Print

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

[evictedSaint]

NAF-TS-53 "Percheron"

A highly advanced derivative of the original Shire, the Percheron is a very powerful yet efficient turboshaft engine. The utilization of a multi-stage compressor, combined with intercooling of the air between stages,  allows the engine to reach an unparalleled pressure ratio without overheating the engine. This results in a vastly lower specific fuel consumption, but a significantly higher mass throughput, which translates into a higher total power output. We've also redesigned the core gas generator, which now uses a more efficient and reliable reverse flow combustion system. The last changes can be found into the turbine generator. Here we have mechanically seperated the power turbine from the rest of the engine. This allows us to remove a large amount of heavy gearing systems. In addition, we replaced the simple turbine with a 2 stage design allowing for vastly more efficient energy recovery.

As should be obvious, the Percheron is designed to replace early engines in Draft and Draught, as well as being used as 1:1 replacement on Condor to increase it's speed and ability handle high winds. Use in ground vehicles (Rhino,Hippo,Paradigm) is also considered.

Research Assistance Credit: (1/2) => 2

Normal Difficulty: 2
The NAF-TS-53 "Percheron" is our attempt at a more efficient and powerful engine.  The Percheron integrates an inter-cooler system, which lowers the temperature of in-coming air to allow it to be packed more densely into the engine.  The multi-stage compressor is a bit more difficult, sadly, and we are unable to develop it in time.  We do manage to separate the power turbine from the rest of the engine, which should eliminate some of the nasty gearing that weighs the engine down.  The gas turbine is modified into a two-stage design, which should be very handy for helicopter applications.  The end result is a more powerful system, but we can't quite drop the oil cost on it just yet.

The Percheron is swapped into the Draft and Draught - this proves to be a bit tricky, as both helicopters still use two turbines in the nose, but the power output of the Percheron means they only really require one.  We barely manage to restructure the base helicopter design in time to allow for a single engine, but we manage to pull it off regardless.  The Draft and Draught now must be cautious of weight balance towards the rear, but going from two engines to one means they both cost 1 Oil less while maintaining the same general performance.  That being said, we were forced to make cuts in a few places in order to accommodate the more powerful engine, and as a result the pilots cockpit no longer includes a tea kettle.

[BBBence1111]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

That's quite possibly the worst thing that can happen!

[Kot]

REVERT

[Man of Paper]

You're telling me I read through this thread over the past two days at work and when I'm caught up enough to join I have to see that? I know what my first revision vote is going to go to.

[10ebbor10]

NAF-AMR-53 "Kiwi" – An anti material semi-automatic variant of the Emu, the Kiwi is significantly lighter and more accurate than it's faster firing brother. Instead it's equipped with high power armor piercing rounds, allowing to be a viable anti light armor weapon even at considerable range.

[Man of Paper]

Spitballing here, since it's my first time participating in one of these, looking for some feedback.

With the new engines we have and the attack helicopter Toskesh unveiled I feel like this turn is going to define air superiority for the near future. The designs of the Draft/Draught were modified to work with the one engine, though since it gives us weight distribution issues I'm assuming the design of the nose wasn't greatly altered. This could give us some nose space to add another pair or dozen Emus (which may fix the weight problem and give us our kettle back). While further modifying the Draught might seem like a minor and fairly useless step, if we keep the forward-facing Emus, remove the side-mounted ones and add some to the nose, and chuck the floats and bomb mounts, we're stepping closer to filling an Interceptor role. While our helis are noted as being slower than the Toskeshi brand, they have staying power and numbers and may be able to intercept the rarer Xuá-Zhí. And with another heli unveiled on our side, the Toskeshi will practically have to design some form of AA or else give up the skies, if they didn't this turn.

Now what worries me is the speed and effectiveness of their Xuá-Zhí. If they were smart, they'd have modified it for air combat this turn. Which is why I'm instead thinking that we might want to modify our Hippos by removing the Ironcaster and replacing it with a Totally Not M45 Quadmount for our Totally Not Browning M2s. If the Xuá-Zhí gets nerfed though, it'd still light up a Hexafake pretty good (and the infantry tagging along deliciously exposed). Two guns each hooked up to a crank might work out. I'd have gone for one, but with the ruling on cyclical motion of the crank, and the specifying of four directions being moved in resulting in four shots, it's the only way I can see of improving RoF enough to be effective AA.

[10ebbor10]

There's a bit of a problem though.

We have staying power because Tokesh does not have any anti-air. Now, if you look at list turn, you'll see this.

Russian Espionage:
We have been approached by an American contact from the West with some disturbing news.  They've recently intercepted USSR communications that seem to imply Russian operatives have in infiltrated our nation to enact some manner of espionage on Toskesh's behalf.

We believe that this means that Tokesh has an espionage credit, which they'll likely use to steal our Emu.

So, in that case Tokesh will have a faster, better armed, and better armoured heli. They'll also have effective anti air.

