Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
I have reserve builds that specialise in dealing with rogue players in MP. If you're a rogue player and you see a AS-XIII or an ASX-8 in the server, it's probably after you.
.
These planes use finely tuned special weapons which almost guarantee at least one hit on a target, even if it detonates a slight distance away from the aircraft it's locked on to.
@ThomasRoderick It's a reference to the flare pattern from an A/C130. When the pop flares they come out in a pattern which looks like the wings/body of an angel. This pattern is sometimes referred to as angel flares or angel of death. When you use the brakes on this build (pitch back) the formation of the dragon resembles that of the 130s flare pattern. This coupled with the sinister undertones of the build led me to call it the Angel of Death.
.
It's an AI mech with one purpose and to those that would hypothetically be on the receiving end of this, it could very well be the last thing they see. A distant winged silhouette in the sky, an angel maybe? Then it's lights out.
@BoganBoganTheMan Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on how you look at it) it's not. Pretty sure that song is about the horrible things Nazis did in WW2.
@Mmdben for example, take the V-280, the engines on that stay static in comparison to the rotors. Fuel doesn't need to reach the rotors and thus very little if any change to the fuel system is needed.
.
However, I appreciate it's a pretty new design and is radically different in approach to the V-22 Osprey, where the engines also rotate. I can perhaps see the need to an additional pump or two as well as perhaps some modification to the fuel lines to allow for rotation. But it's a far cry from having to modify an engine fuel system by either pressurising the fuel tanks or adding additional fuel lines/valves to prevent air being drawn into the system while the wing is rotating.
@Mmdben the fuel system doesnt need to account for change of angle. And even if it does, it would would be nowhere near the scale of that of a tilt wing. Although, tilt synchronization would be needed, it's not a difficult thing to achieve and wouldn't require the redesign of an entire system to implement, like the fuel system in a tilt wing.
.
I agree nothing is simple when your dive into the details. But there's one thing following that logic and another appearing on someone's post and telling them you think they're wrong.
.
To be clear, I don't personally have any issues here, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. But, I will respond accordingly if someone tries to start a debate on my post.
@Mmdben I think the argument for tilt wing design being more complex is justified.
.
Tilt wing is more complex because:
- fuel system needs to account for change in wing angle.
- has to be designed so prop wash over the wings is included to prevent stalling
- you're tilting the whole wing. The mechanism needs to be able to compensate for the extra weight as well as how the wing interacts with the fuselage when tilting.
.
By contrast, you don't really need to do any of that with tilt rotor.
@Mmdben
1. I stated This is arguably, in theory, the easiest way of achieving VTOL through thrust vectoring. But If I wanted to be petty about it, either a standard helicopter or an avrocar would be the easiest way of, in theory, achieving VTOL. But again, I was talking about thrust vectoring and didn't feel the need to include them as their thrust vectoring capability is negligible at best. I nearly included the avrocar because of it's control system, but decided against it as it wouldn't add much to the article and in principle its very similar to 3D thrust vectoring.
2. I think I had that in my original article. But I dumbed it down severely after you published yours so I could fit in all the other stuff without the article becoming too tedious to read. I'll be honest, this article isn't my greatest work. It was originally on par with my previous stuff, but now it's a bit of a Frankenstein's monster. Not my best work.
3. Fixed it.
4. I was talking about thrust vectoring, with less emphasis on VTOL which is why I included it.
5. No. The original Word document was overwritten by this one.
@Randomdoggo I glossed over them briefly in types of jet engine. I feel like the concept of them was too similar to that of a turboprop though, so I didn't go into a lot of detail. The only major difference is the inclusion of a swash plate and the components that compliment it and those aren't turbo shaft specific as they're used on reciprocating engine powered helicopters too.
@Gameboi14 To be honest, making one article spans about a week. I collect the information (usually about 15 mins a day or more depending on the topic complexity) during the week after work and then I compile it on either the Friday or weekend. This was a special case. I had originally typed up a whole article on VTOL. Then when I was about to post it, found someone had beaten me to it about an hour or so before. There was a bit more to it than that, but it almost caused me to cancel the series.
