07-05-2003, 11:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2003, 11:46 AM by Occhidiangela.)
The small prototypes combine artistic beauty and function.
Concept: the past 30 yeas of vectored thrust, tilt rotor concept, and UAV are combined to make a small scale version of the later HK's that we get glimpses of. Use vectored thrust on a tilted powerplant and replace the wings/propellors with high power density jet engines.
Critique: By replacing tilt rotor with the small jet engines one gets rid of some torque problems and gets more use out of each BTU of fuel burned. I would have preferred to see more of a tail section/ empenage for stability, but the tail section's vectored thrust idea has already been put into action in helicpoters somewhat with finestrons, so its rotatable thrust can probably take care of most rotation aboutthe vertical axis. The shape of the HK's body is both aerodynamic and suitable for housing both sensors and weapons.
Engineering problem: you have to beef up the wing root considerably since the thrust coming from the wing tip will force the wing to act more as a canitlever than usual. On most air foils, the weight/load in born from the root out, decreasing as you approach the wing tip. The primary thrust being at the wing tip changes the loading, but I suppose with exotic materials this can all be solved. V-22 has solved it more or less.
Neat feature. The engines being on the wing tip act as the fuel tanks on the F-2 or the T-2: they reduce the turbulent flow at he wing tips and make for more efficient aerodynamic flow across the wing in general. By co locating the thrust producing module with the wingtip "vortex reduction" you will end up with a slightly more efficient airfoil design. (OK, so what?) This should reduce stall speeds and put less of a burden on vectored thrust during the slow flight enveloped. The vectored thrust takes over at very low airspeeds in any case, since the lift wont be produced by wings.
So, what did they use to power those little engines? More nuclear power packs like the kind that ran Arnold? And, even small jet enginges make a hell of a lot more noise than those little things did. :D
About the T-1000's. You could make those today. The 20mm Gats and the sensor package, tractor driven, are a pretty easily accomplished fusion. The only thing wrong with the movie version is that they ever missed. Vulcan CIWS technology has been around for about 30 years, and it don't miss much. T-1000, at a similar cyclic rate of fire and with a similar guidance package, would have wasted maybe two rounds before turning Dr Brewster and John into chutney when they were fleeing. (Nag nag nag) Arnold wisely uses the titanium body (obviously, given the color and strength versus bullets) as cover when he shoots the brains out of one.
Enough tech speak, twas a fun film. Oh, and IMO, using a Sikorsky (S-61) Sea King to dive into a tunnel and catch a robot is a horrible abuse of a perfectly good helicopter. :P On the other hand, I suppose one must use what is available to complete a mission.
Concept: the past 30 yeas of vectored thrust, tilt rotor concept, and UAV are combined to make a small scale version of the later HK's that we get glimpses of. Use vectored thrust on a tilted powerplant and replace the wings/propellors with high power density jet engines.
Critique: By replacing tilt rotor with the small jet engines one gets rid of some torque problems and gets more use out of each BTU of fuel burned. I would have preferred to see more of a tail section/ empenage for stability, but the tail section's vectored thrust idea has already been put into action in helicpoters somewhat with finestrons, so its rotatable thrust can probably take care of most rotation aboutthe vertical axis. The shape of the HK's body is both aerodynamic and suitable for housing both sensors and weapons.
Engineering problem: you have to beef up the wing root considerably since the thrust coming from the wing tip will force the wing to act more as a canitlever than usual. On most air foils, the weight/load in born from the root out, decreasing as you approach the wing tip. The primary thrust being at the wing tip changes the loading, but I suppose with exotic materials this can all be solved. V-22 has solved it more or less.
Neat feature. The engines being on the wing tip act as the fuel tanks on the F-2 or the T-2: they reduce the turbulent flow at he wing tips and make for more efficient aerodynamic flow across the wing in general. By co locating the thrust producing module with the wingtip "vortex reduction" you will end up with a slightly more efficient airfoil design. (OK, so what?) This should reduce stall speeds and put less of a burden on vectored thrust during the slow flight enveloped. The vectored thrust takes over at very low airspeeds in any case, since the lift wont be produced by wings.
So, what did they use to power those little engines? More nuclear power packs like the kind that ran Arnold? And, even small jet enginges make a hell of a lot more noise than those little things did. :D
About the T-1000's. You could make those today. The 20mm Gats and the sensor package, tractor driven, are a pretty easily accomplished fusion. The only thing wrong with the movie version is that they ever missed. Vulcan CIWS technology has been around for about 30 years, and it don't miss much. T-1000, at a similar cyclic rate of fire and with a similar guidance package, would have wasted maybe two rounds before turning Dr Brewster and John into chutney when they were fleeing. (Nag nag nag) Arnold wisely uses the titanium body (obviously, given the color and strength versus bullets) as cover when he shoots the brains out of one.
Enough tech speak, twas a fun film. Oh, and IMO, using a Sikorsky (S-61) Sea King to dive into a tunnel and catch a robot is a horrible abuse of a perfectly good helicopter. :P On the other hand, I suppose one must use what is available to complete a mission.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete