Jump to content


Photo

CTD - XC 1 Gryphon


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#1 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 13 July 2003 - 06:11 PM

Outwardly like a conventional aircraft, the XC-1 Garuda is anything but conventional and represents the most advanced technical innovations ever used in a military aircraft. Using the latest Earth-based technologies, it out performs all other previous designs by decades.

This is accredited mostly to two factors. Its new XH-230 Hydrogen engine and the incorporation of its silver-ionized carbon bonded dielectric polymer system of hydraulics.

Early in 2001, it was already foreseen that the world’s petroleum resources would only last, at most 40-50 years (a crisis that ultimately led to the Gulf Reformation Wars). Thus scientists began experimenting on Hydrogen engines and by early 2003 actually had some working prototypes. These prototypes produced 3 times the energy output of petroleum base engines of the same displacement. However, fuel storage was problematic as Hydrogen had to be kept at -253 Celsius to maintain its liquid state. And even as such, it required 4 times the space of petroleum fuels. This made Hydrogen based vehicles too bulky for practical military use.

Only by the end of the Gulf Reformation Wars did certain scientists begin experimenting on the concept of a hydrogen electrolysis plant small enough to fit into a modest size frame. This is the essence of the XH-230. It is not merely a hydrogen engine; it also the first Hydro-Electrolysis Plant (HEP) small enough for use in aircraft. Thus the XC-1 literally takes in water for fuel, and has three times the power of a conventional engine of the same size. This has finally made feasible the concept of VSTOL aircraft with sustainable hi-mach speeds.

Another technological advancement, represented in the XC-1, is the first time use of dielectric polymers in an aircraft. Dielectric polymers are manufactured carbon based materials that contract and expand in the presence of an electric field. Before the XC-1, previous polymers required ludicrous amounts of electricity to stimulate even the smallest movement. The key was to create a polymer with a higher dielectric constant. Scientists discovered that infusing a polymer with silver ions increased its dielectric constant by a factor of 746.7, thus reducing the required amount of electricity by the same factor.

Applied to the XC-1, this only means that the old hydraulic system of conventional aircraft has been replaced by electric wires and some polymers. This not only makes the XC-1 lighter and more space efficient, but it was learned that when fused with A-waves system of control, the pilot gains an almost organic control of all facets of the aircraft. Combined with variable control configuration technology and the ability to Vector in Forward Flight (VIFF), the XC-1 is agile beyond what was previously thought possible.

The cockpit of the XC-1 is a total redesign of the old conventional system. Basically, the pilot sits in a modular control bubble (MCB) that is immersed in a magnetically excited monomer emulsion that makes it sensitive to the Alpha waves created by human brain activity. The A-waves is then run through several neuron-synthetic AI processors to produce digital signals for hydraulic control. This makes the pilot an organic control element in the fighter and increases the fighter’s response rate by a factor of 231%. A backup control stick is available for the pilot’s use. Tests show that a combination of both conventional and A-wave flight control provides the optimum level of control.

Inside the MCB is the interface for the advanced detection and identification system of the XC-1. Using multi-phased variance Doppler receptors, the XC-1 is capable of detecting and identifying up to 50 non-cooperative targets from over 100 miles. This can be used in conjunction with the [stingray] missile and can even accommodate the long range hard hitting [avalanche] missile. The system also incorporates a low side lobe technique of particle emanation for higher frequency agility. Multiple panoramic cameras and an infrared line scan apparatus provide for faster tactical line-of-sight imaging of its target, optimizing the pilot’s target identification capabilities. A short range laser locked vector targeting array allows the internal cannon to be aimed with unprecedented accuracy.

The MCB is also a life support capsule with inertial dampening, by way of vector compensated counter-action processors that control a host of dielectric polymers to reduce the effects of sudden turns and accelerations. This combined with the new mid-viscosity jump suit increases the pilot’s G resistance to near super human levels. The MCB has an emergency oxygen supply and has a spare tank inside as well. In case of the craft being destroyed, the MCB is damage resistant and is reinforced with Kevlar. The MCB ejects as an entire unit and is equipped with parachute and floatation devices for water landing.

All weapons of the XC-1 are internal, and its advanced geometric design reduces its radar signature to that of a small bird. A multi-mode transponder can confuse enemy missiles, and a rotating frequency modulator ECM makes it virtually impossible to gain lock on the XC-1. Chaff, flare, and decoy dispensers are also included for the highest degree of survivability.

Attached Files



#2 GreatGold

GreatGold

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 852 posts

Posted 13 July 2003 - 07:49 PM

Hey -

Just wanted to say congrats to warhamster! Looking real nice, and I know how much work has been put into this.

Also, everyone should pay special attention to the way the UFO Navigation, and eventually Grav Shield, tie into all of this. Cpt. Boxershorts and I have been working on that, and it should proove rather interesting.

