Nasarog wrote:
Babylon 5 had a very elegant solution. THey had specialized fighters that has airfoil wings that that swung out for atmospheric flight, or fixed wing aircraft the could serve both duties.

I'm still curious if they had retractable radiator systems for heat control? The necessary insulation for space certainly is different than the one for atmospheric flight, but the bulky radiators to get rid of excess heat are something you only need in space without thermal conduction and convection.

Found a nice article about these phenomena: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

Additionally to the more obvious uses of wings like Atmospheric flight(imho not that important but in ES it seems Fighters/Bombers are going to be used in invasions) and keeping stuff(engines, weapons, fuel tanks...) away from the cockpit/masscenter, wings also increace the room for forward weapons, as unlike Capital ships which have the liberty of stoing their weapons at the flanks where there is room for them, fighters rely on frontal weaponry.



I recently went through some Star wars lore, where wings (and S-foils) are required to harbor the large radiators, very sensible aswell.

What I like most about any kind of winglike extension, is that it provides a good way to maximize leverage, if thrusters are located at their ends. That is a very easy way to maximize torque to increase maneuverability.

Everything was good and funny until Nos came along and steered the conversation in this thread back in an overly technical direction!

n18991c wrote:
Everything was good and funny until Nos came along and steered the conversation in this thread back in an overly technical direction!

Balance in all things, n18.

So I have to balance out all the times I steer a thread in the other direction. You're more in favor of flying discs, then?

Nosferatiel wrote:
On the one hand, carrying fighters that are not capable of atmospheric flight becomes a serious issue for invading any planet.

Though I agree with The quasar that pure spaceborn fighters might look different, I'd like to make lists for the different requirements.



Atmospheric fighter:

- Unstable aerodynamics to provide maximum maneuverability and minimum air resistance

- Any mechanic generating an uplift

- engine outlet in the opposite direction of the main propagation direction

- either thrusters or rudders to modify the horizontal propagation, best at maximum distance to center of mass pivot point

- either thrusters or ailerons to modify the vertical propagation, best at maximum distance to center of mass pivot point

- aerodynamic weaponry that is effective in an atmosphere (nonrelativistic kinetics, rockets, overlapping laserfields without nonlinear optics behaviour at their wavelength and energy)

- Must be able to land/dock somewhere to refuel and replenish ammunition

- Should be light to minimize necessary uplift and maximize maneuverability



Spacefighter:

- shape constraints by requirements for radiation mitigation (you want your pilot to survive cosmic radiation levels) -> possibly bulky/heavily armored cockpit if not automated in the first place

- constrained by necessary overheat-countermeasures -> need radiators to get rid of excess heat

- engine outlet in the opposite direction of the main propagation direction

- thrusters to modify the horizontal propagation, best at maximum distance to center of mass pivot point

- thrusters to modify the vertical propagation, best at maximum distance to center of mass pivot point

- no constraints on weaponry (relativistic kinetics, rockets, high energy lasers)

- Must be able to land/dock somewhere to refuel and replenish ammunition (and possibly life support)

- Weight has to be balanced with thruster capabilities to ascertain maneuverability



If I look at the two lists, at least for bombers that do not use any radiation weapons, these two schemes might very well be combined.

For fighters I have to agree that it doesn't really make a lot of sense to have atmospheric and space capable crafts in one, since this would mean to cut down on the weaponry for space.

You.

Ruined.

It.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
You.

Ruined.

It.

Always a pleasure. Never start a physics theme in this forum without expecting swift or at least devastating moderator response, unless I'm on vacation or dead.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Always a pleasure. Never start a physics theme in this forum without expecting swift or at least devastating moderator response, unless I'm on vacation or dead.

I study Aerospace Engineering so I actually understood what you were saying.



So go on vacation then lol

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
I study Aerospace Engineering so I actually understood what you were saying.



So go on vacation then lol

Why, it's always nice if SOMEONE understands me. That encourages me almost as much as mindblowing people, especially Igncom.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Why, it's always nice if SOMEONE understands me. That encourages me almost as much as mindblowing people, especially Igncom.

Yep. What's not encouraging is that I could never get any of my Aerospace designs to fly right. They would always hit mach 2 and destabilize.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Yep. What's not encouraging is that I could never get any of my Aerospace designs to fly right. They would always hit mach 2 and destabilize.

I was always curious how a carbon nanotube stabilized graphene wing design would work out that could be switched between crosswing and delta wing positions with a central turbine and harrier-like directional exhaust to steer instead of ailerons.

Nosferatiel wrote:
I was always curious how a carbon nanotube stabilized graphene wing design would work out that could be switched between crosswing and delta wing positions with a central turbine and harrier-like directional exhaust to steer instead of ailerons.

Germans are so smart.



Its not like Aerospace Engineering is my living but...



