Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 06:49:51 -0500
Okay, here goes ...

Variable Geometry Wings (VGW)
This is basically the modifications to the wings that is currently standard
for the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 (I think) of today. The VGW is also a design
option only, as the necessary modifications to a standard fixed wing aircraft
would be much too expensive and time consuming and would involve the almost
total redesign of the aircraft. The VGW can either be calibrated manually
in-flight or by a dedicated Auto-Nav which controls the angle of the wings
dependent on variable conditions (payload, weather, speed, ACM, altitude,
etc). At lower speeds, less than half the speed rating for a fixed wing
aircraft, the handling for the aircraft increases by 1 (+1), but this
modifier goes away once the aircraft is beyond the half way mark on the speed
rating. As soon as the aircraft is going faster than half the speed rating,
the aircraft is to be considered to be going 10 percent faster than the speed
currently being travelled at.

Design Cost ................... 500
Maximum Improvement ... NA
CF Consumed ................ 0
Load Reduction .............. 0
Message no. 2
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:39:17 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 06:50:42 EST, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> Okay, here goes ...

Yep, that would be nice to say.

> Variable Geometry Wings (VGW)

Again, a nice idea...

> This is basically the modifications to the wings that is currently
standard
> for the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 (I think) of today. The VGW is also a
design
> option only, as the necessary modifications to a standard fixed wing
> aircraft
> would be much too expensive and time consuming and would involve the
almost
> total redesign of the aircraft. The VGW can either be calibrated manually
> in-flight or by a dedicated Auto-Nav which controls the angle of the wings
> dependent on variable conditions (payload, weather, speed, ACM, altitude,
> etc). At lower speeds, less than half the speed rating for a fixed wing
> aircraft, the handling for the aircraft increases by 1 (+1), but this
> modifier goes away once the aircraft is beyond the half way mark on the
> speed
> rating. As soon as the aircraft is going faster than half the speed
rating,
> the aircraft is to be considered to be going 10 percent faster than the
> speed
> currently being travelled at.

Say again??? I think I understand, but I got lost somewhere. Mike, a
suggestion. When you make up something like this, try writing it in sections
or maybe have a summary of what the stuff does at the end.

> Design Cost ................... 500
> Maximum Improvement ... NA
> CF Consumed ................ 0
> Load Reduction .............. 0

If this idea is anything like what we were talking about, the DC is probably
accurate, though perhaps some of the CF would actually be consumed, though
that is just a guess on my part.

-K
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:30:40 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 6:49/ 6 Nov 97...

> Okay, here goes ...
>
> Variable Geometry Wings (VGW)
> This is basically the modifications to the wings that is currently standard
> for the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 (I think) of today.

Not the Su-27 "Flanker" but the MiG-23 and -27 "Flogger". They're also
used on the Tornado, B-1B (damn, what's the nick again? Lancer?), Su-19
"Fencer", and others.

> At lower speeds, less than half the speed rating for a fixed wing
> aircraft, the handling for the aircraft increases by 1 (+1), but this
> modifier goes away once the aircraft is beyond the half way mark on the
> speed rating. As soon as the aircraft is going faster than half the
> speed rating, the aircraft is to be considered to be going 10 percent
> faster than the speed currently being travelled at.

These I don't understand... The way I understand it, VGWs are used because
they allow the aircraft to remain controllable at low speeds (with the
wings forward) but still attain high speeds (with the wings swept back).
I'd think they'd reduce the stall speed when the wings are forward, and
increase the Speed rating when the wings are swept back. 10% sounds like a
nice figure for either.

Perhaps this needs an example. Take the Single Engine aircraft template
with a jet turbine engine (no other modifications at all); this gives a
Speed of 60/320.
Now build it with the VGW option; this gives it two sets of Speed: one
with the wing forward and one with the wing back. The former would be
54/320 and the latter 60/352.

> Design Cost ................... 500
> Maximum Improvement ... NA
> CF Consumed ................ 0

Well... IMHO maybe it would be good to make that 1, since the gear needed
to change the wings' position does take up space in the airframe.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 4
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 14:00:07 -0700
Gurth wrote:
/
/ Mike Bobroff said on 6:49/ 6 Nov 97...
/
/ > Okay, here goes ...
/ >
/ > Variable Geometry Wings (VGW)
/ > This is basically the modifications to the wings that is currently standard
/ > for the F-14 Tomcat and Su-27 (I think) of today.
/
/ The way I understand it, VGWs are used because
/ they allow the aircraft to remain controllable at low speeds (with the
/ wings forward) but still attain high speeds (with the wings swept back).
/ I'd think they'd reduce the stall speed when the wings are forward, and
/ increase the Speed rating when the wings are swept back. 10% sounds like a
/ nice figure for either.

There are a few reasons. When the wings are out the plane is much
more maneuverable. And they have more surface area which equal
greater lift, which lowers the stall speed, and decreases the
take-off distance, which are important when working from an aircraft
carrier. The greater lift also increases the payload during
takeoff (a big advantage for a fighter-bomber).

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 5
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:13:12 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 17:02:20 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> There are a few reasons. When the wings are out the plane is much
> more maneuverable. And they have more surface area which equal
> greater lift, which lowers the stall speed, and decreases the
> take-off distance, which are important when working from an aircraft
> carrier. The greater lift also increases the payload during
> takeoff (a big advantage for a fighter-bomber).
>
> -David
>
So then VGW (Variable Geometry Wings) or "Lay-Backs" would not only increase
speed in certain "modes", but they could effect handling, load, and even
Landing/Take Off Profile...damn Mike, perhaps 500 points is too cheap (ewg).

