NationStates Jolt Archive

We haven't invented/released anything new in a while. Does anyone have an aircraft type or role they want to see built that we haven't yet?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rsig.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70101)

I'm just fresh out of things to make.... I'm thinking something along the lines of a pulse jet or something, but I'm debating the practicality. Anyone see anything cool in Pop Sci or Pop Mechanics or on an anime or anything that they thought would be cool for Modern tech NS?

A really, really large plane with massive amounts of fuel, in which people live. Or was that a blimp? Or a dirigible?

And I can't remember where it's from.

A really, really large plane with massive amounts of fuel, in which people live. Or was that a blimp? Or a dirigible?

And I can't remember where it's from.

Laputa Castle?

Sounds right.

well why not make big airships, zeppelins?. They are actually much better than transport planes and choppers, virtually invisible on radar.
I belive in RL US is looking in to getting some big ones to haul big loads, even fitting some with a big radar..

Because zeppelins have a horrible habit of going very, very wrong.

Because zeppelins have a horrible habit of going very, very wrong.

Oh please the days of Hindenburg are over, now days the zeppelins are safer. Why else would britan and germany be building new ones?, not to mention the ones circuling over sports events :) ..

Those are blimps. There's a difference, but I'm too tired to recall it.

They are safer, i know. I watched Discovery Channel last night and there are two companies building zeppelins, one in britan and another in germany. The brits are going for a wingshaped design and the germans for a more traditional one, heck the germans are allready cleard for flight.
And there are plans to build a zeppeling to use as a sky crane.. :)

Real zeppelins, or just blimps?

From what i understand it will be zeppelins, and now days the dangerous helium mix and flameble paint is'nt used. I think the materials used today are self sealant and flame retardant..

I think it was hydrogen, not helium. The Hindenburg blew up because the United States would not sell Germany helium, so they were forced to use explosive hydrogen.

Hmm yes i think your right, hydrogen and oxygen burns pretty nice, add static electricity to that and you have a pretty nice fire. Plus the paint on the fabric they used..

Well, i happen to have an airship design in mind, I'm just working on getting the stats right.... Does anyone know any formulas for air buoyancy? lol

Ground attack hasnt been done for a while, other than the Su-39, Su-25 and A-10.

I need a new one.

Ground attack hasnt been done for a while, other than the Su-39, Su-25 and A-10.

I need a new one.True, I don't anything like the A-10... but I have the RF-45 and the RB-225

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rf45.jpg

And the Bomber version of the An-225 Mriya, the RB-225. Most of the Cargo room has been removed, and a several bomb bay doors have been installed. It can hold 100 tons of bombs, has several Anti-air 19 50-cal guns installed in bubble-shaped turrets like a WWII bomber (5 on top, 5 on each side, 2 in back, 2 in front) and the hull has double-thick armor. The plane with full fuel weights 850,000 lbs with no bombs. Price is $175 million USD

Big bombers have a nasty habit of being sitting targets.

A medium sized, low flying, fast, load capable plane would be able o support ground movements, provide CAS etc.

This is a good idea methinks.

Well, if you want low-flying, slow-speed-capable, and cargo, Go with the NVTOL...

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rt2007.gif

Those are blimps. There's a difference, but I'm too tired to recall it.A Zepplin has a wooden skelleton inside. A blimp inly has the pressure of the helium inside to keep it's shape.

No, I said low, fast, weapons heavy capable fighter.

I suggest that.

No, I said low, fast, weapons heavy capable fighter.

I suggest that.What if I make a bomber variant of the RF-11? I have yet to do that.

Sounds good.

Have to be smaller though.

Sounds good.

Have to be smaller though.Why smaller?

More maneuverable, less of a target for gunfire, lower radar bounce back, easier to maneuver on the ground, usually faster.

That stuff

More maneuverable, less of a target for gunfire, lower radar bounce back, easier to maneuver on the ground, usually faster.

That stuffall except point #2 are false.

Less bulk to shift around, ie smaller = more maeuverable.

Quicker maybe, due to lack of bulk.

Less radar signature true, less bounce back.

Speed... the fastest jets are the bigger ones... Ie, the SR-71

Stealth is all about skin composition and smooth surfaces.

Maneuverability is about control surfaces and thrust vectoring and airframe stability... the Su-37 for example, is a HUGE fighter jet, and it is as maneuverable as a fokker.

hmmmm

Oh well, the main thing of worry for the Attack Aircraft is AAA, or Anti Aircraft Artillery.

Small target.

Also, the F-16 has a lower radar signature than the F-15, which is bigger, and both are smaller than the 747.

Hence the smaller part.

hmmmm

Oh well, the main thing of worry for the Attack Aircraft is AAA, or Anti Aircraft Artillery.

Small target.

Also, the F-16 has a lower radar signature than the F-15, which is bigger, and both are smaller than the 747.

Hence the smaller part.LOL that's why we invented stealth composites :) The B-2 is twice as big as the F-15 and has the radar cross-signature of a small flock of birds...

Still, it costs a lot.

What would you rather have, 80 F-15E Strike Eagles, or 1 B-2?

Still, it costs a lot.

What would you rather have, 80 F-15E Strike Eagles, or 1 B-2?Duh, if you are going to use 80 F-15s... why do you need to worry about radar???