NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Austrasien]

Float in the Dirac Sea lmbo.

[Manokan Republic]

Also lift and thrust are still obviously two separate things.

Do these two sentences seem unreasonable to you?

A wing generates lift by exerting a downwards force on the air as it flows past. According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite force on the wing, which is lift.

A fan generates thrust by exerting a force on the air as it flows through. According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite force on the fan, which is thrust.

They are very similar, but obviously separate things. The big fan on the F-35B moves more air, just like a big wing. But because the air is moved by an engine, we call the force created thrust.

When the F-35 lift fan is operating, the aircraft effectively has a bigger engine. What you've spent thousands and thousands of words arguing is "more lift than thrust" is actually more thrust from a bigger engine - around 20,000 pounds more than the unaugmented jet exhaust alone. As Dr Bevilaqua confirmed, even this greater thrust isn't enough to allow a fully-loaded F-35B to take off completely vertically.

A rolling takeoff and landing will help some, but obviously the heavier the F-35 is the longer the takeoff and landing runs will be.

----

If you're actually talking about STOVL, why have you been going on and on about the lift fan producing this extra lift? This would only matter for pure VTOL.

For short takeoffs, the wings of the aircraft generate the extra lift. Just like everybody said 6 or 7 pages ago.

Complete vertical hovering and a rolling vertical are two separate things. A rolling vertical could be considered a short take off, but now we are just splitting hairs. A rolling vertical will use the fixed wings of the aircraft to produce more lift, but it's not really moving fast enough at that point to assist it all that much. I guess the importance in distinction between a normal STOVL and rolling vertical is that a short take off usually requires some kind of runway, even if it's short, and this could take off and land on something akin to a large helicopter pad.


NASA on Gliders: "In flight, a glider has three forces acting on it as compared to the four forces that act on a powered aircraft. Both types of aircraft are subjected to the forces of lift, drag, and weight. The powered aircraft has an engine that generates thrust, while the glider has no thrust. In order for a glider to fly, it must generate lift to oppose its weight. To generate lift, a glider must move through the air. The motion of a glider through the air also generates drag. In a powered aircraft, the thrust from the engine opposes drag, but a glider has no engine to generate thrust."

Lift doesn't come from thrust, as thrust is a constant force. Lift can come from the raw momentum of the aircraft falling or moving forwards, and has more to do with the total energy or momentum of the aircraft than it does with the current amount of force being applied. Force is a constant thing, where as lift is actually not necessarily. Lift is just when an aircraft flies and not necessarily the same as providing power or something like that. Things like helicopter blades or rotary fans can produce lift, instead of the fixed wings of an aircraft, allowing a helicopter without the wings of a normal aircraft to fly. This is because it produces extra lift in the same way that fixed wings do. Momentum of the blades builds up, and even if the constant force applied to the rotors is less than the final momentum and energy build up, this can still result in not only greater speeds of the rotors, but more lift. So I guess I should say that thrust technically is a constant external force applied to an aircraft. If the engine stopped completely, many helicopters can autorotate and actually fall to the ground slowly. This is called lift, and while the lift is not directly counteracting gravity, it does slow it's descent. In the same way, any other rotors can do the same thing. It's not just that helicopter blades produce thrust, they actually produce lift, too. And so does the lift fan of an F-35, albeit way less efficiently. As a technicality this wouldn't matter except in explaining in how the F-35's vertical flight is possible. Like with anything you will have thrust losses and drag, meaning it's not perfectly efficient. With 40,000 pounds of thrust it should actually take off with slightly, or even far less weight. You really need a more than 1 to 1 ratio of thrust to take off, like with a rocket. What makes the F-35 unique is that the lift-fan, aptly named, provides some lift as well, acting like a moving wing while the wings on the side of the aircraft don't move. This gives more lift then you might think from the raw thrust. Even if it can only hover with 40,000 pounds, with raw thrust alone it should actually be less than this. The lift fan provides extra, lift and not just raw thrust downwards. Even a rocket engine or jet engine provides some lift, but since the expanding gases's lift is so tiny it's almost irrelevant.

