Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 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 DirtyCajun2992   » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:20 pm

DirtyCajun2992
Midshipman

Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:00 pm

Dilandu wrote:Well, if our phenomenal battleship-killing Church rockets weren't retconned yet ;) , then what about going a bit forward with them? What if we think about rocket-powered interceptor aircraft?

The idea is not excactly impossible one. A rocket-powered interceptor was suggested in France during World War I:

[img]https://rec.aviation.military.narkive.com/dYYPYv7o/1917-riffard-rm-1-rdp-rocket-plane:i.1.1.full

[/img]

https://rec.aviation.military.narkive.c ... i.1.1.full

Technically, it is not impossible for blackpowder rocket of enough size and in enough quantity to propel the light biplane. Pre-war "photographic rockets" - reconnaisance rockets designed to launch a photo camera into sky and return it on parachute - were good enough. Of course, a dozen or two of such engines could led to the point of catastrophic failure very fast... but hey, only the most daring ones went into early aviation anyway)

So the idea: let's someone outside the Charis develope the idea of rocket-powered plane. :) After all, kites - including box kites - hardly could be unknow on Safehold, and any country could born a Otto Lilienthal. Who would start with kites, then (maybe with some ideas from Merlin) went to gliders... And then figured out that they have rockets big enough to actually carry a glider in the sky.

P.S. IMHO, but it would fit the Deshnari pretty good. For their noble-based culture, the idea of "knights of the sky", roaring on rockets upward to meet Charisian airships would fit perfectly. During World War 1 (after cavalry proven itself outdated), quite a lot of young, eager aristocratic cavalerists found thenselves in aviation, where they could express their personal skill, courage and general coolness.


While Weber could theoretically make a rocket plane with the tech available. I doubt he would. So far, Weber has adapted SH weapons and equip emend from weapons and equipment that worked. There was only really one rocket propelled plane that ever saw military service of any kind, the HE 162 Komet. It was a dismal failure with a 50/50 chance of cooking the pilot in the cockpit. I would bet on a steam bomber first. Or a diesel powered bomber.
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by doug941   » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:15 pm

doug941
Commander

Posts: 228
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 5:21 pm

Dilandu wrote:
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.


Close Dilandu, but not quite. The 1868 St Petersburg Declaration banned exploding ammo based on weight (399 grams or less), not by caliber.
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:51 am

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

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

doug941 wrote:

Close Dilandu, but not quite. The 1868 St Petersburg Declaration banned exploding ammo based on weight (399 grams or less), not by caliber.




Which pretty much proves my point that such bans have nothing to do with genuine morals or sensible reasons, but are based entirely upon chicanery and lies :(

What the hell would a SOLID cannon shell of say 400 grams, do to a Human body, hm?
and why could that be worse than an explosive one?
In either case, a large chunk of you is "Pink mist"
Dead is dead

and as I noted, artillery isn't banned and shell fragments do even worse damage to mere Human flesh than bullets, which is saying something because bullets too often do NOT cause "nice clean wounds"
Shell and bomb fragments are more akin to a demonic ice cream scoop swung by a steam ram gouging out flesh, ugh! :cry:
yes, some modern weapons use preformed fragments, but they still rip hell out of the victim

now if we wanted truly ehtical, moral warfare, the conventions would be simple:
any scumbag who wants to start a war, gets put into an arena with a champion of the other side
Each armed with baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire
"TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!"
THAT would put a stop to the monstrosity of war pretty damn quick! :lol:
~
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by werner2k   » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:01 pm

werner2k
Midshipman

Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:19 am

To build a rocket-powered interceptor Charis enemies would have to make substantial leaps in aerodynamics and probably invent the liquid-fueled rocket-engine.
Solid boosters with enough burn-time to lift an airframe to sensible heighs would need to be rather large. as those cannot be throttled back, g-forces would increase to the end - not good for any pilot.
in effect that thing would need to be something like the german natter of wwII (or some of the wild ideas of the jäger-notprogramm).
there solid-state-boosters were used for lift-off, the main engine was a walther rocket-engine using hydrogen peroxide and nitric acid.
to contain that stuff you need stainless steel for pressurised tanks (no electric pumps!).
for an airframe to take the load during powered flight and to control it during the glide to the target you would have to make the jump in aerodynamics from kites to the subsonic fighters of 1945 in one leap.
that would be a hard-sale even for a sifi-story.
Top
Re: Rocket-powered interceptors?
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:56 pm

Loren Pechtel
Commodore

Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:24 pm

werner2k wrote:To build a rocket-powered interceptor Charis enemies would have to make substantial leaps in aerodynamics and probably invent the liquid-fueled rocket-engine.
Solid boosters with enough burn-time to lift an airframe to sensible heighs would need to be rather large. as those cannot be throttled back, g-forces would increase to the end - not good for any pilot.


While you can't throttle a solid you can make one that throttles back by design. Instead of the normal straight sides you put a taper in the engine. If you have an end-burning engine the size of the end goes down as it burns. If you have a core-burning engine the top part of the engine burns through it's fuel to the casing and ceases to produce thrust.
Top

Return to Safehold