202 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Thought about co-axial
Although the fantail looks more badass

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 31 March 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Thought about co-axial
Although the fantail looks more badass

They sure do, it was my favorite part of the Comanche prototypes.... and the retractable landing gear.

[Karl Streiger]

First i wanted skids because they might look like insect legs. But techs might need to move it in a hangar. It might be anything but fun to add wheelcarts to the skids. So rectractable powered all steering wheels.

Not so sure about the full active sensor suite. While the 160mm gauss might be able to hit targets beyond visible range a radar pulse might be a bad idea.
Also want to add some stubby wings for external payload. Maybe some remote anti infantry weapons

[Pariah Devalis]

Note: If you do not give it a coaxial rotor system, it would have an imposed limitation on its maximum airspeed due to a phenomenon in rotorcraft aerodynamics called retreating blade stall. The faster the forward airspeed of the ship, the lower the relative airspeed of the retreating blade. This gradually shifts the lift to half of the rotor disk while the other side stalls due to a high angle of attack.



A coaxial configuration, however, bypasses the issue. As the blades spin in opposite directions, the retreating blade of one rotor is paired up with the advancing blade of the other. This means if one half of one rotor disk starts to stall, it is being compensated for by the lift of the other rotor disk. Coaxial setups with a pusher prop have been clocked at over 255 knots, which is absolutely ludicrous for a helicopter. See the S-97 Raider, and X-3.

Further, and equally important, especially if lugging something heavy like a gauss rifle, a coaxial setup allows for virtually 100% of the power generated for use by the rotors to translate to lifting force. No need to siphon some of that power to the anti-torque tail rotor which, by the way, is directly connected with a drive shaft with the main rotor. (However, in case of low engine RPM due to, say, engine failure or drive belt slippage, a sprag clutch kicks in, meaning both the main rotor and tail rotor won't stop spinning if the engine dies. Related note: auto-rotation is so much fun.)

I might not have flown an attack helicopter, but I survived training in a R-22, tyvm. Same principles.

Edit:

As for skids vs wheels, skids usually have detachable wheels that can be socketed into them.




Skids act as a crumple zone in case of a crash, but being unable to retract them reduces the aerodynamics as opposed to fully retractable wheels. On the other hand, fully retractable wheels can break. If your landing gear cannot be lowered because of a malfunction, it's a dicey situation.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 01 April 2017 - 10:26 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

ok - coaxial for more speed - this in combination a pusher prop is used on the warrior.
(would it cause interference when the ducted fan would be mounted nearer to the hull as a twin boom configuration?

The Warrior is indeed a very interesting vehicle.

You have a - mixed loadout - AC2 woooha - and missiles - could get a interesting asymmetrical look (instead of 2 tubes per side)
another version with a even bigger gun - and a chain gun - seriously BT Machineguns must have 20mm upwards

then there is a pure missile variant.

Not so bad so far - but things become very strange with the TRO3058_U

dropping 1ton the warrior suddenly need a fusion engine - although keeping the 21tons also would allow to add more speed and keep the ICE.

Anyhow the H8 reminds me at the H7 - its obviously that the drop of 1ton is one of the bad decisions made in CBT
H9 again a pure AC armed version but this time a 40mm Rotary (i hate it when they add calibers to their cannons)
H10 a double chain gun - infantry transport.

doing some BT math - I could have all those configurations all with the same speed of 10/15 and ICE when putting the tonnage at 25tons.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 05 April 2017 - 07:14 AM.

[Metus regem]

BT "machine guns" are listed between 12.7mm and 30mm, an AC/2 is usually between 30mm and 50mm...

[Tordin]

Interesting. Soooo, what would the difference be between a 30 mm machine gun and a 30 mm AC/2 be?

[Metus regem]

Tordin, on 05 April 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

Interesting. Soooo, what would the difference be between a 30 mm machine gun and a 30 mm AC/2 be?

Cartridge length and barrel length really... As well as RoF.