Just as a comment, I think this could be very close to a final and omplete draft, unless anyone thinks otherwise?

Great work!
Gold
---
Rule #33:
Celatid venom is a paralytic nerve toxin, not 'happy juice".

---
Posted Image

#3 Cpt. Boxershorts

Cpt. Boxershorts

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 453 posts

Posted 13 July 2003 - 08:42 PM

I think it's damn good. I really like the biofeedback references..they add a futuristic feel to it.

I only have two nitpicks......the last sentence in the second paragraph - "...silver-ionized carbon bonded dielectric polymer..." - Just a few too many spiffy sounding words to flow properly. The other is that the word "polymer" is used too many times. Maybe use "plastic", "compound", "substance", or just "components" in a few places.

-The Captain
"...you're always afraid you'll lose control and wake up some morning with a half-built time machine and a plan to go back in time and pants Hitler."
- A Miracle of Science


Posted Image

#4 Nickisimo

Nickisimo

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 06:40 AM

I like it...I found little grammatical gripe though. :D

The A-waves is then run through several neuron-synthetic AI processors to produce digital signals for hydraulic control.

"are."
Otherwise, awesome job ham! :beer:

#5 GreatGold

GreatGold

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 852 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:47 AM

Hehe -

If these are the only comments, I think this entry is just about complete. Any last ones? Before I update the CTD page tonight?

Gold
---
Rule #33:
Celatid venom is a paralytic nerve toxin, not 'happy juice".

---
Posted Image

#6 Nickisimo

Nickisimo

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:49 AM

This is somewhat off topic but you said that there's a new URL. What is it? :huh?:

#7 Breunor

Breunor

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 10:09 AM

The url should be the same as before excepting the ~ IIRC.

At first I wondered about the time frame referenced at the beginning, but reading it again I think it ties together great. The Cpt's comment about the run-on spiffy sentence, I think at the least just add some commas in there to visually break it up.

Very nice work guys!

#8 Deimos

Deimos

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 04:05 PM

Very cool stuff, I like the hydrogen engine explanation. If I may a couple of points.

Can you make it a little more vague on the dates, as we're thinking about using ten years from the user's system time as the start date. Maybe instead of xxxx date use ten yrs ago?

-253 C, isn't that 0 Kelvin or absolute zero where all matter stops moving? Or am I out by a few degrees :D It might be a good idea to raise the temp to near absolute zero rather than bang on it.

I know its nitpicky but you can guarantee someone will spot it when we release. If we're going to use factual info we might as well get it right.

As an aside point from a graphics side, the hydrogen engine gives room to play. Imagine in battlescape the skyranger venting excess gas every now and then with a pssssht noise. Kinda like the Milennium Falcon did when it landed at Bespin in the empire strikes back.

Cool stuff.

#9 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 06:35 PM

As a side note if anyone here is interested some guys had proven that they can package BIG quantity of hydrogen in the middle of special structures named carbon nanotubes in a VERY STABLE form, maybe you can do something with it... Thinking on the lines of a lot of unstable hydrogen flowing arround the aircraft, means KABOOM to me... Just a hint of what someone could think.

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#10 Guest_Jim69_*

Guest_Jim69_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2003 - 06:46 PM

The Hindernberg ( is that how it's spelt ) also jumps 2 mind. Maybe a mention of some safety precautions of lesson's learnt from that beast?

#11 GreatGold

GreatGold

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 852 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:07 PM

s a side note if anyone here is interested some guys had proven that they can package BIG quantity of hydrogen in the middle of special structures named carbon nanotubes in a VERY STABLE form.

One of my best friends is currently working with carbon nanotubes down at Columbia. We've discussed them a great deal, and they have some amazing properties. Electrical, structural, etc. I'm sure we can find a way to work them into the entries, although not sure where yet. You should see what they've figured out with nanotubes and Buckminster balls... not to mention just in terms of tensile strength. Scientists have figured out how to make incredably thin strings out of nanotubes, 4 times as strong as spiderwebs... really amazing shuckeroonies.

Also, about Hydrogen Systems. In cars, they would be safer than your usual fuel tanks. More on this when I dig it up... I know thats true, I just dont have the source on my comp at the moment.

Gold
---
Rule #33:
Celatid venom is a paralytic nerve toxin, not 'happy juice".

---
Posted Image

#12 Cpt. Boxershorts

Cpt. Boxershorts

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 453 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 07:38 PM

From what I understood of the entry, the actual amount of hydrogen aboard at any one time is minimal...the fuel is plain water which is broken down. So the actual amount of unburnt hydrogen is what's between the doohicky and the engine. So the threat of explosion is fairly low, even if you hit it with a missile.

