NationStates Jolt Archive


Mish-11/F-79 Arhangel Advanced Multi-Role/Air Superiority Fighter Released

Pushka
24-09-2005, 18:57
OOC: This project is created by me and Space Union.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/Blackbird-SR-71/F-79Skygod.png


Type: Advanced Multirole Fighter
Length: 25 m
Height: 5 m
Wingspan: 18 m
Power plant: 2 Union-174-2005 Pulse-Detonation Engines rated at 65,000 lbs of thrust each
Empty Weight: 15,000 kg
Full Weight: 26,500 kg
Maximum Weight: 38,500 kg
Maximum Payload: 18,200 kg
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.7
Maximum Speed: Mach 3.8
Operational Altitude: 85,000 ft
Maximum Altitude: 95,000+ ft
Arnament w/o Hard points: 1x PD-17 20mm machine gun, 8 missiles (each is or under 400 kg), and 4 Bombs (each is or under 600 kgs)
Hard points: 4 (Each can carry 2,000 kgs worth of weapons); 2 on each wing;
Crew: 2
Combat Range: 1,600 miles; with refueling: unlimited
Price: $130 million




Introduction:

Mish-11 Arhangel was created by two entities, the government owned Pushkan Bureau of Cooperative Aircraft Design and Space Union’s United Aerospace Corporation (UAC). While the process had a few bumps the end result changed everything. Mish-11 is an aircraft that has no equal, fast, maneuverable, with an avionics package that will from now on be definition of perfection; Mish-11 Arhangel is the aircraft that will rule the aerospace for years to come.



Airframe:

The Mish 11's most formidable goals to achieve its reputation is stealth and maneuverability. These characteristics, though, are counter's to each other as stealth features tend to make the aircraft less maneuverable while maneuverable features tend to make an aircraft become a mountain on radar. So research was done into assuring that only characteristics that reflected both and work to advantage of both would be implemented on this aircraft.

The most notable feature on the airframe is it is made out of lightweight composite material (called reinforced carbon-fiber). The use of composite material has made the aircraft considerably more lightweight while making it much more durable compared to the use of metal. Not only that but the use of composite material has significantly reduced the RCS of the aircraft. Unlike metal, composite materials tend not to reflect radar waves. This makes it perfect for a use on a stealth aircraft. Not only this but the aircraft has been made to ensure there are no right angles. Without right angles, the aircraft is much more stealthy. But composite materials don't just help the stealth characteristics they also help maneuverability. By using composite materials instead of heavyweight metals, the aircrafts weight has been dramatically cut compared to other aircraft. This allows it to be much more maneuverable compared to heavier-weight aircrafts. You'll literally see this aircraft own dogfights.
It will match any environment with lethality that will make other fighter pilots run before they become engaged, yet that won't even save them from the wrath of the Arhangel.



Another feature of the aircraft is that it features two canards at the front. These serve the purpose of adding much more lift to the entire body. Not only that it also makes the aircraft more maneuverable. But even more important feature was using the compression lift technique, formulated on the XB-70 in the 1960s. Compression lift works by lowering the edge of the wings down. When an aircraft is flying. When an aircraft is moving fast, it produces shock waves that move outward from the side of the aircraft. Having the wing tip's lowered, allows the aircraft to take advantage of this. Now the compression lift waves are trapped. As the shock waves try to escape, they push the aircraft up, thus creating more lift. This not only serves the purpose of increasing the thrust, it also gives the aircraft one of the highest lift-to-drag ratio on any aircraft.


Although the aircraft is already quite maneuverable and stealthy, designers have added new technologies to the aircraft. The most important is the use of wing warping on the wings and tail blade. Wing warping is the act of bending the wing in a way to allow for the aircraft to be maneuverable. Wing warping allows the aircraft to do feats that will dazzle the enemy into thinking that the Arhangel doesn't have to even follow the laws of physics. Not only is wing warping used on the wings but also on the tail blade (or the horizontal stabilizer). This adds to the already daunting maneuverability ensured by the aircraft. Of course, all the warping is controlled by an onboard computer that uses calculations made every second.

One of the most interesting technologies employed on the Mish-11 is the use of FOLED or Flexible Organic Light Emitting Diode. FOLED is a thin light-emitting diode that uses organic compound to emit lights. FOLED is used by the Mish-11 to form a cloak over the aircraft. A series of sensors on the aircraft body detect the surrounding environment and then display it on the FOLED sheet on top of the airframe using a mini-supercomputer. It allows for active camouflage from the naked eye of enemy pilots or ground crews no matter the environment. It's very useful because unlike other LCD displays, it doesn't use as much energy allowing for a tiny fraction of energy to power it. The only downside is it has to be replaced every 11.5 years before the lifetime of the OLED expires.

To add more stealth to the airframe, it is coated all-over with a RAM paint-job to further reduce the already small IRS.


One of the newest technologies ever devised by the Pushkan and Space Unionist scientist was The Center of Gravity Manipulation System (CGMS). CGMS works by having 5 separate tanks in the body of the aircraft. All the tanks are connected by pipes, similar to the ones that are used in home plumbing except these are made out of composite material similar to the one that makes up the airframe. They are thus made to withstand great amounts of pressure. It uses a heavy liquid called LST, the liquid starts out at the middle tank in the center of the aircraft, this is the standard position, in it the aircraft is stable. But during flight, the pilot is capable of moving the center of gravity forward, backwards, left or right by moving the secondary control stick while in SRP mode. With a shift of a control stick a valve opens up and a gas system powered by the engine, pumps the liquid into another tank. This shifts the center of the gravity, greatly increasing the aircraft's ability to make sharp turns, flips and dives. This results in a fighter that can out do any other aircraft in dogfights.

