hmm... Missile is surely in the way of airflow there. I see several ways to fix it.
1) Remove missile, and place two of them side ways (so, that the airflow will be between them)
2) Remove missile, and place two of them ON TOP of the wings.
3) Remove the lower intake, and assume, that frontal intake feeds air to the lower thruster.
hmm... Missile is surely in the way of airflow there. I see several ways to fix it.
1) Remove missile, and place two of them side ways (so, that the airflow will be between them)
2) Remove missile, and place two of them ON TOP of the wings.
3) Remove the lower intake, and assume, that frontal intake feeds air to the lower thruster.
Option two has the bonus of making it even more reminiscent of the EE Lightning.
engines stacked on top of each other really does look like a lightning. missiles on side of fuselage would be better if the were of narrower diameter. that model is looking amazing.
Remove the fuselage missile and add a couple on top of wings would indeed look downright badass.
I find these ones a little bit too big, though.
I really like the forward positioning of the cockpit
Tried the overwing mount, looked way too funky so I'm just going to eliminate the fuselage carried ones and call it a day. It's rendering away as I type. Next up is the last of the major powers fighters, the Soviets! This one has given me fits from the get go, I've never been happy with the wing layout before, just never seemed right. As an aside, with all my designs I never sketch them out before I start, I just have a rough idea of what I'm going for and just hope for the best. I'm pretty happy with this revision. I know it looks a little like something from 'The Phantom Menace' right now but I'm hoping when it is all grebbled up it will look ok. Might move the cockpit forward a bit.
Love the overall design. But just one guess. Try to place top and bottom stabilizers vertically. Look at actual MiG-29 or MiG-31 - their tails are almost strictly vertical, unlike NATO`s counterparts. Sort of another element of "soviet school".
that soviet fighter is wicked, leave the cockpit where it is but maybe make the longer fins the sideways ones rather than the vertical ones. would look great in that sort of soviet bare metal paint scheme, with a little bit of greebling.
Thanks guys. Tried the more vertical stabilizers and you are right Stonecold, looks much better. Same with the winglets starfighter. A bare metal finish is going to be an option too. This one is actually the Framer, the Flipper is going to be similar, just much more blended transitions between the fuselage, wings and engines. Plus much smaller.
that soviet fighter is wicked, leave the cockpit where it is but maybe make the longer fins the sideways ones rather than the vertical ones. would look great in that sort of soviet bare metal paint scheme, with a little bit of greebling.
Mm... longer wings may be unnecessary - the whole thing is lifting body design, unlike most VIA aerospace fighters. And it isn`t "bare metal", it is anti-nuclear finish! Or "anti-lazer" in terms of VIA-verse.
So, I've been thinking lately about orbital elevators (orbital tethers, whatever you want to call them) and whether or not they have a place in the VIA-Verse. I believe they have been mentioned in the past but I don't think we've really worked them out.
As I see it there are three factors as to whether they could be built - political, economical, and technical. Technically I reckon that by 2400 Earth will easily have the technology to build them - advanced carbon composites, hyper-dense alloys and super conductors, so that's not a problem.
There are two economical questions - can we afford to build this? and Is it worth building this? Let's face it even some of the smaller nation blocs could afford to build one, let alone the CEGD, R-USSR or USA. Brazil, the UOE, and the UC all control huge amounts of off-world resources, the UC alone has a 50% share in Linc which is basically a giant ball of ore. So been able to afford a tether is not a problem.
The second economical question is interesting. According the Wikipedia an elevator car would take some time to reach LEO, possibly several days. Heavy lift shuttles could lift equal or greater amounts into space in the same time, and passengers are certainly not going to want to ride for several hours (or even days) when a private spaceplane can get them into space in 30 minutes tops. According to Wikipedia a tether needs to be within 15 degrees of the equator to be truly effective, the further away you are the more energy you need and payloads drop, this means goods built in Europe or Canada or Russia would need to be shipped down to the equatorial zone, again shuttles could do the job more efficiently.
Having said that a tether would help alleviate air traffic congestion, bulky, non-perishable items could be sent up on the tether reducing the number of shuttle flights filling the skies above Earth.
On the other hand bringing goods down from orbit would be practical, dead-drop cargo pods might not be accurate enough (especially with water drops near busy shipping lanes - point to an area close to Europe where you'd be happy dropping 20-30 tons close to shore). raw materials and food could be sent down easily.
Which brings me to politics - imagine, for example, the UC and Japan agree to help fund a tether in the ACPL. What happens when the Celestial Empire wants to send a shipment up during the 3rd War of Barnard's Star? What happens if Brazil builds a tether and the People's Republic of Central America decides to launch an airstrike to destroy it because it's carrying American-built weapons?
Of course most of the political problems don't matter off-world. Several nations control whole planets whilst on other worlds only one or two nations are dominant (Wellington springs to mind). Mars is mostly independent (there are colonies from Japan and the UC) so they might be tempted to build a tether. Off world a tether would be a national status symbol, a thrusting monument to how advanced a nation is. Maybe on colony worlds there are dozens of the things.