-The Captain
"...you're always afraid you'll lose control and wake up some morning with a half-built time machine and a plan to go back in time and pants Hitler."
- A Miracle of Science


Posted Image

#13 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 14 July 2003 - 08:07 PM

Thanks for the comments, guys. I am working to do just a little more tweaking, but just for my defense...

After researching what scientists are now calling the cryo plane, i actually got it factually, that hydrogen has to be stored precisely at -253 C to remain liquid.

Hydrogen is a 'white shark' in terms of danger. The Hindenberg did go up in terrifying fashion, but more than half the passengers actually survived, those who died actually perished mostly from the drop and the metal debris that crushed them to death. Hydrogen combusts with 3 times the power of petrol, but it doesn't burn quite as hot, so in terms of dangerous fuels, you probably have a bigger chance of dying from the vapors of gasoline. And yes, the idea is that water will be its fuel, and that the engine does extract it's hydrogen from the water.


CAP, NICK, Deimos... I'm working on your comments now. Thanks everybody.


'...Hydrogen contains 3 times as much energy per Kg as kerosene which
means that only a third as much fuel by weight needs to be carried
to cover a certain range. However, hydrogen is a significantly less
dense fuel than kerosene and will need much larger aircraft fuel
tanks even when the fuel is stored in liquid form at –253 °C as it
will have to be. Even taking into account the fact that only one
third of the weight of hydrogen will be required, fuel tanks on a
hydrogen powered aircraft will need to be 4 times the volume of
those on conventional aircraft...'

'...It is likely that people’s fear of hydrogen as a fuel will have to
be overcome. Ever since the Hindenburg and other hydrogen filled
airship crashes people have had a fear of the explosive properties
of hydrogen as a fuel. In fact hydrogen is a safer fuel than
kerosene. In the event of a crash, freed hydrogen fuel will rise
quickly and any fire will result in an upward pointing flare whereas
kerosene will form a wide carpet of flame around a crashed aircraft.
Moreover, hydrogen is very fast burning with very low radiation of
heat and its combustion products are non-toxic. Many people forget
that when the Hindenburg caught fire in a landing accident it did
not explode and of the 97 passengers and crew on board 62 survived.'


These are the excertps I got from an article called the 'green aircraft'. I lost the URL as i down loaded the text into my hard drive and never looked back.

#14 Fred the Goat

Fred the Goat

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 22 July 2003 - 12:14 PM

The number Deimos is thinking of is -273 degrees Celsius. Wow, all that stupid chemistry I had to take for my Biology major finally paid off. Slightly.

I love the entry! Garuda! Great stuff! My second cousin once removed (my father's cousin) took Garuda as his name back in the day. I forget what it means...

Looks good. I can't think of anything people haven't already addressed. Well, okay, maybe one...

Tests show that a combination of both conventional and A-wave flight control provides the optimum level of control.

This is the only sentence I don't like. How about, "provides optimal mastery of the craft."

#15 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 04 August 2003 - 03:08 PM

Thanks!

Sorry been out of it for a while. Having some problems with my personal life.

FYI: Garuda is the King of the birds in Indian mythos (or was it Hindu). Carried fully armored gods into battle on his back. Fiercely the enemy of all things evil. I was actually meaning to ask this. I kinda feel that Garuda is more appropriate for the transport. I was wanting a sleeker and more intimidating name if you guys can suggest any.

#16 dipstick

dipstick

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,011 posts

Posted 04 August 2003 - 03:50 PM

Internal weaponry?? ould that mean that you could have more than 2 weapons per craft, and more ammo?? IMO weapons should be limited by weight. Is there any way to incorporate that??
Posted Image

#17 j'ordos

j'ordos

    Alien Concept Task Force

  • Xenocide Artwork Department
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 04 August 2003 - 03:51 PM

Valkyrie? Starhawk? Harpy? Silver Streak? Mercury? Manticore? Vampire/Vampyre? Pegasus? Aeolus? Ajax? Apollo? Icarus? Ishtar? Bellona? Guardian Angel? Antigone? Artemis? Excalibur? Baal? Cú Chulainn? Shaytan (no Breunor, not Shaitan :D ), Demon? Ravenclaw? Perseus? Heimdallr? Horus? (if we're going mythological, I like this one. It's an Egyptian god, King of the Sky) Marduk? Geryon? Unicorn? Nemesis? Ninurta? Gungnir? Aurora? Phaethon? Prometheus? Quetzalcoatl? Shango? Svarog? Magog? Taranis? Wodan? Thor? Theseus? Djinn? Starfire? Dragonwing? Just pick something, I'd say, there's plenty of choice ^_^
"You can't trust your eyes if your imagination's out of focus" - Mark Twain
"The mind is like an umbrella, it functions best when open" - Walter Gropius
Posted Image
SNEKK BLOG U-LAR MEKHH! GAHGHH! RK!
GRRGH RGGHH SNORRTT GHACKHGG

Now presented in DoubleVision™ (where drunk)

#18 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 04 August 2003 - 06:13 PM

Internal weaponry??  ould that mean that you could have more than 2 weapons per craft, and more ammo?? IMO weapons should be limited by weight.  Is there any way to incorporate that??

