T-Birds, Images of...? Options

[Ed_209a]

When I think of the "spirit" of the Thunderbird concept, I am reminded of the Mi-24 Hind assault transport helo.

[Kurukami]

See, I'd always pictured T-birds more like the dropship from Aliens.

[nezumi]

[Cray74]

[Req]

Ground effect would be theoretically functional with a lifting body design as well, I'd think. Course I'm no engineer, but I was under the impression that any design which is capable of generating lift simply does so more effectively when close to the ground. Perhaps a lifting body wouldn't be enough to let one of these things fly, but generates enough lift within ground effect to overcome some or most of the mass?

I add another category in my games, aerodynes or AVs. From CP202x, these things are more direct decendants of the Harriers and the like; flying bricks. They don't really bother with ground effect and are designed solely for brute force flight. They fill some of the same role that helos do nowadays - mostly ground attack and small-group transport, albeit with much higher signature and fuel consumption, and with greater speed. I'd put the Aliens dropship in the AV category.

[Seville]

My point is, and I'll admit in my first post I was a little tongue in cheek, is that the T-Bird offers no practical advantage. Yes, it can fly in ground effect (ground effect, by the way, usually works only half an airfoils span above the ground, so the smaller the wing, the closer to the ground you have to be). Yes, a lifting body has many advantages (part of which is stealth, which is why the B-2 and F-117 are pretty much flying wings, and also reduces the forward thrust required for flight, in the case of the F-16). But, and this may come as a shock, the best airplanes are airplane-shaped.

The amount of thrust required for a ground effect vehicle, or a hover vehicle (which aerodynamically are two completely different concepts) makes them inpractical as aircraft. WIG aircraft are primarily tested as watercraft, as they can make good alternatives to high-speed, short range boats, not contending with the surface tension of water. (Ground effect, by the way, does not increase Lift over Drag as much as increase both, resulting in wings moving remarkably slow and still producing lift, but also increasing the power required to maintain such a speed). But as something designed for close air support, the tilt wing design, jump jet and helicopter, as well as traditional aircraft, eliminate the practicality of an aircraft that relies on vertical thrust for lift. The numbers are just staggeringly against it. For example, a C-5 can take off with over 800,000 pounds on four engines producing about 160,000 pounds of thrust. The efficency of aerodynamic lift over vertical thrust is so great that only in cases of rocketry, where aerodynamic lift cannot be produced at high altitudes does it become a viable form of propulsion.

Now, lifting body technology is very viable, but these aircraft are very similar in theory to traditional fixed wing aircraft, in that forward thrust overcomes drag and produces lift. But the description of a T-Bird is, as others have mentioned, brute force, ground cushion (not ground effect), and at high speeds, some aerodynamic lift (but not enough to keep it airborn without vertical thrust). This just cannot compete with the advantages of helicopters in terms of efficency, or VTOL airplanes (such as the harrier) in terms of versatility.

By the way, the only 2 VTOLs we have in the United States are the Harrier and the Osprey (the later still in testing). Marines call the Harrier the Widowmaker, and it has one of the highest accident rates of any military aircraft. The Osprey is likewise grounded, after they killed several crews.

[Shadow]

[Cray74]

[Seville]

On the subject of the Harrier, I realize I implied it was grounded, when in actuality, that is not the case. The Replacement Air Group (or whatever its called now) was drastically scaled back, and the harrier's mission limited, with the use of safer, more cost effective planes. That information comes from the various harrier pilots who never joined an operational unit, because the Marines didn't fly the plane often enough to justify more pilots and were slow to close the pipeline.

On the subject of the Osprey, I assure you that the program at least was grounded for a period of time, and if it has been restarted, it is within the last year. In 2001 a series of crashes revealed several flaws in the design (which I cannot speak intelligently on) and the program was ground until they figured out why the plane is sometimes unable to go from VTOL to forward thrust operations. On the subject of popularity, I can only speak of a supposed reputation it has with Marines for its lack of payload and armament, and from first hand experience as a pilot to say it has a terrible reputation in general among military pilots, at least in the Air Force (and we didn't lose nearly as many people as the marines).

As to the merits of a T-Bird, I apologize for applying the problems of reality to the game world. All I was merely saying is that the T-Bird design is, in reality inefficient and impractical to the point of near impossibility. In game, I think they're cool. But as far as a realistic design (V-Thrust used for sustained aerodynamic flight), it will never be practical

[Cray74]