Morrow Aviation Assets

[nuke11]

I've been thinking about how an aircraft would be converted to fusion based.

Taking the MD500/MD530 series of helicopter, the engine is an Allison/Rolls-Royce Model 250-C20B or C20R Turbo Shaft Engine.

To keep the helicopter in balance the fusion source should not exceed the following specs (C20R Replacement);

Overall Length: 1038 mm
Overall Width: 527 mm
Overall Height: 589 mm

Total Weight: 78.5 kg

Everything else should stay the same as originally installed.

Something this size, it wouldn't be out of character to have a limited operating timeframe, say 3 to 6 months, before the engine has to be pulled and then refurbished (this would nicely simulate a real world maintenance cycle for the gas counterpart).

Anything that is converted to fusion should be a 1 for 1 swap, if the airframe has 4 engines then 4 fusion engines are changed that are similar in details.

[mmartin798]

This is where things can get a little off. There is an electric motor that can be stacked to provide 300 kW continuous to the rotor in place of the C20R. It would have a length of 540 mm, diameter of about 245 mm and a total mass of 129 kg. Add in the (3rd edition) manportable 20MW reactor at 15kg and you have 145 kg give or take fully fueled. The non-fusion MD500/520 carries 183kg of fuel in addition to the 78.5 kg of the engine for about 260 kg. The two fuel cells of the MD500 are under the floor more or less centered around the rotor. Assuming the reactor can fit inside the space as the fuel cells, we will still have to add more weights to the front of the MD500 for load and balance.

This is doable in the MD500 case, but the electric motors will tend to be heavier and smaller than the ones they replace and the reactor, assuming 20MW sufficient, will be lighter than the fuel. This will be a problem with planes with engines mounted far out on the wings. This will increase the moment of inertia and will impact handling.

So the takeaway is that center line drive trains should be easy to convert with little impact to the flight characteristics. Anything with the engine further out on the wing and you will have some slower turn and roll.

[cosmicfish]

+Flying crane.

This might work for something that needs to be placed only approximately, but blimps see a lot of shear and aren't good for precision placement, especially when there are other structures nearby.

+Cargo transport.

I haven't even seen a blimp design that can carry more than 40 tons and that never even got past the design phase. I know there are people extolling the virtues of blimps for this, but are any actually flying

+Like helicopters the airfield requirements are less strict than with airplanes.

Less strict than airplanes but more strict than helicopters.

+Although helicopters are able to compete with lighter-than-air-craft they use much more fuel and can't carry as much cargo.

Fuel is a non-issue for the Project, and unless there are big single cargos around that I missed this would seem to be at best a minor advantage.

In combat helicopters and planes are superior but for civilian, and particularly construction, work lighter-than-air-craft are great.

I've always liked LTA craft but they tend to be niche players, and the combination of fusion power and propellors seems to offer much more versatile systems. You also have to assume that any Morrow asset could come under fire at any time. Air vehicles that can be taken down by the smallest of arms are a pretty big risk.

And you don't need to fill them with hydrogen if you are afraid of explosions.

If they are Zeppelins, you really do need to use hydrogen (hence my earlier comment), but even with blimps getting the most lift requires the explosive option...

[cosmicfish]

Anything that is converted to fusion should be a 1 for 1 swap, if the airframe has 4 engines then 4 fusion engines are changed that are similar in details.

@mmartin798 beat me to a lot of this, but really the combination of engine/transmission/fuel system/fuel gets replaced by electric motor/transmission*/reactor/fuel system/fuel, and there is no inherent need for the form factor to remain identical or for the number of engines to remain the same or anything like that. Even balancing within the aircraft is manageable with relatively little work, especially given that there is a decent chance that the fusion system will offer more power than the comparable gas system, which in turn allows for the placement of ballast. Or just tweak the design.

*: Electric motors don't need transmissions at low speeds (like what a V-150 would do) but do need them at high speeds. But it would not be the same transmission as the gas motor regardless, it would be much simpler and smaller.

Something this size, it wouldn't be out of character to have a limited operating timeframe, say 3 to 6 months, before the engine has to be pulled and then refurbished (this would nicely simulate a real world maintenance cycle for the gas counterpart).