Well, this is really flavor text. The assumption i guess is that there are only two weapon systems that will fit into the internal weapons bay. for stealth to work, you need to fly 'clean'.

Thanks J'ordos! Nice suggestions. I particularly like Valkyrie but won't Macross fans have something to say about that? Oh to heck with them, I'll stick that one out. Thanks.

Edited by warhamster, 04 August 2003 - 06:25 PM.


#19 Fred the Goat

Fred the Goat

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 12:48 AM

Ishtar! I love that one too. That's one of my favorite game character names. Let's see, how does it go?

I will break down the gateposts of he.ll, and the gates will lie flatdown, and the dead will go out and eat the living, and the dead will outnumber the living.

Something like that. She was really mean. :devillaugh: We should name something after her. Er...in my opinion.

P.S. thanks for the Garuda info. That's cool.

Edited by Fred the Goat, 05 August 2003 - 12:49 AM.


#20 miceless

miceless

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 12:57 AM

Valkyrie was used in Apoc, i would avoid that.

Where does 'Marduk' come from j'ordos? Isnt that the name of the bad guy in the game Sacrifice? I have used that as my nickname in the past...
"If it moves - kill it. If it doesn't move - kill it anyway, it might move later."

#21 j'ordos

j'ordos

    Alien Concept Task Force

  • Xenocide Artwork Department
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 03:52 AM

Marduk is a Babylonian god. He was the champion of a 'new generation' of gods, those who represented life, civilization, progress... as opposed to the elder generation, representing chaos and brute force. Marduk created the winds, but the first-born gods were distressed by them, and convinced Tiamat to go to war against him. She created terrible monsters, and the other gods suggested to Marduk that he would defeat them. He agreed, on one condition: that he would then achieve absolute power. And with the aid of his winds, he defeated Tiamat and her monsters, and from her corpse he created the heaven and the earth.

Edited by j'ordos, 05 August 2003 - 03:52 AM.

"You can't trust your eyes if your imagination's out of focus" - Mark Twain
"The mind is like an umbrella, it functions best when open" - Walter Gropius
Posted Image
SNEKK BLOG U-LAR MEKHH! GAHGHH! RK!
GRRGH RGGHH SNORRTT GHACKHGG

Now presented in DoubleVision™ (where drunk)

#22 mikker

mikker

    Artwork Department

  • Xenocide Artwork Department
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 04:34 AM

i like horus too. Marduk isnt bad either....hmmm.

what about mahorus? :P

Some people say that dreams are a portal to the subconscious. If that is so, I am a very disturbed person.

the truth about scientology

#23 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 04:16 PM

I vote for Starfire...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#24 Raven Squad

Raven Squad

    Sound Department

  • Xenocide Sound Department
  • 326 posts

Posted 05 August 2003 - 04:30 PM

That description is great. Good job.

About name of that craft. Prometheus would be my choice. Ukko ylijumala would be another :P
Yep, thats me who is posting here...

#25 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 13 August 2003 - 01:56 AM

Only by the end of the Gulf Reformation Wars did certain scientists begin experimenting on the concept of a hydrogen electrolysis plant small enough to fit into a modest size frame. This is the essence of the XH-230. It is not merely a hydrogen engine; it also the first Hydro-Electrolysis Plant (HEP) small enough for use in aircraft. Thus the XC-1 literally takes in water for fuel, and has three times the power of a conventional engine of the same size. This has finally made feasible the concept of VSTOL aircraft with sustainable hi-mach speeds.


Uh, I hate to burst yur bubble, but, it takes as much energy to electrolize water as you get from burning Hydrogen, and since niether proccess is 100% efficient. Your engine is bassically one gigantic Energy waster.

Remember, Energy can niether be created or destroyed(well, exept with mass to energy etc. but lets not get into that). And you can't burn water!

I recomend a controlled cold fusion burning process involving deuterium and lithium, or you could always use hydrogen as a jet fuel!

Here are sites on fusion and on Fuel cells which are the current methods of getting energy out of hydrogen/hydrogen isotopes.

EDIT:

All weapons of the XC-1 are internal, and its advanced geometric design reduces its radar signature to that of a small bird. A multi-mode transponder can confuse enemy missiles, and a rotating frequency modulator ECM makes it virtually impossible to gain lock on the XC-1. Chaff, flare, and decoy dispensers are also included for the highest degree of survivability.


