AeroSpace Design Quest
- Thread starter FC Error
- Start date
- Original Sci-Fi
Himmelhand
Giant Sinkhole 2020
- Location
- Midwestern US
[X] Go for the Small hull - less room, but smaller target and more nimble.
We need this to be quick to produce and low cost to prototype.
We need this to be quick to produce and low cost to prototype.
Project 2347-12, Phase Two
FC Error
Missileer
- Location
- Aware of where I am not
[X] Go for the Small hull - less room, but smaller target and more nimble.
After a short back-and-forth about internal volume and spacing, you begin sketching out a design; several harried days later, you arrive at the next major decision of the project; what engines to use.
First on offer, naturally, is the Solar Dynamics FN31. A bit on the large side for a fighter engine, you could (just barely) cram two into the design, or possible modify one for greater performance to free up space. Offering good thrust, moderate fuel consumption, and a frankly hard-to-believe mass (a scant 690kg each!), it fits the bill fairly well for a hard-accelerating fighter. Rating 2.
The company is also suggesting its somewhat older AN26 - while heavier, less efficient, and with marginally less thrust than the -31, the -26 is a dual-modal engine, capable of switching at will between pure fusion and air-breathing modes. While hampering performance and increasing complexity, it also allows for staggeringly-good endurance and efficiency within an atmosphere - albeit at mildly lackluster performance outside one. Rating 2.
Somewhat grudgingly, management has also passed along an offer from Wangker Aerospace - the YG210-5, an advanced (if finicky) engine with moderate specs in all regards… save for a unique set of exhaust ducts and hookups, allowing for the main drives' exhaust to be diverted to the fighter's Reaction Control System, thus easing the logistics of carrying both fusion and RCS fuels. It might simplify the design somewhat, but is still experimental. Rating 2. May cause friction with Management.
______
While pondering this particular conundrum, Jardin arrives, looking disgruntled; he explains he's just back from the labs, and they've flat-out said they're too busy for the usual bespoke avionics that would otherwise be used, so you're going with COTS.
Thumbing through the tablet he hands you, you note the recommendations they've made - mostly for easily-modified electronics that can be delivered quickly.
The StarLink I FCC is the first up; essentially built to fit anything you plug it into, it's simple and easy to work with, both from a production and user standpoint, if unexceptional. As it focuses on plug-and-play, there's no real support for anything beyond fairly basic sensors and flight controls - functional enough, but limited. Rating 1.
On the other end of the spectrum, the oh-so-imaginatively-named J5b Flight Command System Type 1 is very adaptable - while Jardin notes it'll take a great deal of finagling to get it working correctly, it can handle just about any sensors, weapons, engines, EWAR, or other systems you can throw at it, and still have power to spare. Naturally, this comes at the price of somewhat underwhelming reliability… though Jardin says he can probably mitigate most of that. Rating 1d3.
You ponder asking for priority time with the computer geeks, but discard the idea - you're still the New Guy, and from all accounts, they're busy.
Propulsion;
[] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
[] You prefer the AN26 - the dual-modal setup should win some points for a dual-environment fighter.
[] Risk managerial grump and get some YG210-5s; the ducted RCS system promises much-reduced headaches further down the line.
Avionics & Electronics;
[] K.I.S.S. is best; the StarLink is your best bet here.
[] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
Note: "Rating 1d#" means the system is dependent on integration; if you wish to vote for (in this instance) the J5b, roll 1d3 along with your vote.
After a short back-and-forth about internal volume and spacing, you begin sketching out a design; several harried days later, you arrive at the next major decision of the project; what engines to use.
First on offer, naturally, is the Solar Dynamics FN31. A bit on the large side for a fighter engine, you could (just barely) cram two into the design, or possible modify one for greater performance to free up space. Offering good thrust, moderate fuel consumption, and a frankly hard-to-believe mass (a scant 690kg each!), it fits the bill fairly well for a hard-accelerating fighter. Rating 2.
The company is also suggesting its somewhat older AN26 - while heavier, less efficient, and with marginally less thrust than the -31, the -26 is a dual-modal engine, capable of switching at will between pure fusion and air-breathing modes. While hampering performance and increasing complexity, it also allows for staggeringly-good endurance and efficiency within an atmosphere - albeit at mildly lackluster performance outside one. Rating 2.
Somewhat grudgingly, management has also passed along an offer from Wangker Aerospace - the YG210-5, an advanced (if finicky) engine with moderate specs in all regards… save for a unique set of exhaust ducts and hookups, allowing for the main drives' exhaust to be diverted to the fighter's Reaction Control System, thus easing the logistics of carrying both fusion and RCS fuels. It might simplify the design somewhat, but is still experimental. Rating 2. May cause friction with Management.
______
While pondering this particular conundrum, Jardin arrives, looking disgruntled; he explains he's just back from the labs, and they've flat-out said they're too busy for the usual bespoke avionics that would otherwise be used, so you're going with COTS.