Avionics:
Mish-11 Arhangel features an advanced avionics system. That avionics system is centered around a technology featured in all recent Pushkan military projects; VRPB.
VRPB is a digitalized model of the battlefield on which every friendly unit and every enemy unit detected by any friendly unit is shown. VRPB is a giant model of the globe divided into sectors.
There are three major sectors: ground, air and space. Each one of those sectors is further divided into sub-sectors each one with an assigned number. Ground sector is anything below an altitude of 500 meters, air sector is anything above 500 meters and below 60 kilometers, and space sector is everything above 60 kilometers. Each sector has 512100 sub-sectors about 1000 square kilometers each. Each sub-sector is further divided in a 100 sections, 10 square kilometers each. The system also offers depth; every unit represented on VRPB is represented in a 3 dimensional space allowing the computer systems using VRPB for navigation and targeting to go far beyond what they could do with a 2 dimensional system.
IL or information link allows VRPB to be updated in real-time without any lags.
As said before VRPB lets the plane’s pilot see far beyond sensors available his plane. That revolutionizes the concept of see before seen shots. Any enemy unit registers by sensors of any friendly unit is represented on VRPB to which the targeting system is linked. The targeting is initiated via an LCD screen. The pilot has access to the full VRPB system meaning that he can zoom in on any sector, sub-sector and section on earth and if there are registered enemy units there he can target them by touching their icons and putting a traceable marker on the target that will update in real-time.
The missile has its own IL thus once it leaves the plane it will be able to track the target on its own receiving no signals from the plane. As long as the target remains registered the missile will track it even if the plane that carried it was shot down. The pilot can also punch in a command on his numerical keyboard to show the best interception sequence, in this case VRPB will show the pilot the predicted path of the enemy plane and the best point at which to place the marker in order to intercept, the pilot can touch the interception point icon and press the firing button on his control stick, The computer will do all the rest, it will fire the missile at the precise time for hitting the interception point while the enemy target is located on it. Even if the missile didn’t hit the computer will automatically place a marker on the target that was supposed to be intercepted and the missile that missed will attempt to track it unless another target for it is selected. The pilot can not target any friendly unit unless a code is provided to him by his commander that unlocks the pilot’s option to do so.
The plane also has its own radar; RMD-143. It can track up to 30 targets in a 400-kilometers all around. It is a bi-static phased array RADAR system, with two radar sensors one in the nose and one in the tail, it can see through 5th generation stealth and provides the pilot a 360-degree radar sweep. Its readings are transferred to the VRPB via the IL located on the plane, the pilot can view the readings of his own radar but since VRPB is the primary navigation device the radar is secondary although its readings are represented on VRPB.
There is a system to prevent the pilot from passing out from the G-forces. The flight control is linked to VRPB; using the VRPB data the computer can instantly calculate the G-forces resulting from a maneuver initiated by the pilot and prevent the plane from going into uncontrollable spin or pilot loosing his consciousness. This can be turned off.
To maneuver the plane the pilot uses two control sticks. One of them is for flying in what is called a Normalnie Rejim Polieta (Normal Flight Mode), which is how most fighters fly, the control stick tilts the horizontal tail blades and maneuvers the plane. The first control stick has buttons for firing missiles, the machine gun, for turning on the after burners, for accelerating and decelerating and for initiating the Svobodnie Rejim Polieta (Free Flight Mode) that allows the pilot to take advantage of the maneuverability provided by the vector thrusters, wing warping and the shifting center of gravity. Using the two controls the pilot can rotate his plane however he wants, he can make almost instant 180-degree turnarounds, flips, and so on The second stick is for shifting the center of gravity, the stick moves forward and so does the point of gravity, it moves backwards and the point of gravity follows, it can also move right and left. The second stick also has a set of 6 arrow keys for changing the angle of the vector thrust. Special sensors are placed on the wings that allow the computer to know then to warp wings and safely navigate the plane through its maneuvers and to make those maneuvers possible. While in SRP the pilot’s hands are busy, he cannot reach the LCD screen to select the target, and for that reason then in SRP the computer automatically locks on the closest possible target. Each plane has sensors that, unless specified over wise, prevent two missiles from locking onto the same target. The pilot still has control of releasing the missile, also then in the SRP, the machine gun turret locks in the position looking in the same direction as the nose of the aircraft, the pilot fires it like always by the button on the first stick.
SRP is supposed to be used for dogfights while NRP is supposed to be used for long range targeting and so on.
The pilot also has another option, he can initiate the non-spin mode there the aircraft will not loose altitude or start spinning unless the controls are touched. It will fly straight allowing the pilot to rest while flying through a friendly aerospace.

Propulsion:

The monster Mish-11A Arhangel is powered by a pair of heavy-duty jet engines to get the job of a god done. Meet the Union-174-2005 Pulse-Detonation Engines. These babies are the most powerful fighter engines put out from Union Engine Corporations. They make an outstanding 65,000 lbs per thrust each. That is a whopping 130,000 lbs of thrust. This greatly exceeds the maximum take-off weight, insuring for maximum efficiency compared to other aircrafts.

The Union-174-2005s are made from a super alloy called Inconel. It is mostly nickel combined with titanium and chrome. Inconel has specific properties of being mechanically strong, durable, very corrosive-resistant, and very heat-resistant. This makes it the perfect alloy to use in engine construction, especially engines with high thrust and high temperatures where normal alloys such as aluminum, start to corrode and weaken very rapidly.

Pulse-Detonation Engines, known as PDE, works by creating a detonation instead of the normal deflagration that occurs in normal jet engines. Instead the air rushes inside the engine, comes at supersonic speeds instead of subsonic and causes a detonation upon igniting of the air instead of deflagration. To make sure that the air exits to the back, the engine uses shockwaves generated by the ignition to act as shudders/valves. When the shock wave reaches the rear of the engine and exits the combustion products are ejected in "one go", the pressure inside the engine suddenly drops, and air is pulled in the front of the engine to start the next cycle.

The use of the Pulse-Detonation engine instead of a regular engine has increased the efficiency of the entire aircraft. Normal engines have an efficiency of 30% while the Union-174-2005 has a fuel efficiency of 50%. This means that the aircraft will be considerably less fuel hungry and have much bigger range and higher speed. In fact the pulse-detonation engine allows the aircraft to go to speeds of Mach 3.4 although it cruises at Mach 1.7 to avoid the structural problem associated at Mach 3+ and the effects it has on the RAM painting.

One problem in the design has been the loud noise caused by the pulse-detonation. To solve this the engine has been surrounded by open-celled foam. The open-celled foam dampens the sound while still being lightweight and not adding much weight to the engine. Another mechanism used is the fan in the front of the engine. The fan sucks in much air, sending most of it as bypass air. This bypass air helps dampen the sound too, the same effect used in turbofan engines. But to really quiet the engine down, Quiet Craft has been applied to the outside of the engine. It decreases the sound intensity by 70%.

Both engines also feature thrust vectoring in an entirely new way. Engineers at Tylon Aerospace Industries have perfected the new technology called fluid thrust vectoring. Tests have shown that air forced into the exhaust stream can affect deflected thrust. Fluidic nozzles are desirable for their lower weight, mechanical simplicity (no moving surfaces) and lower radar cross section compared to older mechanical thrust vectoring. The fluid thrust vectoring method allows for the same benefits of the old thrust vectoring method, yet is much cheaper, much more maintenance-friendly, and overall more stealthy to fit with the new image for the Mish-11.

The thrust vectoring capability also adds the capability of the aircraft to take-off and land vertically. This greatly improves its mobility without adding costly secondary engines. One final thing in the engine is its ability to super cruise past Mach 2. Although the speed limit is undisclosed.

To make sure the engines fit in the stealth profile of the aircraft, the engines have mufflers that mix cold air with the exhaust to cut the Infrared signature (IRS) of the aircraft. Not only that the engines are buried inside the aircraft so that the immediate exhaust isn't directly seen by IRS screening devices.