-K
Message no. 6
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:03:03 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 15:53:30 EST, Gurth wrote:

> These I don't understand... The way I understand it, VGWs are used because
> they allow the aircraft to remain controllable at low speeds (with the
> wings forward) but still attain high speeds (with the wings swept back).
> I'd think they'd reduce the stall speed when the wings are forward, and
> increase the Speed rating when the wings are swept back. 10% sounds like a
> nice figure for either.
>
> Perhaps this needs an example. Take the Single Engine aircraft template
> with a jet turbine engine (no other modifications at all); this gives a
> Speed of 60/320.
> Now build it with the VGW option; this gives it two sets of Speed: one
> with the wing forward and one with the wing back. The former would be
> 54/320 and the latter 60/352.
>
> > Design Cost ................... 500
> > Maximum Improvement ... NA
> > CF Consumed ................ 0
>
> Well... IMHO maybe it would be good to make that 1, since the gear needed
> to change the wings' position does take up space in the airframe.

Thank you, you said it a lot better than I could have in the first place, and
I do like the speed options that you gave also. As for the CF space, I could
see it actually being about 3 CF ... one for the main joint and one for each
of the joints for the wings.

Mike
Message no. 7
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:09:13 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-06 16:13:04 EST, you write:

> There are a few reasons. When the wings are out the plane is much
> more maneuverable. And they have more surface area which equal
> greater lift, which lowers the stall speed, and decreases the
> take-off distance, which are important when working from an aircraft
> carrier. The greater lift also increases the payload during
> takeoff (a big advantage for a fighter-bomber).

Perhaps something else then that is a benefit of Variable Geometry Wings then
is that the fuel consumption at take-off is reduced by, say, 10 to 20
percent.

Which sounds better?

Mike
Message no. 8
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 07:35:09 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 00:38:44 EST, you write:

> So then VGW (Variable Geometry Wings) or "Lay-Backs" would not only
increase
> speed in certain "modes", but they could effect handling, load, and even
> Landing/Take Off Profile...damn Mike, perhaps 500 points is too cheap
(ewg).
>
> -K

On the topic of laying back ... (shotgun blast in the background) Take that
you rat bastard ! And to quote Perry (and someone from Strange Brew), "Take
it in the ear for a beer you rat bastard!"

Then how about this, adding in Variable Wing Gemoetry as follows ...

Design Points .................. Same as chassis

Vehicle gains the following bonuses based on the wings in three different
positions ...

Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases by 10
percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...

Half-Back ........ Lose the above bonuses, speed and accel are both increased
by 5 percent (translation ... the craft moves 5 percent faster than what is
intended)

Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as per
Half-Back

How does this sounds instead ?

Mike
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:17:29 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 97-11-06 16:13:04 EST, you write:
/
/ > There are a few reasons. When the wings are out the plane is much
/ > more maneuverable. And they have more surface area which equal
/ > greater lift, which lowers the stall speed, and decreases the
/ > take-off distance, which are important when working from an aircraft
/ > carrier. The greater lift also increases the payload during
/ > takeoff (a big advantage for a fighter-bomber).
/
/ Perhaps something else then that is a benefit of Variable Geometry Wings then
/ is that the fuel consumption at take-off is reduced by, say, 10 to 20
/ percent.
/
/ Which sounds better?

Actually the greater lift (more drag) would increase fuel
consumption. When the wings sweep back drag is decreased and it
becomes more fuel efficient (well, as fuel efficient as a jet fighter
can be :). That's another bonus; a long range, supersonic
fighter-bomber that can get off the ground with a heck of a load.
And I'm pretty sure that the swept back wings present a smaller radar
cross section (lowers the signature).

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 20:31:52 -0500
At 07-Nov-97 wrote David Buehrer:



>Actually the greater lift (more drag) would increase fuel
>consumption. When the wings sweep back drag is decreased and it
>becomes more fuel efficient (well, as fuel efficient as a jet fighter
>can be :). That's another bonus; a long range, supersonic
>fighter-bomber that can get off the ground with a heck of a load.
>And I'm pretty sure that the swept back wings present a smaller radar
>cross section (lowers the signature).

Check out the XB-70 Valkyrie project from the US airforce in the late `60.
Sorry, no URL handy at the moment but it can be easily found in a search
engine. Worth a look.
--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:43:55 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 7:03/ 7 Nov 97...

> > Perhaps this needs an example. Take the Single Engine aircraft template
> > with a jet turbine engine (no other modifications at all); this gives a
> > Speed of 60/320.
> > Now build it with the VGW option; this gives it two sets of Speed: one
> > with the wing forward and one with the wing back. The former would be
> > 54/320 and the latter 60/352.
[snip]
>
> Thank you, you said it a lot better than I could have in the first place, and
> I do like the speed options that you gave also. As for the CF space, I could
> see it actually being about 3 CF ... one for the main joint and one for each
> of the joints for the wings.

Well, with David's comments about VGWs, maybe more modifers need to be
added in... IIRC, he said they did the following with the wing forward;
after the colon are my suggestions for modifications to the vehicle's
stats.