Are we americans withholding millitary secrets from you?? An F-117's radar cross-section is equall to that of an insect, and it also has radar absorbing alloys in addition to the facets (Maybe alien alloys could absorbe radar, that's why x-com wouldn't detect UFOs often!). Apperently technology gets worse with the passage of time.

Also a transponder (at least according to deictionary.com) is a device that transmits a signal upon recieving one, so other than faking distance I doubt it would be useful pluss if they already managed to get a radar lock, I don't think that would fool them(although maybe you have a better/different defanition). Chaff, and decoy would be useful. Im assuming the flare would be something designed to overload their detection systems (correct me if I'm wrong). And I have no Idea what ECM stands for so you're on your own there.

Edited by Ancalagon, 13 August 2003 - 02:24 AM.


#26 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 02:36 AM

hmmm... let's see. As i explained the problem of hydrogen engines is not the engine itself, but the fuel storage. That's why i thought up an electrolysis plant. Honestly, that's way mondo physics for me to expound on, i'm just presuming that they will find a way to increase the efficiency of extracting hydrogen from water in the future. But if you'd like to dig up a little more research to add on to the piece, your help is more than welcome.

As for the transponder thingie, I read this in American Military books. They use this to identify targets. When you're dealing with aircraft at 100+ miles away, it isn't always easy to know who's friend or foe. Certain missles actually have friend or foe identification using transponder signals, at least this minimizes friendly fire casualties. In this case, transponder imitation can make the missile lose lock. Thus I included this in my piece. But more because it's a cool sounding term.

Point taken, the small bird is gone. We'll put in insect. :D

#27 miceless

miceless

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 03:04 AM

Though Ancalagon is right about the fuel stuff I dont think it will matter. We can implement a small amount of poetic license to explain it away.

Im fairly sure that ECM stands for Electronic Counter Measures, but I could be wrong.

I would not worry too much about the definitions of transponder as its within the realm of possibilities. It does sounds quite cool though.

Reading it through again, whats the different between VTOL and VSTOL? I know its a "Short", but whats that about?
"If it moves - kill it. If it doesn't move - kill it anyway, it might move later."

#28 Raven Squad

Raven Squad

    Sound Department

  • Xenocide Sound Department
  • 326 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 10:29 AM

I quess VSTOL means that it can take off like normal aircraft, as VTOL means it always takes off vertically :)
Yep, thats me who is posting here...

#29 miceless

miceless

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 11:31 AM

I assumed that VSTOL meant that it had to have some runway to take off, but not much.

Im fairly sure VTOLs can take off as long as the wheels are on the ground. I reckon most VTOLs could still use a full runway.
"If it moves - kill it. If it doesn't move - kill it anyway, it might move later."

#30 Raven Squad

Raven Squad

    Sound Department

  • Xenocide Sound Department
  • 326 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 12:31 PM

The AV-8B Harrier is VSTOL (vertical/short take off and landing) craft. It doesnt need runway (atleast when it is in light load). VTOL (vertical take off and landing). Choppers belong to this category.Here is few more Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) and Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL).

Wasnt IRAQ AA able to fire at F117. Also Serbian forces drop one. So i think USA has little bit over estimated their stealth planes.

Edited by Raven Squad, 14 August 2003 - 12:34 PM.

Yep, thats me who is posting here...

#31 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 06:01 PM

I never said it was impossible to shoot them down, I said the tests of the design yielded a cross-section equal to that of an insect. And that was back in the 70s anyway, so radar has improved. And considering this is the cutting edge of technology 10 years in the future, it probably shouldn't have a crossection the size of a bird.

Also, the weapon that shot one down in serbia was a stinger missile, which were originally made by the US. Kinda Ironic, huh? ^_^

Edit: It did take 20 years for someone to come up with radar that could detect them, so I don't think we overestimated them. Most airplanes are obsolete well before that amount of time. The B-52 is the longest lasting one(50 yrs and counting), and that's gone through and will go through many modifications so I don't even know if that counts.

Edited by Ancalagon, 14 August 2003 - 06:35 PM.


#32 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 06:03 PM

Hmmm... I think the status quo for fixed wing aircraft is that VSTOL and VTOL is the same. Any plane that can take of vertically can probably produce enough thrust to take off conventionally and on short strips of land. I don't really know why some military books include 's' while others choose to ommit it. And I don't really see that it makes that much of a diff. Can someone enlighten this ignorant rodent?

#33 Guest_Jim69_*

Guest_Jim69_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 August 2003 - 06:08 PM

Erm, helicopters can't make a runway landing they have 2 come straight down. Maybe that's why some of em do it :huh?:

#34 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 07:12 PM

Well, I don't think helicopters are actually considered fixed wing, and I think it's almost safe to presume that all helicopters take off vertically. So marking helicopters VSTOL or VTOL is really be point moot. They're always VTOL.