Just a note - tether on Mars or Moon, where gravity is just a fraction of Earth`s, will be more cost-effective and much easier to build.
Second note - destroying space elevator may be not so good idea. It may cause devastating effects, on countries far from one that was hosting the anchor port. Surely carbon nanotubes are light, but when a cable structure, several hundred kilometers long falls...
Which leads to another factor. To build an orbital elevator, unity is required. Or at least you have to be sure, that no one will be able to crash the damned thing.
That Soviet plane has a really cool look to it, kinda an Sr-71 meets P51 vibe with the wide-set engines and long graceful nose. But, as nice as she looks (and she does look very nice) it doesn't seem very Russian to more. It's too graceful, more like something out of Anime. When I think Russian aviation, I think of the classic MiGs (15, 17, 21, 25, etc) Very nice, very capable fighters, but brutes. Endearing, and some even somewhat sleek, but by no means the graceful little lady you've modeled up here.
But, as nice as she looks (and she does look very nice) it doesn't seem very Russian to more. It's too graceful, more like something out of Anime. When I think Russian aviation, I think of the classic MiGs (15, 17, 21, 25, etc) Very nice, very capable fighters, but brutes. Endearing, and some even somewhat sleek, but by no means the graceful little lady you've modeled up here.
You are somewhat behind the time. If you can call MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-35, Su-37, Su-47 or even bombers like Su-32 and Su-34 "not gracefull", I don`t know what to think. Its just that different goals require different approach. Interceptors require brute force. Thats why MiG-31 is basicly a pair of enormously powerfull thrusters, with everything else around them. Agile dogfighter require different approach - and we got gracefull jets, like MiG-29 and Su-27.
im amazed russia hasnt dont more full wing planes like horten 226
Flying wing isn`t too practical, if you aren`t concerned with stealth approach. Yes, it have better payload to mass to drag ratio, but keeping the flying wing stable is a nightmarish job.
You are somewhat behind the time. If you can call MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-35, Su-37, Su-47 or even bombers like Su-32 and Su-34 "not gracefull", I don`t know what to think. Its just that different goals require different approach. Interceptors require brute force. Thats why MiG-31 is basicly a pair of enormously powerfull thrusters, with everything else around them. Agile dogfighter require different approach - and we got gracefull jets, like MiG-29 and Su-27.
I'd happily agree that newer-model Sukhois are very sleek, graceful aircraft, but they're also comparatively modern. Most of the aviation elements here seem to be based of 50's or 60's aircraft (Crusader, BAE Lightning) . Soviet aircraft of that eara tended towards brutish simplicity than sleek elegance like the Su-27/MiG-29.
I'd happily agree that newer-model Sukhois are very sleek, graceful aircraft, but they're also comparatively modern. Most of the aviation elements here seem to be based of 50's or 60's aircraft (Crusader, BAE Lightning) . Soviet aircraft of that eara tended towards brutish simplicity than sleek elegance like the Su-27/MiG-29.
Framer/Flipper are next generation of aerospace craft, on par with modern USA machines. If the brutish look is what you seek - wait till Bbzw2 will rebuild MiG-233 and MiG-235
good questions about space elevators, they certainly have a place but how significant it is depends on the ease of access to space by other means. from the aerodynmaic shapes of the fighters on this thread i guess that they are transatmospheric so space planes are common, still heavy cargo that does not need to go anywhere fast makes a use for a space elevator.
Flying wing isn`t too practical, if you aren`t concerned with stealth approach. Yes, it have better payload to mass to drag ratio, but keeping the flying wing stable is a nightmarish job.
yes but with the advances with computer assistance they work fine im bet the horton 226 would be epic this day an age as a fighter
yes but with the advances with computer assistance they work fine im bet the horton 226 would be epic this day an age as a fighter
Basicly - "why design something more complex then it have to be?" In VIA-verse, chineese have heavy emphasis on flying wing designs. No idea, what their reasons are.
As far as space elevators, I'm all for them. I love the idea of ones on earth being abandoned as the cost of lifting goods via shuttles got less expensive, and also the idea that large scale zero g construction projects moved to other planets with more abundant resources. I still see them being used to a great extent on other worlds.
AH ok! Wait....you mean with PS' inshop "Paint 3d model" function eh?
Nah, I render the finished model, which has all the markings and colors on it in raylectron, save it as a png, then go over it in photoshop. I used to use the model as a starting point and draw it line by line, shaded it, and added details, it took ages. As I've gotten better (or less worse actually) with sketchup I've done less and less in photoshop.
Nah, I render the finished model, which has all the markings and colors on it in raylection, save it as a png, then go over it in photoshop. I used to use the model as a starting point and draw it line by line, shaded it, and added details, it took ages. As I've gotten better (or less worse actually) with sketchup I've done less and less in photoshop.
