RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2020, 04:38 PM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default Aircraft the MP would use?

Always a fun debate, what aircraft if any would the MP besides the stated or would you add to a campaign
I could see a few light aircraft and a lifter or two
The OV-10 Bronco is one, after the Vietnam war they fell out of favor, great airplane, was multi mission capable and could even do fire support roles.
The ever present Huey UH-1
The Cessna 02 Skymaster
Bell OH-58
CH-47 Chinook
Light Cessna civilian aircraft
or even a C-130 or C-97 Stratofrieghter
DC-3
P-47 or 51 ( F versions? upgrades?)
Any thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2020, 04:57 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 289
Default

Well you can check off the CH-47 and C-130 as they are in Prime Base.

I have thought the C-123 Provider would be good as well DHC-5 Buffalo.

The OV-10D would be a good aircraft.

Any Cessna would be a good aircraft to use, there will be plenty of spare parts available 5 years after the war.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2020, 11:04 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

I like to throw in some V-22 into the mix just because they fill a niche with a range between the C-130 and CH-47 while still being VTOL.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2020, 01:06 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,057
Default

Cavalier Mustang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang

Piper PA-48 Enforcer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

Stewart S-51D Mustang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_S-51D_Mustang
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2020, 01:26 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

COIN aircraft often show up in these discussions. But would MP have a need for COIN aircraft? The Project could just wait until air superiority was achieved by the Air Force and only then start flying their planes. Optionally they could wait for a decade or so (original plan) and have the insurgents run out of fuel or parts to keep their planes flying and then start breaking out the Projects air assets.

Basically, convince me that MP needs some kind of air force and not just air logistical support.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2020, 02:59 PM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

I could definitely seeing the V-22 in the MP, great asset wise, also multi-mission capable. I can almost see the MP grabbing a few CH-53 on an advanced timeline, seeing they are currently downsizing the fleet, a few could slip into the MP pool and be neatly stowed away somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2020, 04:32 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,382
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quinjets and seaplanes are the additions I would like to add.

Quinjets would need ADVANCED composites and fly by wire systems to be anywhere close to feasible though. (and supplemental vectored thrust). As designed there would also be very little room for fuel so that also pushes you to fusion jet engines which is another engineering feat.

However even existing seaplanes would be amazing with fusion engines if you are looking for flexibility in movement and staging.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2020, 06:00 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato13 View Post
As designed there would also be very little room for fuel so that also pushes you to fusion jet engines which is another engineering feat.
I remember suggesting that air plasma could be generated to produce thrust for a jet engine a few years ago on this forum and almost being scoffed at for the idea. Well, whose laughing now?

https://interestingengineering.com/t...ral-air-travel

Same with NASA GL-10, as some said it was only a demonstrator and scale-up would take a long time. Three years to the X-57 Maxwell is not that long. Still a ways to go, but with testing slated for next year, electric-powered flight is starting to look good.

In game, we have time travel, "light" fusion reactors in the 1MW range and more. Somehow a fusion powered jet just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2020, 06:23 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,382
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post

In game, we have time travel, "light" fusion reactors in the 1MW range and more. Somehow a fusion powered jet just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
Agreed. It is a little more problematic with an 80s war-date, but certainly possible.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2020, 07:15 PM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
I remember suggesting that air plasma could be generated to produce thrust for a jet engine a few years ago on this forum and almost being scoffed at for the idea. Well, whose laughing now?

https://interestingengineering.com/t...ral-air-travel

Same with NASA GL-10, as some said it was only a demonstrator and scale-up would take a long time. Three years to the X-57 Maxwell is not that long. Still a ways to go, but with testing slated for next year, electric-powered flight is starting to look good.

In game, we have time travel, "light" fusion reactors in the 1MW range and more. Somehow a fusion powered jet just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
I agree, fusion powered jet engines could be very feasible. Helo's, jets and any other jet powered aircraft could be retrofitted with these. I assume they need a jump start so a small fusion reactor on board could provide the necessary boost??? Makes sense to me and entirely possible given the tech brought back.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-01-2020, 04:50 PM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
I remember suggesting that air plasma could be generated to produce thrust for a jet engine a few years ago on this forum and almost being scoffed at for the idea. Well, whose laughing now?

https://interestingengineering.com/t...ral-air-travel

Same with NASA GL-10, as some said it was only a demonstrator and scale-up would take a long time. Three years to the X-57 Maxwell is not that long. Still a ways to go, but with testing slated for next year, electric-powered flight is starting to look good.