I can see something like this needing to be refueled more often if fuel capacity is sacrificed to make weight, but I don't see why refurbishment would be necessary. I am honestly not sure if there is much in there to be refurbished in the first place!

[cosmicfish]

So the takeaway is that center line drive trains should be easy to convert with little impact to the flight characteristics. Anything with the engine further out on the wing and you will have some slower turn and roll.

Electric systems are a lot more modular than gas systems, systems can be decentralized to spread things out more. In a worst case, you can pull the motor itself inboard and then just run a drive shaft out to the propellers - so long as you have the airframe and the wings, you can do a lot to an aircraft and keep it flyable, it's getting that airframe and wings that is the hard part!

Oh, and is there a reason to think that the Project couldn't/wouldn't/didn't develop an electric motor with a better power to weight ratio

[mmartin798]

I haven't even seen a blimp design that can carry more than 40 tons and that never even got past the design phase. I know there are people extolling the virtues of blimps for this, but are any actually flying

The Graf Zeppelins*, arguably very successful pre-Hindenburg, only carried about 16 tons of cargo. A freighter only 20% the length of a Graf Zepplin can carry 10 times the cargo at about half the speed.

Plus having watched blimps landing at the airport near my home a number of times, they can't just land anywhere like a helicopter. This further limits their usefulness for cargo carrying.

*Lookup LZ 127 for details

[cosmicfish]

The Graf Zeppelins*, arguably very successful pre-Hindenburg, only carried about 16 tons of cargo. A freighter only 20% the length of a Graf Zepplin can carry 10 times the cargo at about half the speed.

Plus having watched blimps landing at the airport near my home a number of times, they can't just land anywhere like a helicopter. This further limits their usefulness for cargo carrying.

*Lookup LZ 127 for details

Very familiar with the old Zepps, less familiar with new blimp developments. The only blimp developments I AM familiar with are designed to operate unmanned, at a relatively high altitude, with a light load. My best information agrees with you that they have relatively poor carrying capacity and maneuverability, especially in a wind.

[mmartin798]

Very familiar with the old Zepps, less familiar with new blimp developments. The only blimp developments I AM familiar with are designed to operate unmanned, at a relatively high altitude, with a light load. My best information agrees with you that they have relatively poor carrying capacity and maneuverability, especially in a wind.

And by wind, we are not talking much. The one that I remember had the ground crew with the mooring mast all set up and the blimp coming in to land. There was about a 5 MPH wind with 10 MPH gusts. It still took the pilot almost a dozen tries to get the job done. It was fun to see him take it almost vertical to finally get it down.

[ArmySGT.]

http://drawingdatabase.com/bell-222/

Just for fun....... Should I do some stats for Airwolf Would Airwolf be a fun PC machine


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwolf_(helicopter)

[rcaf_777]

Why not Blue Thunder, to me these seem better options than then alot of CAS options listed here. I think the project could easly get there had on examples of both

[tsofian]

My thoughts

So some of you know me, some don't. I am Terry Sofian. I've been thrown off a couple of MP lists back in the old days of BBS. Kevin Dockery once wrote I made him sorry he ever wrote the game.

Other than that I'm a pretty nice guy.

I thought the Project had a general rule of taking gear from "failed" development programs and making it there own. For aircraft I included the AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter gunship, the AV-15 tilt rotor prototypes, the Canadian CL-84 Tilt wings and the XC-142A tilt wings. They gave all of them fusion packs and electrical motors. All of these craft are vertical take off.

I also think various production helicopters like the OH-6, CH-47 and possibly one of the coast guard amphibious helos would also be in the mix.

There were 12 AH-56's built and 4 or so of the XC-142A so that will limit the power of Morrow Air Force

[ArmySGT.]

So some of you know me, some don't. I am Terry Sofian. I've been thrown off a couple of MP lists back in the old days of BBS. Kevin Dockery once wrote I made him sorry he ever wrote the game.

Other than that I'm a pretty nice guy.

I thought the Project had a general rule of taking gear from "failed" development programs and making it there own. For aircraft I included the AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter gunship, the AV-15 tilt rotor prototypes, the Canadian CL-84 Tilt wings and the XC-142A tilt wings. They gave all of them fusion packs and electrical motors. All of these craft are vertical take off.

