 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. |
 December 15, 2007 - 5:48pm | Well, your game, your rules, of course, but IMHO an aircar is not a front line combat vehicle, no matter how souped-up. An Aircar is supposed to use some form of electric VTOL propuslion. Electrical propulsion suggests fans for propulsion. There is a limit to how much power you can get from a fan, no matter how efficent the electrical motor behind it, there is a simple correlation between input energy and output thrust - a fan is not good for going fast. That's why we use jets - burning jet fuel is a good way to get a LOT of thrust from an engine. Sure, there are other ways to do it, various types of rocket engines and even hydrogen turbines and turbo jets, but electrics won't cut the mustard. Plus, if the aircar is souped up to the point where it's performace exceeds or equals a jet fighter, aren't we just arguing over a name? The principle is the same, we have a specialised vehicle designed for operation in an atmosphere. Aircar, aircraft - they are both doing the same job. As far as pirate fighter vs aerospace fighter - if the pirate has those groovy sensors, why not the PC's vehicle? Also, I'd say that weapons designed to work in space would have a massivly reduced range in an atmosphere. Some, particle accelerators, for instance, may not work at all (particle accelerators designed to work in a vacum use a different principle to those in an atmosphere). Missiles in space don't need the streamlining that terrestrial missiles do, nor do they use the same finst for steering that amospheric missiles would. You could launch your space missiles to find them corcscrewing all over the sky, out of control. G. |
December 15, 2007 - 5:48pm | Plus, of course, Jet Fighters are just sooooo coooool (hums Top Gun tune) G. |
 December 27, 2007 - 8:26pm | Well now days with more knowledge in our hands, and because of the limits of electric and battery powered things. It would probably be safer to say either a parabattery holds much more power than batteries today as we know them or the aircars are actually powered by a hydrogen-fuel cell. I favor the hydrogen-fuel cell idea myself. See if you can boost that aircar into near orbit then. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
December 29, 2007 - 8:08pm | No, you can't. Electrics, and a fuel cell still produces electricity, can't produce enough thrust. You have to use a fan or turbine with electrics, since there is no combustion. Jets are used because they are able to pruduce thrust in the order of tens to hundreds of times more powerful than any form of propellor, impellor, fan or even turbine. Its the expoulsion of the combusting gasses that make jets so poweful, and rockets even moreso. Aircars using electrical engines may be efficent and clean, but fast they will never be. G. |
January 12, 2008 - 1:47pm | New idea then, a jetcar. Like the aircar only powered by a hydrogen fuel cell jet engine. Although why even have a jetaircraft when the job can be done just as well or better with a UAV All this got me thinking about the common ground car in SF. Small, light and electrical powered by a parabattery, why? This is SF and the tech in it is or claerly should be much greater than our own by leaps and bounds. And I just thought in SF they might be able to create a much more efficient solar panel and could power the ground cars by solar energy. Hover cars and air car would still require a parabattery for use. Of course the driving range will be reduced at night or low light condition, but it makes a reasons for any advance civilization to still have low budget ground cars on the road while the richer people are in hover cars. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 January 12, 2008 - 3:14pm | Jetcopter versus supercopter video... The second video is hilarious. :) |
 March 22, 2008 - 6:49am | Here is the problem with manned fighters in general. Todays fighters have reached the limits of human ability to withstand g-forces. While it is fairly un-romantic, it seems that the drone, or UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) idea would have replaced manned fighters by the time of Star Frontiers. Aircars and such would be needed for transportation, but would not be effective for vehicle to vehicle combat. An unmanned vehicle would only be limited in maneuverability by material strenght and laws of physics where the manned vehicle would be limited by the human occupant. Anybody who knows a little bit about air combat knows that, once you get past stand off range and into an actual dog fight, the keys to victory are turning inside your opponent and manintaining energy. Besides that, the price of UCAV's in space would be significantly lower due to the lack of accomodations for biological organizims. No oxygen, no g-compensation, no partial pressurization, no armor to protect the organism, etc. I also have to agree with the superiority of a space worthy vehicle over one strictly restricted to atmospheric operation. The space vehicle would just have to survive long enough to out climb the air vehicle than take advantage of look down shoot down guided weapons and attack with impunity. Further, you could take off from one continent, and be in another continent 30 minutes later vs the hours that it would take for the atmospheric vehicle. You are right that in a conventional dog fight the space vehicle would be at a dis-advantage, but the only time that should come up is if the space vehicle operator is caught by surprise, or is just plain dumb. |
March 22, 2008 - 6:54am | After I posted that, I started think about the potential supeirority of Dralisites in manned dog fights. The limits of g-forces woud be significantly different for a Dral than for any of the other races. I need to think about this more, but that could be a huge advantage! |
 March 22, 2008 - 10:41am | That's a good point. |
