Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Rocket-powered interceptors?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:48 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:I think the Desnarians may well go for air "cavalry" as you suggest but what would REALLY get them excited at first anyway would be...armoured cavalry!
there's no way those cavalry mad sods wouldn't think about turning the new "steam carriages" into armoured cars and eventually tanks ;)


Hm, not exactly sure. Tanks - at least in Earth history - were considered to be close to artillery & siege engines. They do not (initially) have any swift in them. Armored warfare was more technological, than individualistic.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by phillies   » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:03 pm

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

For a very long time, aircraft control surfaces did not have power assists, so there should be no doubt that they fly just fine. The Fokker triplane stalled at 45 mph, and could not reach 100 mph.

They had a guy at the controls pulling on rods or levers, taking advantage of e.g. pulleys with wheels of different diameters. Some early aircraft did not have ailerons; the pilot pulled on something and bent the wings. Remember, if you need 500 pounds force to hold a control surface stationary, the surface is putting something like the same force on the aircraft. That amount of force is not obviously needed. Rocket to altitude and then glide into the attack works.

Of course, you then get to discover that you now need to do something that will affect the large dirigible.


WeberFan wrote:Relatively easy to make something that will fly. Something altogether different to make something that can TURN or be controlled at any kind of speed.

I ran a couple quick calculations...

Assume a horizontal stabilizer on a "conventional" aircraft.

Now assume an elevator (control surface) attached to the back of that horizontal stabilizer that's 20 square feet (2 feet wide and 10 feet long) in total area. We can quibble about size all day long, but I just picked numbers out or a hat to illustrate the point.

Finally, assume that the aircraft is moving at 150 MPH (reasonable, I think for something that has to actually "fly" instead of just "floating").

If the elevator is moved to a 30 degree angle, then the "apparent" area (the area that the wind "sees" as the aircraft moves through the sky is 10 square feet (the sine of 30 degrees is 0.5, times the area).

Based on the 20 SF area, the 150 MPH, and the 30 degree angle, the force required to hold the elevator in position is 576 pounds! At 5 degrees (a much more reasonable number for an aircraft in flight), the force is still 100.4 pounds. More reasonable, but not something a human could exert repeatedly during flight.

The faster you go, the less you have to displace the control surface (degrees). But in slow-speed flight, you need a large surface displaced a large amount to get adequate controllability for takeoffs and landings, especially if there are any winds.

For a more conventional aircraft design, the same model holds true for ailerons (roll) and rudder (yaw). It COULD be done, but you'd have a really fatigued pilot. You'd need a Praigr steam engine for control power assist...

His Celeryness gave us a clue to the problem in one of the books where he was discussing the force exerted by the wind on a galleon's sails... The actual formula is 0.00256*V*V where V is the velocity in MPH and the total force is in Pounds per Square Foot. Beyond that, it's basic trigonometry.

Don't get me wrong... It IS possible... WWI aircraft with all-mechanical controls proved that. But it's NOT as simple as it appears at first glance.
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:37 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

phillies wrote:For a very long time, aircraft control surfaces did not have power assists, so there should be no doubt that they fly just fine. The Fokker triplane stalled at 45 mph, and could not reach 100 mph.

They had a guy at the controls pulling on rods or levers, taking advantage of e.g. pulleys with wheels of different diameters. Some early aircraft did not have ailerons; the pilot pulled on something and bent the wings. Remember, if you need 500 pounds force to hold a control surface stationary, the surface is putting something like the same force on the aircraft. That amount of force is not obviously needed. Rocket to altitude and then glide into the attack works.

Of course, you then get to discover that you now need to do something that will affect the large dirigible.




I read that some early aircraft the pilot's SEAT was somehow used to help.steer, their mass or some such gave some leverage?

Yeah if you glide, you have range and time for a safer low energy attack path, if I get it right?

As for a weapon, as said some rockets would do well, not guns (tracers haven't been developed and aren't safe with blackpowder bullets! Also automatic weapons and gun powder don't get on well)

Blackpowder ironically enough would be more hazardous, in general, to an airship than typical high explosives because it's an incendiary, and you don't need to do a lot of actual damage.
Just causing a fire is all that's needed, even if not fatal it forces an airship to flee

Of course, hitting the target, not setting your own wings on fire or damaging them with rocket weapons (a real problem for warcraft even in WW2)
Etc would make it non-trivial
Oh and not crashing into the airship or if it explodes, having your wings go "Icarus" style :shock:
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:50 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

Rockets would probably suffice as weapons, yes. They are the most mass-effective.

SilverbladeTE wrote:As for a weapon, as said some rockets would do well, not guns (tracers haven't been developed and aren't safe with blackpowder bullets! Also automatic weapons and gun powder don't get on well)


Not exactly. Russia developed the fulminating musket ball (which exploded on impact) as early as in 1863.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by isaac_newton   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:52 am

isaac_newton
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Brighton, UK

Dilandu wrote:
DrakBibliophile wrote:Then there's the problem of controlling the thrust of the engine.

The pilot likely won't be able control the thrust of a "solid rocket". IE The rocket burns until all of the propellants are used up.

Liquid propellants could be "turned down" (ie for landing) but use of liquid propellants may be beyond the ability of Safehold (non-Charis) technology.


Yep. So basically the idea of solid-fuel rocket interceptor (Japanese actually tried to make one in 1945, but did not have time) is to burn your rockets one after other, gaining speed & altitude, then climb, using remaining momentum, as high as possible, and glide toward target.