I guess you guys can just tell me which term sounds way cooler, VSTOL or VTOL?

#35 Fred the Goat

Fred the Goat

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 14 August 2003 - 11:37 PM

Hmmm...sounded like VSTOL was the more accurate term, VTOL referring to things that can only take off and land vertically. Is that right? I dunno.

And the U.S. military always overestimates their technology. They're worse than programmers. :D They kept saying the new cruise missiles were 99% accurate or somesuch, when accuracy was, it turned out, judged by ability to leave the frickin tube.

As for water engines, I just don't like it. :P I think it needs tweeking...or, uh, tweaking. Is the difference between a druggy and a tinkerer really just that little "a"? Anywho, I'd say there's a water electrolysis plant at base, and the plane stocks up on compressed hydrogen, or hydrogen and oxygen, as fuel cell power. That's a little more accurate. Otherwise it's like plugging a fan into the wall to blow on a windmill to generate electricity to power your house...it just doesn't work.

#36 miceless

miceless

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts

Posted 15 August 2003 - 03:00 AM

I prefer the use of VTOL myself, but if its not correct we should use the other one.

Is there no way to make sure?
"If it moves - kill it. If it doesn't move - kill it anyway, it might move later."

#37 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 15 August 2003 - 04:08 PM

VTOL is definatly better, the average person isn't going to understand the need for the short part of VSTOL or whatever it is (I don't). Also It's what they used in the original x-com.

We americans gaurentee our weapons will work, not that they'll hit their targets. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Cruise missiles are the stupidest thing I've ever heard of anyway.

"I could pay 10,000 dollars for a smart bomb, or I could pay $10,000,000 dollars for a cruise missile." :unsure:

Edited by Ancalagon, 15 August 2003 - 04:12 PM.


#38 mikker

mikker

    Artwork Department

  • Xenocide Artwork Department
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 15 August 2003 - 04:22 PM

Vtol is good to me.

Or 10 dollors for a wodden sword. :alienlol:

Some people say that dreams are a portal to the subconscious. If that is so, I am a very disturbed person.

the truth about scientology

#39 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 15 August 2003 - 04:58 PM

By the way, your engine still won't work, even with electric power mills, you seem to be assumming that it takes less energy to electrolize water than you get from burning hydrogen. The only way to get more energy out of hydrogen than the amount you put into electrolizing the water is through a nuclear reaction.

Let me put it his way, when you burn hydrogen, all you are doing is reversing the process and turning it back into water, which gives you the energy that you had previously used to electrolize the water back.

The people who made x-com hit it right on with Pulse detonation engines which are being prototyped now. I don't think we'll have controlled fusion to get the energy you need to get out of hydrogen for your engine to work by 2013. And if we did it'd probably be as efficient a proccess as elerium 115 fission so there would be no need to use elerium (except maybe for gravity waves or whatever).

But I believe someone wanted a power source as efficient as the alien's one so that they would use it. It could be their lucky day. :D

Edit: whoops someone already made that point
Why not just use kerosene in a Pulse detonation engine?
2040 is after 2013, so gasoline would still be available.
Although either way, it should use PDEs.

For those of you who don't know what PDEs are,
PDE's are basically Jet or rocket engines only instead of using a controlled burn they explode repeatedly, causing shockwaves, which supplys more kenetic energy than a burn, which makes it more efficient

Edited by Ancalagon, 16 August 2003 - 02:15 AM.


#40 FireHawk

FireHawk

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 16 August 2003 - 07:41 AM

Err mistakes Major one I saw.

Combined with variable control configuration technology and the ability to Vector in Forward Flight (VIFF), the XC-1 is agile beyond what was previously thought possible.

As Planes exisit now with the ablity to make any soft substances inside(HUMAN) Go Splat under G the Plane itself can withstand I some form of enertia dampeners..or funnels need to be added.
Funnels? kinda like pushing Enertia away...so you could send it to other parts of the craft instead of the piot...in effect if you wanted to spin right..you could have it diverted to the right wing where it applies the force and spins the plane....thou it contradicts the energy conversation law it sounds cool :)

Long time since have had reason to recall g-force effects but its something like this.

1-9G most people remain concious
9-13G some people are capable of Withstanding and staying concious
13+g blood vessal and internal organs rupture
18+g Cell walls compltely collapse person is now MUSH.

for negatve g anything over 5 maybe 6 causes brain hammerage and aything over like 3 gives the pilot redout.

Thats why when Ever you see planes they always turn to drive so the pilot is in a postive G postion.