Arnament:


The plane has a PD-17 30mm machine gun. It is housed in a protective capsule underneath the cockpit. The capsule can rotate 360 degrees and since the capsule is smooth and is pressed very close to the aircraft it will not be torn off by friction even at supersonic speeds. The rotation is manually controlled by the arrow keys on pilot’s keyboard once he switches to machine gun mode. The firing is initiated by the button on the side of the control stick. Of course the machine gun can also be fired with the help of VRPB, it can be locked on to a target (missile or plane) or fire multiple shots in a preset rotation sequence.

The plane has 3 weapons bays, all of them are internal and all are located on the craft’s belly: 2 in front, 1 in the back.

The front 2 are for launching missiles. Those can be launched simultaneously. Each of these bays can carry 4 missiles; weight limit per missile is 400 kg.
The missiles are stored like this:

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/7287/fghf4xg.jpg



The other bay can carry up to 4 bombs, 600 kg each. The mechanism works like this:


http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2158/fghf26vq.jpg

There are also 4 additional hard points on the wings, 2 for each wing. Weight restriction here is 800 kg per hard point, the pylons can be adjusted to fit any type of missile or bomb, including cruise missiles.

The plane can carry following munitions:


RKD-12 Short Range AA Missile:

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/sizeaa2.gif

Length: 2.6 meters
Guidance: VRPB/IL
Range: 42 kilometers
Speed: Mach 2.7
Propulsion: RM-2 solid propellant rocket motor
Warhead: 6.9 kg HE expanding rod warhead
Diameter: 170 mm





Description: The design of the missile allows for something never seen before, it allows the pilot to lock on and hit his target without facing his target. Once the target is locked and the missile is released it is no longer a part of the plane, the plane sends absolutely no signals to it. The missile has its own IL and a microprocessor system that uses VRPB for guidance. The missile is astonishingly maneuverable; it has outlets close to its nose that can release pressurized air allowing the missile to turn around instantaneously before initiating the ignition of its RM-2 rocket motor. For example the enemy plane is behind the Mish-11, the missile is released, the pressurized air is released from one side in order to turn the missile 180 degrees so it would be able to hit the approaching enemy. The ignition sequence begins and the missile flies, fins located on its nose and near the thruster guide it, but it can also release the access of the pressurized air to make sharp turns. The enemy pilot thinks that his position is comfortable, he is on Mish-11’s tail and there is nothing that can touch him, suddenly out of nowhere everything changes, the missile released from Mish-11 hits the unsuspecting enemy.

RDD-18 Long Range AA missile:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ru_missile_acrid_02.jpg

Length: 4.15 meters
Guidance: VRPB/IL
Range: 297 kilometers
Speed: Mach 3.7
Propulsion: RM-11 solid propellant rocket motor
Warhead: 50 kg
Diameter: 370 mm

Description: RDD-18 is guided the same way RKD-12 is, it also has its own microprocessor and pressurized air outlets.

RSD-7 Medium Range AA Missile:

http://www.softwar.net/R77.GIF

Length: 3.50 meters
Guidance: VRPB/IL
Range: 92 kilometers
Speed: Mach 3.2
Propulsion: RM-10 solid propellant rocket motor
Warhead: 30 kg HE fragmentation
Diameter: 210 mm

Description: RSD-7 is guided the same way RKD-12 is, it also has its own microprocessor and pressurized air outlets. However the placement of fins is different as seen on the picture.

In addition to these air-to-air missiles, the plane can also carry air-to-ground missiles of various kinds, including cruise missiles, and any kind of light ordnance, they can be hooked up to the adjustable pylons located on the wings of the aircraft.

ECMs (Electronic Counter Measures):


Mish-11 Arhangel features a number of systems that help defend it against its enemies. The most advanced of these is its Active Radar Canceling System. It works by having multiple sensors on the skin that pick up incoming radar signals. The computer then studies the signals and outputs a signal that makes the receiving computer misjudge the location of the aircraft. This is mostly used against missiles although this is being deployed against aircrafts during dogfights.


The simpler ECMs that the Mish-11 has are a set of 10 flares in the side of the aircraft. They can be shot out of the side-panels automatically by the computer, if the pilot has the feature on, or manually by the pilot.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 19:35
bump
Space Union
24-09-2005, 19:46
Looks good. :)
Einhauser
24-09-2005, 19:58
Man, that's awesome. I'd buy some, but I'm only FT...
Space Union
24-09-2005, 20:42
Man, that's awesome. I'd buy some, but I'm only FT...

Thanks for the compliments, nonetheless :)
USSNA
24-09-2005, 20:49
Weight needs to be raised. PDEs are very powerful, but are also very heavy.

Also, using PDEs on a stealth fighter is not a good idea as you will be a huge target for anything IR-seeking. SRM will have a field day with you and even some MMR will have IR seekers.


One problem in the design has been the loud noise caused by the pulse-detonation. To solve this the engine has been surrounded by open-celled foam. The open-celled foam dampens the sound while still being lightweight and not adding much weight to the engine. Another mechanism used is the fan in the front of the engine. The fan sucks in much air, sending most of it as bypass air. This bypass air helps dampen the sound too, the same effect used in turbofan engines. But to really quiet the engine down, Quiet Craft has been applied to the outside of the engine. It decreases the sound intensity by 75%.
There is no way in hell you can damped the sound created by this thing by 75%. I dobt you could dampen it by 25%.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 21:06
That was Space Union's department, any how i was planning to replace PDEs with something of my own before starting to produce them for my own military.
Space Union
24-09-2005, 21:17
Weight needs to be raised. PDEs are very powerful, but are also very heavy.

Also, using PDEs on a stealth fighter is not a good idea as you will be a huge target for anything IR-seeking. SRM will have a field day with you and even some MMR will have IR seekers.


There is no way in hell you can damped the sound created by this thing by 75%. I dobt you could dampen it by 25%.

Here's a link for the solution I used:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sea-fighter1.htm

"To reduce vibration and noise, many of the ship's internal surfaces are covered with a coating of QuietShip, a viscoelastic polymer that can be applied to aluminum, steel and composite-hull vessels. The coating offers naval ship builders a way to reduce noise by up to 70 percent, according to developer Quiet Solution. On the Sea Fighter, QuietShip reduces noise by 15 decibels"

I adapted this technology for aircraft use. Its basically a paint that you can apply on what your looking for.

Oops I need to correct 75% to 70%, so Pushka can you do that.

As for the engine problem, no matter what engine you have, at that much thrust you aren't getting any smaller IR signature. So no engine will fix that problem.

