|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 7, 2017 7:46:05 GMT
Technically it does not rust that's true, but it does as your image show oxidise. Jet skis I got a few broken ribs on one after a little jaunt of Bondi beach, they are not as easy to steer as you might think. and the reversing baffle on them is made of aluminum. which is why the mechanism jams after a year. the impeller and nozzle are made of sterner stuff, but the whole thing gets flushed after every use, and the skis are rotated out on a two or three year cycle. If I were designing them I would make that reverse baffle out of the same material I made the propeller or impeller, marine grade brass, or whatever the hybrid metal they use on props is these days. But NOT plastic. that has its own problems. I know aluminium "saves weight", but some times, you got to go for heavier grade to last long enough... and how much heavy will a brass baffle be?.. less than a good lunch I suspect. Brass because its cheaper than the hybrid, if you wants heavy duty, you pays more?..
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 7, 2017 9:21:47 GMT
I think the problem is not such much in repairing system that have been damaged so much as in protecting those systems from damage in combat and anyone of them sustaining damage could cause the vehicle to fail.
A fragment of shrapnel could damage the water ballast tanks in the front or the rear, the lines that the water pumps through, the pump etc. The more system you have the more things there are to get damaged.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 7, 2017 10:53:10 GMT
But doesnt "any" craft of the type have similar problems?.
Even the existing Amphibious vehicles have their own service nightmares. I know, I worked in supplying the service of aircraft, there isnt anything out there with a motor on it that doesnt5 need spare parts now and again, I was also tracking spares for the vehicles on land that serviced the aircraft.... e.g., we went through more Car/Van/Truck tyres per week than we did aircraft tyres.
Getting back to amphibious vehicles, you have given me an idea. The ballast tanks could be filled with expanding foam to keep them waterproof if damaged, something we did when we built the first craft to set the around the coast of UK record, the under-deck sections in high seas off the coast of Scotland suffered leakage and damage in the initial planning stage, so the craft we built, had honeycomb filled under-deck tanks for fuel and foam filled sections between deck and hull "Just in case", if punctured, the hull would still float. If you need to add weight as ballast, have other tanks more inboard to balance the thing, just keep those "exposed" to outside danger protected. As for the propulsion, damage to the prop on a prop driven one almost certainly renders it useless, having ducted impellers with guard vents on the intake sort of prevents larger chunks getting near the impellers, if the vents block, reverse thrust, blow the blockage off, and away you go again?.
Having a multi-wheel craft for land use with lower pressure tyres, you have more chance of being able to continue with a lifted wheel [ using the suspension system] than just a 4 wheel system, at least to be able to get out of danger, even back to the water and back to the larger ships. This is why I suggest all-wheel steer, if a front wheel goes, just use the one behind it.
I am not in any way over complicating anything above the already pictured amphibious landing craft, just redesigning them with waterproof electric engines in each wheel, much like the brush-less motors you get in pond pumps, just more powerful, and waterproof electrics on the water jets, all sealed tight and "Modular" so that they can easily be swapped out should they need to service it.
Yes it is a complete redesign from the ground up to what they already have, but its one that needs building and troubleshooting by a team of SAS type ex-military people who have "been there done that" and need to know what will work and what wont. I see teams of disabled service guys with a Bowler Wildcat doing Paris-Dakar type runs on specially adapted vehicles.. I am sure they would be more than willing to give this a go as well, get them involved, not only will they be willing to help, they will be involved in a way that they are helping their buddies still on the front line?.
After all, this is "Pie in the sky" thinking, we aint ever going to actually get this thing working ourselves, but, just maybe, someone out there is thinking this is worth a go?
If they are, please pop in and say hello.