Well - I love the concept, but I rather feel that the squadron turn-over would be quite high!!

maybe if they could not get enough younger sons of nobility [or after the first set had gone up in smoke], they could always use condemned criminals.
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:49 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu wrote:Not exactly. Russia developed the fulminating musket ball (which exploded on impact) as early as in 1863.


Dilandu
The operative word being "fulminating"
You do know how horrible sensitive fulminates are and why they were rarely used beyond mercury and retired as soon as they got better alternatives?

Ye gods, the idea of using a mercury fulminate loaded bullet...EEEEK! :o :o :shock:
Sorry, you couldn't pay me enough to try that, lol

In WW2 bullets with special PETN fillings and firing mechanism were developed as both alternative to tracer rounds (no trail of fire to give away your position and explosion on impact showed where you'd hit)
And to cause more damage
They were used mostly by aircraft for advantages fighting other aircraft
Some were used by snipers (blew a melon sized hole in a poor sap, ick)

Lead azide and a few other such have been used but again, sensitivity issues...holding a gun that might blow up in your face...er, no thanks :lol:

I know in 1980s some improved mixture/method was used in America to make bullets for mostly showing off at metal target shooting but no idea what that was or if still around.

Bullets are so small making a SAFE explosive one is no easy matter.

What about a bolt action 20+ mm cannon, springs to absorb recoil, on front of the glider, if you have to have a projectile weapon?
Cannon rounds are big enough to allow safeties and safer fillings
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:01 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:
Dilandu
The operative word being "fulminating"
You do know how horrible sensitive fulminates are and why they were rarely used beyond mercury and retired as soon as they got better alternatives?


Well, they worked good enough, so concerned European nations all agreed to forbade them (as well as all explosive munitions of less than 20-mm diameter) on St. Petersburg conference.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:47 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu wrote:
Well, they worked good enough, so concerned European nations all agreed to forbade them (as well as all explosive munitions of less than 20-mm diameter) on St. Petersburg conference.


Weapon bans were rarely about actual reality
They were about hypocrisy, lies and stopping the Public getting upset and trying to stop wars which so many politicians lust for and.profit from

Dum-dums were banned because Germany was run by a wahoo who's inferiority complex against the British caused problems
thus, Britain wouldn't sell the rights to manufacture dum-dums...and the Belgian's obscene inhumanity in their colonies made the brutal (it was) British Empire look like nuns by comparison, which is saying a lot, ick!

dum-dum hypocrisy is a perfect example of the reality behind the lies

cluster bombs were fairly banned due to killing civilians but most of the big push came from countries who didn't have them!

Chemical weapons aren't very effective against professional military and way too costly and.problematical compared fo plain old high explosive shells which is the REAL reason they were banned...and again it made a nice soundbyte for the politicians to look good, the hypocrites

Anyone who thinks an explosive or expanding bullet is worse than artillery has no clue :/
War is the very definition of "inhumanity"
And we should admit and understand that.


White phosphorus SHOULD be banned as that is truly sadistic and poisons areas, even napalm usually kills folk a hell of a lot faster and for more legitimate effect than WP.
Ick!


And again, no, fulminate is too unstable to make practical bullets.
Think about it.
May get away with a few shots but.pretty quickly you'll lose a hand or worse :(
More an assassin's tool
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by phillies   » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:05 am

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Readers who think it is easy to shoot down dirigibles should consult the history of Zeppelin warfare in World War 1, though Charisian dirigibles are likely to be
easier targets than German Zeppelins, notably because the hydrogen in their gas bags is likely to be less pure.

SilverbladeTE wrote:
Dilandu wrote:
Well, they worked good enough, so concerned European nations all agreed to forbade them (as well as all explosive munitions of less than 20-mm diameter) on St. Petersburg conference.


Weapon bans were rarely about actual reality
They were about hypocrisy, lies and stopping the Public getting upset and trying to stop wars which so many politicians lust for and.profit from

Dum-dums were banned because Germany was run by a wahoo who's inferiority complex against the British caused problems
thus, Britain wouldn't sell the rights to manufacture dum-dums...and the Belgian's obscene inhumanity in their colonies made the brutal (it was) British Empire look like nuns by comparison, which is saying a lot, ick!

dum-dum hypocrisy is a perfect example of the reality behind the lies

cluster bombs were fairly banned due to killing civilians but most of the big push came from countries who didn't have them!

Chemical weapons aren't very effective against professional military and way too costly and.problematical compared fo plain old high explosive shells which is the REAL reason they were banned...and again it made a nice soundbyte for the politicians to look good, the hypocrites

Anyone who thinks an explosive or expanding bullet is worse than artillery has no clue :/
War is the very definition of "inhumanity"
And we should admit and understand that.


White phosphorus SHOULD be banned as that is truly sadistic and poisons areas, even napalm usually kills folk a hell of a lot faster and for more legitimate effect than WP.
Ick!


And again, no, fulminate is too unstable to make practical bullets.
Think about it.
May get away with a few shots but.pretty quickly you'll lose a hand or worse :(
More an assassin's tool
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:16 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

phillies wrote:Readers who think it is easy to shoot down dirigibles should consult the history of Zeppelin warfare in World War 1, though Charisian dirigibles are likely to be
easier targets than German Zeppelins, notably because the hydrogen in their gas bags is likely to be less pure.


Well, I never said it would be easy to shot down Charisian airship with rocket-propelled gliders. Just possible.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top

Return to Safehold