* Reduce stall speed: see above
* Increase controllability at low speed: reduce Handling by 1
* Increase lift: add 10% to Load Rating

Perhaps this warrants a bigger speed increase with the wing swept back,
else nobody would ever use a VGW aircraft with the wing back... How about
adding 20% to Speed and adding 1 to Handling?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:43:55 +0100
Barbie said on 20:31/ 7 Nov 97...

> >Actually the greater lift (more drag) would increase fuel
> >consumption. When the wings sweep back drag is decreased and it
> >becomes more fuel efficient (well, as fuel efficient as a jet fighter
> >can be :). That's another bonus; a long range, supersonic
> >fighter-bomber that can get off the ground with a heck of a load.
> >And I'm pretty sure that the swept back wings present a smaller radar
> >cross section (lowers the signature).
>
> Check out the XB-70 Valkyrie project from the US airforce in the late `60.
> Sorry, no URL handy at the moment but it can be easily found in a search
> engine. Worth a look.

XB-70 didn't have variable-geometry wings, or at least not in the same way
the F-14 or MiG-23 do. In the XB-70, the outer portion of the wing could
move up and down (0, 25, or 65 degrees down), not backward and forward.
Basically it was just a really large delta with canards behind the
cockpit.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 13
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:50:53 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-07 07:38:06 EST, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> On the topic of laying back ... (shotgun blast in the background) Take
that
> you rat bastard ! And to quote Perry (and someone from Strange Brew),
"Take
> it in the ear for a beer you rat bastard!"
>
> Then how about this, adding in Variable Wing Gemoetry as follows ...
>
> Design Points .................. Same as chassis
>
> Vehicle gains the following bonuses based on the wings in three different
> positions ...
>
> Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases by 10
> percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...

Oh this could be humorous from the my (as a GM) point of view. Load is
increased, and someone (say like Brent-Shiraku in the PBEM) just uses
"blanket mentality" applies it across the board. Wings are out at take-off,
Brent carries extra bombs on his plane. Once he gets into a fight (and
believe me folks, this guy will) he lays 'em back. GM asks for a
clarification (better to let the player make his own bed that he's about to
lay in) then informs the guy he's falling out of the sky for some strange
reason. Yep, I LIKE this....

> Half-Back ........ Lose the above bonuses, speed and accel are both
> increased
> by 5 percent (translation ... the craft moves 5 percent faster than what
is
> intended)

Okay, not so bad.

> Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as per
> Half-Back

And, IMHO, Signature is improved by 1 point from the vehicles standard
signature, as the vehicle is now more "collected" in it's radar shadow.

> How does this sounds instead ?

It -sounded- fine to begin with. It is sounding better as we go along.

-K
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:03:57 -0700
J. Keith Henry wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 97-11-07 07:38:06 EST, AirWisp@***.COM writes:
/
/ > Then how about this, adding in Variable Wing Gemoetry as follows ...
/ >
/ > Design Points .................. Same as chassis
/ >
/ > Vehicle gains the following bonuses based on the wings in three different
/ > positions ...
/ >
/ > Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases by 10
/ > percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...
/
/ Oh this could be humorous from the my (as a GM) point of view. Load is
/ increased, and someone (say like Brent-Shiraku in the PBEM) just uses
/ "blanket mentality" applies it across the board. Wings are out at take-off,
/ Brent carries extra bombs on his plane. Once he gets into a fight (and
/ believe me folks, this guy will) he lays 'em back. GM asks for a
/ clarification (better to let the player make his own bed that he's about to
/ lay in) then informs the guy he's falling out of the sky for some strange
/ reason. Yep, I LIKE this....

Nope. As speed increases lift increases. So after he takes off he
runs his plane up to speed (increasing available lift), lays back the
wings, and increases his speed further, increasing available lift.

Airplane load mechanics get into a *lot* of math. Take-off max load
is not the same as in-flight max load. Suffice to say increasing
load capacity for VGW by 10% is not unreasonable and for game
purposes should apply across the board.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 15
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 13:07:45 -0700
Gurth wrote:
/
[snip: variable geometry wings]
/ after the colon are my suggestions for modifications to the vehicle's
/ stats.
/
/ * Reduce stall speed: see above
/ * Increase controllability at low speed: reduce Handling by 1
/ * Increase lift: add 10% to Load Rating
/
/ Perhaps this warrants a bigger speed increase with the wing swept back,
/ else nobody would ever use a VGW aircraft with the wing back... How about
/ adding 20% to Speed and adding 1 to Handling?

Sounds good. I'd add a note that the plane can fly with the wings in
mid-position during which it's flight characteristics are not altered.
And, limit this modification to jet fighters.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 16
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:49:15 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-08 16:04:04 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> Nope. As speed increases lift increases. So after he takes off he
> runs his plane up to speed (increasing available lift), lays back the
> wings, and increases his speed further, increasing available lift.
>
> Airplane load mechanics get into a *lot* of math. Take-off max load
> is not the same as in-flight max load. Suffice to say increasing
> load capacity for VGW by 10% is not unreasonable and for game
> purposes should apply across the board.
>
> -David
>
Ah Dave, you are spoiling all my fun. Damn, I was ready to have some
laughs...

(poubting now)

-Keith
Message no. 17
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:02:26 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-08 17:10:40 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

<snipped the decision/conversation on VWG up to this point>

> Sounds good. I'd add a note that the plane can fly with the wings in
> mid-position during which it's flight characteristics are not altered.
> And, limit this modification to jet fighters.

