T-Birds, Images of...? Options

[Diesel]

What the heck do these things look like? I always imagined just bigger harriers but from what I understand, they're not. Any sources?

[Kanada Ten]

Tank

Light Support SCLAV SPT-1 "Wolfshund"

Hover Tank

[Eindrachen]

I've always seen them as generally like hovercraft, but much more sleek and aerodynamic, with Harrier-like thrusters on the sides.

[Ol' Scratch]

Most Thunderbirds look like giant boxes with stubby wings. You can see one in the second set of colored pages in the main sourcebook (the one with the female Fixer/Johnson and troll bodyguard, and I think there's one in Rigger 3, too.

Jump Jet Fighters are the Harriers of Shadowrun.

[Diesel]

Okay, thank you.

I don't understand how they fly, but sure, I'll buy that! :D

[Ol' Scratch]

They don't rely on aerodynamics to fly. T-birds rely on brute jet power to stay aloft and fly. :)

[Tanka]

Quote taken from The (Neo-Anarchist's) Guide to Real Life

[Ol' Scratch]

Uh, a semiballistic is a completely different vessel, Tanka. :)

Rigger 3, p. 108:

Thunderbirds have stubby auxiliary wings and rely almost entirely on jet propulsion to provide lift and thrust. Without adequate power, t-birds becoming flying (or more precisely, falling) bricks. Consequently, thunderbirds generally have short ranges and tremendous fuel requirements.

In most militaries, thunderbirds are used for short-range close air support, as well as armor support in terrain not suited to tank maneuvers. In these applications, t-birds are heavily armored and fitted with machine guns and assault cannons in place of rockets and missiles.

[Tanka]

In that case, my post is bunk. Ignore it. ;p

Edit: I was thinking a T-bird was a sort of plane, not a military style "You drive the thing and me, Joe, Bob, Robby, Rick, Tony, and the rest of the crew fires the guns." kind of thing.

[Seville]

Am I alone in thinking that T-Birds were a post awakening invention? Because apart from magic... there is no way that thing would fly (at least practically).

They are still, as Cartman would say, hella kewl though.

[Kagetenshi]

Not true. Burn enough fuel to do it and anything will fly.

~J

[Eindrachen]

VTOL is certainly in the realm of existing technology, but it's expensive, and normally only for military applications.

A Harrier jet, if stripped of it's heavy weaponry, and slightly redesigned, might be capable of carrying a couple of passengers, or maybe some regular cargo. As technology improves, and the ratio of fuel needed to create thrust lowers, eventually the vehicle won't need wings for lift and direction control.

However, it'd be far more economical to make it at least somewhat aerodynamic, if only to squeeze more speed out of it, and it probably wouldn't hurt to make it have a little bit of lift at certain speeds.

For example, a variation of the flying-wing design could make it mostly wingless, but still give it some lift, and a more elongated look/design that is identical to the standard SR t-bird.

But who cares? T-birds are an idea: a really fast VTOL craft that don't have low altitude, to make those nice cinematic runs/chases in the wilderness (and, once in a while, through the city)...

[Seville]

Depends on what you mean by fly...

Strictest sense, yes, I put on more ounce of thrust directly under the center of gravity of a brick than it weighs, it will go up. But as far as aerodynamic flight (as opposed rocketry) then a T-Bird has no business being airborne.

Its not so much impossibility as it is inpracticality. A flying plane, in order to maintain level flight, needs to generate more lift than its weight, but in powered flight, almost 100% of lift is aerodynamic (with a slight amount of thrust producing lift if the longitudinal axis of the engine is at a positive angle to the ground, but unless your flying an F-15, this is minimal). The lift counteracts the weight, but lift inherently produces drag (most drag on an airplane is actually induced drag, that is component of lift in the opposite direction of relative velocity). In order to maintain straight and level unaccellerated flight, all you need is enough thrust to overcome the drag produced. Even in helicopters this is true, its just the act of moving the wing (the rotor) is less efficient than moving a fixed wing.

