65 replies to this topic

[Gladewolf]

stjobe, on 18 February 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

While that is a nice example of asymmetric design, you might be interested to know that the BV-141 had symmetrical lift (so it was stable in the roll axis), and the difference in thrust and drag symmetry (which otherwise would have lead to instability in the yaw axis) was easily countered with trimming; i.e. the design had symmetrical thrust.

In less words: It looks asymmetrical, but from an aerodynamic (thrust/drag/lift) perspective it is not.

So if for instance a mech had say 31 pct of it's weight in it's right arm...it would probably make sense to put most of it's JJs in it's Right torso for example(Blackjack Champion)? Even physics disagrees with the premise of this argument.

[stjobe]

Gladewolf, on 18 February 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

So if for instance a mech had say 31 pct of it's weight in it's right arm...it would probably make sense to put most of it's JJs in it's Right torso for example(Blackjack Champion)? Even physics disagrees with the premise of this argument.

Physics disagree with BattleTech period. Do you see much multi-jointed humanoid rockets in the real world? Or walking battle machines at all?

But for the sake of argument: Anything can fly with enough specific impulse. Whether it is stable flight is another matter; a rather complex other matter. You need to take three axis of stability into account, plus thrust and drag. If the centre of gravity is offset from the central axis of the object, thrust needs to be offset as well (which is the case in the BV-141 - the centreline of the aircraft is in-between the engine boom and the cockpit pod), and there's all kinds of other factors that affect stability.

For aircraft, lift is an additional factor. If you look at that BV-141 picture, you may notice that the wings aren't equal on both sides of the engine boom. Find out where the midpoint of the wing is and you've found the centreline of the BV-141. Thrust is applied in a vector that's offset to the centreline, so the aircraft has a tendency to yaw (swing side-to-side); in practice this tendency was easily compensated by trimming the rudder (manually adjusting it to give a slight rudder when at "neutral").

Weight distribution on both sides of the centreline should be roughly equal as well, but can be compensated somewhat by a slightly larger wing (i.e. more lift) on the heavier side; or the aircraft will have a tendency to roll (dip one wing). For the BV-141, this was never a problem - as noted it was designed with one wing larger than the other.

Finally pitch (nose up/down); longitudinal asymmetry has no relevance to pitch, so no special accommodations need to be taken in an asymmetrical aircraft.

There's more, but I think I've covered enough basic aerodynamics by now

For BattleTech and MWO none of this matter at all; we hand-wave it and say the onboard computers take care of everything. It's not like we're putting our own lives at risk climbing into a 'mech and blasting off, so that's a perfectly good option, if you ask me

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I have frequently said Jump Jets should be a chassis upgrade similar to Artemis or Endo Steel, with a fixed tonnage and further restricted with predesignated critical slot allocation. So beyond having to keep them balanced on your mech you get the pre-engineered number of jumpjets in specific locations, or nothing.

[Gladewolf]

stjobe, on 18 February 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Physics disagree with BattleTech period. Do you see much multi-jointed humanoid rockets in the real world? Or walking battle machines at all?

I'm well aware, but people simply insist on using pseudo physics to try to make a case for plans like the one. I have said many times. "Hey, it's a science fiction game set more than 1k years in the future." ...But no one wants to hear that when it involves going after their favorite pet evil....I see it as the reason my electronic gun cross shakes when I jump now...so i'm a bit tired of indirect nerfs. So are you into aircraft restoration? Your knowledge of flight controls (and this plane in particular) seems pretty solid.

[stjobe]

Gladewolf, on 18 February 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

I'm well aware, but people simply insist on using pseudo physics to try to make a case for plans like the one. I have said many times. "Hey, it's a science fiction game set more than 1k years in the future."

Hey, that's MY line!

Although I usually have to say that "1000-years-in-the-future-weaponry doesn't necessarily bear any resemblance to modern-day weaponry, even if they do happen to share a name"... *cough*MG*cough*

Gladewolf, on 18 February 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

So are you into aircraft restoration? Your knowledge of flight controls (and this plane in particular) seems pretty solid.

My knowledge of basic aerodynamics and WWII-era German reconnaissance aircraft prototypes is strictly impractical

I will admit to being a propeller-head since I was a wee lad back in the *mumble*ies though; and three or four decades of reading actually makes some of it stick

[Kaeb Odellas]

I'd like to go one step further and introduce jumpjet hardpoints, corresponding to the thruster placement on each mech's model.

There's precedent for this. When they implemented ECM hardpoints, some folks' builds got messed up. One of my corps mates he couldn't fit his triple SRM6+Artemis, ECM and XL360 into his brawler DDC in anymore (yes, he put an XL on his Atlas, and a Gauss Rifle to boot!)

EDIT: Also, now that there's a mechlab warning for ghost heat and missing ammo, you can even implement a debuff for imbalanced jump-jet placement, and corresponding mechlab warning. Perhaps have imbalanced mechs turn slightly when they jump, or reduce one of the jets to half effectiveness?

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 18 February 2014 - 12:38 PM.