[Pariah Devalis]

Karl Streiger, on 05 April 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

ok - coaxial for more speed - this in combination a pusher prop is used on the warrior.
(would it cause interference when the ducted fan would be mounted nearer to the hull as a twin boom configuration?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Did you put a pusher prop in a ducted fan against the body of the ship? If so, yes. The downwash of the main rotor systems would degrade the thrust of the pusher as the air both getting sucked into the pusher and the air being forced out wouldn't be clean, turbulence free air. Ideally, you want any tail rotor system, be it a pusher, fantail, or any other system imaginable, be located clear of the main rotor disk.




NOTAR is one possible exception (I am not 100% clear on this), as it uses an internal secondary fan hooked to the engine to channel air along the length of the empennage, as well as a secondary output port in a directional duct, to create counter torque. However, with a coaxial system, counter torque is unnecessary due to the counter rotating blades. Further, given how piss poor NOTAR actually is, relative to any other tail rotor system, in regards to usable thrust to counteract torque, it is far more susceptible to Loss of Tailrotor Effectiveness relative to other counter torque systems. The trade off is safety, as there is no tail rotor to walk into. Useful on, say, an air ambulance.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 05 April 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

the warrior is like the sikorsky x2 or kamov ka 92


but instead adding the pusher prop at the end
i rather would like to have it more in the center



or similar with a twin tail.

but as you suggested i will keep the pusher free of the main rotor

---

bt 30mm machine gun 1 barrel
ac2 30mm multiple longer barrels

in case of the Warrior 7 - I think would add a double barrel single ammunition feed cannon using the Gast principle with high energy proppelant fused by ECT around 10-12 rounds high-velocity rounds will pepper any target.
The issue is the ablative principle of BT armor and how guns work - its all about penetration - and a single 120mm round doesn't have the same penetration as 2 rounds of 60mm -
In my interpretation it's about delivering "energy" -

So the "Double 60" L77 Autocannon of the Warrior H7 put 10-12 per shot into the target
where as the a 30mmmachine guns of the Warrior H10 might put 10 rounds of 30mm shells per shot into a target.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 05 April 2017 - 12:20 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

While I'm writing a short story about a cat-and-mouse-game between a lance of Warriors and a BattleMech (beware of the Stinger )
I needed a concept for the Warrior H7 combat helicopter. The issue of course the AC2. In the Artwork the gun looks weird and punny - so again how would a AC2 on a combat helicopter look like.

Well it started as a quick idea - the 57mm L77 ZSU - now a 60 L72 SarLon AC2 and because I was already using some good old tech of the UdSSR i also though the gun should work after the Gast Principle - one feed two barrels.

(btw: the Stingers deadly Lindblad Machine Guns is a 4barreled 12.7mm)

Gun and 180mm SRM (well I know that i can't fit 100 SRMs per ton into a chassis.
But hey its either active radar fire forget or semi active laser guided - not to mention the 16km range.

speaking of range - the SarLon should be able to penetrate 208mm armor at 1000m

5 rounds is a BT shot, And with 9 rounds per second it shouldn't be an issue to deliver them on spot

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 07 April 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

While I'm writing a short story about a cat-and-mouse-game between a lance of Warriors and a BattleMech (beware of the Stinger )
I needed a concept for the Warrior H7 combat helicopter. The issue of course the AC2. In the Artwork the gun looks weird and punny - so again how would a AC2 on a combat helicopter look like.

Well it started as a quick idea - the 57mm L77 ZSU - now a 60 L72 SarLon AC2 and because I was already using some good old tech of the UdSSR i also though the gun should work after the Gast Principle - one feed two barrels.

(btw: the Stingers deadly Lindblad Machine Guns is a 4barreled 12.7mm)

Gun and 180mm SRM (well I know that i can't fit 100 SRMs per ton into a chassis.
But hey its either active radar fire forget or semi active laser guided - not to mention the 16km range.

speaking of range - the SarLon should be able to penetrate 208mm armor at 1000m

5 rounds is a BT shot, And with 9 rounds per second it shouldn't be an issue to deliver them on spot

I'd go with the the ZSU-23-4 with the quad 23mm 2A7's (AZP-23), just use a stripped down two barreled unit.