" I’m going to take a bit of a hiatus from writing the Weekly"
Well, bois, looks like it's my time to shine again
.
Honestly though, I'm happy you liked my rendition of the SPW and would happy to occasionally do an episode if it helps keep it running.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Fun fact, for the mirroring problem:
- Locate the part you think is stopping the mirror from happening
- Use finetuner mod to make that part transparent
- Try mirroring the part again
- ...
- S t O n K s ↑
@randomusername Uranium in reality would make for a terrible choice for a fuel. If something catastrophic happens to one of the systems, you can potentially cause a an environmental catastrophe as the uranium will still be active even after a crash.
.
Thorium on the other hand requires an external element in order for fission to occur, making it a lot more suitable and safer to slap into an aircraft. You could eaily implement an ejection system to eject the thorium in the event of a crash, meaning the thorium would no longer be radioactive.
.
It is a concept I'd like to see be explored by the aviation world, but given the negative (and quite frankly unfair) stigma surrounding nuclear power, it's unlikely those that aren't knowledgeable about nuclear power would want to get on a thorium powered airliner.
.
As ever, it's the consumer market which is holding back the innovation the civilian aerospace industry so desperately needs.
@Mmdben VTOL engines are on the cards. They're not really a type of engine though, but more a modification of existing engine types. By that I mean if you removed all the VTOL components it would still work fine as a jet. Whereas removing the props on a turboprop would basically lead to a brown stain in your pants.
@Viper3000ad It's because a lot of people normally consider these things boring to learn about. If I try to talk about these topics with people they look a bit visibly bored and then I just feel simultaneously awkward and disappointed in them.
@WarHawk95 The nuclear one is pretty simple. Nuclear reactors generate loads of heat, which is why you can end up with "nuclear meltdowns" when the cooling systems fail. The idea is to use the nuclear reactor coolant (which has just left the reactor and thus very very hot) to heat up the air, instead of using a combustion chamber to ignite the air and heat it up. So:
- Air enters compressor and increases in pressure
- Pressurised air goes to what we call as "heat exchange". The air is then heated up by the reactor fluid, an act which simultaneously cools the reactor fluid (you're just transferring the heat from the reactor to the air).
- Air obtains more pressure as a result of the heat and forces its way out the exhaust, thus turning the turbines which in turn turn the compressor.
- Rinse and repeat.
.
It is in principle, exactly the same as a jet engine. If you're still a bit confused, I made an article that goes into how engines work which you may find useful.
@BACconcordepilot technically, that is driven by a piston engine and thus not really a jet engine in the true sense. I was going to include motorjets in the piston power stuff for part 4. As you say, it's closer to a ducted fan than it is a jet.
I don't think the game is causing the crashing if it's causing your computer to restart. I suggest checking to see if all your drivers are updated and probably do a virus scan just to be on the safe side.
.
It could however be a whole host of problems. From a failing HDD to an OS error. Unfortunately, I can't really help much more than that. If you want peace of mind that it's not the game, try reinstalling it or alternatively use the contact link at the bottom of the page.
@Jim1the1Squid how does that make it any better? You still openly accused a moderator of doing something on your profile. By definition, it's stirring up drama and against the rules.
@Jim1the1Squid while I appreciate you're frustrated, I'm not sure taking it out on a moderator is a a great way to diffuse it.
.
You can make a news story on anything so long as it follows the rules. Spread good news that isn't politically charged or something.
.
Unfortunately, I'm just a moderator, not a Brainstormer.
@Chancey21 Fuel injection is basically the digital equivalent of a carburettor. The carburettor uses mechanical components (pressure, flotation, etc) to create the fuel/air mixture. Fuel injection on the other hand uses a fuel pump and various sensors to establish the appropriate amount of air to mix with fuel.