It depends on the speed of the plane. If it went to fast, the graphene would collapse even if it were stabilized by nanotubes. However, the vector nozzle steering would probably be pretty good because the plane would be light weight enough to move without having to physically bend the air with the Ailreon.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Germans are so smart.



Its not like Aerospace Engineering is my living but...



It depends on the speed of the plane. If it went to fast, the graphene would collapse even if it were stabilized by nanotubes. However, the vector nozzle steering would probably be pretty good because the plane would be light weight enough to move without having to physically bend the air with the Ailreon.

My reasoning would actually be that the radar crossection of atomic monolayer graphene might be very different from what you would expect of any kind of metal. I've found several articles about using graphene as tunable microwave emitters, so it might also be possible to tune it to become a microwave receiver by applying a certain voltage on the wing graphene. On the one hand this might be an awesome "omg, they are trying to lock unto us!"-warning and on the other hand the reflection of the wings might be reduced to almost zero. Of course the downside would be that you'd need to apply all the heavy instrumentation on the bulk only, but an internal weapon and engine storage design could, in this case, define "stealth fighter" in a very new and worrysome way.

I have to say that I'm not a solid state physicist (if we have any graphene specialist here, it would be awesome to have a comment on the feasibility to use graphene as a microwave receiver), but I can dream.

Treadmill, that's right, will it fly???

Nosferatiel wrote:
My reasoning would actually be that the radar crossection of atomic monolayer graphene might be very different from what you would expect of any kind of metal. I've found several articles about using graphene as tunable microwave emitters, so it might also be possible to tune it to become a microwave receiver by applying a certain voltage on the wing graphene. On the one hand this might be an awesome "omg, they are trying to lock unto us!"-warning and on the other hand the reflection of the wings might be reduced to almost zero. Of course the downside would be that you'd need to apply all the heavy instrumentation on the bulk only, but an internal weapon and engine storage design could, in this case, define "stealth fighter" in a very new and worrysome way.

I have to say that I'm not a solid state physicist (if we have any graphene specialist here, it would be awesome to have a comment on the feasibility to use graphene as a microwave receiver), but I can dream.

I'm not even close to studying Physics, I'm the IT-Guy, but I still some clues what is going on - and I like it: Nos: You just found a place to boast with your knowledge lol

Tredecim wrote:
I'm not even close to studying Physics, I'm the IT-Guy, but I still some clues what is going on - and I like it: Nos: You just found a place to boast with your knowledge lol

There are some old laser threads you should read, then, and of course the thread about building planets...

Nosferatiel wrote:
There are some old laser threads you should read, then, and of course the thread about building planets...

I'll stick to Linux, Win Server2008R2, C#, and Networks for now



But I'm glad we're heving this intersting discussion-thread

Nosferatiel wrote:
My reasoning would actually be that the radar crossection of atomic monolayer graphene might be very different from what you would expect of any kind of metal. I've found several articles about using graphene as tunable microwave emitters, so it might also be possible to tune it to become a microwave receiver by applying a certain voltage on the wing graphene. On the one hand this might be an awesome "omg, they are trying to lock unto us!"-warning and on the other hand the reflection of the wings might be reduced to almost zero. Of course the downside would be that you'd need to apply all the heavy instrumentation on the bulk only, but an internal weapon and engine storage design could, in this case, define "stealth fighter" in a very new and worrysome way.

I have to say that I'm not a solid state physicist (if we have any graphene specialist here, it would be awesome to have a comment on the feasibility to use graphene as a microwave receiver), but I can dream.

A low RCS won't do you any good if it shatters on a bombing run. However, maybe you could coat the wings in nano-reinforced graphene in order to further reduce the RCS. In fact, if I remember right, the F-22 is coated with a graphene-like substance. Of course, that means that whenever the craft goes in for maintenance the coating has to be removed and re-applied which is a real pain for the maintenance crews, but it seems to work well with the F-22. After all, its RCS is -40 DbSm

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
A low RCS won't do you any good if it shatters on a bombing run. However, maybe you could coat the wings in nano-reinforced graphene in order to further reduce the RCS. In fact, if I remember right, the F-22 is coated with a graphene-like substance. Of course, that means that whenever the craft goes in for maintenance the coating has to be removed and re-applied which is a real pain for the maintenance crews, but it seems to work well with the F-22. After all, its RCS is -40 DbSm

Didn't the JSF project have a bombing shaft that was opened shortly to deploy it's payload and then summarily closed?

The RCS went up a lot, once the shaft was opened, but only for the few seconds to launch a missile. Not enough to keep the target til any missile hits from a large distance. I had something similar in mind.

Tredecim wrote:
I'll stick to Linux, Win Server2008R2, C#, and Networks for now



But I'm glad we're heving this intersting discussion-thread

Should I stick to slc5(or soon 6), root (basically C++) and pyroot, then?