[Triplebaconation]

Complete vertical hovering and a rolling vertical are two separate things. A rolling vertical could be considered a short take off, but now we are just splitting hairs. A rolling vertical will use the fixed wings of the aircraft to produce more lift, but it's not really moving fast enough at that point to assist it all that much. I guess the importance in distinction between a normal STOVL and rolling vertical is that a short take off usually requires some kind of runway, even if it's short, and this could take off and land on something akin to a large helicopter pad.

Exactly. This is why the lighter an airplane is loaded, the shorter the takeoff run will be. This is true of any airplane.

An F-35B weighing somewhat less than 40,000 pounds can take off purely vertically. The takeoff run is 0 feet.

At 40,000 pounds it may require 100 feet, and at 60,000 pounds at least 600 feet.

An F-35B performing a SRVL lands at 40 knots and rolls to a stop on the carrier deck in 175 feet. This allows it to land 7000 pounds heavier than the 33,500 pounds Dr Bevilaqua told us it normally weighs landing.

[Spirit of Hope]

Lift is just the force created perpendicular to a surface when a liquid flows over it.

Thrust is just the force created by an engine.

Both forces combined must be larger then the force of gravity to fly.

[Manokan Republic]

Lift is just the force created perpendicular to a surface when a liquid flows over it.

Thrust is just the force created by an engine.

Both forces combined must be larger then the force of gravity to fly.

Yes. However, lift can be produced even when there is no thrust, such as with a glider, or a large number of things. So, it's possible to fly even if your thrust to weight ratio is not exactly 1 to 1, even vertically as is the case of a helicopter.

[Spirit of Hope]

Lift is just the force created perpendicular to a surface when a liquid flows over it.

Thrust is just the force created by an engine.

Both forces combined must be larger then the force of gravity to fly.

Yes. However, lift can be produced even when there is no thrust, such as with a glider, or a large number of things. So, it's possible to fly even if your thrust to weight ratio is not exactly 1 to 1, even vertically as is the case of a helicopter.

While you can produce lift without thrust, you cannot produce level flights without thrust. Overtime the aircraft will lose the necessary airspeed to maintain level flights, and will be required to land

Without thrust it is impossible to take off, and without a thrust-to-weight ratio one to one it is impossible to take off vertically.

[Triplebaconation]

Lift is just the force created perpendicular to a surface when a liquid flows over it.

Thrust is just the force created by an engine.

Both forces combined must be larger then the force of gravity to fly.

Yes. However, lift can be produced even when there is no thrust, such as with a glider, or a large number of things. So, it's possible to fly even if your thrust to weight ratio is not exactly 1 to 1, even vertically as is the case of a helicopter.

Right. A helicopter moves air in one direction - perpendicular to its rotor blades.

If the blades move air straight down, the helicopter will produce only lift and no thrust. It will go up, but not forwards. If the helicopter angles it blades forwards, it will move air in an angle. Less lift is produced, but there is thrust to move the helicopter forward. The helicopter stops rising upwards and moves forwards in level flight. If the helicopter was to rotate so it was flying with the blades facing forward for some reason, they would produce thrust but no lift. The helicopter would fall out of the sky while moving forward very quickly.

For example, a helicopter weighs 94 kN. Its blades are capable of producing 100 kN of force. If all of that force is directed downwards at 90 degrees from horizontal, the helicopter will accelerate upwards at roughly .63 m/s² after you take the opposite acceleration of gravity into account. If the blades are angled at 20 degrees, directing force at 70 degrees from horizontal, since the sine of 70 is ~.94, 94 kN are directed downwards and the helicopter does not accelerate at all up. Since the cosine of 70 is ~ .34, 34 kN are directed aft and the helicopter accelerates forward in level flight at roughly 3.5m/s².

The total force created by a helicopter blade moving air is called the total rotor thrust. Because of the way a helicopter operates, it's conventional and helpful to just call the horizontal and vertical components of this lift and thrust.

The wings of a glider and the rotors of a helicopter in autorotation continue to produce lift because they're moving. Inertial force and/or gravity is substituting for thrust. Without any way to keep them moving, however, they will eventually slow because of drag and produce less and less lift.