I also think various production helicopters like the OH-6, CH-47 and possibly one of the coast guard amphibious helos would also be in the mix.

There were 12 AH-56's built and 4 or so of the XC-142A so that will limit the power of Morrow Air Force

Sounds fair, I figure anything in NATO is fair as is the chance of surreptitiously purchasing airframes and parts from aircraft abandoned or surplused.

I figure the Project can purchase from Viet Nam a slew of UH-1 Iroquois and some AH-1s even A-1 Skyraiders that are off anyone's attention.

[tsofian]

Air Morrow

As a first principal I always had Morrow Project do its shopping in cancelled military procurement. During the period that the Project was active 1950 to TEOTWAWKI (1989 in original canon) there were a lot of projects that produced some exciting equipment that for one reason or another never entered full production. In my Project (YMMV) I had them scoop up a number of these sets of hardware, convert them to fusion/electric drive and otherwise Morrowize them.

For aircraft I chose Vertical Take off systems only but that gives a really nice choice of platforms. These are some I chose

XC-142 Tilt wing cargo aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_XC-142 5 build
CL-88 Tilt Wing light aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 4 built
XV-15 Tiltrotor light aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15 2 built
AH-56A Cheyenne Compound helicopter Gunship 12 built

These I positioned as follows
XC-142s at Prime base replacing or supplementing the C-130s in canon
XV-15 at Prime Base
Four "aviation bases" each with either four Cheyennes or the four CL-84s. These would be scattered about but within range of supporting each other and Prime Base and possibly the Back Up Base as well

[cosmicfish]

As a first principal I always had Morrow Project do its shopping in cancelled military procurement. During the period that the Project was active 1950 to TEOTWAWKI (1989 in original canon) there were a lot of projects that produced some exciting equipment that for one reason or another never entered full production. In my Project (YMMV) I had them scoop up a number of these sets of hardware, convert them to fusion/electric drive and otherwise Morrowize them.

I don't agree with this approach.

First of all, many such early-stage aircraft have limited functional capacity. Consider the VX-15 - If you add fuel, crew, and basic provisions to the empty weight, you get an aircraft that only has about a thousand pounds of payload and even that would probably require adding hardpoints due to a lack of internal stores. Converting it to fusion only helps so much when you are starting with a technology demonstrator that was never meant to be used in a functional manner.

Second, if they never went into full production that also means that they were never extensively tested. Think of the recent debacle with the F-22's oxygen supply system, and ponder how many of these aircraft are lemons whose weaknesses were never realized during the relatively limited testing period they were allotted For that matter, these vehicles, with massive technical efforts behind them, ALL had flaws that kept them out of production... so why would Morrow think they could make them work

Third, if they were never in the field then that means that there is no real support base for them, either in terms of parts and tool inventory or in experienced maintenance and repair personnel. You lose a lot of advantage in these things if you are exclusively relying on Morrow-produced supplies and home-grown knowledge.

Finally, when there are only a handful of these things, it can be a lot harder to make them disappear. If the some Huey's bound for a South American customer get stolen by gun runners, or if some M113's are discovered to have had a fatal structural flaw and need to be scrapped, or if a CH-47 goes down over the ocean, then there are a few fervent memos passed and everyone moves on. If even one of only five very expensive test aircraft disappears from a military base then it becomes not only hard to conceal the disappearance but also the fact that someone on that base is a traitor!

I just don't see TMP realistically building an aviation program off of such things when you could get actual functional, proven, and supported military-grade (or upgradable) hardware with minimal subterfuge and little risk.

[cosmicfish]

XC-142 Tilt wing cargo aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_XC-142 5 build
CL-88 Tilt Wing light aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 4 built
XV-15 Tiltrotor light aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XV-15 2 built
AH-56A Cheyenne Compound helicopter Gunship 12 built

The XC-142 is poorly documented but at least 1 of the 5 crashed.

Of the CL-88, only 3 were very flyable, and 2 of those crashed.

Of the XV-15, 1 did eventually crash, but it did so as part of a long career as a demonstrator - these were in use as test vehicles for decades, I am not sure how Morrow would have gotten them!

Of the AH-56, only 7 were ever flyable, and only 1 was considered even moderately functional.