@Viper3000ad to answer your first question, the fuel is ignited initially via a spark, similar to how you start a piston engine. Only, because the axial flow is a continuous process, once ignited, the fuel stays ignited in the combustion chamber. Like using a match to start a candle.
@Viper3000ad I'm not 100% sure how an electric engine would qualify as a jet engine. In order to qualify an engine as a jet engine, you'd need to accelerate air to an incredibly fast speed and the only way that I'm aware of to do that effectively is by burning fuel to rapidly heat the air.
.
You can theoretically get nuclear powered jets, but they are obviously a bit of a hazard.
.
The only stand out alternatives (and I should point out I'm purely speculating from my own knowledge with no research) is to use plasma to cause a huge increase in temperature, or to somehow use a motor that as well as creates the rotary motion/speed necessary for flight while simultaneously generating a lot of excess heat to again heat the air before the exhaust.
.
Those seem a bit beyond our technical limitations at the moment though, so I can only assume that the "jet engines" you're thinking of are actually perhaps ducted fans?
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
+1Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
@AndrewGarrison thank you! Could I get a steam key for SimplePlanes?
@AndrewGarrison would it be possible to regift it to a friend of mine?
+1Nobody:
+6.
Absolutely Nobody:
.
Kraken: uncontrollable noodle arms
I have reserve builds that specialise in dealing with rogue players in MP. If you're a rogue player and you see a AS-XIII or an ASX-8 in the server, it's probably after you.
+4.
These planes use finely tuned special weapons which almost guarantee at least one hit on a target, even if it detonates a slight distance away from the aircraft it's locked on to.
@ThomasRoderick It's a reference to the flare pattern from an A/C130. When the pop flares they come out in a pattern which looks like the wings/body of an angel. This pattern is sometimes referred to as angel flares or angel of death. When you use the brakes on this build (pitch back) the formation of the dragon resembles that of the 130s flare pattern. This coupled with the sinister undertones of the build led me to call it the Angel of Death.
+2.
It's an AI mech with one purpose and to those that would hypothetically be on the receiving end of this, it could very well be the last thing they see. A distant winged silhouette in the sky, an angel maybe? Then it's lights out.
@BoganBoganTheMan Unfortunately/fortunately (depending on how you look at it) it's not. Pretty sure that song is about the horrible things Nazis did in WW2.
@Tully2001 that's worryingly specific. Is there something you'd like to share with us, Tully?
+3@Zanedavid yeah, I know. Don't worry, when spawned in game the legs adjust to what's pictured at the bottom of the description.
@Tully2001 If your d̶r̶a̶g̶o̶n̶ dog has babies, can I have one?
+5Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
@Mmdben for example, take the V-280, the engines on that stay static in comparison to the rotors. Fuel doesn't need to reach the rotors and thus very little if any change to the fuel system is needed.
+1.
However, I appreciate it's a pretty new design and is radically different in approach to the V-22 Osprey, where the engines also rotate. I can perhaps see the need to an additional pump or two as well as perhaps some modification to the fuel lines to allow for rotation. But it's a far cry from having to modify an engine fuel system by either pressurising the fuel tanks or adding additional fuel lines/valves to prevent air being drawn into the system while the wing is rotating.
@Mmdben the fuel system doesnt need to account for change of angle. And even if it does, it would would be nowhere near the scale of that of a tilt wing. Although, tilt synchronization would be needed, it's not a difficult thing to achieve and wouldn't require the redesign of an entire system to implement, like the fuel system in a tilt wing.
.
I agree nothing is simple when your dive into the details. But there's one thing following that logic and another appearing on someone's post and telling them you think they're wrong.
.
To be clear, I don't personally have any issues here, there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. But, I will respond accordingly if someone tries to start a debate on my post.
@Mmdben I think the argument for tilt wing design being more complex is justified.
.
Tilt wing is more complex because:
- fuel system needs to account for change in wing angle.