Imagine lift as a bucket. There are two holes in the bucket - weight and drag. Thrust is a water spigot continually filling the bucket with water.

[Purpelia]

How would a design like the SAAB 21 have fared if it had been used in WW2 as a fighter?

[United Earthlings]

How would a design like the SAAB 21 have fared if it had been used in WW2 as a fighter?

A single engine P-38? The majority of the models were built or converted to ground attack/bombers, so that should indicate something.

[Manokan Republic]

While antigravitrons or something is unlikely to be usable any time soon, there are other options. Diamagnetic objects already exist that float in the earth's magnetic field by repelling it, however it would have to be very powerfully diamagnetic. Scientists thus far have floated a frog using diamagnetism, and so in theory with a material that was very diamagnetic and, potentially super cooled, you could get an object to float in the earth's gravitational field with very little energy, or at least on another magnet. This would just take off and float, and then you can apply a certain amount of thrust to move it once up in the air. This also might help propel you in space, however it would need to be near large magnetic bodies like the sun, but given this is actually pretty common, it could assist you, albeit not all that much. Another thing is ultralight materials such as aerographene which are lighter than air or as light as air that would naturally float. This wouldn't require much force to keep it afloat if any, and the small amount of force from diamagnetic resistance of the earth's field/an engine could help it move at ridiculously high speeds even with very little energy input, but it would be far smaller and simpler in design than a large weather balloon, as well as have a higher payload. The vehicle might even be a drone, so it doesn't need a person inside of it; a graphene battery and different forms of aerographene might be used to store power and allow it to move and whatnot. That way the vehicle is as light as humanly possible.

The other idea I've been having not connected to that at all is that coaxial rotors seem to be becoming more popular. In theory it increases stability by having two rotors going opposite ways and the power output of the rotors, giving you potentially higher speeds or payloads. A number of experimental american designs and successful Russian designs use coaxial rotors, and for vertical take off it could be useful for increasing your maximum payload upwards. There's really no drawbacks as far as I can tell, so a V-22 with coaxial rotors, or even quad coaxial rotors, should have a much higher payload output. Tandem wings tend to increase flying efficiency by increasing the wing surface area, and since the name of the game is cargo transportation, this seems like a benefit, and would increase the maximum payload potentially in a short or long take off, and help with a rolling vertical landing potentially. Finally, there's the fact a hybrid electric design would be simpler and could potentially produce more power. Electric engines tend to have more torque for their size, and don't need fuel directly pumped to them or oxygen to be funneled in to the engines. Part of the problem of transitioning the engines from up to down like in a tilt-rotor, is the difficulty in pumping air and fuel through the engines, which are also substantially larger due to the need to temporary hold fuel. Mechanical engines are usually larger than electric engines for their power output in any case, as well. If the engines designed to produce that much power were in the center of the aircraft and close to the fuselage, this would reduce drag at the wing tips, which would aid in flying a lot, the weight on the wings, reduce the inherent complexity since electricity is more easily provided, and allow air flow directly to them when flying with particularly larger and more efficient air intake openings. Like with all hybrid electrics, the engine can be designed to run at optimum fuel efficiency and the power can be generated by the hybrid electric, speeding up or slowing down as needed, and as well electric engines can generate far more torque, which is particularly important for helicopters or propeller blades. Particularly with idling, such as hovering, it would be a lot more efficient, given that you'd be slowly charging the battery, and since this is something helicopters do or aircraft like this, it would be fairly efficient. As you could temporarily store the power in capacitors/batteries and dump it really quickly, it also means you could build up more energy and run the engines at extremely high levels of power for brief periods of time, like during take off and landing, giving you a higher vertical or short-take off payload. So there's a lot of potential advantages to something like this. Also being 40% or more fuel efficient is just an added plus. Like how the tesla is the fastest accelerating production car available, electric engines have always had faster acceleration and higher overall power output for their given size, which would be useful for a helicopter/VTOL aircraft and so on. The primary disadvantage is batteries, in that they store less power, at least 1/40th that of jet fuel/gasoline and other similiar hydrocarbons. So by using an external fuel source to power the battery, like with a hybrid electric, using a generator to power your batteries essentially, you can store more power for the weight.