Though I agree with you most of the way, what about using the "push prop"
engines, the "Jet Propeller" variations? I know it isn't something you would
see all the time, but it could be done, IMHO. A variation on a Platinum,
perhaps the PIII (P3) would have such neat toys?

-K
Message no. 18
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:31:14 PST
>> Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases
by 10 percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...
>> Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as
per Half-Back

UMM, why couldn't they just build the plane so its wings were FIXED
in a position that gave either of those bonuses? I'd expect theretobe
some LOSS of performance in a (unimportant) catagory in each mode.
How about: full out = -20% stall / -20 %top speed, STOL (or VSTOL)
full back = +20 stall / +10% top speed

Yes, lower stall speed is a GOOD thing, its one of the main reasons
*why* you gain STOL. Other bonuses would have to come from improving
other systems. Switching modes reqires a skill test by the pilot.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 19
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:38:09 PST
>/ Perhaps this warrants a bigger speed increase with the wing swept
back,
>/ else nobody would ever use a VGW aircraft with the wing back... How
about
>/ adding 20% to Speed and adding 1 to Handling?

The main reason to sweep wings is to decrese drag (which increases
top speed only if your engine can hanle those speeds). Itsa fuel
economy / range thing as much as a duel mode / super sonic thing, afaik.
Is there any bonus in R2 to fuel economy for traveling well under
top speed? IIRC remember range gets very short at high speeds, but I
don't rmember a P#. Swept wings could increse economy, allowing the
same range at a higher speed, which I think is the point in part.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 20
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:44:09 PST
>Though I agree with you most of the way, what about using the "push
prop"
>engines, the "Jet Propeller" variations? I know it isn't something you
would
>see all the time, but it could be done, IMHO. A variation on a
Platinum,
>perhaps the PIII (P3) would have such neat toys?

Its not a very important mod if you are not going super sonic, IIRC.
The point is to have a broad wing for takeoff, then assume a delta that
can fit inside the shock cone. Swept wings help fuel economy at low
speed, but can be designed in without affecting take off so much. In
fact, i think they become a hinderence below certain speeds. GAH, all
this aerospace stuff I used to read only comes back when the issue is
specifically raised. Damn.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 21
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:24:15 +0100
Mon goose said on 22:38/ 8 Nov 97...

> The main reason to sweep wings is to decrese drag (which increases
> top speed only if your engine can hanle those speeds). Itsa fuel
> economy / range thing as much as a duel mode / super sonic thing, afaik.
> Is there any bonus in R2 to fuel economy for traveling well under
> top speed? IIRC remember range gets very short at high speeds, but I
> don't rmember a P#. Swept wings could increse economy, allowing the
> same range at a higher speed, which I think is the point in part.

Afterburners are the main source of fuel consumption in jet fighters.
There is a difference in economy between flying at maximum and at minimum
(or optimum) speeds, of course, but use of an afterburner for any
prolonged length of time cuts your flight time real short.

Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter is
5000. Add 50% because of the (IMHO silly) maximum speed rule and you get
7,500 m/turn, or 9,000 km/h. I find that to be a bit fast if you're using
only the normal thrust of your engine... It can't be with afterburners,
because of the fuel consumption I mentioned above.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 22
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:53:48 -0700
Mon goose wrote:
/
/ >> Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases
/ by 10 percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...
/ >> Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as
/ per Half-Back
/
/ UMM, why couldn't they just build the plane so its wings were FIXED
/ in a position that gave either of those bonuses? I'd expect theretobe
/ some LOSS of performance in a (unimportant) catagory in each mode.
/ How about: full out = -20% stall / -20 %top speed, STOL (or VSTOL)

I'd just like to point out that there are three types of STOL: vectored
thrust; putting out the flaps, standing on the breaks, reving up the
engine, pulling back on the stick and letting up on the breaks. Then as
soon as the plane lifts up off the ground pushing the stick forward to
stay in "wing in ground effect" until you get up over stall speed.; and
increasing the acceleration of the plane (the sooner it can reach take-off
speed the shorter it's take-off distance).

/ full back = +20 stall / +10% top speed
/
/ Yes, lower stall speed is a GOOD thing, its one of the main reasons
/ *why* you gain STOL. Other bonuses would have to come from improving
/ other systems. Switching modes reqires a skill test by the pilot.

Not a bad idea. Once you've purchased your airframe pick your wing
configuration and go from their.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 23
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:04:33 +0100
Mon Goose wrote:
>>Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases
>>by 10 percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...
>>
>>Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as
>>per Half-Back

> UMM, why couldn't they just build the plane so its wings were FIXED
>in a position that gave either of those bonuses? I'd expect theretobe
>some LOSS of performance in a (unimportant) catagory in each mode.
>How about: full out = -20% stall / -20 %top speed, STOL (or VSTOL)
> full back = +20 stall / +10% top speed