As for weight, I did little bassing on the F-78 designed by Soviet Bloc, which has an empty weight of 17,000 kgs but isn't made out of light-weight composite material like the Mish-11/F-79 is.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 21:21
corrected.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 21:35
The design is going to be weighty as the engines are weighty. Also, that soundproofing only droped sound by 15 decibels. that is 70% of what this ship use to make. 15 decibels is no where near 75% of what this thing makes.
Space Union
24-09-2005, 21:47
The design is going to be weighty as the engines are weighty. Also, that soundproofing only droped sound by 15 decibels. that is 70% of what this ship use to make. 15 decibels is no where near 75% of what this thing makes.

I think you misread that. It says that the QuietShip (the company QuietSolutions created QuietAir for aircrafts) reduces the noice emissions by 70%. Now if you apply that to the FSF-1 it decreased the sound by 15 decibels from the intial noise emission.

Using that, if we apply QuietAir to the Mish-11, then the noice emissions will go down by 70%.

I don't really know about the weight problem. Even though, PDE are heavy, I will increase it to 17,000 kg since I mean SB's one is 17,000 lbs, while having a heavier airframe and PDE.

So Pushka can up up the empty weight to 17,000 kg and the other weight specs up by 2,000 kg except for the Maximum Payload, of course ;)
El De Austino
24-09-2005, 21:49
say what
Space Union
24-09-2005, 21:56
say what

what about what?
USSNA
24-09-2005, 21:59
sound reduction isn't measured by percentages. It is measured by decibels . The thing only reduces sound by 15 decibels.

Look at it this way. Your standing on the other side of a wall than me. I blow a radio at 100 decibels yet you only hear 50. If I crank it up to 200 decibels you will not hear 100, but 150.
Whtika
24-09-2005, 22:03
like to buy some lol :sniper:
nice post but i still have my space nuke program :D
so way do i need a ship ore plane :gundge:
Space Union
24-09-2005, 22:14
sound reduction isn't measured by percentages. It is measured by decibels . The thing only reduces sound by 15 decibels.

Look at it this way. Your standing on the other side of a wall than me. I blow a radio at 100 decibels yet you only hear 50. If I crank it up to 200 decibels you will not hear 100, but 150.

Its not set is the problem. If you logic worked, then everything coated with QuietShip would go down by 15 decibels. Instead they said "it gives naval ship builders a way to reduce sound by up to 70%" Then they said that it reduced the noice emissions on the FSF-1 by 15 decibels.
Space Union
24-09-2005, 22:15
like to buy some lol :sniper:
nice post but i still have my space nuke program :D
so way do i need a ship ore plane :gundge:

Okay but could you not spam this thread or use those smiles. No one likes them on the board when your RPing or even in OOC.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:16
Another example. Lets say I put a thin strip of sound-supressing film over a small servo that runs at 10 decibels and it is quieted down to 5 decibels.

Does that mean if I put it on a boombox that it would go from 70 to 35 decibels? No.

Besides, it's called advertising. You tend to make your product look better than it actually is.
DMG
24-09-2005, 22:20
sound reduction isn't measured by percentages. It is measured by decibels . The thing only reduces sound by 15 decibels.

Look at it this way. Your standing on the other side of a wall than me. I blow a radio at 100 decibels yet you only hear 50. If I crank it up to 200 decibels you will not hear 100, but 150.

I agree with Space Union on this...

I will try to explain it:

Based on what the website says about the QuietShip, it reduces sound by a maximum 70% - this doesn't mean that it will always be 70%, but that it may reduce it up to 70%. On the particular ship it is talking about in the article, the Sea Fighter, it reduces it by 15 decibals. This is to say that the total noise produced by the Sea Fighter is 19.5 decibals. When coated with the QuietShip, it reduces it by 70% which in this case is 15 decibals.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:23
* points to his example above*

Also, a PDE would produce well over 100 decibels. This quieting system would bring that down by only a little. Most of the sound exscapes with the exhaulst and cannot be dampened.
DMG
24-09-2005, 22:23
Another example. Lets say I put a thin strip of sound-supressing film over a small servo that runs at 10 decibels and it is quieted down to 5 decibels.

Does that mean if I put it on a boombox that it would go from 70 to 35 decibels? No.

Besides, it's called advertising. You tend to make your product look better than it actually is.

Before posting another example that is irrelevant to the QuietShip, read what it says...

The coating offers naval ship builders a way to reduce noise by up to 70 percent, according to developer Quiet Solution. On the Sea Fighter, QuietShip reduces noise by 15 decibels

If you read this properly, it says on the Sea Fighter it reduces it by 15 decibals - 15 decibals happens to be about 70% of the total noise produced by the Sea Fighter
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:28
The example is totaly relevant. Say that that film was QuietShip then. The anwser would be that no it would not reduce the boombox's sound by 50%.
DMG
24-09-2005, 22:34
Sorry, Space Union, but I tried.

Unfortunately, USSNA, is refusing to read what it says or listen to logic.

QuietShip reduces sound by 70%. Period.

If the ship creates 3000 decibals, then it will be quited to 900 decibals.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:34
I'll make it easy for you.

Say I create a thing call QuietFilm. I put it on a ship that produces 50 decibels and it reduces it to 40 decibels. I claim it can reduce sound by up to 20%.

I then put it on a small motor which produces 20 decibels and it is no longer audible. Can I claim up to 100% sound reduction? No.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:40
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/earplugstore/plquacnocahe.html

...Plane Quiet NC-6 provides 17 dB of noise reduction, and good sound ...

http://www.800nonoise.com/tutorial_4ways.htm

...Maximum noise reduction: 6-9 decibels (30-40% decrease in loudness)...

...Maximum noise reduction: 1-2 decibels if noise sprays noise our into room, 4-6 decibels if noise is sprayed directly onto wall...

...Maximum noise reduction: 6-15 decibels...

Need I go further?
The Macabees
24-09-2005, 22:41
[OOC: Pulse Detonation Engines in general are 2030 technology. Trust me, you won't see a PDE engine on an aircraft until 2050 or so in the real world. Actually, I doubt you'll ever see a PDE engine in the real world, simply because they're prone to break, expensive to fix, logistical nightmares, and it's just not a reliable system like a turbofan or a turbojet.]
USSNA
24-09-2005, 22:46
Thank You.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 23:15
Okay USSNA you seem to be heaving an understanding problem. Seventy percent means seventy percent. Your examples are irrelivant and make no sense, if you place that stuff on a boombox it will reduce the sound emmissions by 70% if you put it on a plane it will do the same.

Mac, do you have any data what so ever to back up your prediction, if it never been used on a real plane how can you possibly know if it is prone to break? Same goes for the rest of your conclusions. Oh and on the side note, i need to talk to you on MSN, i finally found a way to explain to you why efficient fusion reactors are feasible in this time and age, its backed up by my own professor, and by another guy from NC State University who i talked to on email about this thing.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 23:20
You guys arn't getting it. Look up sound reducing Foam or Sound Redicing Headphones, or Sound Reducing everything and you will find that it gives its reduction in decibels, NOT PERCENTAGES! QuietShip said 70% in a marketing ploy. How hard is that to see? I can back my side up with many examples and you can only back yours up with one.

