i'll think about altering this but it has been a feature throughout this design from the original drawing(that was ages ago).
Translation - I have no intention of taking your or anyone else's advice, but thanks for playing.
Now, your first bit (about the pilot being able to perform repairs in deep space) actually IS interesting. Of course, without some serious allocation for spare-parts, this isn't terribly realistic. It also would depend on the fighter's endurance. If the pilot is expected to be in the thing for a week going from point a to point b, that cockpit is WAAAAY too small. If the pilot is expected to have 18-36 hours of endurance, then the idea of self-repair isn't necessary as they'll never be that far away from base.
Ultimately, I think Colbmista said it best--you're too wedded to your original drawing, ideas, and construction.
I just want to point out something else. Pilots DON'T fix their own craft...ever. I mean; EVER. That's what maintainers and flight engineers are for. With that; expecting a pilot to be able to access the nether regions of his craft shouldn't even be considered. If you want to argue that it happens this way or that in your universe step back and think about whether or not it's truly feasible. Piloting (especially in space) and maintaining are two VERY different disciplines that in and of themselves take years to master. To combine them is simply going to create mental overload for a person and lead to mission failure. Are the Brits that eager to concede defeat because of poor planning and design?
I was a C-130 crew chief for 14 years, and a flight engineer for 6 years. I would trust the average pilot to hold a flashlight for me and hand me tools while I worked, but that's the most I'd expect out of them. Without maintainers, a pilot is just a pedestrian with a cool jacket and retro sunglasses.
...I would trust the average pilot to hold a flashlight for me and hand me tools while I worked, but that's the most I'd expect out of them. Without maintainers, a pilot is just a pedestrian with a cool jacket and retro sunglasses.
I was a C-130 crew chief for 14 years, and a flight engineer for 6 years. I would trust the average pilot to hold a flashlight for me and hand me tools while I worked, but that's the most I'd expect out of them. Without maintainers, a pilot is just a pedestrian with a cool jacket and retro sunglasses.
Naw, the C-130 pilot is the person who flies you out to the middle of nowhere and says "get out" while the plane is still in the air.
Naw, the C-130 pilot is the person who flies you out to the middle of nowhere and says "get out" while the plane is still in the air.
If you want to get technical, the jumpmaster is the one who says "Get out" when the navigator tells him to. The pilot just keeps the altitude and airspeed steady and steers where the nav says to go. Unless you're talking about the newer C-130J models where the FE and nav are replaced by computers and GPS. The J model is evil and we speak not of it.
If you want to get technical, the jumpmaster is the one who says "Get out" when the navigator tells him to. The pilot just keeps the altitude and airspeed steady and steers where the nav says to go. Unless you're talking about the newer C-130J models where the FE and nav are replaced by computers and GPS. The J model is evil and we speak not of it.
Well, if we're getting technical, the jumpmaster says, "Green light, go!" Though, I was actually joking. As for newer vs older C-130s, I can't say I know the difference. I was in the Army and I was always in the cargo/passenger bay, usually waiting to jump out. I think I've only been in a C-130 until after it landed twice, both times were in Afghanistan. (We didn't do any airborne opps when I was there.)
in reference to the long discussion of C130 s i will just remind you that this is a fighter.
sanderlee said this
Now, your first bit (about the pilot being able to perform repairs in deep space) actually IS interesting. Of course, without some serious allocation for spare-parts, this isn't terribly realistic. It also would depend on the fighter's endurance. If the pilot is expected to be in the thing for a week going from point a to point b, that cockpit is WAAAAY too small. If the pilot is expected to have 18-36 hours of endurance, then the idea of self-repair isn't necessary as they'll never be that far away from base.
the mention of the cockpit being too small for long missions is true, that's why i have the extra space in the back. and the mention of
never that far from base
is quite wrong, remember this craft is hyperspace capable so can get well outside of reasonable radio range in milliseconds. if his FTL comm system fails it could well be ages before support can reach him, in my scifi verse hunting for a ship in space is very hard because although you can travel at FTL speeds you'll need to do a lot of travelling before you are likely to get close enough to see it.
truth be told i probably won't change this feature, i am after all reworking details not radically changing function or layout. i will soon have some images here of more work on where the thrusters will go.