Another problem in helicopters has been combining multiple engines together. It was apparently a major innovation in the CH-53k and Mil-26a to have three engines connected to the same gearshaft, or using a split torque design. With a hybrid electric this sort of thing is not necessary, and a much crappier engine just designed to produce power for the battery is more than serviceable, with several engines just producing electricity that is all stored as the same thing in the battery until it is intended to be released. This simplifies the entire mechanism and makes higher power outputs a far easier thing.

[New Vihenia]

Uh. So yeah was trying to explain on how i look at heli carrier. Aside from mis-writing Newton 2nd law ( f=m*a) to 3rd. Isnt it right that the 2nd law showed the major tradeoff for VTOL.. e.g when you want high thrust one can either :

1.Move large mass of air but low in speed/acceleration. (thus helicopters, and propellers, big fans)
2.Move small mass of air faster. (generic jet engine)

I tried to keep the explanation simple (maybe yes i interchangeably mention acceleration to speed) But one still called me have some error in interpretation. The other error is probably that i forgot to mention about the 3rd law that the engine's "action" in form of thrust will be followed by the "reaction" of the helicarrier which would be pushed up according to the thrust/lift generated by the lift engine.

[Gallia-]

How would a design like the SAAB 21 have fared if it had been used in WW2 as a fighter?

A single engine P-38? The majority of the models were built or converted to ground attack/bombers, so that should indicate something.

What does a P-38 have to do with a plane the size of a Bf 109?

It was "converted" to a ground attack aircraft because it was produced in 1945 and Saab was already working on Tunnan at the time. The fighter was retired after 4 years of service because Saab 29 began production and was a massively superior fighter, while A21 still had the bomb sights, shackles, and rocket pylons to attack ground targets. The A21s are converted to -21R and sit in Air Force hangars unlike Saab 32 shows up in numbers to replace them at around a 4:1 ratio in 1955-56.

How would a design like the SAAB 21 have fared if it had been used in WW2 as a fighter?

It was nothing special except it looked weird. It would have been exceedingly mediocre if it showed up in 1940, like Hurricane was. By 1945 it was just really lame.

Saab 29 was a far more impressive showing, though it lacked a radar gunsight I guess, otherwise it would have been competing with Saber and MiG-15 for best fighter in the world.

[United Earthlings]

What does a P-38 have to do with a plane the size of a Bf 109?

The use of the word fared implies a comparative analysis request, I was merely putting forth the suggestion said aircraft would maybe have performance characteristics similar to the P-38 Lightening.

[Gallia-]

You're literally just saying that because it's a twin boom lol.

[Purpelia]

It was nothing special except it looked weird. It would have been exceedingly mediocre if it showed up in 1940, like Hurricane was. By 1945 it was just really lame.

That's basically what I was looking at actually. An aircraft roughly around those specs and design in 1940. Like, would it have been a viable fighter back than? And more importantly could it have been produced in that period to be a competitor to stuff like the 109?

Also on a related note could a P-39 style aircraft be a decent A-10 style tank buster in the same time area? Basically I imagine an unholy hybrid of the P-39 (front 37mm gun and engine layout) and the IL-2 (everything else).

[Triplebaconation]

Uh. So yeah was trying to explain on how i look at heli carrier. Aside from mis-writing Newton 2nd law ( f=m*a) to 3rd. Isnt it right that the 2nd law showed the major tradeoff for VTOL.. e.g when you want high thrust one can either :

1.Move large mass of air but low in speed/acceleration. (thus helicopters, and propellers, big fans)
2.Move small mass of air faster. (generic jet engine)

I tried to keep the explanation simple (maybe yes i interchangeably mention acceleration to speed) But one still called me have some error in interpretation. The other error is probably that i forgot to mention about the 3rd law that the engine's "action" in form of thrust will be followed by the "reaction" of the helicarrier which would be pushed up according to the thrust/lift generated by the lift engine.

Yes, for aircraft propulsion thrust is just the momentum change in mass flow through a fan. The larger the fan area, the more mass flow and the less you have to accelerate it.