- has to be designed so prop wash over the wings is included to prevent stalling
- you're tilting the whole wing. The mechanism needs to be able to compensate for the extra weight as well as how the wing interacts with the fuselage when tilting.
.
By contrast, you don't really need to do any of that with tilt rotor.
@Mmdben
1. I stated This is arguably, in theory, the easiest way of achieving VTOL through thrust vectoring. But If I wanted to be petty about it, either a standard helicopter or an avrocar would be the easiest way of, in theory, achieving VTOL. But again, I was talking about thrust vectoring and didn't feel the need to include them as their thrust vectoring capability is negligible at best. I nearly included the avrocar because of it's control system, but decided against it as it wouldn't add much to the article and in principle its very similar to 3D thrust vectoring.
2. I think I had that in my original article. But I dumbed it down severely after you published yours so I could fit in all the other stuff without the article becoming too tedious to read. I'll be honest, this article isn't my greatest work. It was originally on par with my previous stuff, but now it's a bit of a Frankenstein's monster. Not my best work.
3. Fixed it.
4. I was talking about thrust vectoring, with less emphasis on VTOL which is why I included it.
5. No. The original Word document was overwritten by this one.
@Randomdoggo I glossed over them briefly in types of jet engine. I feel like the concept of them was too similar to that of a turboprop though, so I didn't go into a lot of detail. The only major difference is the inclusion of a swash plate and the components that compliment it and those aren't turbo shaft specific as they're used on reciprocating engine powered helicopters too.
@Gameboi14 To be honest, making one article spans about a week. I collect the information (usually about 15 mins a day or more depending on the topic complexity) during the week after work and then I compile it on either the Friday or weekend. This was a special case. I had originally typed up a whole article on VTOL. Then when I was about to post it, found someone had beaten me to it about an hour or so before. There was a bit more to it than that, but it almost caused me to cancel the series.
+4" I’m going to take a bit of a hiatus from writing the Weekly"
+3Well, bois, looks like it's my time to shine again
.
Honestly though, I'm happy you liked my rendition of the SPW and would happy to occasionally do an episode if it helps keep it running.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
I heavily suggest you change the symbol. Regardless of your intentions, the symbol is still almost identical to that of the SS.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
No idea. Ask Hellfire.
@Minecraftpoweer He just wants to be a mod on SR2
+1Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Sounds like a CoM/CoL issue. How close together are the two spheres?
+4I think I fixed it for you
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed. Please read these rules about posting planes.
Please try to make major changes to a plane before posting it. Simply painting an object a different color, or adding a few guns is not enough to consider it your own. In the future please credit the original maker, and try to post your own work.
Your post has been removed because it appears to have broken the website rules. You can read them here
+1Fun fact, for the mirroring problem:
+21- Locate the part you think is stopping the mirror from happening
- Use finetuner mod to make that part transparent
- Try mirroring the part again
- ...
- S t O n K s ↑
@randomusername Uranium in reality would make for a terrible choice for a fuel. If something catastrophic happens to one of the systems, you can potentially cause a an environmental catastrophe as the uranium will still be active even after a crash.
.
Thorium on the other hand requires an external element in order for fission to occur, making it a lot more suitable and safer to slap into an aircraft. You could eaily implement an ejection system to eject the thorium in the event of a crash, meaning the thorium would no longer be radioactive.
.
It is a concept I'd like to see be explored by the aviation world, but given the negative (and quite frankly unfair) stigma surrounding nuclear power, it's unlikely those that aren't knowledgeable about nuclear power would want to get on a thorium powered airliner.
.
As ever, it's the consumer market which is holding back the innovation the civilian aerospace industry so desperately needs.
@Mmdben VTOL engines are on the cards. They're not really a type of engine though, but more a modification of existing engine types. By that I mean if you removed all the VTOL components it would still work fine as a jet. Whereas removing the props on a turboprop would basically lead to a brown stain in your pants.