Very nice, one suggestion would be to give it a little more a spine that blends with the cockpit, give it a smoother transition into the rear fuselage.
The nose is very long and reduces forward visibility for landing. I assume carrier landings involve matching speed with the carrier and thrusting sideways into a landing bay, but if planetary landing are made in a similar manner to modern aircraft the nose would be a hinderence. How are flight ops perfromed in VIA?
Posts
1) Remove missile, and place two of them side ways (so, that the airflow will be between them)
2) Remove missile, and place two of them ON TOP of the wings.
3) Remove the lower intake, and assume, that frontal intake feeds air to the lower thruster.
Option two has the bonus of making it even more reminiscent of the EE Lightning.
I find these ones a little bit too big, though.
I really like the forward positioning of the cockpit
Mm... longer wings may be unnecessary - the whole thing is lifting body design, unlike most VIA aerospace fighters. And it isn`t "bare metal", it is anti-nuclear finish! Or "anti-lazer" in terms of VIA-verse.
As I see it there are three factors as to whether they could be built - political, economical, and technical. Technically I reckon that by 2400 Earth will easily have the technology to build them - advanced carbon composites, hyper-dense alloys and super conductors, so that's not a problem.
There are two economical questions - can we afford to build this? and Is it worth building this? Let's face it even some of the smaller nation blocs could afford to build one, let alone the CEGD, R-USSR or USA. Brazil, the UOE, and the UC all control huge amounts of off-world resources, the UC alone has a 50% share in Linc which is basically a giant ball of ore. So been able to afford a tether is not a problem.
The second economical question is interesting. According the Wikipedia an elevator car would take some time to reach LEO, possibly several days. Heavy lift shuttles could lift equal or greater amounts into space in the same time, and passengers are certainly not going to want to ride for several hours (or even days) when a private spaceplane can get them into space in 30 minutes tops. According to Wikipedia a tether needs to be within 15 degrees of the equator to be truly effective, the further away you are the more energy you need and payloads drop, this means goods built in Europe or Canada or Russia would need to be shipped down to the equatorial zone, again shuttles could do the job more efficiently.
Having said that a tether would help alleviate air traffic congestion, bulky, non-perishable items could be sent up on the tether reducing the number of shuttle flights filling the skies above Earth.
On the other hand bringing goods down from orbit would be practical, dead-drop cargo pods might not be accurate enough (especially with water drops near busy shipping lanes - point to an area close to Europe where you'd be happy dropping 20-30 tons close to shore). raw materials and food could be sent down easily.
Which brings me to politics - imagine, for example, the UC and Japan agree to help fund a tether in the ACPL. What happens when the Celestial Empire wants to send a shipment up during the 3rd War of Barnard's Star? What happens if Brazil builds a tether and the People's Republic of Central America decides to launch an airstrike to destroy it because it's carrying American-built weapons?
Of course most of the political problems don't matter off-world. Several nations control whole planets whilst on other worlds only one or two nations are dominant (Wellington springs to mind). Mars is mostly independent (there are colonies from Japan and the UC) so they might be tempted to build a tether. Off world a tether would be a national status symbol, a thrusting monument to how advanced a nation is. Maybe on colony worlds there are dozens of the things.
Thoughts? Criticisms?
Second note - destroying space elevator may be not so good idea. It may cause devastating effects, on countries far from one that was hosting the anchor port. Surely carbon nanotubes are light, but when a cable structure, several hundred kilometers long falls...
Which leads to another factor. To build an orbital elevator, unity is required. Or at least you have to be sure, that no one will be able to crash the damned thing.
You are somewhat behind the time. If you can call MiG-29, MiG-35, Su-27, Su-35, Su-37, Su-47 or even bombers like Su-32 and Su-34 "not gracefull", I don`t know what to think. Its just that different goals require different approach. Interceptors require brute force. Thats why MiG-31 is basicly a pair of enormously powerfull thrusters, with everything else around them. Agile dogfighter require different approach - and we got gracefull jets, like MiG-29 and Su-27.
Flying wing isn`t too practical, if you aren`t concerned with stealth approach. Yes, it have better payload to mass to drag ratio, but keeping the flying wing stable is a nightmarish job.
I'd happily agree that newer-model Sukhois are very sleek, graceful aircraft, but they're also comparatively modern. Most of the aviation elements here seem to be based of 50's or 60's aircraft (Crusader, BAE Lightning) . Soviet aircraft of that eara tended towards brutish simplicity than sleek elegance like the Su-27/MiG-29.
yes but with the advances with computer assistance they work fine im bet the horton 226 would be epic this day an age as a fighter
Basicly - "why design something more complex then it have to be?" In VIA-verse, chineese have heavy emphasis on flying wing designs. No idea, what their reasons are.
Damn that looks good! Like a smaller supped up SR71.
By the way lol....how do you texture this bad boy.
Oh! Ah well thats pretty nifty.