Thumbing through the tablet he hands you, you note the recommendations they've made - mostly for easily-modified electronics that can be delivered quickly.
The StarLink I FCC is the first up; essentially built to fit anything you plug it into, it's simple and easy to work with, both from a production and user standpoint, if unexceptional. As it focuses on plug-and-play, there's no real support for anything beyond fairly basic sensors and flight controls - functional enough, but limited. Rating 1.
On the other end of the spectrum, the oh-so-imaginatively-named J5b Flight Command System Type 1 is very adaptable - while Jardin notes it'll take a great deal of finagling to get it working correctly, it can handle just about any sensors, weapons, engines, EWAR, or other systems you can throw at it, and still have power to spare. Naturally, this comes at the price of somewhat underwhelming reliability… though Jardin says he can probably mitigate most of that. Rating 1d3.
You ponder asking for priority time with the computer geeks, but discard the idea - you're still the New Guy, and from all accounts, they're busy.
Propulsion;
[] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
[] You prefer the AN26 - the dual-modal setup should win some points for a dual-environment fighter.
[] Risk managerial grump and get some YG210-5s; the ducted RCS system promises much-reduced headaches further down the line.
Avionics & Electronics;
[] K.I.S.S. is best; the StarLink is your best bet here.
[] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
Note: "Rating 1d#" means the system is dependent on integration; if you wish to vote for (in this instance) the J5b, roll 1d3 along with your vote.
Kornet
Quite possibly a sloth abomination
- Location
- Mother Russia
FC Error
Missileer
- Location
- Aware of where I am not
Derp. Forgot to mention: costs will mostly be ignored for the most part, unless there's a significant move in favour of adding them in, partly because I'm lazy and partly because you have a pretty good R&D budget with SD.
Plus, the final cost of the product is the Big One (TM), as far as Management is concerned whatever you do isn't a problem. Unless you find a way to shove a whole bunch of unnecessary components in.
Kornet
Quite possibly a sloth abomination
- Location
- Mother Russia
I'm more talking about the final product cost. I mean, for example, the engine cost is going to make up a huge chunk of it (at least it does in RL fighters). I am not worried about R&D budget, but about component price affecting the end unit cost.
Oh, and tentative vote
[x] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
This is a light fighter with direct line-of-sight internal weapon as a primary armament. This class lives and dies by it's acceleration and agility, meaning power/mass ratio is the king. A lot of power at small mass? Yes, please. While dual-mode might be appealing for a heavier craft, light fighters are not built for endurance, so fuck it. And I see no reason outsourcing the engine when our parent company specialises in them, that is, frankly, insulting.
Avionics & Electronics;
[x] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
We have a dedecated system integrator on the team, we'll be fiiiiiine.
Last edited:
FC Error
Missileer
- Location
- Aware of where I am not
Fair point. In that case, unless I see objections, I'll add that in as part of the next contract, and it'll be a factor from there on out - honestly I'm kinda tired at the moment and don't feel like editing them in to this one, so
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
A modern go-faster engine is, of course, the only correct choice for a small fighter.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
Time to be ambitious, and by ambitious I mean roll for it.
A modern go-faster engine is, of course, the only correct choice for a small fighter.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
Time to be ambitious, and by ambitious I mean roll for it.
- Location
- Queensland, Australia
Okay, @Commander Error Can you tell us just how much difference there is in the in-atmo capability of the AN26 compared to the FN31? And also the difference in space?
Because guys don't forget: This fighter is meant to be as much an atmospheric fighter as it is a space fighter. So if the FN31 isn't particularly great in atmosphere, but the AN-26 isn't that bad in space but is great in an atmosphere... Well, it might just be well worth using the older engine.
Because guys don't forget: This fighter is meant to be as much an atmospheric fighter as it is a space fighter. So if the FN31 isn't particularly great in atmosphere, but the AN-26 isn't that bad in space but is great in an atmosphere... Well, it might just be well worth using the older engine.
- Location
- Philippines
[X] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS.
FC Error
Missileer
- Location
- Aware of where I am not
If the FN31 has Arbitrary Fuel Efficiency Number of, say, 6 in-atmoshphere, the -26 has an AFEN of 9 or so. On a scale of 1-10.
Kornet
Quite possibly a sloth abomination
- Location
- Mother Russia
Frankly, I don't cre about fuel efficiency. It's a light fighter we are building, it's just not supposed to have a long loiter time. It lacks the crew, life support, and quality-of-life cockpit acessories (like, say, toilet), so there is no reason for it to have a large atmosphere loiter time. With that engine we are trading engine power and mass for a feature we don't really need.
Project 2347-12, Phase Three
FC Error
Missileer
- Location
- Aware of where I am not
[X] Take the FN31 - "more power" is the credo fighter pilots tend to live by, after all.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS. (Rating 2)
Deciding that thrust > all, you send a message up the chain asking for some FN31s to test with, and inform Jardin that he'll be playing around with the J5b to get it working. Looking somewhat unenthused, he agrees.
