COACC

[Fritz_Brown]

Sorry, Aramis, I read your post sdrawkcab. I thought you were saying they would import if the higher TL were only 10% more in cost. You are right.

Now, it might skew the economy on the TL10 world, even if the TL11 widget costs more. If the TL11 widgets are not a major leap, but cost enough more, the price for the TL10 widgets might rise to fill in the gap. The price would settle wherever the desire for a "better" widget is not quite as strong as the urge to save a few CrImps. Of course, a variation might occur, where the TL10 stuff is good enough and so much cheaper that it will get imported to the TL11 world. Because of the natural rising of wages with "progress" (like TLs), the TL11 world probably can't make the lower TL widgets as cheaply as the TL10 world.

Which means you might find aircraft filling their normal roles - even on a moderate TL world - because they are more cost-effective to import than grav vehicles are to make, for the same purpose.

 

[rhoneycutt]

for what its worth....

IMTU I figure grav units 'cost' the same as OTU, but require much more power...mass*G(world)*alt*eff%...basically you have to feed it enough energy to account for potential energy gains...tech9 is 70% efficient rising to 99% at tech16. For starships, I just assume it uses the Hi-performance powerplants that drive the jump units. a 1000hp hemi can power a airraft to lift it about 10-20 meters altitude and the remaining power is used for thrust of some kind (ducted fans IMTU ). These "potential drives" do not produce thrust or eliminate mass or gravity...they just allow a vehicle to go up in air a certain distance. Freight trains still use ground contact suspensions so that the massive cargos don't need big powerplants...ocean freighters are still good....PaRWigs are too. Airplanes too. Cars/trucks will still be used along with airrafts....I picture hi-pop worlds looking more like "Bladerunner" than "Star Wars Capital "

 

[rhoneycutt]

for what its worth....

IMTU I figure grav units 'cost' the same as OTU, but require much more power...mass*G(world)*alt*eff%...basically you have to feed it enough energy to account for potential energy gains...tech9 is 70% efficient rising to 99% at tech16. For starships, I just assume it uses the Hi-performance powerplants that drive the jump units. a 1000hp hemi can power a airraft to lift it about 10-20 meters altitude and the remaining power is used for thrust of some kind (ducted fans IMTU ). These "potential drives" do not produce thrust or eliminate mass or gravity...they just allow a vehicle to go up in air a certain distance. Freight trains still use ground contact suspensions so that the massive cargos don't need big powerplants...ocean freighters are still good....PaRWigs are too. Airplanes too. Cars/trucks will still be used along with airrafts....I picture hi-pop worlds looking more like "Bladerunner" than "Star Wars Capital "

 

[rhoneycutt]

for what its worth....

IMTU I figure grav units 'cost' the same as OTU, but require much more power...mass*G(world)*alt*eff%...basically you have to feed it enough energy to account for potential energy gains...tech9 is 70% efficient rising to 99% at tech16. For starships, I just assume it uses the Hi-performance powerplants that drive the jump units. a 1000hp hemi can power a airraft to lift it about 10-20 meters altitude and the remaining power is used for thrust of some kind (ducted fans IMTU ). These "potential drives" do not produce thrust or eliminate mass or gravity...they just allow a vehicle to go up in air a certain distance. Freight trains still use ground contact suspensions so that the massive cargos don't need big powerplants...ocean freighters are still good....PaRWigs are too. Airplanes too. Cars/trucks will still be used along with airrafts....I picture hi-pop worlds looking more like "Bladerunner" than "Star Wars Capital "

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

 

[SanDragon]

But then, a B-52 can't pull a stunt like your SU-31 can... unless you don't like your wings to stay on?

Apples and oranges anyway. A B-52 is a bomber, an SU-31 is a stunt plane.

 

[SanDragon]

But then, a B-52 can't pull a stunt like your SU-31 can... unless you don't like your wings to stay on?

Apples and oranges anyway. A B-52 is a bomber, an SU-31 is a stunt plane.

 

[SanDragon]

But then, a B-52 can't pull a stunt like your SU-31 can... unless you don't like your wings to stay on?

Apples and oranges anyway. A B-52 is a bomber, an SU-31 is a stunt plane.

 

[rhoneycutt]

exactly!

B_52 <> Su_31

and an example of why one can't assume that an airframe is stressed only for its engine thrust rating, but must have framework beefy enough explicitely designed in.

but that just makes the universe more interesting anyways, and all for a few moments extra time in a spreadsheet, too.

