The Grim Squeaker wrote:Sarevok wrote:It's not that RDA gear is not military level. The problem is it is over engineered, over complex and seemingly intentionally designed with exploits. If you are a company security guard on shoestring supply lines you would find 1950s aircraft lot more cheaper than vulnerable VTOLs that strain todays USA. Similarly you can't put uber halo like motion trackers capable of seeing through solid objects and claim no money left for cameras on that powered armor so better go with fragile glass canopy.
50's gear would be valuable antiques
.
Who's to say that anyone would even know how to use old gear, even today pilots are quite reliant on computert aided navigations, HUDs, fly by wire, gyroscopes, blah blah, and those haven't been around for that long especially for such a conservative industry - give it a century and how many pilots could you find with experience using WW1 planes?
(Which would probably be less of a technological gap).
Having flown both airplanes with computer-aided navigation and a WWII era airplane, I'd say that so far the
basic aspects of airplanes have remained pretty darn consistent. Of course, that doesn't prove that the there will be no significant changes in the future, and that some flight characteristics won't change (there are differences between, say, 1970 and 2000, much less 1950 and 2150), but I don't see it as unreasonable that a 22nd Century pilot could step into a 1950's era airplane and fly it. In fact, they could probably fly a WWI era airplane as by that time there had been sufficient standardization in controls to make the
basic flight control devices familar - i.e. stick, rudder, and throttle. The problem would be that the newer aircraft are more "forgiving" of certain types of error and pilots who are extremely reliant on that sort of thing, along with electronic aids, would have to go throught an adjust period - which, in the case of flight characteristics, could be fatal. On the other hand, there are "flight simulators" (they had crude ones as far back as WWI) that enable pilots to practice with unfamilar equipment in a safe environment. Clearly, the Avatarverse had the computer power to do that. So, along with the blueprints for a 1950's airplane send a simular program with emulation data.
The BIGGEST problem I see with the Pandoran pilots stepping into a 1950's airplane is that
they aren't airplane pilots! They fly
rotorcraft, they are rotorcraft pilots (with possible exceptions for the ground-to-orbit shuttle pilots). Attempting to fly an airplane when all you have is rotorcraft experience is a very good way to get killed as they do not have the same control systems or cockpit layout.
The Pandoran VTOL's are
rotorcraft - we are in no way improbable as we have had servicable VTOL rotorcraft in the real world since the 1940's. They're called "helicopters". The VTOL's in the movie are largely glorified helicopters.
Shroom Man 777 wrote:What? Those VTOLs are glorified helicopters, they're just as vulnerable as helicopters, they're just helicopters with funny looking helicopter blades. In a friggin' jungle where you have to land in the middle of clearings to drop mercs or scientists in the middle of the bush, or where you have to extract them, I think there'd be more utility in a helicopter-like design.
Especially when relatively low speed helicopters/VTOL birds can allow you to fly in between the giant-ass trees and floating islands even when the sensors are screwing up and you have to rely on Mk. 1 eyeballs - can your 1950s aircraft do that?
^ What he said.
Sarevok wrote:You guys sure about the aircraft ? VTOLs remain the holy grail of aviation.
See "helicopter" - it is a VTOL. We've had them for 70 years already. What is difficult is a VTOL
airplane.
They are motherfucking complex to design, build, maintain and fly.
Well, yes, helicopters
are inherently more complex and maintenance-intensive than airplanes....
The V-22 Osprey is decades in development and already killed dozens of people in crashes. It costs more than many state of the art fighter jets and might break US marine corps budget all by itself. How the hell can making such craft be easier than a simple plane ?
It's not - but they weren't using the Osprey system, the Pandoran aircraft, at least to my eye are
helicopters. Yes, they've been wanked a bit, but they are pure rotorcraft and not a half-assed bastard hybrid like the Osprey.
RDA should have built normal helicopters for utility purpose and a few fixed wing planes for security related tasks.
