Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Laywenrania]

(Image)

adding stuff.

dunno tho if low lvl penetration still have merit.

minus points for no swing wing.

[Ascoobis]

(Image)

adding stuff.

dunno tho if low lvl penetration still have merit.

That was made with Blender, right?

Do you know what tutorials I could watch to learn how to produce similar planes?

[New Vihenia]

That was made with Blender, right?

Do you know what tutorials I could watch to learn how to produce similar planes?

Yes. I don't really follow any tutorials tho. But this could help :3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwshYfPbtS8

[Pavelania]

That was made with Blender, right?

Do you know what tutorials I could watch to learn how to produce similar planes?

Yes. I don't really follow any tutorials tho. But this could help :3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwshYfPbtS8

Gosh I tried Blender and I was just plain confused. I still draw my designs on MS Paint but I recently got Simple Planes (only $13 on Steam) and it's a game/sim where you design/build your own plane and you get to fly it. Simple Planes is what I use to 3D model my designs (after all, you can also fly them!), but I still use MS Paint for blue prints. Currently I already made one of my old 1920's bi-plane designs in Simple Planes: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/0b79L4/PAC-P1A-Eagle
If you have a 3D printer, you can also 3D print your airplanes too!

[Ascoobis]

Lovely! Thank you both! ^_^

[Kassaran]

Alright, thought for a second this was a four year old thread. My eyes were playing tricks on me.

So right now, trying to come up with an alternative helicopter fast-transport my MIC would have developed around circa 2000AD for Humanity.

So, my race, being on a moon where Oxygen is slightly higher in conentration (so up about two or three percent), gravity is lower (about .9 G's), and the atmosphere is slightly thicker with methane being in higher concentrations... what sort of engines should I be looking at designing?

Additionally, I'm thinking of using a Blackhawk-Cheyenne lovechild abomination and I want to know what I could do to start mating the two basic ideas together?

In short, it's a troop transport built to carry ideally 6-12 troops into battle (depending on kit, load, and mission of course), with a pretty fast speed comparable to the Chinook.

I'm thinking exhaust would be dispersed through the tail rotor, but I'm not sure if that's a smart idea, so I'm coming to all of you. Am I trying to make it do too much by building in IR signature masking features? Or am I just playing it safe?

[Gallia-]

>methane slightly higher

why are you talking about humans LoL

[Laritaia]

stapling a transport helicopter to an attack helicopter is not a good idea outside of some incredibly narrow mission sets

and in those situations is usually better to just strap rocket pods to a regular transport helicopter

[Kassaran]

Not trying to get an attack helicopter, trying to get a fast and maneuverable transport helicopter. I get you could say 'Chinook', but I don't want a Chinook. I'm trying to see the best way to get the hybridization of the Cheyenne for the speed and maneuverability.

[Gallia-]

Assault helicopters don't need speed.

They need takeoff thrust and small sizes. Chinook is the last assault helicopter you'd want because: 1) it's huge 2) it's lumbering. It's also not very redundant, but that's tertiary to the needs of takeoff power/thrust and small size. Not coincidentally, this means that UH-60 is probably the optimal assault helicopter. The only better machine would be a UH-1 with the thrust:weight ratio comparable to UH-60, since it's smaller and has a more efficient prop, but it cannot carry a full infantry section/squad either, but it can carry maybe six dudes if you cram them tight, which puts them at the lower bound of your needs for troop transport.

Probably more survivable than any other option if it's adequately hoisty.

Speed might be somewhat more applicable to the helicopter gunship role, but even then it's debatable since an assault helicopter unit and its escort unit would be moving at the speed of its slowest machine.

The optimal speed is about 150 knots forward flight with a rate of climb of about 400 ft per minute on average. Not coincidentally, this is exactly what UH-60 does.

[Laritaia]

Not trying to get an attack helicopter, trying to get a fast and maneuverable transport helicopter. I get you could say 'Chinook', but I don't want a Chinook. I'm trying to see the best way to get the hybridization of the Cheyenne for the speed and maneuverability.

what you are describing is the SB-1 defiant

which exists in some form IRL

[Gallia-]

It's also dumb and bad.

>Coaxial rotors

Not even once.

[Kassaran]

Not trying to get an attack helicopter, trying to get a fast and maneuverable transport helicopter. I get you could say 'Chinook', but I don't want a Chinook. I'm trying to see the best way to get the hybridization of the Cheyenne for the speed and maneuverability.

what you are describing is the SB-1 defiant

which exists in some form IRL

Just looked it up and it looks to definitely be my sort of bird right now. That's actually along the sort of lines I want to go too, something for minimal rotor down-wash, but plenty of speed and versatility in mission design.

It's also dumb and bad.

>Coaxial rotors

Not even once.

Why is that?

[Laritaia]

what you are describing is the SB-1 defiant

which exists in some form IRL

Just looked it up and it looks to definitely be my sort of bird right now. That's actually along the sort of lines I want to go too, something for minimal rotor down-wash, but plenty of speed and versatility in mission design.