Good point. Full-Back *requires* extremely high speed for any significant
lift- you'd require Salt Lake to take off with Full-Back option. The idea
with VGW is that you can use the full-out to take off at relatively short
runways, then full-back to get low fuel consumption and high speed, often at
high altitudes. Most fighter aircraft isn't swing-wing, since they are too
small to use it effectively - F-16, etc. It's more common on fighter
bombers, which requires a combination of high speed and high takeoff weight,
and also is large enough that it doesn't much complicate matters. Most
fighters has oversized engines; they can take off no matter what the runway is,
as long as it is long enough that they can get enough speed to point the
nose upwards. The F-16 would be able to take off from a vertical ramp, for
instance, except it would be extremely dangerous, of course, but it has the
engine power for it. So their wing geometry is closer to full-back allready,
and wouldn't get much gain from a swing-wing system. VGW isn't universally
an advantage, and it could be considered part of the abstract system
for increasing performance allready. (In fact, I would strongly suggest
treating it as such.).
Message no. 24
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:15:03 -0500
At 08-Nov-97 wrote Gurth:



>XB-70 didn't have variable-geometry wings, or at least not in the same way
>the F-14 or MiG-23 do. In the XB-70, the outer portion of the wing could
>move up and down (0, 25, or 65 degrees down), not backward and forward.
>Basically it was just a really large delta with canards behind the
>cockpit.


Yep, but this can be used as an example of what can be done with swept wing
tech.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 25
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:09:14 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-08 15:25:18 EST, you write:

> / Oh this could be humorous from the my (as a GM) point of view. Load is
> / increased, and someone (say like Brent-Shiraku in the PBEM) just uses
> / "blanket mentality" applies it across the board. Wings are out at take-
> off,
> / Brent carries extra bombs on his plane. Once he gets into a fight (and
> / believe me folks, this guy will) he lays 'em back. GM asks for a
> / clarification (better to let the player make his own bed that he's about

> to
> / lay in) then informs the guy he's falling out of the sky for some
strange
> / reason. Yep, I LIKE this....
>
> Nope. As speed increases lift increases. So after he takes off he
> runs his plane up to speed (increasing available lift), lays back the
> wings, and increases his speed further, increasing available lift.
>
> Airplane load mechanics get into a *lot* of math. Take-off max load
> is not the same as in-flight max load. Suffice to say increasing
> load capacity for VGW by 10% is not unreasonable and for game
> purposes should apply across the board.
>
> -David

Okay, I'm going to give some additional information to this posting about the
VGW and what is going on here ... the player (Brent-Shiraku) has a pair of
cyber wings that allow him to fly (through the use of enchantments to allow
him to fly), if he applies the VGW to his wings, or even to a jet-pack, when
the wings are folded clear back, he gains the flying ability of a panzer with
the engine exhaust set on full rear thrust. Meaning he becomes a rapidly
falling brick ... hehe

What Keith is trying to say is that someone will be stupid enough to stick
this option onto a small vehicle and will cause some seriously funny
situation to occur (at their expense of course).

Mike
Message no. 26
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:13:11 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-08 17:08:34 EST, you write:

> Sounds good. I'd add a note that the plane can fly with the wings in
> mid-position during which it's flight characteristics are not altered.
> And, limit this modification to jet fighters.
>
> -David

Unfortunately it would be available to any aircraft that it is conceivable of
being put onto. Though fighter craft would have it more, but others would
stick it onto an airliner chassis (like the B-1 bomber) or even onto some
jet-prop craft also ...

Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them some
flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
effect to increase their speed and economy ?

Mike
Message no. 27
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:18:42 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:
/
/ Okay, I'm going to give some additional information to this posting about the
/ VGW and what is going on here ... the player (Brent-Shiraku) has a pair of
/ cyber wings that allow him to fly (through the use of enchantments to allow
/ him to fly), if he applies the VGW to his wings, or even to a jet-pack, when
/ the wings are folded clear back, he gains the flying ability of a panzer with
/ the engine exhaust set on full rear thrust. Meaning he becomes a rapidly
/ falling brick ... hehe
/
/ What Keith is trying to say is that someone will be stupid enough to stick
/ this option onto a small vehicle and will cause some seriously funny
/ situation to occur (at their expense of course).

Oh, I didn't know the player intended to fold the wings back while
traveling at low speeds. The full swept back position is generally
used for near- or supersonic flight (i.e., going balistic).

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 28
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:30:02 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:
/
/ Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them some
/ flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
/ effect to increase their speed and economy ?

To my knowledge it's never been done, but I don't see why not. The
only obstacle you have to overcome is getting the craft up to flying
speed. With small boats that's not a problem. With the bigger boats
you might have to use hydrofoil technology.

And, with the wings out the boat would have a very wide turning
radius.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 29
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:18:17 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-09 01:32:13 EST, you write:

> >> Full Out ........... Handling bonus of +1, Load capacity increases
> by 10 percent, and gains the STOL landing/take-off profile ...
> >> Full-Back ........ Speed and Accel are increased by 10 percent as
> per Half-Back
>
> UMM, why couldn't they just build the plane so its wings were FIXED
> in a position that gave either of those bonuses? I'd expect theretobe
> some LOSS of performance in a (unimportant) catagory in each mode.
> How about: full out = -20% stall / -20 %top speed, STOL (or VSTOL)
> full back = +20 stall / +10% top speed

I could see the benefit of having the wings set back at a certain angle,
unfortunately, as a GM I would say that the aircraft would gain no benefit
from setting the wings back permanently at a certain angle. The benefit of
having VGW is that the wings of the aircraft move to give the plane the best
possible lift ratio available to it.

Mike
Message no. 30
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:29:55 PST
I found a fuel penalty for exceeding top speed, which I couldsee
jet fighters doing a lot as part of combat. Maybe afterburners couldbe
an option that allowstop speed to be exceeded without strain? Or not-
jet fighters reqire lotsof maintenance, afaik, and fixing strain points
would be part of that.

>Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter
is 5000.

Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.

> Add 50% because of the (IMHO silly) maximum speed rule and you get
>7,500 m/turn, or 9,000 km/h. I find that to be a bit fast if you're
using only the normal thrust of your engine... It can't be with
afterburners, because of the fuel consumption I mentioned above.
>
Well, exceeding (normal) top speed increases fule consumption (only
50%). I could see afterburners allowing the same thing, without strain,
at even higher fuel consumption(x4?) Then allowing the burners top
speed (+50%) to be exeeded with strain, and 50% *more* fuel... Yeesh,
could you get back to base after a fight?

BTW, why are we all posting about jet fighters our characters should
never use, anyhow?
>--
>Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
> -> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
>-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html
<-
>
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
>Version 3.1:
>GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
>Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
>------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>


Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 31
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:52:41 -0500
At 10-Nov-97 wrote Mon goose:


>BTW, why are we all posting about jet fighters our characters should
>never use, anyhow?

Because most players dream about it.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 32
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:54:57 -0500
Mon goose[SMTP:landsquid@*******.COM] wrote:
> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter
> is 5000.
>
> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.

Actually, that's about mach 6...
Since the stats are in m/turn, we get to multiply by 1.2 to
get km/h, so a speed of 5000 is 6000km/h.

Mach 1 is about 1100 km/h.

> BTW, why are we all posting about jet fighters our characters should
> never use, anyhow?

It's just a demonstration that any model becomes inaccurate
near its limits...

James Ojaste
Message no. 33
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:25:09 +0100
Mon goose said on 12:29/10 Nov 97...

> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter
> >is 5000.
>
> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.

It's 1667 m/s, and mach 1 at sea level would be something like 340 m/s...

> Well, exceeding (normal) top speed increases fule consumption (only
> 50%). I could see afterburners allowing the same thing, without strain,
> at even higher fuel consumption(x4?) Then allowing the burners top
> speed (+50%) to be exeeded with strain, and 50% *more* fuel... Yeesh,
> could you get back to base after a fight?

Afterburners make fuel consumption go absolutely out of control. Jet
fighters that can stay airborne for a few hours at subsonic speeds run out
of fuel after 10 or 15 minutes with full afterburners. Economy x4 is WAY
too low, I think.

How about this solution: change the speeds for a jet fighter engine to
Starting 150/750, Maximum 150/1250, and use the following design option
for jet fighters only:

Afterburner

An afterburner injects fuel directly into the exhaust of a jet engine,
increasing thrust by a massive amount.

With the afterburner engages, multiply the aircraft's Speed and
Aceleration by the rating of the afterburner plus 1 (with a rating 2
afterburner, multiply by 3, etc.). Economy becomes very poor, and is
divided by 100 (one hundred, yes) times the afterburner rating as long as
it is engaged.

For example (refer to R2 for this) an otherwise unmodified jet fighter
aircraft template equipped with a jet fighter engine, but fitted with a
level 2 afterburner, has a Speed of 2,250 (and a Max Speed of 3,375),
Acceleration 240, and Economy .001 km/l.

Design Cost: level x 1,000
Maximum Rating: 3
CF Consumed: 0
Load Reduction: 0 kg

> BTW, why are we all posting about jet fighters our characters should
> never use, anyhow?

For the same reason we tend to discuss panzers from time to time -- just
because we can :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 34
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:31:26 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 09:25:08 EST, you write:

> / What Keith is trying to say is that someone will be stupid enough to
stick
> / this option onto a small vehicle and will cause some seriously funny
> / situation to occur (at their expense of course).
>
> Oh, I didn't know the player intended to fold the wings back while
> traveling at low speeds. The full swept back position is generally
> used for near- or supersonic flight (i.e., going balistic).
>
> -David

I understand you completely, though the player in question would be
considering it anyway .. the guy is very munchkinish ... and has a dislike
for riggers ("Who needs them anyway) ...

Mike
Message no. 35
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:33:47 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 09:52:30 EST, you write:

> / Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them
> some
> / flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
> / effect to increase their speed and economy ?
>
> To my knowledge it's never been done, but I don't see why not. The
> only obstacle you have to overcome is getting the craft up to flying
> speed. With small boats that's not a problem. With the bigger boats
> you might have to use hydrofoil technology.

True, though I was thinking more of getting the boat to be affected by
something called the Ground Effect, which happens to aircraft when they are
flying NoE sometimes ...

> And, with the wings out the boat would have a very wide turning
> radius.

I agree with that completely, though perhaps if instead of one pair of large
wings, you instead installed multiple smaller wins/canards to make use of the
effect ....

> -David


Mike
Message no. 36
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:40:16 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 16:14:45 EST, you write:

> >BTW, why are we all posting about jet fighters our characters should
> >never use, anyhow?
>
> Because most players dream about it.

Yup, and I am thinking of other things too, it's just getting around to
thinking about them, and how to apply them (and a matter of being able to
understand my own posting) ...

Mike
Message no. 37
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:41:42 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 15:43:03 EST, you write:

> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter
> is 5000.
>
> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.

Nope, 5000 is Mach 6.0 .. you multiply the list speed by 1.2 to get the speed
in kph ...