[Man of Paper]

There is a chance I may not have thought of that possibility. If that's the case, then we might actually want to hold off on revising our aircraft or AA capacities until we know for certain, because we'll be getting torn up nonetheless, with our revision being used to stop the bleeding, but leaving the wound wide open, as it were. A waste of a revision if it isn't going to do more than that. Your Kiwi isn't a terrible suggestion, but now I'm thinking maybe revising our Mills Bombs into Smoke Bombs could be a good (if somewhat odd) middle ground. If the Xuá-Zhí doesn't get shitcanned, smoke will help provide cover in the dried up fjords, and perhaps smoke canisters for one of our bigger guns (or just going for smoke rounds in general if that's allowed) could help provide some screening for troop movement immediately prior to engagement. Or at the very least obscure LoS of enemy observers.

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, rewriting our argument for the UN. I don't think it's a good idea to rely directly on the weblink. ES will rightly interpret it as a way to cheat the 500 word limit.

Ladies and gentlemen of the court. Three questions must be answered to prove the weapons here to be the warcrimes they are. Three questions, that once answered, shall shed light on the issue.

Firstly, Does a name define whether a weapon is lawfull or not, or does the form decide that. The Tokeshians may not call their weapons aircraft, but they are nonetheless airborne machinery that attacks any enemy via it's own destruction, an act explicitly forbidden by the convention. I ask you, is a battleship legal if one where to call it a platform rather than a vessel? Is a tank legal if one where to call it a conveyance rather than a vehicle?

Of course not. And therefore, since the rockets are airborne machines of war, they fall under the conventions.

The second thing we need to consider is if they violate the convention. The convention prohibits the use of air-borne vehicles which use stationary wing planes as their primary method of generating lift for offensive military purposes. A stationary wing plane is an aerofoil attached to an aircraft body that does not significantly move during normal operation. On a normal plane, this would be the wings, tailplane and fin. The propellor is, though an aerofoil, not static, as it moves relatively to the plane during normal operation.

The rockets fins are clearly aerofoils. In addition, they're also stationary. Though they move at the start of the flight, this is merely a storage solution, not a feature relevant to the flight of the craft. Once aloft, the fins are locked and stationary. Weapons need to obey the UN convention during their entire period of operation, not for the fraction of the second in which they're activated.

The other part of this question is whether these fins are the primary source of lift. Lift is the component of the force exerted upon an object by a gas or fluid that is perpendicular to the fluid's direction. This allows us to immediately discard many forces acting upon the weapon. The force produced by the engine is not lift, and neither is the drag or gravity. Only two forces are left. The lift force acting upon the body of the rocket, and the one acting upon it's fins. The latter is clearly greater, otherwise the weapon would not work. The violation is clear.

The last question that needs to be answered is not a question of technicalities, but one of morals. The convention was implemented because of the unacceptable amounts of civilian damage these weapons could inflict, and the fact that they do not allow surrender. The Tokeshian missile barrages have devastated large areas of land, firing their projectiles with reckless abandon. Unlike artillery, they do not resight or aim inbetween shots, instead, they fire as fast as possible. This allows no opportunity for any surrender, and it's only through the actions of the Nograrian army that these weapons have not been unleashed on a helpless civilian populace.

[10ebbor10]

Kiwi (1) : 10ebbor10

[stabbymcstabstab]

Kiwi (2) : 10ebbor10, Stabby

[NUKE9.13]

Kiwi (3) : 10ebbor10, Stabby, NUKE9.13

I guess this is fine.

[Kashyyk]

I'm gonna throw a few ideas out here:

Limited to legs, hover or screws, you'd think we can no longer achieve traps movement of infantry. Not so! By training our soldiers to ride horses, we will once again be able to rapidly redeploy ote forces.

This completely avoids the vehicle issue by using horses.  Wet could give them some modern barding to make them a bit more durable, but a lack of automatic weapons should make them safer to use.

Based on the Rabid, this weapon instead has a "chargeable spring" used to cycle the weapon. A user can pull the charging arm in much the same way someone would break a shotgun, and thus store this action in the spring. When the trigger is pulled, any charges stored in the spring will be used to fully cycle the rifle and thus fire multiple rounds. If the charging arm is not used, the rifle is a simple semi-auto.

This should circumvent the Geneva Conventions by following the "one action one round" rule, but allows the user to save up the actions for later use.

Based off of the venerable ww2 bazooka, this shoulder mounted weapon is designed for improved accuracy and range, allowing infantry to target armoured ground and air vehicles.

[10ebbor10]

This should circumvent the Geneva Conventions by following the "one action one round" rule, but allows the user to save up the actions for later use.

I doubt that'll work.

They'll argue correctly that the spring is irrelevant seeing that it's part of the internal mechanics of the gun, and those don't count. Only the soldier's actions count. I mean, it's not like we count loading the gun as firing it.

Look at how they banned Rabid, for example. A series of distinct triggers pulls counted as a single only because the pulling was always in the same direction.

[Kashyyk]

I fully get how they banned that. From my understanding the force applied by the finger was effectively identical to just attaching a rubber band to the thing. Hence it is indistinguishable from just holding the trigger down with an automatic weapon.