As for my examples they are totaly relevent as they show you better how sound reduction works. It works by decibels, not percentages.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 23:27
Okay, show me there it says that QuietShip can only reduce the sound by so many decibels, all your other examples are irrelivant, they simply have nothing to do with QuietShip which is what we ARE talking about. Also marketing or not, we have proof and backing it is sufficient. You wanna look like a smart ass, just for the sake of looking like a smart ass even if your case is not at all defendable, please refrain from doing so in this thread.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 23:29
On the side note, i will not use PDE on my own domestic version of the craft, i will use turbofan, so will SU, we already agreed on that before i posted this thread.
USSNA
24-09-2005, 23:38
Okay, show me there it says that QuietShip can only reduce the sound by so many decibels, all your other examples are irrelivant, they simply have nothing to do with QuietShip which is what we ARE talking about. Also marketing or not, we have proof and backing it is sufficient. You wanna look like a smart ass, just for the sake of looking like a smart ass even if your case is not at all defendable, please refrain from doing so in this thread.

Well if you read what you wrote is reduces sound by 15 decibels. Also, my point is backed up. I provided you with link to products that reduce noise and they have it listed in decibels, not percentages. Show me some other product that claims to reduce sound in a percent and then come back to me. And it must be from a respectable source too.
Space Union
24-09-2005, 23:45
First off it said, based on the 70%, the QuietShip had an effect of 15 decibels off the origional design. How can you say that its saying that it decreased by 15 decibals, when it says 70% beforehand then 15 decibals. You have to go beyond that and actually look at the structure of the sentence. Oh my god! I can't believe I applied lessons that I learned in English to real-life. Never knew I would need them ;) :p

The Mac: You can't really say that. For example: railguns and ETC guns aren't going to be in production for a while and yet they are the norm in NS.
DMG
24-09-2005, 23:47
First off it said, based on the 70%, the QuietShip had an effect of 15 decibels off the origional design. How can you say that its saying that it decreased by 15 decibals, when it says 70% beforehand then 15 decibals. You have to go beyond that and actually look at the structure of the sentence. Oh my god! I can't believe I applied lessons that I learned in English to real-life. Never knew I would need them ;) :p

lol, I agree, although I dont think you need english lessons to understand the sentence... It is pretty straight foward... that is unless you are being stubborn and have selective reasoning...
USSNA
24-09-2005, 23:48
http://www.quietsolution.com/QShip_dsheet_scn.pdf

That is from the site of the makers of the QuietShip. If you look at the charts and info you see that noise reduction is shown in dB, not percentaged.

And I quote form the PDF: ...Typical noise reduction from 6dB to 20dB depending on application...

PWNED.
Pushka
24-09-2005, 23:56
Yeah
Aga
Right
PWNED
Thats a sound way to put it..lol..alright kid you can go away now.

First of all your info doesn't proove anything 6 to 20 DB is for whatever object they use in their experiment, which has nothing to do with our plane, second of all, we have a source backing up what we want it to back up that makes it sufficient for NS, third of all we are not changing a thing, if you want to ignore us feel free to go ahead.
USSNA
25-09-2005, 00:04
Your source is wrong is what I'm telling you. It is spreading lies. You once accused me of selective reading, now your the one doing the selective reading. Following the scientific code of reasearch, if a result is not reproduceable then it it cannot be claimed true. That is like saying I did cold fusion once but can never get it to do it again.

I am here to keep MT as realistic as possible and I am vigilant in that. Your source was wrong and therefor this design is wrong. Just change that one thing and I will leave you alone.

Under your reasoning, I think I'll find a site that says plasma guns are MT and use them.
USSNA
25-09-2005, 00:07
Yeah
Aga
Right
PWNED
Thats a sound way to put it..lol..alright kid you can go away now.

First of all your info doesn't proove anything 6 to 20 DB is for whatever object they use in their experiment, which has nothing to do with our plane, second of all, we have a source backing up what we want it to back up that makes it sufficient for NS, third of all we are not changing a thing, if you want to ignore us feel free to go ahead.

You info says nothing about your aircraft aswell so that would flaw your design as well. Also because my info in from the maker of the object in question, mine is more reliable.
DMG
25-09-2005, 00:08
Dont ever use PWNED, USSNA, you sound pathetic...

To quote you it says "Typical"

Also, again this is NS, if we are going by exactings of the real world, than basically none of the products would exist... it is called PMT for a reason, the technology is beyond what we have. If your going to be an enforcer of MT, than there are many more things you can gripe about rather than QuietShip

Now about the charts... the first chart is measuring brass - which is irrelevent to an aircraft. The following two charts actually prove that it is exponential and non an exact value.

So to sum it up... dont talk...
Pushka
25-09-2005, 00:10
You info says nothing about your aircraft aswell so that would flaw your design as well. Also because my info in from the maker of the object in question, mine is more reliable.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

Anyways, your info did not state that QuietShip can not reduce sound by 70%, all it said was that in that particular case it reduced sound by 6 DB, as far as we know thats 70%.
USSNA
25-09-2005, 00:12
Actually the last few charts show noise reduction in accordance to frequency. And it nowwhere shows a percentage. In short, it porves my point.
Pushka
25-09-2005, 00:18
What point would that be? We all know that sound intensity is measured in decibels, it doesn't change the fact that QuietShip cuts the sound by 70% of the decibels that compose the sound intensity produced by PDE.
Pushka
25-09-2005, 00:38
bump
Space Union
25-09-2005, 03:07
I think Pushka and DMG handled that. :) Also could we not keep posting this stuff in this thread. Go create another thread or TG me about this if you have problems. I generally want to keep this a sale thread with some corrections needed, not a lengthy debate.
[NS]Kreynoria
25-09-2005, 03:26
We'd like to buy 100.
Osoantipatico
25-09-2005, 03:29
Osoantiaptico would like to buy 5 for 650 million dollars.
great imageshack pictures of the bombs and missles
Space Union
25-09-2005, 14:19
Both orders are confirmed. We hope that these aircraft will serve with pride and dignity within your air forces. Thank You.
Space Union
25-09-2005, 16:12
bump
Space Union
25-09-2005, 17:57
bump
The Silver Sky
25-09-2005, 18:06
OOC: Active Radar Cancellation doesn't really work, all you need is a radar that constantly jumps wavelengths, even a AIM-54 Phoenix could pick out this thing.
Neuvo Rica
25-09-2005, 18:12
Contact:
To: Pushka/ Space Union
From: Neuvo Rica

Neuvo Rica would like to purchase 20 of these remarkable aircraft to equip two squadrons of our newly re-formed airforce.
Space Union
25-09-2005, 18:41
OOC: Active Radar Cancellation doesn't really work, all you need is a radar that constantly jumps wavelengths, even a AIM-54 Phoenix could pick out this thing.