This is the theory behind high-bypass turbofans. As Dr Bevilaqua explained in the paper I linked above the lift fan effectively doubles or whatever the F135's bypass ratio when it's operating.

[Gallia-]

It was nothing special except it looked weird. It would have been exceedingly mediocre if it showed up in 1940, like Hurricane was. By 1945 it was just really lame.

That's basically what I was looking at actually. An aircraft roughly around those specs and design in 1940. Like, would it have been a viable fighter back than? And more importantly could it have been produced in that period to be a competitor to stuff like the 109?

It was worse than Bf 109 in basically every conceivable way.

[New Vihenia]

Yes, for aircraft propulsion thrust is just the momentum change in mass flow through a fan. The larger the fan area, the more mass flow and the less you have to accelerate it.

This is the theory behind high-bypass turbofans. As Dr Bevilaqua explained in the paper I linked above the lift fan effectively doubles or whatever the F135's bypass ratio when it's operating.

Thanks
-----------

So we have private mega-plan on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd3suMNNIVs&t=478s

I was thinking of several possible military applications. Namely :

1.Active phased array, so basically making this Starlink network an actual "networked" phased array radar. each satellite will behave as "element" Thus we can have multiple satellites forming up antenna of desired size and thus desired power aperture and resolution. The downside is that there might be not enough satellite to do so. Mainly because antenna physics demand half wavelength spacing for an array, in its operating frequency of Ka-band this calls for each satellite to be separated by centimeters which clearly wont be happening.

Similar constraint also applies for PCL (Passive Coherent Location) a.k.a "Passive radar" as the frequency is sensitive to atmosphere and thus.. limit the detection range.

2. Cheap, geo-location of enemy emitters.
Aside from the internet users the Satellite's antenna might just have some frequency response to frequency other than the intended bandwidth, this seems potential for a global wide network of passive surveillance targeted at high bandwidth emitter. For this application longer baseline distance between satellite might be desirable to maximize accuracy of the geolocation via DTOA/interferometer. The possible constrain is the receiver whether or not it can be programmed or a program could be made to allow analysis of all signals received by the antenna. With the global proliferation of high frequency devices like cellphones etc.. This surveillance might work and perhaps cheaper to operate and maintain compared to multimillion dollar dedicated ELINT Satellite.

3.Realtime guidance of UAV and Precision Munitions.
Given the coverage and claimed bandwidth. It could be possible for one to actually guide UAV or cruise missile in real time without actual need of ground station. Thus replicating US capability at least some of it. The network might also allow cruise missile targeting and re-targeting in real time without resorting to dedicated aircraft or Satellite. The constrain is of course we can have Denial of Service in the immediate area. For terrorist however it could present opportunity.

The later two seems to be a clear possibility worth looking.

[Manokan Republic]

Yes. However, lift can be produced even when there is no thrust, such as with a glider, or a large number of things. So, it's possible to fly even if your thrust to weight ratio is not exactly 1 to 1, even vertically as is the case of a helicopter.

Right. A helicopter moves air in one direction - perpendicular to its rotor blades.

If the blades move air straight down, the helicopter will produce only lift and no thrust. It will go up, but not forwards. If the helicopter angles it blades forwards, it will move air in an angle. Less lift is produced, but there is thrust to move the helicopter forward. The helicopter stops rising upwards and moves forwards in level flight. If the helicopter was to rotate so it was flying with the blades facing forward for some reason, they would produce thrust but no lift. The helicopter would fall out of the sky while moving forward very quickly.

For example, a helicopter weighs 94 kN. Its blades are capable of producing 100 kN of force. If all of that force is directed downwards at 90 degrees from horizontal, the helicopter will accelerate upwards at roughly .63 m/s² after you take the opposite acceleration of gravity into account. If the blades are angled at 20 degrees, directing force at 70 degrees from horizontal, since the sine of 70 is ~.94, 94 kN are directed downwards and the helicopter does not accelerate at all up. Since the cosine of 70 is ~ .34, 34 kN are directed aft and the helicopter accelerates forward in level flight at roughly 3.5m/s².