In game, we have time travel, "light" fusion reactors in the 1MW range and more. Somehow a fusion powered jet just doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

Would this concept work with turbo props? Seeing a turbo prop is essentially a jet engine. Would open up some interesting doors for aircraft, Like a C-130 or OV-10 or even helicopters. There is also the venerable old Otter and Aztec. Perfect aircraft for the MP.. They were designed for less than ideal run ways.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2020, 07:15 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nduffy View Post
Would this concept work with turbo props? Seeing a turbo prop is essentially a jet engine. Would open up some interesting doors for aircraft, Like a C-130 or OV-10 or even helicopters. There is also the venerable old Otter and Aztec. Perfect aircraft for the MP.. They were designed for less than ideal run ways.
No reason it couldn't work. The air plasma is just used to drive the turbine just like burning fuel. Since they are just using microwaves to produce the air plasma, there is probably not much in additional shielding needed.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-02-2020, 04:45 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,273
Default

Not an aircraft per se, but it does involve flying.
Gravity Industries have been developing individual flying suits that are quite amazing to see in operation.
While the tech is well known, they are apparently refining it to give better fuel consumption (as flight time is limited to the amount of fuel a person can carry).
It uses quite a bit as you are quite literally strapping jet engines to your body.

The system is being touted as a useful tool for mountain rescue units to bring immediate first aid to injured people but I can imagine that Morrow Teams would use it for such things as reconnaissance as well.
There's some claims that the system can fly higher and faster than the specifications given on the webpages but it's been limited for safety reasons



https://www.yankodesign.com/2018/07/...uits-are-here/
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/23483/...series-in-2019
https://www.autofutures.tv/2020/09/2...ef-test-pilot/

The company itself
https://gravity.co/

This video is worth watching over all others because it gives a lot of insight into the development of the system rather than the usual publicity style of video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YWl...ature=emb_logo

The system uses liquid fuelled jets at the moment, but with the special knowledge that Bruce brought back with him, I can imagine Morrow Industries developing something that doesn't need an inefficient liquid fuelled engine to develop the necessary thrust.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-02-2020, 05:43 AM
gamerguy gamerguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default Reality Check

Rather than taking a relatively inefficient design and translating it back to being used for something simple why are we reinventing the wheel and gold plating the tread?

Just use electric motors powered by the reactors. Basic, plain motors will do everything you need for any prop plane. Even with the earliest teotwawki you could make high powered brushless motors available so you get good efficiencies. The ONLY benefit provided by jets is they are small and light FOR THE VERY HIGH POWER REQUIREMENTS TO GO FAST. If you are talking OV-10s, C130s, CH-47s etc. electric motors will work fine, brushless will make them small light and efficient and you don't need handwavium to make them work. You would only need jets if you have to go near sonic or faster. No one else is doing that and I do not see any need for TMP either. Especially as high subsonic will get you there and reactors have all the range you need. If you just have to have fast look at the Tu-95.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-02-2020, 04:52 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

I agree that for the most part using brushless electric motors fits the bill. I did weight and volume calculations, using the volume calculations for reactors I made before 4th ed, and the swap was volumetrically equivalent and slightly lighter.

The only reason I brought up electric jets before was for the reason you mentioned, speed. My question at the time was would there be a need for high-speed cross country air travel. At the time, most did not think so.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-02-2020, 08:17 PM
gamerguy gamerguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 51
Default

I also thought about high speed cross country transport. In either case you have trade offs, speed vs load capacity. That is why I suggested looking at the Tu-95. The speed vs load is obvious with that one. Personally I would compare with planes with partial or full pressurization like DC-7s or Lockheed Constellations. One day to cross the continent seems quite livable. Unless you are going to look at Concord or similar an electric Connie works well.

The other "issue" with too fast a plane becomes the issue where players may start just sitting an waiting for support. This is supposed to be a game of you are on your own. Even teams who have been out for years are still intended to be isolated. If you know big brother can be here with a war load in X hours, why do the hard work. Or the players or project director becomes the general always looking over your shoulder syndrome.

Just my $0.02.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2020, 08:45 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

All this discussion about aircraft got me taking a longer look at the Airscout in both the 3rd and 4th editions. It really seems to be something that looked good, but really doesn't work.