+2@Viper3000ad It's because a lot of people normally consider these things boring to learn about. If I try to talk about these topics with people they look a bit visibly bored and then I just feel simultaneously awkward and disappointed in them.
@WarHawk95 The nuclear one is pretty simple. Nuclear reactors generate loads of heat, which is why you can end up with "nuclear meltdowns" when the cooling systems fail. The idea is to use the nuclear reactor coolant (which has just left the reactor and thus very very hot) to heat up the air, instead of using a combustion chamber to ignite the air and heat it up. So:
+2- Air enters compressor and increases in pressure
- Pressurised air goes to what we call as "heat exchange". The air is then heated up by the reactor fluid, an act which simultaneously cools the reactor fluid (you're just transferring the heat from the reactor to the air).
- Air obtains more pressure as a result of the heat and forces its way out the exhaust, thus turning the turbines which in turn turn the compressor.
- Rinse and repeat.
.
It is in principle, exactly the same as a jet engine. If you're still a bit confused, I made an article that goes into how engines work which you may find useful.
@BACconcordepilot technically, that is driven by a piston engine and thus not really a jet engine in the true sense. I was going to include motorjets in the piston power stuff for part 4. As you say, it's closer to a ducted fan than it is a jet.
@randomusername no problem. Glad you found it an interesting read!
+1@Tums Also, don't ask for upvotes as it's against the site rules. Not saying you do or will, but we can never be too careful around here.
+1I don't think the game is causing the crashing if it's causing your computer to restart. I suggest checking to see if all your drivers are updated and probably do a virus scan just to be on the safe side.
+1.
It could however be a whole host of problems. From a failing HDD to an OS error. Unfortunately, I can't really help much more than that. If you want peace of mind that it's not the game, try reinstalling it or alternatively use the contact link at the bottom of the page.
@Jim1the1Squid how does that make it any better? You still openly accused a moderator of doing something on your profile. By definition, it's stirring up drama and against the rules.
@Jim1the1Squid I'm not sure that counts as "I never said that a moderator removed it"
" I feel that I am qualified, and even though I may post some things that end up removed by some unnamed moderators (cough, cough TULLY2001!!! cough)"
+1@Jim1the1Squid yes. Accusing a moderator of removing your bio publicly like that isn't a great to have in your bio.
+1@Jim1the1Squid while I appreciate you're frustrated, I'm not sure taking it out on a moderator is a a great way to diffuse it.
.
You can make a news story on anything so long as it follows the rules. Spread good news that isn't politically charged or something.
.
Unfortunately, I'm just a moderator, not a Brainstormer.
This kind of content does not belong on the site.
+1@Chancey21 Fuel injection is basically the digital equivalent of a carburettor. The carburettor uses mechanical components (pressure, flotation, etc) to create the fuel/air mixture. Fuel injection on the other hand uses a fuel pump and various sensors to establish the appropriate amount of air to mix with fuel.
+1@Viper3000ad to answer your first question, the fuel is ignited initially via a spark, similar to how you start a piston engine. Only, because the axial flow is a continuous process, once ignited, the fuel stays ignited in the combustion chamber. Like using a match to start a candle.
+2@Viper3000ad I'm not 100% sure how an electric engine would qualify as a jet engine. In order to qualify an engine as a jet engine, you'd need to accelerate air to an incredibly fast speed and the only way that I'm aware of to do that effectively is by burning fuel to rapidly heat the air.
+4.
You can theoretically get nuclear powered jets, but they are obviously a bit of a hazard.
.
The only stand out alternatives (and I should point out I'm purely speculating from my own knowledge with no research) is to use plasma to cause a huge increase in temperature, or to somehow use a motor that as well as creates the rotary motion/speed necessary for flight while simultaneously generating a lot of excess heat to again heat the air before the exhaust.
.
Those seem a bit beyond our technical limitations at the moment though, so I can only assume that the "jet engines" you're thinking of are actually perhaps ducted fans?