The problem with a T-Bird is that you don't overcome drag (which is far less than weight) with thrust, but the weight itself. For example, if I were flying a hundred pound pane and the lift vector was 10 degrees off the relative wind/velocity, then I would need a total lift equivilent of about 102 pounds to maintain straight & level flight(because the equivilent of 2 pounds is not pointed down). But, once I was in straight and level unaccelerated flight, I would only need thrust to overcome drag (which is 2 and whatever the rest of my non-aerodynamic drag is).

The problem with the T-Bird is that in addition to all that non-aero drag, I would need to overcome the entire weight, which would be about 100, or 50 times as much as if I were using a wing. Now, that would mean the T-Bird would need to carry 50 times the fuel, which would increase the weight, which would...

And for what? Manuerability won't increase, because direct thrust, as shown is less efficent than direct thrust, and you can't trade speed for altitude (a fundemental flying principle). Helos can hover, and tilt-wings can go as fast, and even jump jets are more practical (as they only use directed thrust during take off and landing and special manuevers). There's no niche for a T-Bird to fill, other than just being cool as hell.

So long answer short: I have no pictures of T-Birds. Sorry.

[Cray74]

[Eindrachen]

Wow. Guess that kinda makes sense, but still...

Jeez, that opens all manner of possibilities now. Thanks for that post; it's a real eye-opener.

[Birdy]

Side note(s):

There is at least one VTOL carco design from Dornier dating to the late 50s/early 60s, designed to compete with C160 Transall / C130 Herkules

Harriers do just fine with zero forward speed. Only the ground might get a bit hot...

There is the Wing in Ground (WIG) effect that produces a "cushion" of air to float on.

There was the DC-X spaceship demonstrator with no wings at all.


Technically a T-Bird is doable if you play with hull forms to capture some ground effect to enhance lift. Just don't leave the area

Birdy

[nezumi]

Another idea to keep in mind is that if, instead of having wings, you shape the entire body of the craft to conforum to Bournelli's principle, you will get some lift (effectively making the body of the craft into the wing). It won't be nearly as efficient as having real wings, but at higher speeds it'll alleviate some of the weight. Secondly, you don't actually need wings or even an engine to get airborne, you just need to keep the air pressure above the craft lower than the pressure below the craft. If you attach enough vacuum cleaners to the top of the craft you might be able to get it airborne (don't quote me on this, I have no idea how much suction vacuum cleaners actually provide). It's very possible that the craft somehow sucks, moves or freezes the air on the top of the craft while heating, adding to or otherwise increasing the pressure of the air below it.

[cleggster]

Back to the question.
There were some pictures of the banshee in the RBB. I don't know if they are avaliable on line anyware. I don't have a scanner.

It wan't really a tankthough . It had a small turett of to the side. There was a drawing and a CG picture of it. Sleek looking but small. It's more in line with light armor than a tank. I would hate to fire a really large gun from a hovering platform. (see Sgt. Bilko).

On the other hand, the same book and a picture for a MBT that hovered and fired a rail gun. :huh:

[Corywn]

For me personally, This is a T-bird. Admittedly it utilizes wing-lift more than an SR T-bird should, but at the core that's still basically what it is.

[Ol' Scratch]

That's more of a jump-jet styled UAV with a seat. T-birds are pretty huge (Body 6).

[Kagetenshi]

That thing (the one in the January test movie, specifically) looks almost identical to the unidentified aircraft on the cover of New Seattle.

~J

[Lilt]

Here is a good page on wing-in-ground (WIG on this page) vehicles. Looking at the 550 ton WIG vehicle the russians made in 1961, I have no problem believeing that land and air-worthy T-Birds would be possible in the 2060s.

[Req]

I've always assumed that T-birds make extremely heavy use of wing-in-ground effect, and make up the rest with brute thrust. Enough that a T-bird could "pop up" for a quick strike or to avoid obstacles, but spend the vast majority of their time within 10' of the ground or so.

If the fuel economy problem was solved they'd make fantastic hit-and-fade or force recon vehicles. I don't really get the Shadowrun use for them as smuggler craft, but it's hella cool so ok. :)

[Kagetenshi]

They're big, they're loud, they're almost painfully obvious—of course they're going to be a wildly popular smuggler craft.

~J

[Cray74]