One of the problems I've always had with FTL in fighters is the space issue. I guess the ships in your universe have some really tiny FTL drives to be able to fit one into a fighter, as some other franchises do too. Though, even if you can fit an FTL drive into a fighter, you can't tell me it can carry a lot of fuel, so it still can't stray too far from a carrier. After all, that is the point of carriers.
One of the problems I've always had with FTL in fighters is the space issue. I guess the ships in your universe have some really tiny FTL drives to be able to fit one into a fighter, as some other franchises do too. Though, even if you can fit an FTL drive into a fighter, you can't tell me it can carry a lot of fuel, so it still can't stray too far from a carrier. After all, that is the point of carriers.
Well, technically, there is the AC-130 Spectre gunship. That's kind of like a really big fighter.
no carriers in my verse, the fighter has bussard ramjets so does not need to carry the fuel, it collects hydrogen from space as it travels. this is a large exaggeration of the performance of a real bussard ramjet but the principle is absolutely accurate.
no carriers in my verse, the fighter has bussard ramjets so does not need to carry the fuel, it collects hydrogen from space as it travels. this is a large exaggeration of the performance of a real bussard ramjet but the principle is absolutely accurate.
no carriers ? so what houses your fighter squadrons? where are they based?
And that is exactly why repairs won't be made during flight. Everything you describe your "fighters" being able to do is outlandish at best and you seem to like throwing common sense to the wind through your design ethics. Just when it seems you're coming around to using common sense again you flip a 180 and go back to the old way you were doing things. :rolleyes:
this is how the tail currently looks, notice the open hatches where the thrusters are. unsure of where the panel lines should go in this area. the contours of the hull are shown by the dashed lines in the image so anyone with an idea will be able to see more clearly what sort of shape i am working with. so far only the left radiators have a "caution no step" label on them as i will wait until the model is almost finished before copying this across to the right radiators where the text must be flipped. i have not begun work on either the main engines or the boosters yet which accounts for the open holes in the rear where the exhausts will go. an image of the thruster is also attached.Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
Been a while but I see some issues here. SF you are obviously thinking that maintaining a fighter is like maintaining a car, that is not so, at all. If you are making these fighters long range/duration and intend to make them maintainable while in transit, then the level of Maintenace will be pretty low level. At most you you will have a set of spares onboard for parts that are known to be the weak link in a system, or critical parts that are easy to swap. This would be items like transorbs, fuzes, circuit cards, etc... However, simply having a backup system would probably be wiser, as the others on here have stated, most pilots are unable to work on their aircraft. You are talking a fusion powered hyperspace traveling ship, there is no way your pilots will be able to do more than just swap out some small parts.
Beyond that, not having internal fuel tanks is just stupid. Even if you are using some handwave to allow bussard ramjets to work effecticely enough, there will be places where H2 is not plentiful enough to run the engines, so having a fuel tank aboard is a necesity. Also, in hyperspace there may not be H2 so how is the craft fueled there?
Basically people are offering you good suggestions and once again you are rebuffing each one. If you don't want suggestions then don't ask for them.
Final thoughts, why are you putting your thrusters under such huge hatches? I see a ton of wasted space there. Also why hatches at all? Is it because your thrusters are so large? Then go with a cluster of smaller thrusters. If you are that worried about how they will affect the aerodynamics then used iris hatches, or just a small hatch.
