|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 24, 2004 3:32:05 GMT -5
Simple answer, because your the adeptus mechanicus and you havn't had a new idea in ten thousand years. The mechanicus that is not you kage  |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 24, 2004 3:38:50 GMT -5
Kind of missing the point. Even in an entirely canonical universe which engages superficial thought, the logic behind the Thunderhawk doesn't entirely work... Why would the G/DAoT society produced an interface vehicle with minimal lift surfaces? Yes, they might have used alterantive technologies but even then it wouldn't entirely work...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 24, 2004 3:51:06 GMT -5
I'm not missing the point i'm agreeing with you, the thunder hawk is clearly a case of "well this looks pretty cool lets use that" and saying they use some kind of contra grav doesn't wash because i have never once heard that mentioned in the fluff, if it was primarily used for exo atmospheric transport we have no problem as it doesn't need to be aerodynamic but its not....so we do |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 24, 2004 4:02:00 GMT -5
...and saying they use some kind of contra grav doesn't wash because i have never once heard that mentioned in the fluff... Would you have preferred 'anti-grav'? Contra-grav is just a term for a lift system used in the Traveller universe and GURPS Vehicles. And the Imperium does have limited 'anti-grav' technology, although the extent of such limitations is dependent upon your interpretation... Indeed, based upon much of the 'fluff' it is required. |
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jul 24, 2004 4:21:05 GMT -5
Actually... you might say that the Thunderhawk is primarily used for exo-atmospheric transport. I mean, in space battles, the Thunderhawk is used as both an assault boat for boarding enemy ships, and as an interceptor to take down enemy bombers and torpedoes. Since it is used as an interceptor and assault boat in space, and mostly as a drop ship on planetary assaults, it can do without being aerodynamic. It's not used as an interceptor in aerial warfare.
Of course, it would be preferable if it had good maneuverability both on and off worlds, but whatcha gonna do...
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 24, 2004 11:23:03 GMT -5
Why use an advanced technology to do something that a bit of brains could achieve with just changing the basic shape? Using power-shields in the Thunderhawk design would kill to birds with one stone: Not only would the shields deflect air but also bullets! In action: the shield at the front cuts through the air, and because its a shield it can be 'razor sharp' and frictionless. At speed the fore shield would create vacuum behind it, with the air rushing in around to contact the flat sides of the Thunderhawk and straight through the engines. Bullets would also be defected, but as the are heavier can't be sucked in as much as air and so wont go though the engines (which is a good thing). Oh, bird three: As it is friction less it also makes an excellent heat shield for entering planet's atmosphere from Space. =Fat Wings?=Those aren't wings they're anti-gav systems! The problem with wings is that the need a decent atmosphere to function and on thin atmosphere worlds they're a bit useless especially with a heavy tank that thinks it can bird. Conversely on thick atmosphere worlds friction is a big problem (not with those shields though!). Another important point is durability, people and aliens aren't always happy to see Space Marines and have a tendency to open fire on sight, and wings are a good thing to shot at. So the Thunderhawk doesn't have wings, but heavily armoured pylons housing anti-gav systems and fat guns on the end. =brick=Bricks fall pretty good, much the same as a Thunderhawk crashing through the atmosphere. Wings can be a bit weedy and sheer of at super speed, so you wouldn't use them anyway. Also bricks hurt if the land on you, planes are a bit light and just burn up the surface of the ground, where as a downed Thunderhawk makes a huge hole. |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 24, 2004 11:46:39 GMT -5
<sigh> I see us discussing the shape of Thunderhawks and then see all the other Factory threads that require attention and, well... You get the picture. Since this is the only thread left to reply to at the moment, though, I'm going to do it anyway... In action: the shield at the front cuts through the air, and because its a shield it can be 'razor sharp' and frictionless. What makes you say that it is frictionless? Oh, bird three: As it is friction less it also makes an excellent heat shield for entering planet's atmosphere from Space. And it's still energy that it's absorbing. Chances are that it would be burned out! Plus, if you were going to be a slavic conformist and go purely from the 'fluff', one could question whether the Thunderhawk has ever used shields? Furthermore, again I say why include a system that if removed invalidates all the design. One word: redundancy. Those aren't wings they're anti-gav systems! Whatever... Talk to the hand... CG/AG logic has already been discussed with the Thunderhawk and determined to be necessary as it stands. The problem with wings is that the need a decent atmosphere to function and on thin atmosphere worlds they're a bit useless especially with a heavy tank that thinks it can bird. Worlds with Thin atmospheres do tend to have less mass... Conversely on thick atmosphere worlds friction is a big problem (not with those shields though!). Assuming that they are frictionless. Assume. You know what they say about that. So the Thunderhawk doesn't have wings, but heavily armoured pylons housing anti-gav systems and fat guns on the end. Again the reliance on CG/AG has already been discussed. It also invalidates all concepts of wings for lift, the unstreamlined nature of the Thunderhawk, etc. Methinks that there is a slight conflict of imagery and argument...  |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 27, 2004 13:01:03 GMT -5
I made the whole powershields on a Thunderhawk thing up, I was just making a point that with a bit of inagination anything goes. Even a brick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 27, 2004 13:25:59 GMT -5
Oh, that's a given. The discussion in that regard is pretty much ended with the concept of an 'unstreamlined' vessel operating with CG/anti-grav systems to make up for the lack of lift surfaces. The parallel question was more why you would bother doing so when it really doesn't take that much imagination to create a vehicle with significant cargo carrying capacity that also has lift surfaces... Hercules transports... Galaxy transports... |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 27, 2004 13:33:18 GMT -5
Easy to shot down. Bricks are roubust.
And the shield thing help when entering the atmosphere, and you could have a very long nose cone in 'powershields' but when it came to parking, you could tunr them off. If you are going to use powershield anyway, why bother making it 'streamlined'?
|
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Jul 27, 2004 13:50:24 GMT -5
So that it isn't ripped apart instantly by shear forces when the shield fails at Mach 26.
So that you can carry a heavier load into/from orbit because of the additional lift.
Because if you put a shield around the whole front of the vessel, your control options narrow down to using maneuvering thrusters and altering the shield geometry on the fly.
Because the shield may stop bullets but I doubt it will BFG scale weaponry at BFG speeds, so you're putting a presumably heavy and expensive system onboard a ship when that system will have no useful purpose in ex-atmosphere engagements, increasing cost and decreasing lift capacity.
For that matter, countergrav systems, unless they can be used for propulsion and not just lift, will be no use in space, so rather than CG the better answer is to give it more powerful thrusters, which will always be effective.
And because if the Imperium had a device that can create a field capable of deflecting Mach 26 air that is ionized to plasma by the velocity of the incoming Thunderhawk, one would think the technology would have certain obvious applications for Imperial armored vehicles - at the very least, on a Baneblade.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 27, 2004 23:16:19 GMT -5
So that it isn't ripped apart instantly by shear forces when the shield fails at Mach 26. It would be ripped apart at Mach 26 no matter how streamlined you make it. Not in thin atmosphere you wont. Sounds good, I like it. Everything bounces of powerfields that why they use them! The powerfields act as defence, even in Space. Anti-grav because it has to work in atmosphered worlds, and it has to work well. After all it is duel roll, I wounder if it can submerge like a submarine? You'd think wouldn't you... Maybe the fields deflect small object more efficiently, more surface area to work with? Maybe it only has to deflect ordinace when it is much lower in the atmosphere and has slowed considerably, and wizz along at 100+m above ground level at Mach 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 27, 2004 23:24:44 GMT -5
CG systems do, however, provide a nice and easy way of getting back the other way... |
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 27, 2004 23:30:59 GMT -5
Why not use the power field to create wings, power field wings there you go simple, provide lift, act as a heat sheild.
They must have some grasp of field dynamics it couldn't be that hard to shape them into wings
|
|
|
|
Post by Tynesh on Jul 27, 2004 23:54:22 GMT -5
The reason the Thunderhawk looks like it does is because the person who originally drew one had no understanding of what we are now talking about...ie basic physics.
Oh BTW this is Science Fiction, meaning it doesn't have to make sense:D
Hmmmm just wondering....the space shuttle travels at 40,000km/h through the atmosphere. This is surely more than Mach 26. And it has only broken up once on re-entry and that was because its surfaces were damaged.??
|
|
