Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: T-Birds
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
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! biggrin.gif
Ol' Scratch
They don't rely on aerodynamics to fly. T-birds rely on brute jet power to stay aloft and fly. smile.gif
Tanka
Quote taken from The (Neo-Anarchist's) Guide to Real Life

QUOTE
A semiballistic plane takes off like a normal plane, but uses only some of its engines for liftoff.  As soon as it clears the ground and moves a regulation distance from the city, it angles its nose until the plane is standing almost on its tail, then fires high-power engines to throw itself out almost to earth orbit.[snip]


There you have it. Well, if you consider a T-bird a semiballistic, that is.
Ol' Scratch
Uh, a semiballistic is a completely different vessel, Tanka. smile.gif

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
QUOTE (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). 


Yes, there's several ways it would "fly."

Tbirds like the Banshee use 3 methods to stay aloft, and not all at the same time.

1) Brute thrust, but they don't go anywhere with that
2) Air Cushion/Ground Effect, and they go places fast with that, but low enough to decapitate any caterpillar that didn't duck
3) Lifting body and stub wings for "normal" flight with a very high stall speed

The TBird's use of the ground effect is discussed on page 69 of Rigger 3 (Unrevised), under the section "Stall Speed".

First, the Brute Thrust:

"Althought the engines of a t-bird allow it to levitate at a relatively low altitude, they do not have enough power to provide both lift and forward thrust."

Second, Air Cushion:

"However, when flying very close to the ground, a t-bird gains some auxiliary lift due to the ground-effects of air cushioning (the same method of lift that keeps hovercraft floating a few centimeters off the ground).

Third, Stub Wings:

"Consequently, a t-bird does not need to rely on its auxiliary wings and so does not have a stall speed near ground level."

Flight without wings is quite possible if you keep your speed up, have a lifting body, and have powerful engines. The Israelis proved that with an F-15.

http://www.usrcjc.org/photogallery/wingles...ess_landing.htm

http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/image...es/F15Wing1.jpg

http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/image...es/F15Wing2.jpg

(Sorry, I've been wanting to share those pics.)
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. question.gif
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. smile.gif
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
QUOTE (cleggster)
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).

Small? I thought the Banshee was around 30 tons. And it has more armor than most APCs; a body of 6 indicates it's sizable by Rigger 3 standards.

Plus, the Stonewall WAS an MBT T-bird, and that's also pictured in the RBB...

AH-HAH!!! Found an on-line, canon t-bird picture, the Stonewall:

http://members.tripod.com/~SirTenzan/RIFTS...tstonewall.html

Unfortunately, it's being used for a Rifts vehicle in that link, but that's the SR Stonewall alright. RBB wrote up the Stonewall as a full-scale MBT, with massive armor and all that fun.

QUOTE (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.


Wing-in-ground effect is a variation of the ground effect that requires wings. T-birds, like the Stonewall above, don't have much in the way of wings. wink.gif Those are more like "side walls" used on some ocean-going surface effect vehicles.

But generally speaking, yes, t-birds make use of ground effect lift. Rigger 3 so spoketh unto us, and it was good.
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
QUOTE (Req)
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. smile.gif

That is a pretty neat site, although my five second glance (cutting bits off the URL) didn't show much on the physics behind it, which I was curious about. I'll probably check it out later.

I can certainly understand why those types of craft are ideal for smugglers. Smugglers don't much care about making noise, by the time you hear the thing its gone. They do care about a low radar signature (by keeping low to the ground), being fast, the ability to carry plenty of cargo and VTOL. Fuel economy is solved by charging lots more (its nice having a monopoly). Of course, the coolness factor can't be ignored either...

And I agree, I think the Aliens dropship is a dang cool image for a thunderbird.
Cray74
QUOTE (Kurukami)
See, I'd always pictured T-birds more like the dropship from Aliens.

Nope. More like tanks and APCs with the heart of a Harrier.

Did you/do you have the old Rigger Black Book?
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
QUOTE (Seville)
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.

A quick search on the web reveals two things. Neither aircraft are grounded, and the V-22 Osprey is incredibly popular with pilots. No new aircraft is without it's fatalities, that's why test pilots make so much money of of them. There were 6 fatalities in the stealth program, I think a dozen in the U-2 program. The Osprey gets more attention cause it often has a crew and passengers that get hurt or killed. But the design of the aircraft is sound.

There is a company in Utah that has been contracted to retrofit C-130's to make use of a VTOL idea, essentially adding a big folding blade to the roof of the bird. I am not sure the point of this ramble but I wanted people to know that VTOL and Tilt-Wing are alive and well.

Cray74
QUOTE (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. 


Actually, in Shadowrun, it does. Have you noted how there are 1000kph main battle tanks and 1000kph APCs thanks to LAVs?

The Stonewall is not a well-armed, well-armored aircraft like an Apache or Hind, it is a thickly armored ("with enhanced paranatural resistance") main battle tank equipped with railgun fit for long-range artillery support. The Banshee is a fast, heavily armed scout and raider that is faster, better armored, and better armed than any helicopter.

QUOTE
This just cannot compete with the advantages of helicopters in terms of efficency, or VTOL airplanes (such as the harrier) in terms of versatility


Are you speculating based on reality, or commenting on game stats?

QUOTE
and at high speeds, some aerodynamic lift (but not enough to keep it airborn without vertical thrust).


Where did you read LAVs need vertical thrust to stay airborne when moving at high speeds and high altitudes?

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

QUOTE (Seville)
As to the merits of a T-Bird, I apologize for applying the problems of reality to the game world.

You DARE?!!?! eek.gif

wink.gif


QUOTE
But as far as a realistic design (V-Thrust used for sustained aerodynamic flight), it will never be practical


Where do you get the need for vertical thrust for aerodynamic flight? LAVs specifically have wings for high speed flight. They don't need vertical thrust until they drop below their stall speed.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012