Facing aliens this would propose a extreme disadvantage agasint a craft capable of massive pos and neg g's

About the only thing I can think of is having a person in a aqua cockpit.
Submersed in water and put under extreme pressure to the extent the air being fed to them is actually a liquid.

This would allow higher G rates to be preformed but to what measure have no idea..maybe 1g maybe 10. basicly it would be equalising the pressure though the entire body..unlike Gsuits which basicly just squeeze the legs to stop blood running into them.


LOL I love PDE
I mean they exisit in cars world wide ETC :)
Think about it :) they are PDE's

#41 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 16 August 2003 - 02:33 PM

PDE's rock!! ICE's(Internal combustion engines) are way ahead of jets. :LOL:
Only problem is they're more expensive to mantain than regular jets.
Maybe the'll save enough in gasoline that they'll be worthwile.
I'm with you on the g-problem, but wouldn't it be easier to just say the aliens don't take g's well either?
Or maybe that's why ufo's get away from interceptors so easy.

Edited by Ancalagon, 16 August 2003 - 02:34 PM.


#42 warhamster

warhamster

    Captain

  • Xenocide Creative-Text Departmen
  • 255 posts

Posted 18 August 2003 - 07:00 PM

Point taken with regards to the hydrogen electrolysis plant.

An interceptor taking in water doesn't really sound all that cool. PDE. That sounds cool but can anybody explain to me how this is supposed to work or i'll make my own stuff up.

As for inertial dampening, I did put something like that in the entry, but I'll expound on it a little further if it isn't clear.

Thanks for the feed back. I really really appreciate it.

#43 GreatGold

GreatGold

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 852 posts

Posted 20 August 2003 - 02:50 AM

Long time since have had reason to recall g-force effects but its something like this.

1-9G most people remain concious
9-13G some people are capable of Withstanding and staying concious
13+g blood vessal and internal organs rupture
18+g Cell walls compltely collapse person is now MUSH.

for negatve g anything over 5 maybe 6 causes brain hammerage and aything over like 3 gives the pilot redout.

Hehe - this has always been a fun topic. I'm VERY big into flight sims, and the issue of G's is always one that pops up. But I'll give you the very short of it, because its after 5am and I'm gonna fall asleep at the keyboard. The human body can take many more than 18 G, just not for an extended period of time (and by entended I mean a few seconds). Think of when a pilot ejects, or when someone is in a car accident. For a very small time period, they are going many more than 18G. That said, being that this isnt a flight sim, we should be able to just explain something like this away.

About the only thing I can think of is having a person in a aqua cockpit.
Submersed in water and put under extreme pressure to the extent the air being fed to them is actually a liquid.

Now this I like very much. It is definately a more orignal approach. Perhaps it can be incorporated into the Avenger or Lightening entry?

Gold
---
Rule #33:
Celatid venom is a paralytic nerve toxin, not 'happy juice".

---
Posted Image

#44 FireHawk

FireHawk

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 20 August 2003 - 07:41 AM

Actually they are 16G at most, and they have a Low GPS as higher rates broke or killed the human. Even now eject 1-2 times and you can never fly or be put under high g again.

anything over 800gps and your gonna get hurt bad.

GPS=Gz per second.

Humans are quite good as resisting G for very short periods of time as you said. Ejection seats are about 16g at 1/50th of a second at a rate of 800gps.

#45 Breunor

Breunor

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 20 August 2003 - 08:36 AM

Inertial dampeners and pulse engines sound right for the firestorm, not the interceptor. I think vtol was mentioned earlier, the interceptor doesn't need it, as the hangars have a lift platform to raise the plane to surface level, and it takes off from there. You can say there's a catapult system in place to allow for a shorter runway, and arrestor hooks for landing. The transport has vtol, since it needs to land in a variety of spots, but the interceptor doesn't need to do that. High speed turns don't have to happen on a dime either, since IIRC the weapon ranges are like 10-60km out. So instant turns causing high Gs are unlikely.

BTW, are your G ranges accounting for G suits? Without assistance like that, most humans black out at 6G. Not sure how much higher you can go with pressure suits. I understand it's for short time frames, >1sec.

#46 Ancalagon

Ancalagon

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 238 posts

Posted 20 August 2003 - 04:22 PM

Inertial dampeners and pulse engines sound right for the firestorm, not the interceptor. I think vtol was mentioned earlier, the interceptor doesn't need it, as the hangars have a lift platform to raise the plane to surface level, and it takes off from there. You can say there's a catapult system in place to allow for a shorter runway, and arrestor hooks for landing. The transport has vtol, since it needs to land in a variety of spots, but the interceptor doesn't need to do that. High speed turns don't have to happen on a dime either, since IIRC the weapon ranges are like 10-60km out. So instant turns causing high Gs are unlikely.

