones to go so low.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. The A-10 was /designed/ to fly that low, and the
> "A-16" is being tested in that role.

Note I said "usually". This means it is trivial to provide
counter-examples.
And actually, you're the wrong one here. My A-10 pilot friend
said *usual* operating doctrine was to dive from mid-altitude -- he said
he worked a *lot* on gunnery from 4,000 feet, the object being to place
50-70 rounds on a tank-sized target. They don't *like* to go lower
because of AAA, specifically due to ZSU series AAA.
This doesn't mean that they *don't* go lower -- nor that they
haven't changed tactical doctrine (especialy since Desert Storm). But
the vast array of anti-armor bombs and missiles underwing are *quite*
effective at that attitude, and fuel consumption is lower at median
altitude than flying off the deck. Of course, air superiority, target
composition, weather, mission parameters and theatre of action all modify
doctrine accordingly.
>
> The only fixed-wing WIG aircraft in current service is the A-10. It's the
> /only/ one designed that way.

Better check Jane's Aircraft again, because this is not true. If
you will look at 1990 edition of Naval Aircraft you will see the Soviet
Ekranoplane; its a funny looking design with a high dorsal wing and about
4-6 (depending upon model) turbofans situated to exhaust downwards
*underneath* the wings.

> Engine placement has nothing to do with it; dorsal engine mounts put the
> fuselage between the engines and an IR tracker on the ground.

Agreed; *this* is the reason why the A-10's engines are situated
suchly -- to reduce IR signature, *not* for Wing in Ground Effect. The idea of
the concept is to use the exhaust flow to augment the lifting curtain; in
order for this to happen, the engines must be placed *forward* of the
wing so the exhaust is angled beneath the lifting surface. The A-10s
engines are not placed in this fashion.

> The effect described is caused by any low-flying aircraft. Aircraft that
> make use of the effect have downward curved leading and trailing edges on
> the wings to increase the pocket effect.

Correct; the critical distance is approximately half and
wingspan. However, WIG A/C augment their lift by approximately a factor
of five with the above configuration. This also means that a true WIG
A/C cannot easily fly above it's lift curtain without dramatically
increasing its fuel consumption.
These are *not* the operating characteristics of the A-10, nor is
the A-10 optimized for WIG. By that criterion, it is not a true WIG A/C.
As far as I know, the "Ekranoplan" is the world's only existing WIG airframe.

> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "Always remember, no matter where
you go,

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 1994 21:31:59 -0400
>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
writes:

Adam> Note I said "usually". This means it is trivial to provide
Adam> counter-examples.

Ok, I was being picky :). I happen to love the Warthog.

>> The only fixed-wing WIG aircraft in current service is the A-10. It's
>> the /only/ one designed that way.

Adam> Better check Jane's Aircraft again, because this is not true.
Adam> If you will look at 1990 edition of Naval Aircraft you will see the
Adam> Soviet Ekranoplane; its a funny looking design with a high dorsal
Adam> wing and about 4-6 (depending upon model) turbofans situated to
Adam> exhaust downwards *underneath* the wings.

Ummm... unless I and many others over on rec.aviation.military are
mistaken, Russia has scrapped the Ekranoplane project, even placing the
prototypes up for sale. The Union breakup probably had quite a bit to do
with it.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "I have one prejudice, and that is
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | against stupidity. Use your mind,
this space intentionally left blank | think!" --Zoner <megazone@***.wpi.edu>
Message no. 9
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nap Of Earth comment.
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:11:38 -0700
On Sat, 25 Jun 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> Ummm... unless I and many others over on rec.aviation.military are
> mistaken, Russia has scrapped the Ekranoplane project, even placing the
> prototypes up for sale. The Union breakup probably had quite a bit to do
> with it.

The Ekranoplan is still the only working WIG A/C right now, and
whoever buys it will probably be getting some good aerodynamic data and
all. But to take this to Shadowrun, I will probably be designing some
sort of rigger craft based on the concept (after I work through my Raven
numbers one more time).

> Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | "I have one prejudice, and that is

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Nap Of Earth comment., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.