Oh cool, a landing chart for an airport with the approach angles and stuff. Now I just gotta figure out what all the numbers mean. I will soon return to my materials rant.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee81d/ee81da320a192f6706bc25323a852be02319c819" alt="Very Happy :D"
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Oh cool, a landing chart for an airport with the approach angles and stuff. Now I just gotta figure out what all the numbers mean. I will soon return to my materials rant.
Oh, I can feel the jealousyWicked Pilot wrote:TAKE THIS ENGINEERS!
If you thought that approach plate was complicated, just wait until I start pulling out some aircraft performance charts. Muwhahahahahah...Colonel Olrik wrote:Your puny landing scheme is no match for the power of a fully grown engineer!
I thought about doing one from Chicago O'Hare, but I've never actually flown into there. I have however done a few touch'n go's over at Mosiant while getting my multi rating over at Lakefront.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Any idea why you picked my city's airport chart over any other? LOL
I don't know enough about depleted uranium to comment on it. Other materials, titanium is being considered as a replacement for steel in some applications mainly for weight saving purposes. They're also using metal & ceramic composite plates in some bullet proof vests, though I'm not sure why. My guess is that sweat will cause rust in steel plates but who knows? These plates are roughly 0.5-1" thick and are in conjunction with the kevlar vests they can stop anything up to a 7.62mm NATO rifle round. The bullets will damage the plates though, and they're good for less than 10 hits at most. A good armour steel plate half that thickness will bounce the same bullets off it all day with minimal damage.beyond hope wrote:I'm curious as well: if rarity or difficulty in working a given metal or alloy wasn't a factor, would something else be preferrable to steel? I was wondering in particular about depleted uranium as starship armor. Also, I've seen zero-G forging mentioned in some novels and was wondering about it's actual usefulness. Lastly, would a (obviously theoretical) material combining the characteristics of metal and plastic be useful for anything or not?
A battery charger. Wow...Colonel Olrik wrote:Oh, I can feel the jealousyWicked Pilot wrote:TAKE THIS ENGINEERS!![]()
Your puny landing scheme is no match for the power of a fully grown engineer!
http://personal.smartt.com/~sansell/images/ckt_chrg.jpg
I don't know about Zero-G forging, but there are some things you can do to steel to improve its quality as armour. If you make steel more than about three and a half inches thick, in fact, failure to do these things will generally cause it to shatter when it is hit by rounds with a certain striking velocity.beyond hope wrote:I'm curious as well: if rarity or difficulty in working a given metal or alloy wasn't a factor, would something else be preferrable to steel? I was wondering in particular about depleted uranium as starship armor. Also, I've seen zero-G forging mentioned in some novels and was wondering about it's actual usefulness. Lastly, would a (obviously theoretical) material combining the characteristics of metal and plastic be useful for anything or not?
LETS GO GOOGLEGUNINBuah ah ah! You wish you knew the difference between martensitic, ferritic and austenitic steel
Damn you....between granular and grey molten iron, Why is dura-aluminium the way to go and what the fuck is a CK45 quality tempered carbon steel?
When young's modulus isn't enough....It's not that bad yet, we have yet to discuss stress/strain curves, elongation,
fatigue = bend that wire 10 times and it breaksretained austenite in steels, fatigue & corrosion micro-fracture propagation, secondary hardening tool steels and all that other fun stuff.
Just a circuit with a microchip, a few resisters, power supplies and transisters thrown in.Your puny landing scheme is no match for the power of a fully grown engineer!
A soft metal cap on the shell can nullfy the projectile shattering effects of face hardened armor, making it useless.....Anyway, the process by which you improve steel as an armour is called face-hardening, and the various versions of that include Krupp Cemented and Harveyized Nickel Steel. (There was also an earlier simple Nickel Steel.) Krupp Cemented Armour got to 35% of the armour thickness. With other versions (Harveyized Nickel Steel) you could super-harden the first inch or so and do the same treatment to a noticably lesser degree on the rest. Remember that this was the 1890s and the process has improved since then.
Hrmm. I understood that one of the main problems can actually be that the impactor may dislodge a "plug" of armour from the impact point; usually in pieces but sometimes as a single piece, which can travel into the hull to cause damage.Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the bulk characteristics of armour are already very good in terms of simultaneously balancing toughness, hardness, and tensile strength. Case-hardening doesn't hurt, but it really doesn't contribute that much to stopping crack growth, unless the impactor is so soft that it doesn't penetrate the case-hardened layer (not the case with specialized anti-armour weapons).
Well, on very early battleships they used a layering of Steel/Iron/Wood - "Compound Armour" - as the armour scheme. 3in of steel, usually, and you could get up to a foot and a half of iron - that sounds pretty impressive, but the belt was quite narrow - And it could easily be backed by a foot or more of wood to cushion it all.If you could stack hard and soft layers that would be very handy, but that seems rather impractical for such large amounts of metal.
EDIT: Apology there; I just checked in Friedman and you're right; they used STS which was homogenous by that time, along with a decapping plate.SWPIGWANG wrote: A soft metal cap on the shell can nullfy the projectile shattering effects of face hardened armor, making it useless.....
And if it is hypervelocity, the shell would melt itself and then the armor and I don't think hardening helps.
There is a reason face hardened armor is phased out mid WWII....
Near perfect mirrors are near impossible to maintain in real-world conditions outside of clean rooms. They also won't do much good if the enemy is unsporting enough to shoot at you with lasers (e.g. deep UV) that aren't reflected by mirror coatings.kojikun wrote:hows this for a hull: near perfect reflector made of a superconducting matrial.