Forgetting the fact that it is a gyrocopter and can't do VTOL or hover in most circumstances, the load outs on both make little sense. Fully loaded with guns, ammo, and missiles, it really can't handle a 2-man crew, unless they are really small or children. The average weight of each would have to be 57kg for 4th ed and 53kg for 3rd edition. The 4th edition version gets really bad if you add the reserve fuel tank for additional range, bringing the ave weight per person to 35kg. You really have to leave off the missiles to get a per-person weight of around 70kg.

There are VTOL fixed-wing drones that can operate at higher altitudes, can loiter for up to 24 hours, and operates at ranges of 250km from the base station. These can do a much better job of mapping and surveillance work in a much smaller and lighter package. The only thing you don't get is the flying weapons platform.

Given all this, I really cannot think of a good use case for the Airscout.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-2020, 12:57 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,382
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Other that the physics problems I keep bumping into I think the Marvel Quinjet would be an amazing vehicle for the project.



Back of a napkin stats

Crew 2 +1 (+12seated +20 Standing)
Max Speed: Mach 1.2 (Not sure if possible with the airframe but I think that is canon in the MCU)
Range 400NM (fuled) Unlimited (Fusion)
Load 5000kg internal 7500kg Slung
VTOL Capable
M134 Minigun. 6 Hardpoints.

Variants with swap-able modules
ECM C3I Medical SEAD Recon

It might give the team too much mobility (particularly the fusion version). But I am imagining a Firefly-Serenity like ability to move from place to place solving problems along the way.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-06-2020, 12:37 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 617
Default

The Quinjet is more size constrained than I first thought. Putting this here, just in case you want something with some scale to help layout interior modules.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-06-2020, 11:08 AM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
All this discussion about aircraft got me taking a longer look at the Airscout in both the 3rd and 4th editions. It really seems to be something that looked good, but really doesn't work.

Forgetting the fact that it is a gyrocopter and can't do VTOL or hover in most circumstances, the load outs on both make little sense. Fully loaded with guns, ammo, and missiles, it really can't handle a 2-man crew, unless they are really small or children. The average weight of each would have to be 57kg for 4th ed and 53kg for 3rd edition. The 4th edition version gets really bad if you add the reserve fuel tank for additional range, bringing the ave weight per person to 35kg. You really have to leave off the missiles to get a per-person weight of around 70kg.

There are VTOL fixed-wing drones that can operate at higher altitudes, can loiter for up to 24 hours, and operates at ranges of 250km from the base station. These can do a much better job of mapping and surveillance work in a much smaller and lighter package. The only thing you don't get is the flying weapons platform.

Given all this, I really cannot think of a good use case for the Airscout.
The Airscout essentially becomes obsolete in an advanced timeline. I never truly liked the design nor gyro copters in general. Drones can fill niches such as recon, surveillance, and scientific data gathering. The Fire Scout is a great example of this, also using VTOLs as general duty aircraft. Another good example I remembered is the OV-1 Mohawk. It was designed as a recon surveillance aircraft, with light attack capabilities. It had a side mounted radar system that could easily be swapped (1hour) in the field for other packages. You could swap them for scientific data gathering such as NBC detection, LIDAR, Communications, and even weather packages. It was also designed like the OV-10 for improvised runways. Vietnam era aircraft that could easily be absorbed into the MP with not much attention under the guise of science and and research.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-06-2020, 11:24 AM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerguy View Post
I also thought about high speed cross country transport. In either case you have trade offs, speed vs load capacity. That is why I suggested looking at the Tu-95. The speed vs load is obvious with that one. Personally I would compare with planes with partial or full pressurization like DC-7s or Lockheed Constellations. One day to cross the continent seems quite livable. Unless you are going to look at Concord or similar an electric Connie works well.

The other "issue" with too fast a plane becomes the issue where players may start just sitting an waiting for support. This is supposed to be a game of you are on your own. Even teams who have been out for years are still intended to be isolated. If you know big brother can be here with a war load in X hours, why do the hard work. Or the players or project director becomes the general always looking over your shoulder syndrome.

Just my $0.02.
I try to avoid jets over all and go with older tech for aircraft. An eccentric collector can "buy" older aircraft and have them restored, rebuilt or even manufactured. I try not to put the MP as a heavy military power, but we all know the truth, you have to maintain some order and even potentially take on the local established benevolent dictator. Aircraft require large places to be stored in and also a runway to launch from. the logistics of that are pretty monumental. Not to mention it takes a large crew of men and materials to build, repair or restore a runway. (another bonus for VTOL and helicopters). I always waited a while before any really good asset teams could be woke. Gotta make them earn their cookies. Also its always fun to deny them the asset (weather/mechanical) or delay it to make the team think more out of the box or think twice before the engage a larger force or go poking the bear.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-06-2020, 11:27 AM
nduffy nduffy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: DFW
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
I agree that for the most part using brushless electric motors fits the bill. I did weight and volume calculations, using the volume calculations for reactors I made before 4th ed, and the swap was volumetrically equivalent and slightly lighter.