Pulse detonation engines(PDEs) are being developed NOW, so they will most likley be common place by 2013. The only differences between a PDE and a rocket are that the PDE repeatedly combusts instead of burning (think of an internal combustion engine), creating a shockwave moving almost mach 5 every time it ignites, and that the PDE is shaped like a tube. Interestingly enough, this is EXACTLY what the interceptor in x-com used, although they got a hold of one 4 years before it was prototyped, but who cares?

Pulse detonation engines will increase power to wieght ratios, fuel efficiency, speed, and the amount of contracts GE and Pratt and Whitney get. :D

Another possibility is a turbo-fan PDE hybrid, which is a turbo-fan with a bunch of pulse detonation tubes in the bypass ducts. This is probably more of an approach for low-tech airlines though.

I think It would be simpler to just say the intercepter has VTOL rather than making the hanger a mini aircraft carrier.

I agree with you on the Intternal Dampeners though.

EDIT: didn't need end of quote
EDIT: BTW Warhamster here is an exerpt on how PDEs work from popular science:

The concept behind the PDE is deceptively simple. In short, there are two kinds of combustion: the old, familiar, slow kind of burning, called deflagration, and another, much more energetic proccess called detonation, which is a different animal entirely. Imagine a tube, closed at one end and filled with a mixture of fuel and air. A spark ignites the fuel at the closed end, and a combustion reaction propogates down the tube. In deflagration-even in the "fast flame" situations ordinarily called explosions-the reaction moves at 10's of meters per second at most. But in detonation, a supersonic shock wave slams down the tube at over a thousand meters per second, close to mach 5, compressing and igniting fuel and air almost instantaniously in a narrow, high-pressure, heat-release zone.


EDIT: originally it said thousands of metres per second, but that was wrong.
EDIT: PDE's are small so you'd need about 50 of them or more. although maybe you could make them bigger if you increased both the length and the width, alhough I don't know if that would work.

Edited by Ancalagon, 20 August 2003 - 06:11 PM.


#47 Breunor

Breunor

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 21 August 2003 - 10:20 AM

I have no problem with PDEs being viable, just that they were outside what the current tech aircraft use. You're right that we have leeway in what they'd be using in the next 10 years, especially since we're accepting the fact that aliens are attacking the planet, so why not some advanced engines? :D Previous threads talked about the yf-23 being a better performer than the f-22 which was eventually used. Cost was the deciding factor but then the f-22's real price was discovered and the fun began. So the yf-23 design could continue to be tweaked and developed on the side to be quite effective, so long as any tech being used is based on viable reality, if not 100% reality. Since the craft is rented rather than bought, somebody is already using it when xcom gets ahold of it. It could just be some advanced science division, who can provide as many as needed.
:rock:

#48 Cpl. Facehugger

Cpl. Facehugger

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,749 posts

Posted 21 August 2003 - 10:38 AM

What, like a plane rental depot? The Hertz of the air?
"I would like to rent an advanced interceptor capable of shooting down an alien craft." "How long would you like to use it?" "Ohh, I don't know, 4 months" :D

I think xcom should be able to buy their own aircraft instead of borrowing from the government.
I'm only partially inactive. :P I can still be reached at cpl.facehugger@gmail.com, and via PM. Preferably the former.

*Coming back? Avast! Facehugger, finish your assignments!*

Posted Image

#49 Breunor

Breunor

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 21 August 2003 - 11:12 AM

I think the original had you renting the craft, since they cost like $400K per month and you got nothing when you scrapped them. If you're using a $50M craft, kind of hard to buy them ever. But $5M per year is doable in rental fees. Of course when you keep losing them to aliens, the rentor might get a little annoyed. But that's why you have big guns when you sign the rental form, you can be very persuasive. :devillaugh:

Maybe xcom gets the planes from Micro$oft? "You don't own the craft or license, you are simply leasing the right to use the craft on a month to month basis. Welcome to Interceptor XP!" :whatwhat:

#50 Cpl. Facehugger

Cpl. Facehugger

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,749 posts

Posted 21 August 2003 - 12:26 PM

Well, The sponsor nations should give xcom a lot more money!
I mean, we xcom commanders need our creature comforts like personal waterparks too! Besides, 8mil a month is not very much when you are talking about nations that make money into the hundreds of billions! So, each nation should give at least 8 million dollars each month to xcom, or we will ignore any ufos flying over theyre country (and abducting, and terrorizing, and probing!)

Anyway, back to the topic, the interceptor is really shaping up to be a good x-net entry. But, whos going to do the firestorm-lightning-avenger ctds?
I'm only partially inactive. :P I can still be reached at cpl.facehugger@gmail.com, and via PM. Preferably the former.

*Coming back? Avast! Facehugger, finish your assignments!*

Posted Image