 

[rhoneycutt]

exactly!

B_52 <> Su_31

and an example of why one can't assume that an airframe is stressed only for its engine thrust rating, but must have framework beefy enough explicitely designed in.

but that just makes the universe more interesting anyways, and all for a few moments extra time in a spreadsheet, too.

 

[rhoneycutt]

exactly!

B_52 <> Su_31

and an example of why one can't assume that an airframe is stressed only for its engine thrust rating, but must have framework beefy enough explicitely designed in.

but that just makes the universe more interesting anyways, and all for a few moments extra time in a spreadsheet, too.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

aside to sandragon: No, Cumquats and Oranges...

THe B52 has about 0.5 G acceleration, if that. She is stressed for at least 4G turns, loaded. (A standard rate turn in an aircraft is usually 2G.)

The Su is probably capable of about 1.5G, maybe 2, and like most fighters , is stressed to well over 10. Dogfights can generate 16G transient loads.
At least a 5:1 ratio of latitudinal stress bracing to engine G's is normative for most aircraft. 10:1 is not uncommon for aerobatics. 20:1 is not unheard of.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

aside to sandragon: No, Cumquats and Oranges...

THe B52 has about 0.5 G acceleration, if that. She is stressed for at least 4G turns, loaded. (A standard rate turn in an aircraft is usually 2G.)

The Su is probably capable of about 1.5G, maybe 2, and like most fighters , is stressed to well over 10. Dogfights can generate 16G transient loads.
At least a 5:1 ratio of latitudinal stress bracing to engine G's is normative for most aircraft. 10:1 is not uncommon for aerobatics. 20:1 is not unheard of.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Aramis...
Yes..airframe hulls probably do account for extra stresses, but even then I'd think it would be limited to what the thrust G's are unless specifically stated to have more strength. A B-52 isn't stressed nearly as much as a SU-31 ( a most excellent acrobatic small plane) although both are 'airframe'.

aside to sandragon: No, Cumquats and Oranges...

THe B52 has about 0.5 G acceleration, if that. She is stressed for at least 4G turns, loaded. (A standard rate turn in an aircraft is usually 2G.)

The Su is probably capable of about 1.5G, maybe 2, and like most fighters , is stressed to well over 10. Dogfights can generate 16G transient loads.
At least a 5:1 ratio of latitudinal stress bracing to engine G's is normative for most aircraft. 10:1 is not uncommon for aerobatics. 20:1 is not unheard of.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Although, the B52 is stressed for some pretty hefty forces - the engines are pushing a lot of mass. We talk in Gs because it's handy terminology for figuring speeds, but it has little to do with the forces actually operating on the craft. The B52 is probably more structurally sound than the SU31 - because those 8 engines have to push something 200+ times the mass, and the wings have to lift that behemoth to 50,000+ feet. If you put this in starship terms, a dispersed structure with inadequate bracing couldn't take a 1G drive (unless you totally handwave mass as in CT).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Although, the B52 is stressed for some pretty hefty forces - the engines are pushing a lot of mass. We talk in Gs because it's handy terminology for figuring speeds, but it has little to do with the forces actually operating on the craft. The B52 is probably more structurally sound than the SU31 - because those 8 engines have to push something 200+ times the mass, and the wings have to lift that behemoth to 50,000+ feet. If you put this in starship terms, a dispersed structure with inadequate bracing couldn't take a 1G drive (unless you totally handwave mass as in CT).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Although, the B52 is stressed for some pretty hefty forces - the engines are pushing a lot of mass. We talk in Gs because it's handy terminology for figuring speeds, but it has little to do with the forces actually operating on the craft. The B52 is probably more structurally sound than the SU31 - because those 8 engines have to push something 200+ times the mass, and the wings have to lift that behemoth to 50,000+ feet. If you put this in starship terms, a dispersed structure with inadequate bracing couldn't take a 1G drive (unless you totally handwave mass as in CT).

 

[aramis]

Fritz: Yes, the B52's look suffers from the square-cube law

If you multiply the size of a device by X, you multiply it's surface area AND structural member cross-sections by x^2, but the overall mass and volume increase by x^3. Since a beam's load carrying capacity is directly proportional to it's cross sectional area (assuming no nifty design tricks or size-related flaws), you only multiply load per y units by x^2 when scaling, while the load applied usually goes up as x^3.

Of course, the SU also doesn't carry much cargo, either. The B52 does.

Off axis bracing for non-aerodynes is relevant, as well. There will always be some off axis loads when changing orientation.