 March 22, 2008 - 11:15am | Here is the problem with manned fighters in general. Todays fighters have reached the limits of human ability to withstand g-forces. While it is fairly un-romantic, it seems that the drone, or UCAV (unmanned combat air vehicle) idea would have replaced manned fighters by the time of Star Frontiers. Aircars and such would be needed for transportation, but would not be effective for vehicle to vehicle combat. An unmanned vehicle would only be limited in maneuverability by material strenght and laws of physics where the manned vehicle would be limited by the human occupant. Anybody who knows a little bit about air combat knows that, once you get past stand off range and into an actual dog fight, the keys to victory are turning inside your opponent and manintaining energy. Besides that, the price of UCAV's in space would be significantly lower due to the lack of accomodations for biological organizims. No oxygen, no g-compensation, no partial pressurization, no armor to protect the organism, etc. I also have to agree with the superiority of a space worthy vehicle over one strictly restricted to atmospheric operation. The space vehicle would just have to survive long enough to out climb the air vehicle than take advantage of look down shoot down guided weapons and attack with impunity. Further, you could take off from one continent, and be in another continent 30 minutes later vs the hours that it would take for the atmospheric vehicle. You are right that in a conventional dog fight the space vehicle would be at a dis-advantage, but the only time that should come up is if the space vehicle operator is caught by surprise, or is just plain dumb. As someone who works with robotic manufacutring devices(CNC systems), I have to disagree with your first graf. In the long run, it's cheaper to pay, train, house, feed and train living pilots than it is to maintain(and build) drone craft. Your second graf, on the other hand, is spot on. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
March 22, 2008 - 5:08pm | Do you disagree with the whole first paragraph, or just the part about expense? I'm curioius. I can see where it might cost more long term. But the stuff about g limitations is tough to argue. |
March 23, 2008 - 11:28am | The agility essential is only a problem when you have front mounted weapons. Traveller has grav powered tanks that fly and don't give a hoot about an agile aircraft out-turning them - they turn the turret to track it. The same is true for the Deltas and Cutters of Walter Jon Williams "Hardwired". 30mm Gatling pop-turets and chemical laser ball turrets shred nearby aircraft with impunity. G. |
March 24, 2008 - 10:06am | Do you disagree with the whole first paragraph, or just the part about expense? I'm curioius. I can see where it might cost more long term. But the stuff about g limitations is tough to argue. The expense. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 March 26, 2008 - 1:37pm | Hydrogen fueled fuel cells can't be jets. Fuel Cells work by stripping electrons off of fuel crossing through a membrane and oxidizing without combustion. You can burn hydrogen in a jet (it's not much more efficient than burning hydrocarbons, BTW), but there is little point. A Jet works by combustion: the rapid oxidization of a substance to generate large volumes of high temperature exhaust. Hydrogen fueled jets require a number of extra, heavier safety features. So, realistically, any advanced fighter will be a jet, probably burning some high grade vegetable based diesel. Helos, as a rule, are highly agile, low to mid subsonic, and within that realm, exceedingly useful. Aircars might just replace many of those roles. Craft like the V22 Osprey, especially if fusion becomes reasonable, may replace the other end. (Small light fusion makes the V22 capable of being a pure electric design... Whoo Hoo!!) The only electric jet that's shown any promise at all is the use of water (which expands 26:1 when flash vaporized) in some form of electric heater. And it still is not practical at the moment. SFAD's powercells are described as some form of field storage system. |
March 27, 2008 - 5:10pm | As far as jetcopters in Star Frontiers go, the limit on the speed of helo's has been stated here already. When they exceed a certain speed, the blade that is traveling forward becomes supersonic through the airflow creating a shockwave, and the aft moving blade isn't generating lift because the relative airspeed of the blade is almost nil. I can see where it would be possible to mitigate the supersonic shockwave problem in some future scenario. They have managed to greatly mitigate it with wing shapes in fixed wing aircraft now. So, I can see where shapes and laminar flow materials may be able to overcome that problem. The stalling issue is harder, but if you used counter rotating blades, then you would have one moving forward on each side to even out the lift side to side. |
March 27, 2008 - 6:53pm | Will: The expense part is dropping rapidly on Autonomous Combat Vehicles. Sufficiently so that the next generation is likely to never put a real pilot in a combat fightercraft. |
March 28, 2008 - 6:02pm | I definitely believe that the F-35 will be the last manned fighter that the US puts in the air. |
April 1, 2008 - 8:35am | The initial expense part Aramis, or the(long-term) maintenance expense part? Then, there's the cost of calling in an outside robot/computer tech, when the silly thing doesn't do what you want it to(which will be often and every frickin' day....), the replacement cost for new ACVs[when the old ones get shot down], the issue of move, countermove and obselence in terms of software(unless a true heuristic system is put into the field sometime soon)and hardware, the inevitable cutting of corners to deliver an ACV project on time and under budget.... "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
April 1, 2008 - 1:44pm | A civilian jetcopter would not likely have the expensive remote hardware. A civilian would want one in order to go where he needs to be in a short time. |
April 2, 2008 - 9:38pm | The initial expense part Aramis, or the(long-term) maintenance expense part? Considering the ACVs (Autonomous Combat Vehicles) and RPCVs (Remote Piloted Combat Vehicles) are already in deployment in limited cases, and more and better ones are in development... Both. The added expense of 4 enlisted men is generally comparable to one pilot with flight status... and he gets sea pay, too, if on a carrier... and the beasties in question require fewere mechanics than manned craft, and don't need LS techs. |
April 3, 2008 - 4:23pm | Have any of you heard about the Little Bird helicopter that can be manned or flown remotely from an Apache helicopter? What do you think of a SF idea of small UAV to escort slower manned vehicles like aircars? I generally agree the F-35 might be the U.S.'s last manned fighter, but there could always be a need to protect vehicles that transports a crew. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