Mike
Message no. 38
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:50:06 -0700
Mike Bobroff wrote:
/
/ > / Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them
/ > some
/ > / flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
/ > / effect to increase their speed and economy ?
/ >
/ > To my knowledge it's never been done, but I don't see why not. The
/ > only obstacle you have to overcome is getting the craft up to flying
/ > speed. With small boats that's not a problem. With the bigger boats
/ > you might have to use hydrofoil technology.
/
/ True, though I was thinking more of getting the boat to be affected by
/ something called the Ground Effect, which happens to aircraft when they are
/ flying NoE sometimes ...
/
/ > And, with the wings out the boat would have a very wide turning
/ > radius.
/
/ I agree with that completely, though perhaps if instead of one pair of large
/ wings, you instead installed multiple smaller wins/canards to make use of the
/ effect ....

Sorry, but the altitude of wing in ground effect is equal to half the
wingspan of the aircraft. No matter how many multiple smaller
wings/canards you use you're still limited in altitude by the largest
wingspan.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 39
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:07:31 PST
>> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet
fighter
>> >is 5000.
>>
>> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.
>
>It's 1667 m/s, and mach 1 at sea level would be something like 340
m/s...

Mach 5??!! What kind of "jet fighter" does Mach 5? Not that thats at
all unfeasable, its just not really good for dogfighting, afaik.

>
>> Well, exceeding (normal) top speed increases fule consumption (only
>> 50%). I could see afterburners allowing the same thing, without
strain,
>> at even higher fuel consumption(x4?) Then allowing the burners top
>> speed (+50%) to be exeeded with strain, and 50% *more* fuel... Yeesh,
>> could you get back to base after a fight?

>How about this solution: change the speeds for a jet fighter engine to
>Starting 150/750, Maximum 150/1250, and use the following design option
>for jet fighters only:

IE, all 2057 jets can "supercruise" at mach 2.5-3.5 ? Thatsounds
reasonable. Although slower ones should be availble, at least from
museums- don't people still race ww2 planes?

>Afterburner
>
>An afterburner injects fuel directly into the exhaust of a jet engine,
increasing thrust by a massive amount.
>
>With the afterburner engages, multiply the aircraft's Speed and
>Aceleration by the rating of the afterburner plus 1 (with a rating 2
>afterburner, multiply by 3, etc.). Economy becomes very poor, and is
>divided by 100 (one hundred, yes) times the afterburner rating as long
as it is engaged.
>

THAT MUCH? wow. I though after burners usually doubled thrust, tops.
I'd expect some minimum increase, and then less expensive / drastic
improvements to be possible.
Note also that doubling thrust does NOT double top speed- drag increases
as the cube of speed, i think. Of course, R2 does not acknowledge that
acceleration decreases with speed as well (drag again). KISS, I guess.

>For example (refer to R2 for this) an otherwise unmodified jet fighter
>aircraft template equipped with a jet fighter engine, but fitted with a
>level 2 afterburner, has a Speed of 2,250 (and a Max Speed of 3,375),
>Acceleration 240, and Economy .001 km/l.
>
>Design Cost: level x 1,000
>Maximum Rating: 3
>CF Consumed: 0
>Load Reduction: 0 kg

That comes to 300,000 nuyen per level. A bit low? And the system has
some wight, no? Those big metal tubes weigh something!

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 40
From: Oliver McDonald <oliver@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:50:05 +0800
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:30:02 -0700, David Buehrer wrote:

>Mike Bobroff wrote:
>/
>/ Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them some
>/ flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
>/ effect to increase their speed and economy ?
>
>To my knowledge it's never been done, but I don't see why not. The
>only obstacle you have to overcome is getting the craft up to flying
>speed. With small boats that's not a problem. With the bigger boats
>you might have to use hydrofoil technology.
>
>And, with the wings out the boat would have a very wide turning
>radius.

What you are talking about is an acrono-plane, a soviet (russian) invention that can fly
at
450 to 500 knots just above the surface of the water, actually using less fuel to fly a
given distance than a boat would to travel the same distance. The russians have a demo
model right now the length of a 747, but twice as tall, and 3 times as wide (body
width)...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://web2.spydernet.com

Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.

Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.
Message no. 41
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:57:09 +0100
Mon goose said on 16:07/10 Nov 97...

> >How about this solution: change the speeds for a jet fighter engine to
> >Starting 150/750, Maximum 150/1250, and use the following design option
> >for jet fighters only:
>
> IE, all 2057 jets can "supercruise" at mach 2.5-3.5 ? Thatsounds
> reasonable. Although slower ones should be availble, at least from
> museums- don't people still race ww2 planes?

Yeah, but heavily modified (engines tuned to more than twice normal power,
shortened wings, better streamlined fuselages, etc.).

> >Afterburner
> >
> >An afterburner injects fuel directly into the exhaust of a jet engine,
> increasing thrust by a massive amount.
> >
> >With the afterburner engages, multiply the aircraft's Speed and
> >Aceleration by the rating of the afterburner plus 1 (with a rating 2
> >afterburner, multiply by 3, etc.). Economy becomes very poor, and is
> >divided by 100 (one hundred, yes) times the afterburner rating as long
> as it is engaged.
> >
>
> THAT MUCH? wow. I though after burners usually doubled thrust, tops.

I just picked some numbers that felt right. I'm not sure by how much an
afterburner actually increases thrust (I could look up typical figures,
though).