I like what you're doing, but having a hatch to cover an RCS thruster is kind of pointless. Those thrusters are used every time you maneuver or make a course correction in little or no atmosphere, so having to open hatches to use them just gives the ship's computer more stuff to do. Plus, they could be sheared off easily in an atmosphere or even something like an ion storm. If you look at real life RCS thrusters on the space shuttle and Apollo space craft, you'll notice that they're not covered:
the thrusters have hatches because this allows them to be covered over during atmospheric flight so they do not affect aerodynamics. when closed the hatches are completely smooth with the hull. they are open during flight outside the atmosphere where aerodynamics is no problem, they should be shut moments before reentry. the apollo module had RCS thrusters on blocks but it was not designed for atmospheric flight, note that the thruster blocks were on the service module(cylinder at the rear). only the command module(cone forward of the cylinder) re entered earth's atmosphere. as for internal fuel tanks, i have changed my mind, i will add some where i can squeeze them in. now admittedly i intend to have them so they can be refilled by the ramjets, a kind of system where the ramjet scoops collect hydrogen gas and either, supplies it to the engines for thrust or the tank for storage if the fighter does not need to accelerate at that time. there isn't hydrogen gas in hyperspace so for any acceleration/deceleration fuel will be needed(there is no possibility of turning in hyperspace though, you can see my article describing hyperspace in my scifiverse at this address http://britishstarfleet.blogspot.co.uk/p/hyperspacean-introduction.html). i have completed the new design for the reactor which is shown here. Attachment not found.
yeah, i never really thought about trek warp cores when modelling it but i can see the similarities. each of the 4 reactors is a magnetic confinement cylindrical chamber hydrogen1-->helium4 reactor. electrical is generated by a system like a thermocouple wrapped around the central chamber but much more efficient. the reactor's outer casing absorbs any fast moving particles and high energy photons emitted by the fusion process, the energy of these particles also contributes to the output. the engine reactors will look similar(not identical) but for a start they will be tilted 90 degrees about the x axis.
Ok you need to ask yourself why you have so many reactors? Is it power requirements? If so why not have a large powerplant to begin with? Is it back ups/supplements for hyperspace travel? Does each one power a different system? Are they cross connected at all?
For example on my fighters. Many are powered by rechargable (let's call them fusion batteries) the fusion batteries have a limited energy supply so multiple are included to extend the fighter's range or to supply supplimental power during high power use situations.
Looking at your 4 reactor cores I see a lot of waster space around them. I would install them in some kind of insulating/radiation shielding sleeve in order to protect the pilot and the other reactors. All that empty space can then become a fuel tank, which then acts as additional radiation shielding. On top of that now you are adding additional reactors into each engine, why? What kind of engines are these, plasma rockets or fusion rockets? Right now it sounds liked you are using a fusion powered plasma rocket, where a fusion bulb generates plasma which is then released as exhaust. If that is the case why do you need the additional fusion cores, are they to kick start the engine fusion bulbs?
As an example here are two plasma rocket designs I use, both of which require an external power source, but also reclaim some energy, these are likely what you seem to be considering.
Looks like you're making some good improvements SF, keep it up!
thanks, once i've remodelled it i'll have to add some dirt textures. that'll be tricky in sketchup so i may not add them until i've imported to blender. one way or another i will find a way though.
more images will follow shortly.
hope to start on the gun turret and hyperspace drive today.
Posts
Translation - I have no intention of taking your or anyone else's advice, but thanks for playing.
Now, your first bit (about the pilot being able to perform repairs in deep space) actually IS interesting. Of course, without some serious allocation for spare-parts, this isn't terribly realistic. It also would depend on the fighter's endurance. If the pilot is expected to be in the thing for a week going from point a to point b, that cockpit is WAAAAY too small. If the pilot is expected to have 18-36 hours of endurance, then the idea of self-repair isn't necessary as they'll never be that far away from base.
Ultimately, I think Colbmista said it best--you're too wedded to your original drawing, ideas, and construction.
Good luck with that.
BINGO!
Naw, the C-130 pilot is the person who flies you out to the middle of nowhere and says "get out" while the plane is still in the air.
