Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

3DS.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier

2

Posts

  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Liam, why not take this concept into the realm of superscience and abandon the engineering impossibility of jet or rotor lift for something that heavy..Two ways you could go that would bring some suspension of disbelief into the concept would be anti-gravity (It's S.H.I.E.L.D right? They have superscience technology in the comics some of it was even alien if I recall.) or convert your hull design into an airship.

    There is simply no way this could ever work as is. I know it's just fiction, but why not make it believable fiction. Any type of conventional power to keep this thing aloft would burn 10 times more fuel then the thing could actually carry. And the rotor system would have to be interlinked mechanically to compensate for even one engine failing, making it heavier, meaning it would need bigger engines and more fuel. Not to mention the fact that they would be so loud and create so much vibration working conditions on board would be horrible.

    Took a while but finally got round to putting in some arc reactor powered engines, brought them in closer to the main body so they are not so exposed and gave them some ablative armor. Still not finished but getting there!
    89599.jpg
  • Knowles2Knowles2171 Posts: 0Member
    I will say I never been clean on rotor designs for flying carriers, in mind they just never made sense, even without knowing anything about engineering they just never look right to me .


    I like the new version of the craft with rotors, much better looking than your original version. An I like the model much better now. Although the support structs for the engines look a bit thin for my liking.

    As to the Avenger movie first look at the ship, I hope they radically change the design before it ever become 3d. In fact I say throw the design they publish into the bin and start over again.

    Tony is suppose to be lead designer on the craft so it make sense he would incorporate Arc reactors. An perhaps even the endless rocket engines he uses for his suite.
  • PheonixPheonix1 Posts: 0Member
    okay, i am just drooling over the latest version of your carrier. however, i have a couple of qualms with it. the first is with the VLS. to me, they look a bit over sized, half-hazard, and bulky. i suggest you replace them with Pheriphical VLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer#Peripheral_Vertical_Launch_System_.28PVLS.29). the second has to do with the radar saucer. while i understand where you are coming from in placing one onboard, in terms of functionality on the helicarrier it isn't all that great, especially where it is located. best replace it, along with any other radars in conformal pods scattered all over the ship. however, this is just my opinion. feel free to include or ignore my advice as you see fit. ;)
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Pheonix wrote: »
    okay, i am just drooling over the latest version of your carrier. however, i have a couple of qualms with it. the first is with the VLS. to me, they look a bit over sized, half-hazard, and bulky. i suggest you replace them with Pheriphical VLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer#Peripheral_Vertical_Launch_System_.28PVLS.29). the second has to do with the radar saucer. while i understand where you are coming from in placing one onboard, in terms of functionality on the helicarrier it isn't all that great, especially where it is located. best replace it, along with any other radars in conformal pods scattered all over the ship. however, this is just my opinion. feel free to include or ignore my advice as you see fit. ;)

    Yeah the VLS is not for the missiles you see on modern navy ships these are about the same size as submarine ballistic missiles. As for the radars they are just for show, you have to draw the line somewhere when making a flying aircraft carrier haha.
  • ArmondikovArmondikov0 Posts: 0Member
    I like the fiddly details like the CIWS, despite the sheer ridiculousness of a flying aircraft carrier, those really do make it look real. Great stuff.
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    some comparison shots
    89606.jpg89607.jpg
  • Dr LeeDr Lee2 Posts: 0Member
    The repulsor version looks great... much cleaner than the propeller version IMHO

    Is that a F-35 fighter you're using for comparison?
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Dr Lee wrote: »
    The repulsor version looks great... much cleaner than the propeller version IMHO

    Is that a F-35 fighter you're using for comparison?

    Yeah it is an F35 from google 3D warehouse, actually its been there from the begging and if you go back to any other images you can see one in the forward elevator between the two runways hidden away
  • FirelodeFirelode171 Posts: 0Member
    Nice work Liam, I'm a little confused why you dropped the rotors, surely an Arc reactor could power them as well as your alternative? Although I admit aesthetically the rotors don't look as good as the superscience anti-grav. Either way, great model :)
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Ill go with two versions an more low tech rotor powered version, and the hi tech antigrav thrusters. Aesthetically it look better and does away with some technical problems such as the huge turbulence the rotors would create.
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    Yeah was gonna say that the rotors would make for some nasty turbulence. Of course so would the RT engines, but they look cooler. I could see HCV-4 having the newer RT engines and HCV-3 with the older rotors. As for the tech, who says that the anti gravity systems are 100% effective? Maybe that's why you need lift engines too. Some blimps these days for instance don't provide 100% lift with their envelope.
  • morranspacemorranspace0 Posts: 0Member
    It is a carier I like to sail