As for giving me problems with the design to solve, keep it coming, perhaps we can work "something" out?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 7, 2017 15:39:01 GMT
1; The design you are listing is anything but simple. 2; It has long been known that the key to amphibious attacks is getting off the beach as quickly as possible. Troops that waste time or are unable to get off a landing site take horrendous casualties. 3; Using vehicles as shelter is not a good idea. They make for great fixed reference points for artillery attacks. 4; Military planners do their best to find unprotected landing locations, but this is often impossible because the enemy is quite capable of doing the same thing. The number of such locations is limited, especially when you have to consider sites that also are suitable for bringing in large amounts of supplies. Its anything but simple until its in use, then, as its modular, its easy to use, and replace parts. The broken parts can be repaired on the desk, rather than on the vehicle, which allows the vehicle less time in service more time "ready", if an engine is 4 bolts and three plugs to remove, how easy is that?. and then the drive systems is the same. The wheels are modular on their suspension system, if one is damaged, lift to take the weight off, slide a cart under it, four bolts and one plug and its off. If its damaged on deployment, it can also be lifted out of the way and use the other wheels until you are safe. No drive shafts, more room inside. The vehicle affords shelter at the back for exiting troops who will find their own shelter after they get out, getting the thing parked near that shelter is the skill of the driver, he aint hanging about, just being part of the team that day. The further up the beach he can get the better chance of finding the rocks?.. If you cant find "The right beach", find a smaller one next to it, drop troops that can now land attack the beach wanted.... But all that is logistics for the forces to work out, we are just discussing a vehicle proposal. so now we need to put on an extra pair of wheels, just in case the operator wants to lift one. then you need to make the wheels wider, to compensate for them being smaller diameter, and of course to compensate for the weight of an extra pair of wheels. then you need to make the hull narrower, to compensate for the extra width of the wheels, because you can't make the whole thing wider or it won't fit in the cargo transports. the narrower hull means the machinery is riding higher in the hull, meaning you have less stability, and less room for crew and passengers. but hey, if you survive a mine that blows your wheel off, you can throw a switch, and if the hydraulic cylinder hasn't seized from salt water, you can raise the wheel and proceed. or you can just pick up one of these.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 8, 2017 8:55:03 GMT
"All great minds think alike"?
But sort of yes, but no. The reason that is sitting so high is the undercrakers, the drive systems and suspension need to go "Inwards" under the belly of the beast, I have suggested that the wheels themselves be the drive systems, no prop shafts, therefore, the suspension can go forwards or rearwards of the wheel not inwards, and the belly of the beast can go down between the wheels, unless you want to raise it up to clear something.
Think the nose wheel of a fast jet. That whole thing can fold up into the airframe cant it?.. why not a series of wheels down the side like that that can deploy up or down and be used partially deployed, but can fold up completely when in water, but are fully electrical driven The size of the tyre, I didnt say smaller, I just said low pressure on soft sand and the ability to change pressure from inside the cab for harder surfaces.
As for the crew cab, I have suggested that the pontoons that hold the wheels are sort of screwed onto the side of a crew cab so they dont intrude, as for fitting the whole thing inside a cargo transport, if it can take a standard landing vehicle and a tank, it can take two of what I was suggesting?.. shorter than a landing craft but about as wide as a tank, I have replaced the tank's tracks systems with pontoons for buoyancy and wheels for land work. There wont be a turret for a heavy gun, so more room inside.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 8, 2017 10:47:36 GMT
Going to have to post this here as its a good video thats worth the watch... including the floating tour bus.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 8, 2017 15:38:25 GMT
"All great minds think alike"? But sort of yes, but no. The reason that is sitting so high is the undercrakers, the drive systems and suspension need to go "Inwards" under the belly of the beast, I have suggested that the wheels themselves be the drive systems, no prop shafts, therefore, the suspension can go forwards or rearwards of the wheel not inwards, and the belly of the beast can go down between the wheels, unless you want to raise it up to clear something. Think the nose wheel of a fast jet. That whole thing can fold up into the airframe cant it?.. why not a series of wheels down the side like that that can deploy up or down and be used partially deployed, but can fold up completely when in water, but are fully electrical driven The size of the tyre, I didnt say smaller, I just said low pressure on soft sand and the ability to change pressure from inside the cab for harder surfaces. As for the crew cab, I have suggested that the pontoons that hold the wheels are sort of screwed onto the side of a crew cab so they dont intrude, as for fitting the whole thing inside a cargo transport, if it can take a standard landing vehicle and a tank, it can take two of what I was suggesting?.. shorter than a landing craft but about as wide as a tank, I have replaced the tank's tracks systems with pontoons for buoyancy and wheels for land work. There wont be a turret for a heavy gun, so more room inside. and how many fast jets do you know who can land on a rock garden? and if the wheels are inside the pontoons, then you have to tear the whole thing apart to change a wheel, and any space provided for the wheel to retract will not count towards bouyancy, unless you provide for closures with seals and pumps to pump the water out after you have etracted your landing gear, which is three more things to go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 9, 2017 1:10:11 GMT
it also bears mentioning that aircraft landing gear doesn't have suspension travel.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 9, 2017 2:10:05 GMT
IFV's (or modern APC's) have turrets with cannon in them for a reason; It allows them to provide covering fire for disembarking infantry and light direct fire support against light armour and fortified positions such as machine gun emplacements. They put this in a turret not to take up space but so that support doesn't require some poor sap to stand seven or eight feet in the air exposed to everything the enemy can throw at them.