Spoiler

As for the SRM's perhaps looking at the 70mm Hydra 70's would be more inline with what the Warrior would be using...

Spoiler

My reasoning on this, is at the time BT was written this kind of information was not as easily accessible as it is now. I imagine if it were to get a face lift for a post internet era, one would see a lot of changes in bore sizes, missile sizes, rocket sizes as well as ranges.

Edited by Metus regem, 07 April 2017 - 07:31 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

My biggest issue with BT is scale and weight.
Consider the Rotunda nice idea but without the support vehicle rules it is very stupid a 25t sports car?
With support rules its a possibility to have a heavy armed sportscar although weapons would be infantry size.

For the warrior the size of a "modern" combat helikopter would be 5-10ton at best.
100 FFAR "SRM"not a thing either

However the warrior h10 can ferry 5 battle amor into battle - and wie could be glad its not a ton more.

---

Just a "kind" of reminder I don't want to try to make the same "logic" mistakes as the CBT uses.
When I put missiles onto a chassis they are real missiles.
Even when neither size or fire power can be found in BTU.

THis also means some Mechs like the COmmndo only have their 10 missiles (no reload)


(Also have tested it 2 years ago - but without some counter measures - a Commando after jumping over the radiating pile of scrap of his comrades - was able to blast a Awesome into oblivion with a saturating attack of his 10 SRMs.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 April 2017 - 06:10 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

just some minimalistic changes on the mwo banshee (shorten the gibbon arms and stretched the barry sanders legs)
its a 6s nothing fancy for mwo but a beast in tt a full featured 9 inch HeavyGauss Rifle with a 6 Inch heavy Crosscut LBX.

(the ac fires either a burst of 3.6 inch subcaliber bullets with polymer sabot. or 3 electric fused shell shots of 28 40mm HEDP grenades each

color of the 13 Donegal Guards fighting on the radioactive barrens of Dalkeith in April 3066.
Cover of my short story "Knochenmuehle" will try to translate it (was for a short story contest in the German subforum)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 April 2017 - 12:18 AM.

[Koniving]

Karl Streiger, on 17 October 2016 - 04:07 AM, said:

After the SRM I felt ready for a challenge - lets try to make a Atlas.
As usual I looked at the manufacturers and found out it uses a FarFire LRM.

Cross checking the FarFire LRM I ended with this picture:

The FarFire LRM 15 of the JES II.

Really enjoy the concept. I hadn't thought of it myself but that would fix a certain issue with the stock Farfire launcher.

Just one small issue.
The Atlas's farfire maxi-rack LRM-20 launcher is very specifically mentioned to be the 5 tube hip pack on the left torso, and very specifically said to rapidly reload and fire in volleys of 5, 5, 5 and 5 at 2.5 seconds apart per volley

o.O; Trust me, I like your idea better. Also when considering the original art for the Atlas, the hip launcher tube openings are much smaller than the Atlas's fingers.

And rightfully so (in my opinion) they are smaller than the SRM tube openings.

and the art in that image (the JES II)... doesn't appear to be something large enough to hold seven crew members let alone a way to reload it, and that seriously doesn't look like it is 95 tons.

Something similar to the TharHex Maxi SRM would probably be more suited to the Atlas's LRM launcher.

As for why the stock Atlas's LRM is hip mounted while the SRM is chest mounted, we will probably never know.

This said I could see advantages to a chest mounted SRM, throwing SRMs overtop of short buildings to hit enemies on the other side.
I also imagine an Atlas wouldn't be trying to hug buildings in order to avoid wrecking them, so that clearance isn't a longing you would have for the hip launcher's LRMs.

Edited by Koniving, 22 April 2017 - 10:54 AM.

[Koniving]

A side note: What program are you using, Karl?
I like how the 3D models look like they've been sketched which makes it very clear and easy to see how the shapes are forming.

[Karl Streiger]

Koniving, on 22 April 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

A side note: What program are you using, Karl?
I like how the 3D models look like they've been sketched which makes it very clear and easy to see how the shapes are forming.

