 November 22, 2007 - 1:18am | Just an FYI --- I stumbled upon this recently. Lockheed had an experimental craft back in the early1960s that would take off like a helicopter and the rotors would disengage in order for a turbine and wings to take over like an airplane. About 20 years before the birth of Star Frontiers, we had actual jetcopters that really worked. A total of two were made for the US Air Force, the first sported a three-blade rotor that proved instable during turbine mode at higher speeds when tested in late 1962, so the second was outfitted with a four blade rotor. The second version was clocked at just over 300mph in 1965. |
 November 22, 2007 - 7:34am | Live to Jet Copter-ride FFR---Forever Four Rotors!! Mess with the fish....you get the bone!!! |
 November 23, 2007 - 10:23am | Yeah, the early Airwolf is what comes to my mind as well. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 November 23, 2007 - 1:05pm | Live to Jet Copter-ride FFR---Forever Four Rotors!! lol. Forever Fish Bone - FFB |
November 23, 2007 - 4:15pm | Airwolf! A little teaser flashback for you. :Dhttp://www.airwolfthemes.com/mp3/cd1-01_opening-theme.mp3 |
 November 23, 2007 - 6:34pm | A little teaser flashback for you. :D Aw man, that's some top-notch, pulp-heroic, 80's tv series music. Right up there with the Theme to Knight Rider. ;) |
 November 23, 2007 - 7:35pm | Check out the whispercraft from 6th day as well - true jetcopter concept and darn sexy looking: http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/WhispercraftCataloguePage.htm G. |
November 25, 2007 - 7:04pm | Is that what those things from the 6th Day were called? Damn cool looking things. The way the rotor locked and became the wings was inventive, I wonder if such an idea is possible. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 November 25, 2007 - 8:14pm | The wisper craft are far more feasible getting a helo to ludicris speeds then that sad TV abomination, that thing is just not going to ever happen. The XH-51 compound was a nice Army-Navy project and many lessens were learned on rotor designs but in the end the project was chucked due to the issues that just weren't getting resolved (for military applications) and even the civilian sector saw little intrest in it, last time saw the two prototypes in flyable condition they were at Ft. Rucker but that was about twenty years ago and they should still be at the army aviation museum now but they are rather trashed after so many years of neglect. I was piloting AH-64s back when Star Frontiers was first released so it's a given that wasn't much impressed with the games "jet chopper".  The Wisper craft would be decendants of the S-72 RSRA Sikorsky X-wing, with its blades locking in mid flight after the jets took the flight load. The wisper craft concept is the way I'd go for a better and far more reliable "jet chopper" in the game, would inherintly have easy storage and transport that seriously out does the standard rotor system by leaps and bounds. An if anyone cares FYI, all turbine driven helos have been called "jet choppers". |
November 25, 2007 - 10:00pm | With what they learned from the construction of the non-aerodynamic stealth fighter and stealth bomber, among other vehicles, I think they could easily design a jetcopter with less dependence on the tail rotor if they tried it again today. |
November 25, 2007 - 11:11pm | I have a MD600N helo that has no tail rotor now, newer Mc Donnal Douglas birds use the NOTAR (NO TAil Rotor) system, the system has been around for almost twenty years, it's safer, quieter and still maneuverable as hell. The technology is available, but it just isn't cost effective to get it to work. You still have turbines sucking down fuel like an alcoholic at all you can drink for a dollar night. My 600N goes through 40+gallons an hour (only has 115 gallong tank) and @ $4.99 /gallon for just the turbine running the rotor system much less A dedicated jet turbine as well your looking at one very thirsty lady. That's the hurdle you have to cross, it's goiong to be sucking down alot of fuel, all that fuel is takes up space and weight, both critical in any aircraft now or in the future. The whole thing has to be worth the $$, the geniuses thought the Commanche was a waste of money even thought it was superior to anything else in its mission role (scout attack) and boy could she haul ass. Once the bean counters look at the "jetcopter" concept design then take a look at the Lynx they will ask, why would we develope this if modern helos are approaching this performance level as it is now. The X-50 Dragonfly Canard rotor/wing UCAV design was cancelled last year after its prototypes didn't like trasitioning from blades to wings and decided to land hard, very hard, no more prototypes. There's still hurdles to cross but many corporations and agencies are very tired to throwing money at these programsthat are yeilding little return. Star frontiers would have had the problems solved long ago as it not only has the technology base but the corporate funding that we can only dream of having now. BTW for those who don't know what the "whisper craft" it's one of these (rotors shown in jet mode)  |
November 26, 2007 - 1:12pm | I believe what keeps traditional choppers, that is helos that use a rotor disk for lift and propulsion at all times, is that at high speeds you you can get the forward moving blade tips breaking the sound barrier, whilst the returning blade tips on the other side may actually be approaching stall speed, as they move "against" the direction of the disks travel, giving asymetric lift and stressing the heck out of the blades. The AHX-56 Comanche was designed for high speeds using substantial winglets to generate lift and a pusher prop to generate forward thrust, removing the stress from the rotor disk. G. |
