2008-10-23, 22:06 | Link #1221 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Could it be that Macross fleets can construct new Macross-type ships, but they have to order certian parts from Earth (Eden or wherever they are building them these days)? This would mean the construction of the vessel would be closer to the "frontline" where it is needed, but would keep the special construction equipment and designs out of potential enemy hands
__________________
|
2008-10-23, 22:41 | Link #1223 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
Plus it's a pretty good reason to justify why the gunships are seperate from the rest of the carrier for both of the Macross ship classes outside of the original Macross-class. |
|
2008-10-23, 23:29 | Link #1224 | |
Star Designer
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-10-24, 09:44 | Link #1225 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
Helmet Mounted Display used in the F-35 and some other 4th-generation fighters. A real-life version of the VF-27's virtual cockpit and the tracking system in the VF-25's helmet.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/combat-he...ies-260482.php http://www.vsi-hmcs.com/pages_hmcs/03a_f35day.html |
2008-10-24, 17:32 | Link #1226 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-10-24, 20:29 | Link #1227 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
Saying "losing thrust in space is bad" shows you don't really understand how combat in space works. There are no brakes in space, there is almost no friction in space. Depending on the combat tactics, slowing down is completely logical, and firing your weapon while doing so, allows for different kinds of tactics. In addition, firing your weapon can also make you gain thrust, or change your velocity (speed and direction). All of these factors are important in a space setting. Now, bracing yourself against a big ship so you can fire your railgun makes about as much sense as having walking 16 inch guns on a battleship. What's the point? There is no point, that's why they are turrets, not separate vehicles. |
|
2008-10-24, 21:37 | Link #1228 | |||
Eating your babies
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
makes. Main point though, is that it makes sense in the Macross universe because they operate VB-6s. And for an organization that started as convoy escorts, that being SMS, a giant, mobile gun turret does make sense since they're probably escorting transports with little to no weapons. Point is, someone thought it was a good idea in the Macross universe, and it has remained in use, if limited. This does make sense, since you don't need a VB-6 all the time. Sometimes though, you probably need a massive arty piece that can keep up with your main forces, which is exactly what the VB-6 is. It's never going to get a lot of screen time though, because like the VA-3 and the VF/VA-14 it's not a sexy fast mover. |
|||
2008-10-24, 22:25 | Link #1229 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
I want to point out something: the firing impulse of one of those railcannons, as Haess calculated, is about 968700 kN of recoil. Per gun. Which means that you're looking at total firing impulse of 3.9 MILLION kN.
The VF-25's engines, in contast, produce 1620 kN thrust per engine, for a total of 3240 kN thrust. And these are the most powerful Variable Fighter engines to date. Now the Koenig Monster can go Mach 1.7 at 10k meters, so it should be possible to calculate from there how much thrust it has, but from the above it's obvious that it frankly does not have enough thrust to counteract the recoil of the guns firing. "That's what recoil absorbtion systems are for." And those work when it's braced against something. That's how ALL recoil absorption systems work. Recoil can only be absorbed if there's something that the gun is braced against. "Well what about when it braces itself against the ships then? Why aren't the ships going off-course?" More mass means that the force of the recoil is spread over a larger area, and ships have fucklarge thrust to move them anyway.
__________________
Last edited by Wild Goose; 2008-10-24 at 22:36. |
2008-10-24, 23:39 | Link #1230 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
But even if I suspend my disbelief and accept that it can take the recoil, that still doesn't answer why it uses legs instead of treads with struts/braces. What advantage are you getting with those stumpy legs? Don't say greater all terrain movement, because that's bull. It could barely walk. Presumably the legs are there so it can move around a little after it lands, but why not just use treads for that? Where's the advantage of using legs? Quote:
Think carefully about what you are actually saying. You are saying this machine depends on a much larger ship to actually fire. It depends on this larger ship to fire because the ship is much more massive, and therefore won't be as affected by the recoil of the guns. So basically the Monster has to follow this big ship around like a gnat, and if there are no big ships available then the Monster is screwed because it can't fire. And this is a good thing... how? Why doesn't that big ship just use a turret then? It would be even better at bracing for recoil, have more ammo, more energy which means greater muzzle velocity, and you could make it much bigger too. The whole concept of even having a Monster becomes a nonsequitor because all it is, is just a big, fat, vulnerable, floating turret that needs to latch on to a big ship like a parasite in order to even fire. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2008-10-25, 00:36 | Link #1231 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
One thing, although I'll have to check further, the recoil of a rail gun is not like conventional chemical charged weapon where it is the equal going the opposite direction.