The problem is that a radar that can constantly keep on jumping wavelengths is just not possible. First it would have to be pretty big and second its requires a powerful computer, which are going to make the thing even bigger. I doubt the Phoenix has that technology to constantly change wavelengths.
Space Union
25-09-2005, 18:42
Contact:
To: Pushka/ Space Union
From: Neuvo Rica

Neuvo Rica would like to purchase 20 of these remarkable aircraft to equip two squadrons of our newly re-formed airforce.

Your order has been accepted. That will come out to a total of $2.6 billion for 20 Mish-11/F-79s. We hope these aircrafts will serve with pride and dignity within your air force. Thank You.
Space Union
25-09-2005, 21:10
bump
The Macabees
25-09-2005, 21:57
The problem is that a radar that can constantly keep on jumping wavelengths is just not possible. First it would have to be pretty big and second its requires a powerful computer, which are going to make the thing even bigger. I doubt the Phoenix has that technology to constantly change wavelengths.


[OOC: I don't want to be mean, but most of your fighter is entirely made up of fictious ideas that wouldn't work no matter how much money you put into it, and these ideas spring from conceptions of technology that are also purely incorrect.

For instance, there's an obvious misunderstanding of RADAR here. Have you ever heard of a phased array or a broadband RADAR system? Those are multi-length RADAR systems. In fact, the only RADAR systems that work on a single frequency are those prior 1960-1970, or extremely small RADARs. It is to say, Silver Sky is right, active RADAR cancellation is worthless. Sorry to burst your bubble.

On the PDE, and how you compare it to a rail gun. There's a central difference between the two. The PDE is acknowleged to be worthless to make a cheap, reliable and effecient fighter - the rail guns, on the other hand, is scheduled to be released in 2012-2016. It is to say, there are plans to release the rail gun, while there aren't plans to release a PDE on any modern aircraft. Indeed, the JSF-35 is planned to continue service well until 2040. I'm sorry, but PDEs are crap, and that's how I will role play with them if I ever meet your aircraft in the sky.

Furthermore, that FOLED technology wouldn't work either. You would need to be able to know what wavelength of light to emit at every single second within a timespace. It is to say, it's implausible, and more likely, impossible. I'm sorry, your fighter wont be invisible. Not only that, but it undermines your stealth features because it would release massive quantities of infra-red signatures.

Moreover, I have the feeling that the CGMS technology would reduce velocity because of pure weight, as well as aerodynamics, making it not so cost effective to have on the Mish-11.

I'll leave you with this for now. I suggest that you don't ignore what some people would know better than others. Just to mention, USSNA is not just a kid, and is extremely well qualified to implore certain aspects.][/size]
Pushka
25-09-2005, 22:59
[OOC: I don't want to be mean, but most of your fighter is entirely made up of fictious ideas that wouldn't work no matter how much money you put into it, and these ideas spring from conceptions of technology that are also purely incorrect.

Just like your misunderstanding about nuclear fusion reactors?

For instance, there's an obvious misunderstanding of RADAR here. Have you ever heard of a phased array or a broadband RADAR system? Those are multi-length RADAR systems. In fact, the only RADAR systems that work on a single frequency are those prior 1960-1970, or extremely small RADARs. It is to say, Silver Sky is right, active RADAR cancellation is worthless. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Okay, i can't say anything about that, Space Union designed that aspect not me, but even so, having a system like that will work in some cases as with the extremely small radars as you call them.

On the PDE, and how you compare it to a rail gun. There's a central difference between the two. The PDE is acknowleged to be worthless to make a cheap, reliable and effecient fighter - the rail guns, on the other hand, is scheduled to be released in 2012-2016. It is to say, there are plans to release the rail gun, while there aren't plans to release a PDE on any modern aircraft. Indeed, the JSF-35 is planned to continue service well until 2040. I'm sorry, but PDEs are crap, and that's how I will role play with them if I ever meet your aircraft in the sky.

Again this is SU's doing but..PDE is aknowledged to be worthless by whom? You? I can live with that. Rail guns are given a date? So what? A forecast as distant as 2012-2016 can be as distant as 2030 and that wouldn't make a difference, why? Because the initial forecast is given before you started working on the project and before you started having problems and delays. I will bet you that in 2016 they will push the forecast 4 years further. As for you RPing i have heard from several people that you GM in your RPs so no offence.

Furthermore, that FOLED technology wouldn't work either. You would need to be able to know what wavelength of light to emit at every single second within a timespace. It is to say, it's implausible, and more likely, impossible. I'm sorry, your fighter wont be invisible. Not only that, but it undermines your stealth features because it would release massive quantities of infra-red signatures.

Moreover, I have the feeling that the CGMS technology would reduce velocity because of pure weight, as well as aerodynamics, making it not so cost effective to have on the Mish-11.

Can't say anything about that, it is SU's idea and actually i agree with Mac on this one, even if it worked system like that would be to expensive and have a low KPD (Coefficient of Usefullness) due to the fact that Mish-11 has first of all a capability to shoot down its enemy before any sort of visual contact can be established, second of all enemy can't target you by sight he can only do so by radar and so on.

I'll leave you with this for now. I suggest that you don't ignore what some people would know better than others. Just to mention, USSNA is not just a kid, and is extremely well qualified to implore certain aspects.][/size]

USSNA does act like a kid in his desperation and stubborness as well as the way he attempts to debate. Anyways, he is still wrong and he has been prooven wrong. Qualified? Really? Last time i checked we are all ammatures (the case of me vs you on nuclear reactors doesn't count, i am a pro) here and all USSNA did was try to swap two words in a sentence so they would proove his point, which they most certainly don't.
Omz222
25-09-2005, 23:06
I won't get into an argument, but I'm greatly perplexed and confused about implementing a system (aka the QuietShip thing) designed for a ship into an aircraft, especially considering that not only are those two completely different in their sizes and intended purposes, but also in their propulsion arrangement as well. Even if the application is indeed possible, I sincerely doubt, by a great degree, that it's going to reduce the noise of the aircraft by any degree considering it's already got a pair of big honking PDE engine (thus producing a lot of noise coming from the nozzle itself) and that it is capable of supersonic flight. It's like putting the F/A-22's radar onto a missile boat and then say that you are going to use it to escort an aircraft carrier as an air defence vessel - it just won't work if you put the system on an aircraft. Period.
Pushka
25-09-2005, 23:20
Okay your opinion is taken into consideration and put aside. Thank you.