Minimal rotor downwash is something you aren't going to achieve

as helicopters get more powerful the rotor wash gets more intense , you just have to learn to live with it

[Kassaran]

I'd heard that rotor downwash diminishes though with the more lift generated by the props. Additionally, if the coaxial propellers are working in tandem to push down, shouldn't they need to operate at a less higher intensity? At a hover, wouldn't the propeller downwash by a coaxial setup be much lighter than, per-se, a Chinook or something of similar power? I'm just trying to find the best design for low downwash, high speed and maneuverability, and hover capabilities for troop transport. Those are my four criteria. Air superiority and troop support can be taken care of by the escorts or other aircraft on site. I just need something small enough and built with enough redundancy to operate as a feasible insertion method for air assault troops and no, no I will not just 'use blackhawk'.

I'm asking for input on design features I could implement in such a design to create the desired effects, or something within perhaps tolerable constraints of my desired effects.

[Gallia-]

"Downwash" is literally thrust. The faster your helicopter goes, up the more downwash you produce. Simple!

Anyway coaxial rotors make it taller, which makes it harder to fit into transportation.

Most of the benefits coaxial rotors provide are not especially useful for assault transports, since maneuverability and forward flight speeds are not terribly important characteristics. The improved lift at low speeds is probably offset by the inability to transport the aircraft in existing cargo containers or aircraft. You also have the induced drag from the coaxial rotor hub that can't be canceled out (unlike a tail rotor), but that just goes into the "increased EMD time" for coaxial setups.

If you have particularly or unusually tall cargo aircraft, it could work. The US Army wants to sidestep it entirely by making the helicopters into inter-continental assault ships, naturally, to continue the bad memes from FCS.

Conventional helicopters are just better for basically everything. Unless you have a pressing need to lift huge loads (like a flying crane) or something, coaxial, tandem, and intermeshing rotors are not particularly useful.

[Laritaia]

rotor wash is a function of disk loading

stacking rotor sets ontop of each other doesn't reduce disk loading, it eliminates torque and asymmetric rotor drag

with an assault transport helicopter you want to be able to put a massive amount of power down quickly so you don't hang around the LZ a second longer then you have to.

this is the main problem with tilt rotors like the V-22, they handle like freight trains in rotorborne mode.

[Kassaran]

Okay, so that makes more sense. I think then that I should probably be moving towards a !NotUH-60 with modernized electronics and airframe.

I do want to change some things about the tail, but this could be bad so tell me why it is:

-Redirect exhaust into an inducted tail fan like Comanche-tan.
-Have rear-facing prop like Cheyenne-san
-Have multirole weapons functionality on wing-stub pylons like DAP-py bird.
-Have more streamlined nose like -

Wait... What is Eurocopter Panther?

[Gallia-]

Comanche had a boring fantail, what is an "inducted tail fan".

If you were optimizing for maximum vertical climb rate, you'd use a coaxial, but a 10-15% drop in power isn't a huge deal. Not compared to an inability to conduct trans-continental operations by being incapable of fitting into airplanes, unless you went all in on coaxials very early on like the Soviet Union did.

[Kassaran]

Comanche had a boring fantail, what is an "inducted tail fan".

If you were optimizing for maximum vertical climb rate, you'd use a coaxial, but a 10-15% drop in power isn't a huge deal. Not compared to an inability to conduct trans-continental operations by being incapable of fitting into airplanes, unless you went all in on coaxials very early on like the Soviet Union did.

Nope, I didn't.

Vertical climb rate doesn't matter to me as much as speed into, and out of, combat zones is.

I'm looking into making faster escorts too, making my RW divisions into air-assault/rapid-response units. Longer loiter times can be accounted for by drones on station while immediate air support can be provided directly by pseudo-Comanches, or something fitting of that role.

[Gallia-]

Vertical climb rate doesn't matter to me as much as speed into, and out of, combat zones is.

You are wrong, but you don't have institutional knowledge that the US Army did after Vietnam, so it is only to be expected.

Vertical climb rate is the most important factor for an assault helicopter. The second most important is size. This is because climb rate is directly related to hover performance, and hover performance is the most important characteristic of any helicopter for any role.

I'm looking into making faster escorts too, making my RW divisions into air-assault/rapid-response units. Longer loiter times can be accounted for by drones on station while immediate air support can be provided directly by pseudo-Comanches, or something fitting of that role.

Forward speed past about 120-150 knots is rather worthless.

Forward flight speed is in the top five of design criteria for a helicopter. After hover performance, climb rate, size/silhouette, and height. Which makes it rather low on the list of priorities.

[Laritaia]

a transport helicopter's most vulnerable moments are in the landing and take off phase.

[Gallia-]

It's not like 250 knots makes much of a difference from 150 knots anyway. If you want forward speed, use a tiltrotor. Or a tactical airlifter. Cruising at 400 knots is better than a piddly 250 knots.

[Crookfur]

Y'all need rotodynes.

They really bring the noise...

[The Corparation]

Rotodynes are the classiest rotorcraft.