    see ya mate

    good idea
  • cavebearcavebear178 Posts: 623Member
    Looks really good Liam!:thumb:
  • I.g.(.I.g.(.0 Posts: 0Member
    I think that the "old" version is better.. it's original and it would fit in a Ghost in the Shell world for example... the hi-tech version seems to be quite "common"...
  • StonecoldStonecold171 Posts: 0Member
    Guess, I`ll agree with I.g.(. The one with "repulsors" looks like it is just escaped from ironman (animation). The first one looks more intresting.
  • morranspacemorranspace0 Posts: 0Member
    It gives mee an feeling of the movie sky capt'n
    those heli-cariers
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Well looks Like I will be working on the rotor version again then! Still dont like the actual engines so think I wil change them, might also enclose the rotors in a hub avatar style and see what that looks like?
  • Dr LeeDr Lee2 Posts: 0Member
    the avatar hubs would cut down on the danger of things getting caught in them i would guess...
  • StonecoldStonecold171 Posts: 0Member
    Well, I doubt that this monster will ever fly low enough to catch something in the rotor. However, the "hubs" can help to avoid turbulence problems, like it was stated on previous page. Also, you can easily attach the "thrust vector controll" on the hub. Simply place the rudder below the hub, and you can controll the vector in all three dimensions - forward-reverse through the engine pod rotation and left to right through he rudder inclination. Sort of like this. Just try to stay as simple technicaly, as possible. The simplest solution allways looks most plausable. The only thing that worry me - to lift such mass, the rotors HAVE to be enormous. I mean, just look at Mi-26 (currently, the most powerfull helicopter in the world)

    150149617.jpg

    Mil_Mi-26.jpg
    It carry ~60 tonnes, and it`s main rotor is 32 meters in diameter (take note, that rotor have 5 blades, and how it bends under it`s own weight, when not spinning.). It`s relatively easy to calculate volume of something in SU and through the wolume - the estimated weight of the model. Then, you can guess, how large and in what numbers the rotors are needed. My guess, that at this size, the hub will be excessively huge and will have to much mass to be usefull.

    P.S. Something is definitely wrong with the forum engine. I can`t find the second "the" in my text while editing the post o.O
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    Dont worry im not going for anything realistic here so anything goes
  • ArmondikovArmondikov0 Posts: 0Member
    S.H.I.E.L.D. uses rotors made of Handwavium, which can lift 10,000 tons of load each and consume only a gallon of Unobtanium fuel per hour.
  • StonecoldStonecold171 Posts: 0Member
    It was reactor-powered electrical engine, as far as I remember, so it have some realistic aspects :)
    And just roughly calculating - you have 6 counter rotating rotors, about 70 meters in diameter. Handwavium alloy aside, the rough guess will be about 300 tonnes of lift per engine, 1800 tonnes of lift total. If the craft is light enough (and you realy have no need to carry battleship`s armor in the sky), then it`s more or less reasonable.
  • I.g.(.I.g.(.0 Posts: 0Member
    the armor fits with the hi-tech design but not with the old style.. and as stonecold said..it's quite usless..
    also the most stupid enemy will aim the rotors/rotors pylons instead of the aircraft itself.. without 1-2 of them the gravity will do the rest.. or I'm wrong?
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    I.g.(. wrote: »
    the armor fits with the hi-tech design but not with the old style.. and as stonecold said..it's quite usless..
    also the most stupid enemy will aim the rotors/rotors pylons instead of the aircraft itself.. without 1-2 of them the gravity will do the rest.. or I'm wrong?

    tes it has parachutes for just this event
  • Mikey-BMikey-B0 Posts: 0Member
    Marvel Ultimates version for reference:

    Ultimate_Marvel_Heli-Carrier_Alpha_.jpg

    Yours looks cool too :)
  • colbmistacolbmista2 Posts: 0Member
    the exposed deck on that image is a rather flawed and dangous set up imo u need a full deck hanger other wise the winds up there would be blowing off the sides like flees
  • PheonixPheonix1 Posts: 0Member
    a Nimitz class carrier with four jet engines. wow. whoever made that pic was seriously creative. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • liam887liam887245 ViperPosts: 564Member
    colbmista wrote: »
    the exposed deck on that image is a rather flawed and dangous set up imo u need a full deck hanger other wise the winds up there would be blowing off the sides like flees

    Yeah although I think its more of a case in that universe its easier to transform existing naval carriers into helicarriers with stark technology instead of starting from scratch.
    I agree about the exposed deck however would get pretty windy.
  • PheonixPheonix1 Posts: 0Member
    not to mention the fact that one miscalculation of thrust output and the entire thing would tip over, sending men and machines overboard. but then again, i guess that is inherent in any airborne aircraft carrier of this type.
  • I.g.(.I.g.(.0 Posts: 0Member
    liam887 wrote: »
    tes it has parachutes for just this event

    It would be an incredible scene for a movie.. after the biggest skybattle ever the huge carrier seriously damaged is forced to an emergency landing.. and it keeps firing all its weapons during the long fall, and it becomes the very first outpost on the enemy territory..

    Epic uh?
Sign In or Register to comment.