A thing i want to add though, just so you know the version i will massproduce for my army that is Mish-11PVVS, will not have PDE or FOLED, i had doubts about both of them since the beggining, but i do think that you all ganging up on SU like that is wrong. I don't like PDE for one simple reason a fast aircraft doesn't mean a good aircraft, that is backed up by Russian College of Military Strategy assesment of the planes of the future, there Russia will not produce aicraft traveling past mach 2.4 but will produce missiles that can be guided at faster speeds than today. This goes back to the KPD of the whole thing. An aircraft simply doesn't need to be able to fly mach 3.8 to be superior. As for FOLED i already explained my position in the post aboe. So here it is, you heard what i had to say. Also this still doesn't change the wrongness of USSNA's argument, this is all that i had to say on the topic, lets just move on, this is a sales thread, lets keep it this way.
Space Union
25-09-2005, 23:47
[OOC: I don't want to be mean, but most of your fighter is entirely made up of fictious ideas that wouldn't work no matter how much money you put into it, and these ideas spring from conceptions of technology that are also purely incorrect.

For instance, there's an obvious misunderstanding of RADAR here. Have you ever heard of a phased array or a broadband RADAR system? Those are multi-length RADAR systems. In fact, the only RADAR systems that work on a single frequency are those prior 1960-1970, or extremely small RADARs. It is to say, Silver Sky is right, active RADAR cancellation is worthless. Sorry to burst your bubble.

On the PDE, and how you compare it to a rail gun. There's a central difference between the two. The PDE is acknowleged to be worthless to make a cheap, reliable and effecient fighter - the rail guns, on the other hand, is scheduled to be released in 2012-2016. It is to say, there are plans to release the rail gun, while there aren't plans to release a PDE on any modern aircraft. Indeed, the JSF-35 is planned to continue service well until 2040. I'm sorry, but PDEs are crap, and that's how I will role play with them if I ever meet your aircraft in the sky.

Furthermore, that FOLED technology wouldn't work either. You would need to be able to know what wavelength of light to emit at every single second within a timespace. It is to say, it's implausible, and more likely, impossible. I'm sorry, your fighter wont be invisible. Not only that, but it undermines your stealth features because it would release massive quantities of infra-red signatures.

Moreover, I have the feeling that the CGMS technology would reduce velocity because of pure weight, as well as aerodynamics, making it not so cost effective to have on the Mish-11.

I'll leave you with this for now. I suggest that you don't ignore what some people would know better than others. Just to mention, USSNA is not just a kid, and is extremely well qualified to implore certain aspects.][/size]

1st) Okay, I still would keep this on, as what if I do have an enemy that's using that kind of tech?? I'd rather have junk on my plane with nothing to do then have no junk on my plane that could save your life.

2nd) First off, I don't care if they say there going to release it in 2015 or whatever. I bet you they won't. They are just saying that to get government funding and interest. So don't even go there.

3rd) Do some research and you will see that it doesn't require a genious. It is meant not to be every second adjustment system but instead to be used to have a camaflaguo for a 30 seconds before adjusting. Anyways it is meant to be used against ground troops and maybe EMPed aircrafts.

4th) How would it decrease the aerodynamics? Where talking about it inside the aircraft not outside. Also the weight penalty is very insignificant as I don't plan having 10 tons of this stuff in the aircraft. Maybe 500 kgs worth of it in mass.

5th) I didn't call USSNA a kid. He's just trying to prove a point that doesn't exist. It said in plain english right before him and even his examples didn't prove him right. But I still respect USSNA as people make mistakes and debate them, as I've done it plenty of times in my life. Hell he's probably smarter than me.

Omz222: Its not actually called QuietShip, its called QuietAir. Its made by the same people except its adapted to be used on aircrafts instead of ships. You can go on their website and check it for yourself. The company is QuietSolutions or QuietSolution, I don't remember.
Space Union
26-09-2005, 01:37
This baby is too sexy to be all the way back here. I think it needs a bump ;)
The Silver Sky
26-09-2005, 01:41
This baby is too sexy to be all the way back here. I think it needs a bump ;)OOC: OH! That reminds me of a song! I'm too sexy!

I'm to sexy for my love, too sexy for my love, too sexy for my love, love's gonna leave me!
Pushka
26-09-2005, 20:20
Help My Sober Engineers! Buy This Plane! 95% Of The Profits Will Go Towards Building A Mountain/fountain From Stolychnaya Vodka!
Space Union
26-09-2005, 21:33
bump for being sexy :p
The Silver Sky
26-09-2005, 21:36
bump for being sexy :p
OOC: You sexy? HAHAHHAHA!!! You're funny! :p

Personally I'd buy a few, but I don't like your guy's flight systems(I got my own), the PDEs or the Active Radar Cancellation.(We had a whole topic at W@W on why it wouldn't work)
Space Union
26-09-2005, 21:40
OOC: You sexy? HAHAHHAHA!!! You're funny! :p

Personally I'd buy a few, but I don't like your guy's flight systems(I got my own), the PDEs or the Active Radar Cancellation.(We had a whole topic at W@W on why it wouldn't work)

More sexy than you! pwned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just Kidding :p

1) What don't you like about the flight system? I think anything new is generally not liked from what I can tell.

2) PDEs are as realistic as railguns, which are used on NS, so that really is your opinion.

3) ARC has its purposes, even if they are to assure that outdated technology don't send your fighter zooming to the ground.
The Macabees
26-09-2005, 21:48
Sorry to intrude again, but the difference between rail guns and PDEs is that the rail gun is a technology that has been set down and is being produced, while the PDE is still theoritical, and has never been put to the test, and indeed, it can't because we don't have the technology to do so. It is to say, a rail gun is 2012 to 2020 range because it's not a theory anymore is going to be implemented in that time range, while the PDE will won't know if it works or not in the end, so it's considered 2030-2050 time range.
The Silver Sky
26-09-2005, 21:50
More sexy than you! pwned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just Kidding :p

1) What don't you like about the flight system? I think anything new is generally not liked from what I can tell.

2) PDEs are as realistic as railguns, which are used on NS, so that really is your opinion.

3) ARC has its purposes, even if they are to assure that outdated technology don't send your fighter zooming to the ground.
1) It's not that it's new, it's just that I have my own, and I'm not really fond of your guy's flight stuff.

2)Not to bring up the arguement, but we have working models of railguns(and linear guns) and a slated release date, we don't have working PDEs or a release date for them.

3) I prefer my own system, a multi-band directional RADAR jammer, practically drops those old missiles out of the skies, and chaff works just as well if not better then ARC.
Space Union
26-09-2005, 22:25
Sorry to intrude again, but the difference between rail guns and PDEs is that the rail gun is a technology that has been set down and is being produced, while the PDE is still theoritical, and has never been put to the test, and indeed, it can't because we don't have the technology to do so. It is to say, a rail gun is 2012 to 2020 range because it's not a theory anymore is going to be implemented in that time range, while the PDE will won't know if it works or not in the end, so it's considered 2030-2050 time range.