The only reason I brought up electric jets before was for the reason you mentioned, speed. My question at the time was would there be a need for high-speed cross country air travel. At the time, most did not think so.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-03-2021, 01:41 AM
Gelrir Gelrir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 224
Default

In our "Classic era" campaign, the only aircraft player-characters have seen usefully employed are Project conversions of the Helio Super Courier (more specifically, the U-10D military version).

The Project in our campaign wanted an un-threatening aircraft that didn't need much in the way of runways, and less maintenance than a big cargo helicopter.

The engine on a Super Courier weighs 226 kg dry ...

Our stats: http://asmrb.pbworks.com/w/page/1296...nsport%20Plane

--
Michael B.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-06-2021, 12:20 PM
rcaf_777's Avatar
rcaf_777 rcaf_777 is offline
Staff Headquarter Weinie
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Petawawa Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,057
Default

Short SC.7 Skyvan

The Short SC.7 Skyvan nicknamed the "Flying Shoebox"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_SC.7_Skyvan

Short 330

The Short 330 (also SD3-30) is a small turboprop transport aircraft produced by Short Brothers. It seats up to 30 people and was relatively inexpensive and had low maintenance costs at the time of its introduction in 1976. The 330 was based on the SC.7 Skyvan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_330

Short C-23 Sherpa

The Short C-23 Sherpa is a small military transport aircraft built by Short Brothers. It was designed to operate from unpaved runways and make short takeoff and landings (STOL).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_C-23_Sherpa

Zenith CH 701

The Zenith STOL CH 701 and CH 750 are a family of light, two-place kit-built STOL aircraft designed by Canadian aeronautical engineer Chris Heintz through his Midland, Ontario based company, Zenair. The CH 701 first flew in 1986 and the design is still in production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_STOL_CH_701

Dornier Do 228

The Dornier Do 228 is a twin-turboprop STOL utility aircraft, designed and first manufactured by Dornier GmbH (later DASA Dornier, Fairchild-Dornier) from 1981 until 1998. 245 were built in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_228

GAF Nomad

The GAF Nomad is a utility aircraft produced by the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) of Australia in Melbourne. Supported by the Australian Government, design work began in the mid-1960s, and it made its maiden flight on 23 July 1971. Despite some export sales and commercial operations, sales were not as sufficient and production stopped in 1985.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAF_Nomad

PZL M28 Skytruck

The PZL M28 Skytruck is a Polish STOL light cargo and passenger plane, produced by PZL Mielec, as a development of license-built Antonov An-28s. Early licence-built planes were designated PZL An-28.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_M28_Skytruck

Let L-410 Turbolet

The Let L-410 Turbolet is a twin-engine short-range transport aircraft, manufactured by the Czech aircraft manufacturer Let Kunovice (named Aircraft Industries since 2005), often used as an airliner. The aircraft is capable of landing on short and unpaved runways and operating under extreme conditions from −50 C (−58 F) to +50 C (122 F). By 2016, 1,200 L-410s had been built, and over 350 are in service in more than 50 countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_L-410_Turbolet

IAI Arava

The Israeli Aircraft Industries Arava is a light STOL utility transport aircraft developed and produced by Israeli aerospace company Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It holds the distinction of being IAI's first indigenously-developed aircraft design to enter production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Arava

CASA C-212 Aviocar

The CASA C-212 Aviocar is a turboprop-powered STOL medium cargo aircraft designed and built by CASA in Spain for civil and military use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_C-212_Aviocar

Harbin Y-12

The Harbin Y-12 is a high wing twin-engine turboprop utility aircraft built by Harbin Aircraft Industry Group (HAIG)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin...ment_operators

Antonov An-28

The Antonov An-28 (NATO reporting name Cash) is a twin-engined light turboprop transport aircraft, developed from the Antonov An-14M. It first flew in 1969. After a short pre-production series built by Antonov, it was licence-built in Poland by PZL-Mielec. In 1993, PZL-Mielec developed its own improved variant, the PZL M28 Skytruck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-28
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.