Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[somemildmanneredidiot]

I'm for revising our jet tech, it's just a matter of figuring out how to specifically revise it to solve the complexity.

@Sensei: Is making a new Design Doctrine a Revision or a Design?

[andrea]

I just want to note, the gun will be cheap. Fortress Forenia!

[10ebbor10]

The Thunderbird's engines are relatively small, axial-flow turbojets, and they are somewhat crude in nature. The interior of the turbojet becomes extremely hot, necessitating high-temperature alloys, but failure of the turbine and even compressor blades has led to a design where they are relatively small, with large combustion chambers which burn lean in the middle, excess air is used for cooling. The high-temperature materials could probably stand to be improved. The two engines burn kerosene, and lots of it, and they sit in nacelles under the wings which are thickest in the middle, giving a sort of egg shape

Normal: 3
aT-J03: Subtle tweaks to the amount of metals in the alloy used for critical components of the aT-J01 jet engine, and a special forging process, have allowed higher rotational speeds and larger turbine and compressor blades. The improved engine is still small, but a single unit can provide as much thrust as the engine used in the Haast, while being lighter.

Hum, so the high temperature metals are a problem, though partially solved.

aTJ04

In an attempt to improve the ease of production of the engine, while also improving it's capabilities, Artotzkan metallurgists were brought on board the jet engine design project. They immediately suggests a series of significant improvements.

First, they note that Titanium will oxidize in high temperature environments. This results in significant brittleness and eventual violent disintegration of the engine. As such, they endeavor to reduce Titanium use within the engine to a minimum, making it both more reliable and more performant, as well as reducing titanium use. Other alloys, primarily aluminum and titanium based alloys, are used instead.

The compressor blades are left as they were, made primarily of titanium. In the engine inlets, temperatures are always sufficiently low that oxidation is not a problem, and titanium's strength and low weight are great advantages here.

The hot parts are replaced with a ferretic heat resistant steel aluminum alloy, which should dramatically improve engine life expectancy. The previous alloy suffered from severe oxidation problems, as well as creep and other sudden failures.

The Turbine blades with replaced with Chromadur. This steel-Chrome-Maganese alloy provides sufficient resistance at affordable price, once again allowing greater performance. It's also easier to produce, if more resource intensive.

Design goal :
1 . Remove complex Tag
2 . Increase Engine performance
3 . Increase expense by 1 Maganese, 1 Aluminum (on a twin engine fighter) to make previous changes easier

Basically, this brings our engine metallurgy up to late Nazi-era levels. While this by no means or indication good, it should be much better than what we're currently capable of. And most importantly, the Cannalan's don't have the resources to match.

[Devastator]

So is it a revision to remove the complex tag, or a design to improve mettalurgy?

[10ebbor10]

It's a revision to remove the complex tag by improving the metallurgy.

Complex Tags are removed by doing more stuff in that field of research. You're not supposed to waste a revision only on removing them.

[Devastator]

So it's a revision AND a design, then.

[10ebbor10]

No it isn't.

It doesn't do anything do anything near complex enough to justify being a design, let alone a design and a revision.

Just because I wrote a lot of detail doesn't mean a lot of stuff is in the design.

[Devastator]

Well, except counting as metallurgy research, removing a complex tag, and improving engine performance.  I could see getting one with a normal or easy difficulty, and two with a hard, but three sounds like a design or a very hard/impossible.

[RAM]

0 (RAM)Phased Death Ray radar:
0 (RAM)"P.J." HAFB bomber with jet engines:
0 (RAM)Bouncing Beans booster rockets:
0 (RAM)Archer pattern "R.B." rocket boat:
0 (10ebbor10)aTJ04 Jet engine:
0 ():
0 ():
0 ():
0 ():

[10ebbor10]

Well, except counting as metallurgy research, removing a complex tag, and improving engine performance.  I could see getting one with a normal or easy difficulty, and two with a hard, but three sounds like a design or a very hard/impossible.

Our last engine revision included improvements in metallurgy and improvements in engine performance and was normal, so that point is pointless.

An improvement in the metallurgy of the engine, especially of a jet engine which is limited by it's metallurgy, will automatically result in a performance improvement, so those two are one and the same.

And as I said before, [Complex] tags are solved automatically by research in the field. In the last game, we solved a complex tag on our biplane by solving an unrelated flaw on another part of the biplane.

I understand I confused you by using a complex explanation, but it's not because it's long explanation that it's a hard design.

Edit : Let's make a comparison.

Which should be harder :

Improve the engine without increasing resource costs.
Improve the engine by increasing resource costs.

[andrea]

but we don't want to increase resource cost.
at current price, if we manage to get one more TC it will be cheap. if you increase price when removing complexity, it will be stuck at expensive forever, without actually performing that much better.

[Devastator]

Removing a complex tag is reducing a resource cost, as more resources will cheapen goods that remain complex.  So it costs more than trying to improve performance without removing the complex tag.

Also, removing a complex tag by introducing new, experimental metallurgy sounds absurd.  If anything, developing new complicated techniques sounds like adding a complex tag.

You're reducing a resource cost by removing a complex tag, and improving performance, and developing new metallurgical techniques.  Three improvements with a revision is not normal cost.  I could see one or two.

Adding an 'if we fail add meaningless resource costs' to the engine is simply asking for a total success even if a bad result is rolled, by providing an easy out for a bad result that doesn't hurt the product.  It's an understandable attempt, but ignores the more obvious result of a poor roll of having it not work.  That's saying that a bad roll should still get everything designed.

[RAM]

If a single engine requires 1 aluminium... What is the costs of a craft with multiple jet engines?

[Light forger]

Lighting Manufacturing
A overall haul of how we make the engine aboard the thunderbird. This revised process streamlines the factories making the engines altering them to better suit how jet engines are made(A mix of highly skilled metallurgists and low skilled laborers as jet engine are easier to put together then piston engines). The blades and other high stress components used in the engines are now made in larger vats lowering the cost of the engines further. The end result is simple the engine can now be made as readily as piston engines removing the [complex] tag.

Ebbor your design defeat's it's own propose if the jet becomes any more expensive we can't make it cheap once we gain access to more resources.

[10ebbor10]

Also, removing a complex tag by introducing new, experimental metallurgy sounds absurd.  If anything, developing new complicated techniques sounds like adding a complex tag.

Where are you getting the new complex techniques from?

We've been using Maganese alloys for decades. It's not new, it's not complicated. We're improving the jet engine, not our knowledge of metallurgy.

Removing a complex tag is reducing a resource cost, as more resources will cheapen goods that remain complex.  So it costs more than trying to improve performance without removing the complex tag.

I'm going to put it in bold friendly letters this time, because you keep ignoring it.

[COMPLEX] TAGS ARE REMOVED BY OTHER RESEARCH IN THE SAME FIELD.

Adding an 'if we fail add meaningless resource costs' to the engine is simply asking for a total success even if a bad result is rolled, by providing an easy out for a bad result that doesn't hurt the product.  It's an understandable attempt, but ignores the more obvious result of a poor roll of having it not work.  That's saying that a bad roll should still get everything designed.

Except I haven't done that.

I've made the logical decision to improve the engine with the resources we have available. Nothing more, nothing less.

If a single engine requires 1 aluminium... What is the costs of a craft with multiple jet engines?

Where do you get the idea that a single engine will cost 1 aluminum?

Ebbor your design defeat's it's own propose if the jet becomes any more expense we can't make it cheap once we gain access to more resources.

Calculation error. Let me fix.