No actually from what I know, they do have testing models working already, just like railguns. But yet people have the misconception that PDEs are just theoratical, in fact they aren't.

Also you can't really say that they are going to be released in the 2012-2020 range as that is just a very early prediction. And please tell me when has something come in the time-frame the scientist say that they can develop the thing.

I'll try to find you a link, though its stated in the Wikipedia article on PDEs.
Space Union
26-09-2005, 22:26
1) It's not that it's new, it's just that I have my own, and I'm not really fond of your guy's flight stuff.

2)Not to bring up the arguement, but we have working models of railguns(and linear guns) and a slated release date, we don't have working PDEs or a release date for them.

3) I prefer my own system, a multi-band directional RADAR jammer, practically drops those old missiles out of the skies, and chaff works just as well if not better then ARC.

1) Well that's your opinion.

2) Read my post ahead of this.

3) Considering that the Mish-11 has that, it doesn't hurt to have a secondary system.
The Macabees
26-09-2005, 22:29
No actually from what I know, they do have testing models working already, just like railguns. But yet people have the misconception that PDEs are just theoratical, in fact they aren't.

Also you can't really say that they are going to be released in the 2012-2020 range as that is just a very early prediction. And please tell me when has something come in the time-frame the scientist say that they can develop the thing.

I'll try to find you a link, though its stated in the Wikipedia article on PDEs.


Alright, goling by the Wiki article on PDEs, your entire argument is refuted. I'll quote as necessary:


Key difficulties in pulse detonation engines are achieving DDT without requiring a tube long enough to make it impractical and drag-imposing on the aircraft; reducing the noise (often described as sounding like a jackhammer); and damping the severe vibration caused by the operation of the engine.


Consequently, a well working PDE engine is still theoritical, and has absolutely not been implented yet. On the other hand, rail guns don't need major improvements worth in technology, unlike a PDE.
Space Union
26-09-2005, 22:48
Okay I'll have to say that I was wrong then. I misread the Wiki article. But I'm still going to keep the PDEs. For one reason, a lot of aircrafts have PDEs on their fighters, ranging from the L-82, F-78, SZ-20, and others. I don't see any arguments being brought up against them so I'll keep them for the export version at least, for me and Pushka have something else for our domestic versions.
Space Union
26-09-2005, 23:31
bump
Space Union
27-09-2005, 00:43
bump
Omz222
27-09-2005, 01:13
Omz222: Its not actually called QuietShip, its called QuietAir. Its made by the same people except its adapted to be used on aircrafts instead of ships. You can go on their website and check it for yourself. The company is QuietSolutions or QuietSolution, I don't remember.
OOC: I did, but it doesn't actually go into detail that will actually prove its utility as a system implemented on military aircraft (if it actually functions as intended on even civilian airliners). The problem is that while the noticable noise of the engine assembly of a ship can be reduced in its volume by the usage of these materials, you aren't going to reduce the noise of an aircraft, where not only is the vehicle moving at high (subsonic or supersonic) speeds, but you also have a pair of engines with both of their ends open - that means exposed, which in turn means that the sound of the internal mechanisms will be instantly made audible outside through the big honking afterburner nozzles.
Space Union
27-09-2005, 01:18
OOC: I did, but it doesn't actually go into detail that will actually prove its utility as a system implemented on military aircraft (if it actually functions as intended on even civilian airliners). The problem is that while the noticable noise of the engine assembly of a ship can be reduced in its volume by the usage of these materials, you aren't going to reduce the noise of an aircraft, where not only is the vehicle moving at high (subsonic or supersonic) speeds, but you also have a pair of engines with both of their ends open - that means exposed, which in turn means that the sound of the internal mechanisms will be instantly made audible outside through the big honking afterburner nozzles.

Yes you are true, but it cuts some of the noise that doesn't come from the engines, though most of the sound generated by an aircraft comes from the engines. But if applied to an engine, it also states that the QuietSolution products are reduce vibrations which is a problem with PDE so that is a double-purpose thing.
USSNA
27-09-2005, 01:46
I'm tired of you saying that I'm arguing a wrong side. You have

a) 1 example
b) Refuse to fin another example or even accept the examplt that I have provided.

If you find me another credible source that says quietsound reduces noise and vibrations bu 70% I will call it quits and not bother you about this topic again. But I can guarentee you that I can fine more than 3 examples to every one of yours. Back you statements up with more than 1 instance of proof. I backed mine up with many.

EDIT: You do also know that wing warping was abandoned a long time ago....
Space Union
27-09-2005, 02:09
I'm tired of you saying that I'm arguing a wrong side. You have

a) 1 example
b) Refuse to fin another example or even accept the examplt that I have provided.

If you find me another credible source that says quietsound reduces noise and vibrations bu 70% I will call it quits and not bother you about this topic again. But I can guarentee you that I can fine more than 3 examples to every one of yours. Back you statements up with more than 1 instance of proof. I backed mine up with many.

EDIT: You do also know that wing warping was abandoned a long time ago....

The problem is that your examples are:

a) based on your opinion and don't take into account the information stated
b) my source is actually direct not indirect examples

Alright this is getting real tiring talking about this. This discussion has taken most of the thread. For that reason, Pushka just take out the figure that says it decreases the thing by 70% and let the customer decide how much. Is that fine by everyone? Man, I find that none of these replies are sales but arguments ;)

Also wing warping is being researched by NASA for their next-generation civilian aircraft studies. I can't remember what aircraft, though I think it was on that flying wing design. It is very much alive. I doubt they would give up research when it provides aerodynamic improvements and manuverability improvements. But I saw all this on the NASA TV Channel that I have on Dish Network, so if you have that maybe they'll have a rerun and talk about it.
Pushka
27-09-2005, 20:00
1) It's not that it's new, it's just that I have my own, and I'm not really fond of your guy's flight stuff.

Excuse me flight stuff? What do you mean by that? You're talking about VRPB? Well if you have your own analogue you can simply install your own software. Plus please be more specific what do you mean by flight stuff?
Pushka
27-09-2005, 20:02
I'm tired of you saying that I'm arguing a wrong side. You have

a) 1 example
b) Refuse to fin another example or even accept the examplt that I have provided.

If you find me another credible source that says quietsound reduces noise and vibrations bu 70% I will call it quits and not bother you about this topic again. But I can guarentee you that I can fine more than 3 examples to every one of yours. Back you statements up with more than 1 instance of proof. I backed mine up with many.

EDIT: You do also know that wing warping was abandoned a long time ago....

None of your sources refer to the topic. They give a number not a percentage for all we know that number is 70% lower than the original one.