[Engine Integration: 1d10 (Technician Modifier +2) = 10 - Great Success!]
Thankfully for all, the engines work like they were built for the fighter; integration goes smoothly, with Jardin and Blant even noting that the powerplants are putting out more oomph than expected. [Engine Rating +1!]
[Systems Integration: 1d10 (Technician Modifier +2) = 4 - Substandard Integration]
Unfortunately, the engines are about the only thing the avionics work well with; despite a solid week of his best efforts, the FCS proves stubborn; while it works, for a given value of works, you're not confident at all that it'll hold up to much abuse. [-1 Systems Rating.]
With time pressing on, however, you have more work to do; specifically, the weapons load. While the request only calls for a light-fighter load; two (at most) internal guns, two to four external hardpoints. Thinking things over, you eye the note on your desk from Management - they have several options available, but you do have an old friend working on experimental gear…
The Ishukone L24/A, on paper, is the everyman of lasers - light, reasonably powerful, moderate power draw, fairly minimal heat build-up. Unfortunately, that also makes it somewhat unexceptional; it really is boring, if eminently practical. Rating 2.
By contrast, the Diverse Optics Type 60 pulse laser is remarkably powerful; outperforming the Ishukone laser nearly three times over. Naturally, this comes at the cost of frankly staggering overheating problems, plus a fairly hefty power draw; but it could be manageable, if you install two guns that alternate their fire. Rating 2.
A few brief emails later and you have a third option; the Lunar Armaments XM4 Particle Cannon. The power draw and heat figures are staggering… but the promised damage output is equally staggering. While suffering in range, that is hardly a crippling issue in a fighter. With the FN31s' monster output, you could make it work. You think. Rating 1d4.
[] Go for the L24/A - practicality sounds like a blessing after the FCS.
[] Install the Type 60s - powerful engines and powerful guns sounds good.
[] Try the XM4s - they might have issues, but who doesn't want a particle gun?
Note: After at least one Prototyping phase, you can opt to re-roll Integration on any category (such as the Systems) - this, however, may be limited by time constraints.
[X] Capability over simplicity is the UN's schtick - take the J5b FCS. (Rating 2)
Deciding that thrust > all, you send a message up the chain asking for some FN31s to test with, and inform Jardin that he'll be playing around with the J5b to get it working. Looking somewhat unenthused, he agrees.
[Engine Integration: 1d10 (Technician Modifier +2) = 10 - Great Success!]
Thankfully for all, the engines work like they were built for the fighter; integration goes smoothly, with Jardin and Blant even noting that the powerplants are putting out more oomph than expected. [Engine Rating +1!]
[Systems Integration: 1d10 (Technician Modifier +2) = 4 - Substandard Integration]
Unfortunately, the engines are about the only thing the avionics work well with; despite a solid week of his best efforts, the FCS proves stubborn; while it works, for a given value of works, you're not confident at all that it'll hold up to much abuse. [-1 Systems Rating.]
With time pressing on, however, you have more work to do; specifically, the weapons load. While the request only calls for a light-fighter load; two (at most) internal guns, two to four external hardpoints. Thinking things over, you eye the note on your desk from Management - they have several options available, but you do have an old friend working on experimental gear…
The Ishukone L24/A, on paper, is the everyman of lasers - light, reasonably powerful, moderate power draw, fairly minimal heat build-up. Unfortunately, that also makes it somewhat unexceptional; it really is boring, if eminently practical. Rating 2.
By contrast, the Diverse Optics Type 60 pulse laser is remarkably powerful; outperforming the Ishukone laser nearly three times over. Naturally, this comes at the cost of frankly staggering overheating problems, plus a fairly hefty power draw; but it could be manageable, if you install two guns that alternate their fire. Rating 2.
A few brief emails later and you have a third option; the Lunar Armaments XM4 Particle Cannon. The power draw and heat figures are staggering… but the promised damage output is equally staggering. While suffering in range, that is hardly a crippling issue in a fighter. With the FN31s' monster output, you could make it work. You think. Rating 1d4.
[] Go for the L24/A - practicality sounds like a blessing after the FCS.
[] Install the Type 60s - powerful engines and powerful guns sounds good.
[] Try the XM4s - they might have issues, but who doesn't want a particle gun?
Note: After at least one Prototyping phase, you can opt to re-roll Integration on any category (such as the Systems) - this, however, may be limited by time constraints.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
[X] Install the Type 60s - powerful engines and powerful guns sounds good.
If we go with the prototype, rolling rating 1 or a substandard integration roll would reall mess the entire projret up, especially with the time constraints. Both would be even worse.
If we go with the prototype, rolling rating 1 or a substandard integration roll would reall mess the entire projret up, especially with the time constraints. Both would be even worse.