Well, if we're getting technical, the jumpmaster says, "Green light, go!" Though, I was actually joking. As for newer vs older C-130s, I can't say I know the difference. I was in the Army and I was always in the cargo/passenger bay, usually waiting to jump out. I think I've only been in a C-130 until after it landed twice, both times were in Afghanistan. (We didn't do any airborne opps when I was there.)
P.S. Bosun, the largest C-130J group is here at Dyess if you want to come and piss on all of them.
It's not like it's the first time.
sanderlee said this the mention of the cockpit being too small for long missions is true, that's why i have the extra space in the back. and the mention of is quite wrong, remember this craft is hyperspace capable so can get well outside of reasonable radio range in milliseconds. if his FTL comm system fails it could well be ages before support can reach him, in my scifi verse hunting for a ship in space is very hard because although you can travel at FTL speeds you'll need to do a lot of travelling before you are likely to get close enough to see it.
truth be told i probably won't change this feature, i am after all reworking details not radically changing function or layout. i will soon have some images here of more work on where the thrusters will go.
Well, technically, there is the AC-130 Spectre gunship. That's kind of like a really big fighter.
nice, i was thinking
"if you knew what this was you wouldn't be standing so close" LOL !
caution would be more then enough
And that is exactly why repairs won't be made during flight. Everything you describe your "fighters" being able to do is outlandish at best and you seem to like throwing common sense to the wind through your design ethics. Just when it seems you're coming around to using common sense again you flip a 180 and go back to the old way you were doing things. :rolleyes:
Attachment not found.
Beyond that, not having internal fuel tanks is just stupid. Even if you are using some handwave to allow bussard ramjets to work effecticely enough, there will be places where H2 is not plentiful enough to run the engines, so having a fuel tank aboard is a necesity. Also, in hyperspace there may not be H2 so how is the craft fueled there?
Basically people are offering you good suggestions and once again you are rebuffing each one. If you don't want suggestions then don't ask for them.
Final thoughts, why are you putting your thrusters under such huge hatches? I see a ton of wasted space there. Also why hatches at all? Is it because your thrusters are so large? Then go with a cluster of smaller thrusters. If you are that worried about how they will affect the aerodynamics then used iris hatches, or just a small hatch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system
Anywho, that's just my two cents. The modeling is definitely good.
Attachment not found.
yeah, i never really thought about trek warp cores when modelling it but i can see the similarities. each of the 4 reactors is a magnetic confinement cylindrical chamber hydrogen1-->helium4 reactor. electrical is generated by a system like a thermocouple wrapped around the central chamber but much more efficient. the reactor's outer casing absorbs any fast moving particles and high energy photons emitted by the fusion process, the energy of these particles also contributes to the output. the engine reactors will look similar(not identical) but for a start they will be tilted 90 degrees about the x axis.
For example on my fighters. Many are powered by rechargable (let's call them fusion batteries) the fusion batteries have a limited energy supply so multiple are included to extend the fighter's range or to supply supplimental power during high power use situations.
Looking at your 4 reactor cores I see a lot of waster space around them. I would install them in some kind of insulating/radiation shielding sleeve in order to protect the pilot and the other reactors. All that empty space can then become a fuel tank, which then acts as additional radiation shielding. On top of that now you are adding additional reactors into each engine, why? What kind of engines are these, plasma rockets or fusion rockets? Right now it sounds liked you are using a fusion powered plasma rocket, where a fusion bulb generates plasma which is then released as exhaust. If that is the case why do you need the additional fusion cores, are they to kick start the engine fusion bulbs?
As an example here are two plasma rocket designs I use, both of which require an external power source, but also reclaim some energy, these are likely what you seem to be considering.
thanks, once i've remodelled it i'll have to add some dirt textures. that'll be tricky in sketchup so i may not add them until i've imported to blender. one way or another i will find a way though.
more images will follow shortly.
hope to start on the gun turret and hyperspace drive today.