Sketchup Make (not Pro)
Very very simple to create stuff (i had used another tool ages ago - and I'm felt overkilled by Blender and Studio Max or other classical 3d programs)

---

I have read a comment somewhere. something because of this picture.

the guy said: considering the ammunition feed this should be a AP gauss (firing multiple flechettes rather a solid single slug thrower. You see a G7 projectile

This + the MagShot visuals:
Here you have some kind of arrows.

Then there is the "burst" option for the Light David /King David Gauss Rifles, as well as the Gauss Submachinegun, not to forget the Hyper Assault

At the next moment, i had another piece of the jigsaw.

Usually, you need to destroy a Mechs armor. You hardly can penetrate it with a single shot, and even when this happens it don't have to be a kill. So while it might be possible to create a weapon that can make a 2cm hole through any "then" known material - you need to hit the same spot when you really want to damage it.

Another coincidence was the latest creation of the SarLon Mini (AC2 60mm) and the Defiance CrossCut (LB10X 150mm)
The first fired projectiles around 2MJ and the other fired 10MJ (ok not so much coincidence - used the same upscaled formula for propellant and weight)

I assumed that to damage mechs armor the bullets need to hit the target in a "defined" area.
For example a circle of 1m² for the AC2 and 2m² for the AC10 - when the spread is further "no damage" is dealt.

(OK I need to make some more pictures to explain - can't explain it well enough with words.
Imagine a looking glass - and you focus the energy of the sun on a spot. The smaller the spot the simpler damage could be applied - you need less energy to drill a hole of 3mm rather than to drill a hole of 30cm diameter. (~0.1 inch; ~1ft)
However consider you need to hit the same spot again and again to "deal damage" wouldn't it be more simple to hit the bigger hole?


However - in the result, I've taken the Gauss Rifle again.

• can't use a rifling (I know my former models had one)
  
• need different means of stabilization - fins?
  
• the length of accelerator depends on length and diameter of projectile
  
• medium size area on target
  
• penetration depends on hardness and density of the projectile

So a result for a Gauss Projectle might look like this -


fin stabilized,
medium caliber arrow / projetile - (looks like a bolt so call it bolt)
(~3inch;75mm) medium length (~27inch; 73cm)
full iron around a DU core
polymer cage for simpler loading (stay in a "revolver" drum or need to be ejected)
31kg for the bolt
33kg for the bolt with cage
25MJ per bolt ~ 1262 m/s

three bolts are fired per shot.
Those aluminium stuff are fins - no rails for a rail gun -
Also possible that all Guns in BT are smart weapons that automatically lead target and correct the aim (could also explain the weight)

Does this make any sense??????

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 April 2017 - 06:14 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

sup .... Gauss Rifles projectiles are almost done (need silver bullet, HAG and AP Gauss)



Explanation from front to rear

• LGR
  
• Clan GR
  
• IS GR
  
• HGR
  
• Naval LGR
  
• N MGR
  
• N HGR
  
• Light Mass Driver

Penetration @ range for vehicle and support gauss rifles

[Karl Streiger]

Update for the Shreck; added some more details - and was able to "put" 15m² of radiators on the hull - hardly enough for a 30MW fusion engine. So the efficiency of the equipment should better be very very good.

Another feature is the 13mm support machine gun for the commander. - this is not a "battlemech" machine gun only the heavy infantry version.

ortho -earlier version

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 June 2017 - 06:58 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Must be the third version with redesigned turret:


You know what is funny? I reallized that the Schreck barrels are much longer than those you can find on Mechs - and while I found the explanation on my own: longer accelerator = more speed = less particles per shot. It is also stated this way in the TRO3039 - so the late BattleTech writers know their business - would be interesting how BT would look like when they would be allowed to change it.

some tech geek stuff:

• 11MW Fusion Platn
  
• 1600kW(2145hp) drive train
  
• 7.5 PSI ground preassure
  
• 15m² radiators
  
• 11.5 MJ Output for PPC
  
• min crew of 2 - optimal 4 without computers and smart assistants 6
  
• 150kg Coolant
  
• 21.6 GJ storage banks

---

Now back to the Yellow Jacket

Edited by Karl Streiger, 20 June 2017 - 12:59 AM.