Remember the force that propels the slugs are by Lorentz force which acts 90 degrees perpendicular to motion and that electromagnetism creates a feed-back loop. From what I read one of the problem with this system is that the muzzle trys to tear itself apart, meaning that reaction is feeding back into electromagnatism. I am not saying that it has no kinetic recoil whatsoever but I do not think it is full force in the opposite direction of that of the projectile. |
2008-10-25, 01:14 | Link #1232 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
Last edited by Haesslich; 2008-10-25 at 01:26. |
|
2008-10-25, 01:32 | Link #1233 | |||||
Star Designer
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Those canards give a plane added stability as well as maneuverability. You see, my problem with the 21/22 Fighter is that realistically wise it is not possible for it to catch up to 19 with it's specs. Both present similar technology but as long as the limiters stay present on 21/22 it is bound to perform worse then 19. This 'worse' exact amount is not know and we certainly saw that there is little to no difference in the anime but I'd rather take that as a plot necessary aspect of the show. Quote:
Quote:
I really hope the space modification of VF-22 had something to do with it's abilities. Even in space you have to have increased thrust / vernier output to move better, especially that mass. The specs say nothing significant about thrust so maybe verniers? I really can't tell. Quote:
Then again, if we assume that zentradi tech was able to provide it a great deal of really powerful verniers then I guess we can say that 21/22 is comparable to 19 if not better. It's only an assumption though Quote:
EDIT. Well, this is how I see the competition between 19 and 22. I can't add much more then that so I'll just make this my last statement. Rep + for a nice discussion on Macross. The thread really needed that
__________________
|
|||||
2008-10-25, 01:53 | Link #1234 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-10-25, 02:03 | Link #1235 | ||
Star Designer
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-10-25, 02:49 | Link #1236 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
This whole Monster discussion got me wondering what kind of spin would happen if a Koenig fired off a railgun while floating in space. I haven't taken a physics class in over a decade so this was a nice stretch, though I'm sure I screwed up somewhere.
First of all, I'm not sure where the .003s Haesslich used in his calculations came from... I assumed that with a 41m barrel, to go from 0 to 5812m/s, plug into F = mv^2/(2d) gives me 206,000kN or about a fifth of Haesslich's number. The time it would take came out to be about 0.014s (using t=2d/v). So definitely same ballpark, though not as nice a number as 1 000 000kN. Then approximating the the Monster as a 25m diameter 100ton sphere and assuming it was fixed in space at it's center of mass (which is impossible of course) I got about 54rpm from firing one gun. Pretty nasty, even if reality would be some fraction of that. |
2008-10-25, 03:30 | Link #1237 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
Just to be sure, what was the mass you were punching in there? I was doing just a straight F=ma calculation, IIRC, but substituted v/t as I didn't have the acceleration at the time. If I'm keeping the mass of the railgun slug at 500kg, then punching that into the formula (F=mv^2/td) along with the distance of 20m (2d = 40m) gets me a yield of around 422,242 kN... which is just under half of what I had with the incorrect figure (I had the time set too low), but still a godawful huge force. Put that back into your formulae, and you get ugly numbers. This isn't even considering the possibility of shock damage to the pilot and equipment inside that frame, since they're not ALL going to move at exactly the same velocity. Oh, and sheer stresses on the frame at the point where the gun joins the body... and if you've got axial twisting of the rails that you have to stop (which is going to happen in a railgun), then THAT KE has to go somewhere too - like into the barrel, and then into the rest of the mount that connects it to the Konig Monster. |
|
2008-10-25, 04:29 | Link #1238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
From reading recoils on railguns, I do not think the bulk of the force will react in conventional momentum conversion.
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/Longi...ml#LorentzRail Quote:
If you look at figure 2.7b the force is evenly spread at in all 4 directions. |
|
2008-10-25, 16:48 | Link #1239 | |
Go to DMC! Go to DMC!
Join Date: May 2008
|
Quote:
Graneau's work which the page you linked to shows ("Application of Amper's Force Law to Railgun Accelerators", Journal of Applied Physics Vol 53, 1982, pp 6648-6654) argues that the rails will be the part of the railgun which manifest the most stress near the armature which hold the rails (from what I could see there), but later works (Robson and Sethian, "Railgun Recoil, Ampere Tension, and the Laws of Electrodynamics", American Journal of Physics, Vol 60, No 13, December 1992, pp. 1111-1117) have shown that the force of the recoil is communicated by the magnetic fields into the breach itself... and of course, we still have to worry about where that force is going - namely into the mounting of the cannon, as well as into the barrel itself. To sum up, most of the force will be borne into the breech of the railgun, but there will be some forces working on the railgun's rails as well, as the rails are pushed on by the magnetic fields that propel the projectile and the magnitude of which will depend on the ratio of the width of the rails... which in turn will carry into the bracing structures that will keep the railgun's rails from pushing themselves out of line. Oh, and the barrel itself may fail due to the stresses put on it by repeated firings; one reason I kept the number of reloads on a VB-6 Konig Monster low (7 rounds per railgun, per the original HWR-00 combat load) is due to the fact that after each mission Canaria sorties on and uses her railgun in, they probably have to replace the rails and barrels, as the rails may develop stress fractures due to the amount of force applied to both rail and barrel, as well as other issues that may come up (the amount of power being used by the railgun is also converted to heat, which the liquid cooling of the railgun is supposed to handle... but whether that also manifests itself as 'arcs' inside the railgun - which would vaporize metal off the rails - is another question we have yet to get an answer for). On a tangent, am I the only person somewhat agape at how this debate went from 'flying mecha with treads' to the physics of railguns and scholarly debates, with the odd incoherent interruption that seems to exist seperate from the rest of the thread? |
|
|
|