November 26, 2007 - 3:44pm | Which is why rigid and semi rigid rotor systems which are then feathered in flight removing much of the BRAL (Blade Response Areodynamic Load) rotor load has been used. |
November 26, 2007 - 4:23pm | I think the design flaw lies in that they are trying to turn the rotors into wings. Treat the wings like reverse f-14 wings. That is, they tuck all the way in, and then can stretch out to appear like the whisper craft you just showed. The blades fold toward the back, the rotomotor retracts, and the folded blades merge into the tail, having zero impact on drag. |
November 26, 2007 - 8:03pm | Seriously over complicated and too long a transition time to make the blades completely dissapear. Would take some serious faith (I'm talking devine entity level faith) in the system to work with the pilot with such a transition system. the wisper craft is bad enough, but to include seperate wings and rotors your looking at a mechanical nightmare, and I'm sure as hades not going to pay for all that maintenance. I'd take one look at it and say "reminds me of the Osprey". No where near enough money in the galaxy to get me in that thing and go for a spin. In real life of course in SF pffft, no problem. |
November 26, 2007 - 8:41pm | It seems to me that they would extend the wings first and warm up the jets while slowing the blades and retracting them. When the blades slow to a certain speed, one blade stops, then the rest guide into place as they finish their rotation. As the last black comes into place, the jet goes to full burn. Well, it seems kind of meaningless to do a jetcopter to me anyway, seeing as they can have aircars. |
November 26, 2007 - 10:28pm | Well, it seems kind of meaningless to do a jetcopter to me anyway, seeing as they can have aircars. My thoughts exactly. That's why they are only found on low tech planets in our setting. They are as obsolete as one could get when you have aircars and transports, flit boards, floater disks and the like. A waste of resources really and the aircar thats running around today is nowhere near as complicated to operate as a helo, can't imagine the SF aircars to be any different. Tech level 2 to operate a jetcopter and level 4 for an aircar?  |
 November 30, 2007 - 10:56am | That's why they are only found on low tech planets in our setting. They are as obsolete as one could get when you have aircars and transports, flit boards, floater disks and the like. A waste of resources really and the aircar thats running around today is nowhere near as complicated to operate as a helo, can't imagine the SF aircars to be any different. Tech level 2 to operate a jetcopter and level 4 for an aircar? What aircar running around today are you refering to? So the Comanche (sp) was cancelled? I havn't been on the lookout for it, but I suspected as much. |
November 30, 2007 - 6:16pm | That's why they are only found on low tech planets in our setting. They are as obsolete as one could get when you have aircars and transports, flit boards, floater disks and the like. A waste of resources really and the aircar thats running around today is nowhere near as complicated to operate as a helo, can't imagine the SF aircars to be any different. Tech level 2 to operate a jetcopter and level 4 for an aircar? What aircar running around today are you refering to? So the Comanche (sp) was cancelled? I havn't been on the lookout for it, but I suspected as much. |
December 1, 2007 - 4:55am | That's why they are only found on low tech planets in our setting. They are as obsolete as one could get when you have aircars and transports, flit boards, floater disks and the like. A waste of resources really and the aircar thats running around today is nowhere near as complicated to operate as a helo, can't imagine the SF aircars to be any different. Tech level 2 to operate a jetcopter and level 4 for an aircar? What aircar running around today are you refering to? So the Comanche (sp) was cancelled? I havn't been on the lookout for it, but I suspected as much. Well the aircar isn't really running around, I don't even think it's for sale yet. But I think they might have been refering to this thing.  I'm sure you've seen it on Popular Mechanic magazine covers or some place. It's not as fast as SF aircars but it is a flying car. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
December 1, 2007 - 5:27am |
|
December 1, 2007 - 10:04am |
In the future, you'll stay on my good side if you don't treat me like a jackass, Art. That's why I stopped visiting your site. You think anyone who doesn't know everything is beneath you. I play here because it's not ArtEaton.org, and if it turns into ArtEaton.us, I'll leave this site as well. |
