dark light

Tony Williams

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 250 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: If Conspirousies don't Exist How #1947981
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    The reasons for the start of both World Wars are well known and explained in detail in countless historical studies. They did not require any hidden external forces. And WW2 was not about the Jews (that was a side-issue for Hitler) it was about Germany revenging itself for WW1 plus going on a war of conquest in the East.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064056
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Here are some possible specifications for a Fast Attack Ekranoplan 🙂

    That’s a nice wishlist but it doesn’t give any idea of what kind of design would be needed to meet the requirements: weights, dimensions, power plants for cruising speed, extra power needed for takeoff and for OOGE flight…these boring little details are the ones which matter!

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064167
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Those are important concerns for a Ekranoplan planned for commerical operations where economy and efficiency are the primary goal, but for a military Ekranoplan required capability comes first.

    True, but a significant part of the capability includes range – and you harm that by fitting engines which are much more powerful than you need for cruising flight. Which is why the multiple-engine route is still the most likely approach for military designers to adopt in order to combine efficient cruising (with some engines shut down) with OOGE flight.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064221
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Existing Ekranoplans probably will have problems climbing out of ground effect, but that doesn’t mean future Ekranoplans will.

    Current Ekranoplans need all those engines just to clear the water because of hydrodynamic drag, a future Ekranoplan with a air cushion landing gear will reduce this drag and will probably need just two engines which will be much more responsive to power changes. Aerodynamic improvements can also make a Ekranoplan much better in OOGE flight too.

    That depends. Since the whole point of the WIG is that it doesn’t need much power to carry a given load (compared with an aircraft) then future designers incorporating air cushion landing gear will be faced with three options:

    a) Since the extra power may no longer be needed for takeoffs, they could get away with fitting less powerful engines and give up on OOGE flight (by far the cheaper solution)

    b) If they only have two engines but still want OOGE flight, those engines would have to be much bigger and more powerful than necessary for WIG mode, so they would be costly and uneconomical

    c) To avoid the uneconomical consequences of (b) it would still make sense to fit multiple engines and shut down some of them in WIG mode, which leaves you with the same problem if faced with a sudden and unexpected obstacle like a giant wave.

    TW

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064297
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    I don’t think you would need extra engines to avoid a rogue wave, aerodynamic lift should be enough to get a Ekranoplan to a safe height quickly.

    WIG flight requires far less power than OOGE flight – that’s the whole point. I believe that the battery of engines in most WIG planes are normally all used only for take-off, or for the occasional need for OOGE flight: in WIG flight several of them are shut down. So if you want to move from WIG to OOGE mode you would have to spool up the dormant engines, and that isn’t instant.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064558
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    The problem with wave avoidance is that these rogue waves apparently appear – and disappear – very suddenly. At the speeds at which the WIGs travel, there may not be enough time to spool up the extra engines needed to get the power for OOGE flight.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064662
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    There’s no reason why they couldn’t land and take off on land or ice that I’m aware of, provided that they have the appropriate landing gear. All the ones I’ve seen are configured as flying boats though.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064664
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    It’s difficult to be specific about ‘rogue waves’, because they are not well understood, althogh you are right that very large waves would mainly be an oceanic problem. It seems that in any disturbed sea, waves can sometimes interact to suddenly throw up a wave several times larger than the others.

    WIGs can certainly operate over ice, or land (as long as the land is flat and has no obstacles sticking up!)

    TW

    in reply to: EKRANOPLANS (WIGs) #2064678
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    The idea is attractive, but has drawbacks. The most obvious one is cost: they are effectively aircraft (somewhat underpowered or overweight, depending on your viewpoint) and cost as much as aircraft to run. In fact, they are probably more expensive to buy because they have to be protected against the corrosive marine environment, like a flying boat.

    Then there is the problem of rough seas. The ‘rogue wave’ phenomenon is gradually being understood. In any rough sea, you will occasionally get one very much larger wave being formed. Most ships can survive these (albeit with some damage) although they might account for some of the many ships which ‘go missing’. But a WIG flying low enough to benefit from ground effect would just get slapped out of the sky. So, like hydrofoils, they are best used in calm waters, which does rather limit them.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: Anythign on the Millenium 35mm CIWS? #2068675
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Cool. They should throw that turret on a tank or AFV!!

    You mean – like this?

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/KDGturret.jpg

    in reply to: bullet/shell oxidizer question #1822255
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    I’m not sure if any of the Istrebitel Sputniks had actual cannons as we think of them.

    Yep. A quick Google produced:

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/spaceguns/

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071407960/102-7972030-8326515?v=glance&n=283155 (fourth review)

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: royal navy 1970s #2069618
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Don’t forget that the Ikara in my proposal would be quite different, as it would be packaged for firing from the same VL system as Sea Dart.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: royal navy 1970s #2069624
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Well, there are no right answers to that, everyone who looks at this topic is likely to prefer different solutions. I like Sea Dart, it had an excellent performance for its size and weight, and Sea Wolf is still one of the best short-range naval AA/AM missiles around.

    ASROC was an inferior system to Ikara because it was unguided, which limited its effective range. Ikara could be steered on route to make sure that it kept up with the latest position of the detected submarine.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: royal navy 1970s #2069669
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    See this for an alternative take on the RN in the 1970s…
    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Alternative%20RN.htm

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    in reply to: Rifling question… #2069676
    Tony Williams
    Participant

    Thanks for the plug Oli 🙂 I do have to make one correction, though: the bourrelet is at the front of the shell and is carefully machined to fit inside the bore. The bit that takes the rifling is the driving band (or, more logically, rotating band in American) at the back, which is made of a softer material (usually copper, but soft steel in some cannon and plastic in one) which both seals the bore and is spun by the rifling.

    Some early large-calibre muzzle-loading rifled cannon did have studs in the shell bodies which were lined up with the grooves as the shells were loaded. On a present-day fired shell, the driving band has grooves but that’s the result of the shell being fired – they weren’t there at the start.

    There is indeed a risk that the violence of firing will ‘strip’ the driving band so it is no longer gripped by the rifling. This is why some ammo uses steel bands. Some guns also have progressive rifling, which starts out parallel with the bore but then twists at a gradually increasing rate, to spin the shell up more slowly.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 250 total)