The total force created by a helicopter blade moving air is called the total rotor thrust. Because of the way a helicopter operates, it's conventional and helpful to just call the horizontal and vertical components of this lift and thrust.

The wings of a glider and the rotors of a helicopter in autorotation continue to produce lift because they're moving. Inertial force and/or gravity is substituting for thrust. Without any way to keep them moving, however, they will eventually slow because of drag and produce less and less lift.

Imagine lift as a bucket. There are two holes in the bucket - weight and drag. Thrust is a water spigot continually filling the bucket with water.

Helicopter's lift is not called thrust, the thrust from the rotors is not measured by the wings but by the power transferred from the engine to the rotors. A parachute falling or a glider generates lift, but no thrust, with the force of the air slowing it's descent down. The slower falling translates to an easier time flying, which is why a small fan, like on a paraglider, is capable of allowing it to fly. The same is true with helicopter blades, the wings on an airplane and so on, which means it takes less thrust to take flight. Thrust is the power coming from the engines, not the power exerted to the wings from the lift of the air, air it pushes and so on. That's just incorrect, and I've pointed this out in numerous avionics and NASA sources so far.

With a parachute, it produces so much drag that a person that a person can hit the ground and not die. This is called lift, and it's produced even without an engine. This same thing that slows your descent makes flying easier with less power, which is why a small fan on a parachute or glider can allow it to fly for a long period of time. You don't need a 1 to 1 thrust ratio from the fan of the paraglider to achieve flight, as you have more lift from the wings. You effectively fall slower, and this allows a far weaker engine to allow for flight. Helicopter blades also act as wings, albeit in a slightly different way. For this reason it slows the descent of the helicopter down, and makes it require less thrust to stay afloat. This is why a helicopter doesn't need to produce a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio to fly, or many other similiar lift vehicles like a tail-sitting plane, and explains how it is able to fly. The blades actually act like how wings do on a normal aircraft, only it can move vertically instead of having to roll forwards first. The same is true with a parachute, although it basically can only fall vertically. You don't actually create extra thrust by helicopter blades, as this would be impossible. In fact much of the thrust from helicopter blades is lost from air resistance, but in turn it turns in to lift because of that. You can see how drag itself actually allows something like a paraglider, or normal glider to fly, but it effects helicopters and larger aircraft too. Drag in the direction of the ground is good (like with a paraglider's parachute), where as drag in the direction you want to move quickly is bad, hence is parasitic drag. This is why wings are so flat and broad, to face the direction of the oncoming air with as little surface are as possible, but the direction of the ground with a big surface area.

The faster something goes the exponentially more drag it has, so faster moving aircraft don't need as big of wings to achieve lift, as long as they can get up to speed. Fighter aircraft, and in the extreme example the X-15, are good proof of how this works. At speed for example the tail fin of the X-15 generated as much drag as a whole F-104 Starfighter. A faster moving aircraft will generate more lift for it's size. This is because lift is related to drag, and certain types of drag are good for lift but bad for speed. It's why super wide wings are only good for slow speeds and not high speeds, which is pretty intuitive as you'd imagine they'd break off by bending so much. Helicopter blades move independently from the aircraft's main body, so they're able ot produce a lot more drag and thus lift, getting up to speed. They don't create extra thrust from thin air, they convert it to lift. You don't need a 1 to 1 weight ratio of thrust to weight when you have extra lift. Lift is as simple as falling slower, and often doesn't require outside force at all. So, a bird feather which falls slowly, a parachute, a glider etc. all create lift, and the same is true with wings, be them fixed or rotary. This is separate from thrust, but can be generated in part by thrust, to achieve more power.

[Spirit of Hope]

Helicopters produce lift by spinning their rotors, the rotors are spun by the helicopters engine. So "the power transferred from the engine to the rotors," is what lifts the helicopter. Because you need more lifting force than the force of gravity, and a vertically taking off helicopter doesn't have any fixed wings to produce lifting force, the engine must produce all of the force.

Parachutes don't really create lift, they create a large amount of drag.

Gliders don't produce lift by falling, they produce lift via the airflow over the wings, which requires forward velocity.