December 1, 2007 - 10:55am | I think he means they are called jetcopters because of a jet turbine is being used to power the rotors. You can hear the sound of them as they pass over head, the local hospital here has a medical jetcopter. We've heard it and at first think it's a jet until we hear the low thump of it's rotor blades. Although that makes the M1A1 Abrams a jet tank because a jet turbine powers it as well, I don't expect to see one take off and fly any time soon though. So let's not bicker over small details. Back to game use, yes I think aircars and transports would be more in use by more advance societies and militaries. Jetcopters would be used by groups like limited budget explorers, poor planetary militias, pirates and raiders. This can be used in game terms as SF AD book has aircars costing 10,000 more than a jetcopter, the parts would probably cost more as well though I'm not sure why. But when equiping a group this might be something to consider. I've seen plenty of sci-fi mainly in anime that mix aircars and jetcopters in the same tech levels. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 December 2, 2007 - 4:17pm | It seems air cars and jetcopters use pretty much the same rules for moving about... though the jetcopter is a bit slower and is 20% cheaper. It doesn't bother me to have both... adds variety and flavor to the setting. *shrug* I played in a campaign with someone back in the 90's (just a few play sessions) who took the opinion that air cars were domesticated vehicles, cut the price in half - and ruled that anyone could pilot it as long as you had at least Tech 1 skill level. It's your campaign - organize it however you like. And please treat people the way you'd like to be treated in the forums. 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
December 6, 2007 - 2:14pm | A possible other concern for the adventurers/military minded buyers of jetcopters vs. aircars would be survivability. Take out the power of a jetcopter and you can still autogyro down to an (arguably) safe landing. Take out an aircar's power and ride the rock straight down (glide ratio probly 1/10 or some such). Quote from the movie Red Flag (since we're on the subject of aircraft): "The F-4 (Phantom), our proof to the world that even a brick can fly if you put a big enough engine on it." |
 December 12, 2007 - 2:44pm | Airwolf may have been an implausible abomination, but it was my favorite show back in the 80s. I've read that someone has a script for an Airwolf movie already written. A plausible idea would be a helicopter that can pop its rotors off and activate jet or rocket engines. The drawback is that it would be unable to switch back and forth like Airwolf. The pilot might have to land with a stowed parachute and install a new set of rotors before he could take off again. |
December 12, 2007 - 5:41pm | In this discussion a thought has occured to me. I have seen on some SF fan sites and other sources vehicle rules for supersonic fighters. Why does SF even need an atmosphereic fighter/bomber when aircars and airtransports can do almost the same thing, granted they are slower. However a atmosphereic fighter/bomber can easily be replaced with a starfighter that can perform more roles as well, and a atmosphereic fighter is probably no match for a trans-atmosphereic starfighter either. Aircars make more sense from a limited area of operations point of view. Not to mention transport of a number of them would be easier, future technology looks for ways to make things smaller but work the same or better after all. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
December 13, 2007 - 12:12am | I think the big issue between SF jetcopters and modern day helos stems from internal combustion power versus electrical power. Electrical power is just as poor today as it was in the 1970s during the last oil crunch...the 1970s electric cars didn't go fast nor far. Just like today's modern electric cars that top out at 45-55mph and can go 40-50 miles. In 30+ years we've pretty much gone nowhere on this route. So it seems the distinction for SF is the electric fan turbine/rotor copter can go just as fast and just as far as our modern fuel burning counterparts despite any mediocrity of the actual design concept. Compare the rest of the vehicles and you'll see that they all go pretty far on a single charge (parabattery) but are still lacking in performance compared to modern cars/cycles etc. |
December 15, 2007 - 7:12am | I think you are still going to want a dedicated aerospace fighter for use inside a planets atmosphere. The requirements for a vehicle operating in space and the requirements for operating in an atmosphere are very different. A hybrid craft will always be worse than one designed soley to operate in one or the other environments. Aerospace craft will require lifting surfaces to generate lift and keep them in the air (the most efficent way to do so - much more so than VTOL (aircar) or rotors (jetcopter)), they will require streamlining to reduce drag and increase efficency and speed and will probably require stealthing to some degree. |
December 15, 2007 - 9:23am | But for a dedicated atmosphereic aircraft a really heavily souped up aircar modified for 1 man and the rest of the space dedicated to payload could be that areospace fighter. When you think about the tech advancement made things get smaller, in KH a starfighter is only 10 meters long. Not too much size different that an F-15 fighter today. Would it not be safe to think in SF they could build a small 1 man aircar that can perform the same way our fighters can today? You see I pulled this on some gamers once. They were going to hit a pirate base holding hostages on a civilized planet, the gov wasn't going to do it for reasons of coruption. They wanted an areospace fighter to make the raid after they scouted the base. The fighter ended up being shot down from beyond it's detection range by a pirate starfighter. After all we reasoned the starfighter is for shooting at targets in space from 40,000 km away, detecting an areospace fighter from low orbit should be no problem for it. So since they we've had to reason that any kind of SF atmosphereic aircraft should probably be smaller versions of today's aircraft. So the armed 1 man aircar hotrod became the new atmosphereic aircraft in our SF games. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