You are focusing purely on the amphibious aspect of a design, forgetting that 99% of the operations of amphibious vehicles will be on land performing the exact same missions as their land-locked counterparts. Even that other 1% will mainly be spent crossing rivers, not in the ocean.
The ability to drive across water is an addition to the normal capabilities of the role a vehicle plays, not the be all and end all of the design. They still have to be just as capable of performing their main role, be that as an IFV or a truck, as everything else in service. If they can't you are better off using landing craft to deliver non-amphibious vehicles that can do those roles.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 9, 2017 2:48:34 GMT
IFV's (or modern APC's) have turrets with cannon in them for a reason; It allows them to provide covering fire for disembarking infantry and light direct fire support against light armour and fortified positions such as machine gun emplacements. They put this in a turret not to take up space but so that support doesn't require some poor sap to stand seven or eight feet in the air exposed to everything the enemy can throw at them. You are focusing purely on the amphibious aspect of a design, forgetting that 99% of the operations of amphibious vehicles will be on land performing the exact same missions as their land-locked counterparts. Even that other 1% will mainly be spent crossing rivers, not in the ocean. The ability to drive across water is an addition to the normal capabilities of the role a vehicle plays, not the be all and end all of the design. They still have to be just as capable of performing their main role, be that as an IFV or a truck, as everything else in service. If they can't you are better off using landing craft to deliver non-amphibious vehicles that can do those roles. now that you mention river crossings, that would be a good application for the hovercraft + drop turret configuration. you can drop the turrets, make a fast crossing under covering fire; then return after establishing the beachhead to pick up the turrets and bring them across. of course, if you had the manpower for it, you could get the same results with tanks and amphibious attack vehicles. however, if it is a swampy planet, hovercraft might be the primary vehicle platform.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 9, 2017 10:07:23 GMT
it also bears mentioning that aircraft landing gear doesn't have suspension travel. What?.. erm, "oh yes it does"?.. depends on the type of craft and its weight, but your small Pipers may not, modern fast jet does. Here is one of a USA Harrier... Question, does that tyre look a bit flat to you or is it just me?...
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 9, 2017 10:16:08 GMT
IFV's (or modern APC's) have turrets with cannon in them for a reason; It allows them to provide covering fire for disembarking infantry and light direct fire support against light armour and fortified positions such as machine gun emplacements. They put this in a turret not to take up space but so that support doesn't require some poor sap to stand seven or eight feet in the air exposed to everything the enemy can throw at them. You are focusing purely on the amphibious aspect of a design, forgetting that 99% of the operations of amphibious vehicles will be on land performing the exact same missions as their land-locked counterparts. Even that other 1% will mainly be spent crossing rivers, not in the ocean. The ability to drive across water is an addition to the normal capabilities of the role a vehicle plays, not the be all and end all of the design. They still have to be just as capable of performing their main role, be that as an IFV or a truck, as everything else in service. If they can't you are better off using landing craft to deliver non-amphibious vehicles that can do those roles. Not so. What I am looking at is a version of the Land based vehicle that will be able to transport troops from heavy ship to shore. In safety. I suspect the ship to be able to get close enough to give overhead fire support to suppress the shoreline, and then its a quick dash to get troops on shore before the enemy defences recover. As for the heavy cannon, the co-driver could be armed with a video-screen linked Mini-Gun or similar that is roof mounted but fired from inside, thus no heavy turret as no one needs to stand up to fire it. keeps the centre of gravity lower... I suspect if needed the roof and sides of the craft could carry as much firepower as the underneath of a fast jet. And be fired from the same technology. Helmet mounted sight screens and remote firing systems by the co-driver, or even driver. You dont need heavy cannon, light weaponry should suffice, if you need heavy cannon, send a version that is all floating tank and not troop carrier?..
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 9, 2017 12:05:50 GMT
IF all you are doing is transporting people from ship to shore then a landing craft will do that job perfectly well, and have a higher payload per craft without all the systems you are adding, By cannon Cyber is referingbto something in the 37-40mm range that many IFV carry.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 9, 2017 12:56:43 GMT
it also bears mentioning that aircraft landing gear doesn't have suspension travel. What?.. erm, "oh yes it does"?.. depends on the type of craft and its weight, but your small Pipers may not, modern fast jet does. Here is one of a USA Harrier... Question, does that tyre look a bit flat to you or is it just me?... but unless it is different from every US plane, its normal position when the plane is on it is bottomed out.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 10, 2017 6:31:30 GMT
What?.. erm, "oh yes it does"?.. depends on the type of craft and its weight, but your small Pipers may not, modern fast jet does. Question, does that tyre look a bit flat to you or is it just me?... but unless it is different from every US plane, its normal position when the plane is on it is bottomed out. Thats maybe because you expect Ironing-board flat runways... the Harriers was built to land on turf as well, and so were many other UK jets. Not ideal, I know, but turf is better than a ditch?. Bottomed out suspension to me says you either overloaded it or you need a bigger spring?.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 10, 2017 15:25:08 GMT
but unless it is different from every US plane, its normal position when the plane is on it is bottomed out. Thats maybe because you expect Ironing-board flat runways... the Harriers was built to land on turf as well, and so were many other UK jets. Not ideal, I know, but turf is better than a ditch?. Bottomed out suspension to me says you either overloaded it or you need a bigger spring?. or it's not designed to be driving around on an off-road course. the wheels on an airplane are only designed to be used in the transition period between the sky and the parking space. so they build them to take an awfully big whallop when the plane comes down and to survive some relatively minor bumps, and that is it. if you put springs and shock absorbers on them, you'd be replacing shock absorbers nearly every time you landed, and the pilot would have to try to control a bucking bronco any time he made a hard landing.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 11, 2017 7:47:35 GMT
Thats maybe because you expect Ironing-board flat runways... the Harriers was built to land on turf as well, and so were many other UK jets. Not ideal, I know, but turf is better than a ditch?. Bottomed out suspension to me says you either overloaded it or you need a bigger spring?. or it's not designed to be driving around on an off-road course. the wheels on an airplane are only designed to be used in the transition period between the sky and the parking space. so they build them to take an awfully big whallop when the plane comes down and to survive some relatively minor bumps, and that is it. if you put springs and shock absorbers on them, you'd be replacing shock absorbers nearly every time you landed, and the pilot would have to try to control a bucking bronco any time he made a hard landing. Depends on the plane, but especially here in UK, and Canada, and a lot of Africa, and many parts of the other-world-that-isn't-USA, Including Down Under, many light planes still use turf runways, or even beaches, roads, both metalled and rough dirt roads at that, clearings, whatever they can find. One runway in the outer Hebrides uses only the beach, Do I need to say "Only when the tide is out" there?.. IATA is BRR, which is apt, as its bloody cold most of the year, but the whole airport is on the sands there at Traigh Mhòr on Barra island. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barra_Airport_%28Scotland%29Yes many of those use Twin Otter de-haviland and other STOL capable aircraft, but its still a bumpy ride?. Interesting Point, the Mhòr part of the name Traigh Mhòr there, its Gaelic, and many believe its the origin of the word moor, as in moorland, to denote a piece of wild land with not a lot on it.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2017 8:30:16 GMT
or it's not designed to be driving around on an off-road course. the wheels on an airplane are only designed to be used in the transition period between the sky and the parking space. so they build them to take an awfully big whallop when the plane comes down and to survive some relatively minor bumps, and that is it. if you put springs and shock absorbers on them, you'd be replacing shock absorbers nearly every time you landed, and the pilot would have to try to control a bucking bronco any time he made a hard landing. Depends on the plane, but especially here in UK, and Canada, and a lot of Africa, and many parts of the other-world-that-isn't-USA, Including Down Under, many light planes still use turf runways, or even beaches, roads, both metalled and rough dirt roads at that, clearings, whatever they can find. One runway in the outer Hebrides uses only the beach, Do I need to say "Only when the tide is out" there?.. IATA is BRR, which is apt, as its bloody cold most of the year, but the whole airport is on the sands there at Traigh Mhòr on Barra island. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barra_Airport_%28Scotland%29Yes many of those use Twin Otter de-haviland and other STOL capable aircraft, but its still a bumpy ride?. Interesting Point, the Mhòr part of the name Traigh Mhòr there, its Gaelic, and many believe its the origin of the word moor, as in moorland, to denote a piece of wild land with not a lot on it. many parts of the world, amphibious craft use worse.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 11, 2017 8:47:10 GMT
And we are talking an updated version that makes use of what we have learned recently, including what we now know is reliable on planet Mars with the Mars rovers, that are built to NOT be able to be serviced, but still work billions of miles away. In a hostile environment.
Why cant we get some of that on our own vehicles here on earth?..
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2017 8:57:36 GMT
And we are talking an updated version that makes use of what we have learned recently, including what we now know is reliable on planet Mars with the Mars rovers, that are built to NOT be able to be serviced, but still work billions of miles away. In a hostile environment. Why cant we get some of that on our own vehicles here on earth?.. Mars rover has a top speed of .11 MPH, and stops every 20 seconds to check its course for hazards.
|
|