[Triplebaconation]

That's just incorrect, and I've pointed this out in numerous avionics and NASA sources so far.

It's called aerodynamics. Avionics are the electronic systems used on aircraft.

If you don't understand the the difference between falling and the opposite of falling, or up and down, you'll never understand force vectors.

If you want more attention find it somewhere else.

[Purpelia]

Well the thread you quoted is a few years old, so maybe you've changed your mind in the meantime. Which caliber are you using again, 5.5x42, 5.54x42 or 5.45x42mm?

It's 5.5x42mm. But the projectile construction is basically identical to the 5.45 soviet just scaled trivially up by 0.05mm. Which is so tiny as to be imperceptible to the naked eye.

Back to the 400mm barrel, what happen to the 2015 600mm version?

Honestly I just dug the quote up and was as surprised as you are. I too remembered it being 60cm. But apparently not as the post does contain an actual excerpt from the online calculator that no longer exists that I used to measure the round. So I guess 400mm it was 40cm when I actually calculated it.

This being said I would newer ever use it in such a short barreled weapon as I would expect the muzzle flash and blast to be significant and thus my actual service rifles are 6dm guns to accommodate that. Well either that or 40cm ones with a flash suppressor integrated. That's an option too.

A higher muzzle velocity may not necessarily be desirable depending on what you've specifically designed the round to do and at what range.

My requirements are, if I recall correctly to have an intermediary cartridge in the same range as 5.45 and 5.56 but that's optimized for flat shooting and AP action at longer than average ranges on account of the fact that a large part of my expected operational area involves rather open terrain where you can reasonably expect shots pr at least suppression at up to 500m to be a thing. Especially with modern optics. So whilst there is going to be plenty of 300m spraying action (thus necessitating the small round) everyman a DMR is also a thing in certain areas. And the thing had to straddle the line.

Also, using a 400mm barrel weapon for whatever round of the potential three above your using you're probably going to encounter similar issues to that which affected the M4 carbine and other shorter barrel carbines when using specific types of 5.56x45 NATO rounds which of course has led to newly designed rounds to address those shortcomings.

As said earlier I have no idea why my original calculations were done with a 40cm barrel back in the day. My guess is I was trying to be conservative and get a lowball number as opposed to going full 6dm rifle. Either way one of the reasons my 7.5 Felix exists and remains in use is because I do not deem this round too practical for 0.4m weapons. So maybe my intent back than was to deliberately make a round that works and yet lets me have a PDW cartridge make sense along side it.

So while a Tempting offer, I'm going to have to decline for a myriad of reasons, one being the timeline when my nation makes the switch from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO probably doesn't line up well to when your nation has designed, produced and made available for export your unique Purpelian caliber round.

Makes sense. What doesn't is that I am only replying to this after so much time. But that's life.

[New Vihenia]

My sperg has proliferated into higher order or so i think..

The version being used however is a fixed version which i made to address the major flaw related to determination of detectability factor. I thought excel already provided the correct QNORM function but turn out it doesnt. The researcher then made further fixes and sent the revised version to me. So i will have to take down the original calculator link, and replace it with corrected one.

https://www.matec-conferences.org/artic ... ruN8tplaAc

[Danternoust]

While antigravitrons or something is unlikely to be usable any time soon, there are other options. Diamagnetic objects already exist that float in the earth's magnetic field by repelling it, however it would have to be very powerfully diamagnetic.

Is this how Looney Toon physics work?

2. Cheap, geo-location of enemy emitters.

The later two seems to be a clear possibility worth looking.

Every object has it's own innate resonance.



I wonder ten years from now we will all accidentally meet at a conference.

[Theodosiya]

My sperg has proliferated into higher order or so i think..

The version being used however is a fixed version which i made to address the major flaw related to determination of detectability factor. I thought excel already provided the correct QNORM function but turn out it doesnt. The researcher then made further fixes and sent the revised version to me. So i will have to take down the original calculator link, and replace it with corrected one.

https://www.matec-conferences.org/artic ... ruN8tplaAc

(Image)

Ever thought to apply to Pindad, PTDI or PAL?