> I'd expect some minimum increase, and then less expensive / drastic
> improvements to be possible.
> Note also that doubling thrust does NOT double top speed- drag increases
> as the cube of speed, i think. Of course, R2 does not acknowledge that
> acceleration decreases with speed as well (drag again). KISS, I guess.

I know, but like you say R2 doesn't take such kinds of things into
account, so why should the modifications we come up with do?

> >Design Cost: level x 1,000
> >Maximum Rating: 3
> >CF Consumed: 0
> >Load Reduction: 0 kg
>
> That comes to 300,000 nuyen per level. A bit low?

A jet fighter engine costs 2,000 design points, so 1,000 DP per level
looks good to me.

> And the system has some wight, no? Those big metal tubes weigh
> something!

But is it a significant mass compared to that of the engine?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 42
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:24:15 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-09 01:32:10 EST, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

> UMM, why couldn't they just build the plane so its wings were FIXED
> in a position that gave either of those bonuses? I'd expect theretobe
> some LOSS of performance in a (unimportant) catagory in each mode.
> How about: full out = -20% stall / -20 %top speed, STOL (or VSTOL)
> full back = +20 stall / +10% top speed
>
> Yes, lower stall speed is a GOOD thing, its one of the main reasons
> *why* you gain STOL. Other bonuses would have to come from improving
> other systems. Switching modes reqires a skill test by the pilot.
>
I am doing some digging into this topic with other people I know, including
an old friend of mine in Arizona who is with the Air Force (her idea of how
"close" is "close" to a SR-71 is sitting in it). She's been an avtech
for
years, I am hoping to have answers within a week or so.

-K
Message no. 43
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:26:39 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-09 01:39:52 EST, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

> The main reason to sweep wings is to decrese drag (which increases
> top speed only if your engine can hanle those speeds). Itsa fuel
> economy / range thing as much as a duel mode / super sonic thing, afaik.
> Is there any bonus in R2 to fuel economy for traveling well under
> top speed? IIRC remember range gets very short at high speeds, but I
> don't rmember a P#. Swept wings could increse economy, allowing the
> same range at a higher speed, which I think is the point in part.
>
After reading this, I have a question Squid. Do you have the R2 book yet?
If so, then you can find the answers to your fuel economy question on page
82 of said book.

-K
Message no. 44
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:51:32 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 09:25:58 EST, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> Unfortunately it would be available to any aircraft that it is conceivable
> of
> being put onto. Though fighter craft would have it more, but others would
> stick it onto an airliner chassis (like the B-1 bomber) or even onto some
> jet-prop craft also ...

Oh yeah, I could see this now. The New "Lockheed" airliners....gack!!!

> Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them
> some
> flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a ground
> effect to increase their speed and economy ?
>
> Mike

In a word...NO!!!!

(grin)
-K
Message no. 45
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:06:18 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 15:34:51 EST, landsquid@*******.COM writes:

> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet fighter
> is 5000.
>
> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.
>
Actually, I am very sorry to announce that it's Mach 5. Think of that for
the fun.
-K
Message no. 46
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:34:53 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-10 17:05:44 EST, you write:

> Afterburners make fuel consumption go absolutely out of control. Jet
> fighters that can stay airborne for a few hours at subsonic speeds run out
> of fuel after 10 or 15 minutes with full afterburners. Economy x4 is WAY
> too low, I think.
>
> How about this solution: change the speeds for a jet fighter engine to
> Starting 150/750, Maximum 150/1250, and use the following design option
> for jet fighters only:

Guys, there is no afterburner option anymore because they are considered to
be on those aircraft with speeds that are truly high (like Fighters and the
like).

Mike
Message no. 47
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:57:29 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-11 21:27:27 EST, you write:

> > Also, another thing, could the VGW be put onto marine craft, giving them
> > some
> > flight characteristics, not true flight, but creating enough of a
ground
> > effect to increase their speed and economy ?
> >
> > Mike
>
> In a word...NO!!!!
>
> (grin)
> -K

Doing my best Jeff George imitation ... "Why ?" ...

Mike
Message no. 48
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:00 GMT
on 10.11.97 landsquid@*******.COM wrote:
l> >> >Looking at the engine table in R2, the maximum speed for a jet
l> fighter
l> >> >is 5000.
l> >>
l> >> Thats what, mach 1.3? pretty good cruise speed, imo.
l> >
l> >It's 1667 m/s, and mach 1 at sea level would be something like 340
l> m/s...
l>
l> Mach 5??!! What kind of "jet fighter" does Mach 5? Not that thats at
l> all unfeasable, its just not really good for dogfighting, afaik.

Depends. For powerfighting (i.e. come in, strike and then get away ASAP)
it's pretty cool. Though I wouldn't want to try powerfighting agains
planes with advanced missiles (thouse babys that you can fire at a target
behind you).



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 49
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: New Vehicle Design Option
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:49:49 +0000
In article <199711110957.KAA29661@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>I just picked some numbers that felt right. I'm not sure by how much an
>afterburner actually increases thrust (I could look up typical figures,
>though).

Typically by an extra fifty to one hundred per cent (example, from
14,670lb dry to 23,830lb wet for the P&W F100 turbofan in the F-16, or
12,350lb dry to 19,840lb wet for the SNECMA M53-5 in the Mirage 2000).
Fuel consumption roughly triples.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about New Vehicle Design Option, 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.

Thwap!