Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 69 guests

Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by n7axw   » Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:21 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

chickladoria wrote:So the church will develop the PIAT (although technically I suppose the name will be PIAP - Projectile, Infantry Anti-Personnel). Which will put them into realm of smokeless projectiles, unless the spring causes a fire of some sort. The range limitation will be a result of spring strength, and willingness of the operator to suffer major shoulder bruising.


Do we know whether the weapon is fired fron the shoulder or anchored to the ground?

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by MWadwell   » Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:24 am

MWadwell
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:58 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Michael Everett wrote:Mortar base-plate model showing how the holes allow for pre-determined angles of fire?


At only 4 inches in diameter, it's too small for a baseplate.....
.

Later,
Matt
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by MWadwell   » Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:26 am

MWadwell
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:58 am
Location: Sydney Australia

n7axw wrote:
chickladoria wrote:So the church will develop the PIAT (although technically I suppose the name will be PIAP - Projectile, Infantry Anti-Personnel). Which will put them into realm of smokeless projectiles, unless the spring causes a fire of some sort. The range limitation will be a result of spring strength, and willingness of the operator to suffer major shoulder bruising.


Do we know whether the weapon is fired fron the shoulder or anchored to the ground?

Don


Well, from the HFQ snippet:
"“How portable?”

“Less so than the heretic infantry’s portable angle-guns, I suspect, Your Grace, but much, much more portable than most regular artillery pieces.”"

So, it's bigger then the EoC's mortars, but smaller then regular artillery.

So I would say that it is ground mounted.....
.

Later,
Matt
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by MWadwell   » Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:35 am

MWadwell
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:58 am
Location: Sydney Australia

packhunter wrote:In LAMA there is the idea of developing a spring fired mortar for the church. One would assume this is what is being refrenced.


True.

This system could either be for a Base bleed system (unlikely), or a rocket assisted projectile (ala the Japanese Type 4 rocket-mortar of WW2 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_4_20_cm_Rocket_Launcher).
.

Later,
Matt
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by Piezoguy   » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:19 pm

Piezoguy
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:28 pm

I think it is likely a nozzle for a rocket powered projectile like the Japanese rocket system. It will work and will have a range of about a mile with black powder based propellant. RFC can have some fun with the unintended consequences of a spin stabilized rocket trying to do high angle trajectories,

For high angle trajectories the spin stabilized gyroscopic forces are going to do funny things when it reaches the peak of the trajectory and the nose wants to stay vertical. If the center of pressure and center of gravity isn’t managed the projectile will fall backwards and into a flat spin and likely come down on the launch location. Similar thing happened with 81 mm mortar shell when the canted the fins to spin stabilize them,

Another limitation of the rocket system is it is not easy to change the rocket motor for short and long range. So do make the full use of the projectile one has to fire it near vertical for close in targets and suffer the effects of long hang times for wind to move the shell off target.

Most mortars have easily removed proponent tabs so it is easy to change the charge from long range to short range propellants.

The logistics train for a rocket compared to a mortar is much worse. A tube launched projectile requires much less propellant then a rocket launched projectile for the same payload.
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by namelessfly   » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:24 pm

namelessfly

You would not use brass for a rocket nozzle because it could not tolerate prolonged heat.

You would not use a thin disc because you cant form a proper expansion nozzle.

The angled slots rather than a single orifice are also problematic to machine.

This is the breach plate for some type of recoiless, rocket artillery. The brass need endure only brief heat while the projectile clears the barrel. The angled slots disperse the exhaust plume. Using brass rather than iron or steel enables sealing a breEch.
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by Piezoguy   » Thu May 01, 2014 1:53 pm

Piezoguy
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:28 pm

namelessfly wrote:You would not use brass for a rocket nozzle because it could not tolerate prolonged heat.

You would not use a thin disc because you cant form a proper expansion nozzle.

The angled slots rather than a single orifice are also problematic to machine.

This is the breach plate for some type of recoiless, rocket artillery. The brass need endure only brief heat while the projectile clears the barrel. The angled slots disperse the exhaust plume. Using brass rather than iron or steel enables sealing a breEch.



Reason the Temple would use brass is that one can cast it and the technology is well developed for plumbing fixtures. The Temple knows nothing about converging-diverging nozzles so a hole is the place to start. The propellant is black powder with a burn time of less than 2-3 seconds so melting may not be a problem. The Type 4 rocket has a range of 2400 meters with a muzzle velocity of 175 m/sec. Assuming a modern propellant with a ISP of 200sec the black power version with a ISP of 80 is going to proved 40% of the energy and a muzzle velocity of 110 m/sec. Assuming vacuumed dynamics the flight time will be 15.5 second and a maximum range of 1700 meters. Minimum range assuming a 75 deg angle is going to be 600 meters.

RFC put this snippet out there and I assume he is using it for a sanity check not that I have all that much sanity.
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by Bahzellstudent   » Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:27 pm

Bahzellstudent
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:13 pm
Location: Derbyshire, United Kingdom

Massively impressed by what some of you guys know about weaponry; me - I just have to wait and see what comes out with the book; all the more frustrating therefore!
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by Gunny   » Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:21 pm

Gunny
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 6:23 pm

packhunter wrote:In LAMA there is the idea of developing a spring fired mortar for the church. One would assume this is what is being refrenced.


Sounds a lot like the PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank) used by the Brits in WW II. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
Top
Re: Teeny Tiny (out of order) HFQ Snippet
Post by Darman   » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:15 pm

Darman
Commander

Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Bahzellstudent wrote:Massively impressed by what some of you guys know about weaponry; me - I just have to wait and see what comes out with the book; all the more frustrating therefore!


My thoughts are much more in line with yours, dude. I'm always impressed by the amount of information this group brings to the table pretty much no matter what.
_______________________________________________________
My battleship sim of choice: Navalism

Image
Top

Return to Safehold