No - airplanes are not particuarly suited for the Pandoran environment. All points about the tree canopies, the tight maneuvering requirements, and lack of landing strips apply. Under such circumstances fixed wing are
not the best choice for anything really - consider that the US relied heavily on rotorcraft in Vietnam, where they were fighting in a jungle environment. Fixed wings were used for some observation (which tasks are frequently done by satellite now, and probably would continue to be satellite-based in the future) and for bombing runs -- which, as the RDA was not supposed to be engaging in open warfare with the natives, wasn't likely to be on the equipment lists. The Pandoran reliance on rotorcraft makes perfect sense. The use of a transport to throw jury-rigged mining changes as bombs also makes perfect sense in the context of the story and is no more ridiculous than WWI era observation planes dropping hand grenades over the side as "bombs". It's repurposing an aircraft with local materials for a role they weren't originally intended to fulfill.
It makes sense they would have rotorcraft and rotorpilots - it's not cost-effective day-to-day to maintain a parallel aviation capacity of airplanes and fixed wing pilots who are more or less useless for day-to-day operations, especially when the rotorcraft can also do security duty when needed.
Sarevok wrote:Actually helicopters would be much better for moving people and cargo around the forest from cost perspective. In case of an attack a helicopter could also defend itself at least as well as the VTOLs given same armament.
Um... maybe that's why they were using helicopters?
If their manufacturing so good they can make VTOLs onsite easily they can make many more robust airplanes and helicopters.
Their vehicles ARE helicopters!
And, again - it doesn't make sense to maintain two sets of piloting skills given their limited resources. Much better to hire helicopter pilots and keepthem current in helicopters than to try to add on fixed-wing aircraft. It's not just a matter of building and maintaining machines, you also have to maintain the human skills to use those machines.
AniThyng wrote:I doubt any helicopter would keep flying for long after it's rotor blades are done chopping up the wildlife.
Rotors have
some ability to chop things up, but given the speed of impact and the energy involved it can do Bad Things to the rotor, after which Bad Things tend to happen to the aircraft and those inside it. And, in fact, on Pandora the rotorcraft all seem to have circular guards around their rotors, presumably to provide some protection to the blades. This would add weight and complexity to such an aircraft but if the chances of rotorstrikes were high enough it might be a reasonable trade off. Given the tight quarters for operations and the number of airborne creatures on Pandora this, too, makes some sense.
PeZook wrote:Actually, those movie gunships (I refuse to call them VTOLs: they're effin' helicopters, just with an exotic rotor arrangement!) lose to classical helicopters in the "rotor diameter" category because of the way their rotors are arranged. Of course, those rings probably do make the blades a bit safer in case of them hitting something.
With a denser atmosphere they don't
need rotors as wide as Earth helicopters to get the same performance.
Shroom Man 777 wrote:I thought their rather small VTOL rotors were not quite as wide in diameter as the rotors of the helicopters, which seem wider.
EDIT:
Blackhawk helicopter rotors are 16 meters in diameter. The Pandorapedia says that those Scorpion gunships are just 8.7 meters wide. Moreover, while the Scorpion gunships' rotors are contained on those two ring-thinggies, a helicopter's rotors spin all around the helicopter, increasing its overall area 'coverage' compared to the relatively confined Scorpion gunship rotors. The gunship rotors would have less chances of hitting foreign objects compared to a Blackhawk helicopter.
THEY'RE FREAKIN' HELICOPTERS - just call them that, m'kay? And, again - with a denser atmosphere you don't need as great a rotor diameter. Also, "confining" a prop (and helicopters rotors are, in many ways, horizontal propellers) does not necessarialy reduce its effectiveness, see
"ducted fan". Cripes, ducted fans are
standard equipement on many aircraft even today. The Pandoran use of them is a bit different than what we do, but given the environment, not particuarly outrageous or far-fetched. Properly designed, the "ring thingies" will actually make the Pandoran rotors MORE efficient than present-day helicopters, not less.