Proposal of a new VTOL: Based on real-life counterparts

[Olrox]

I can resume that all in "bla bla bla" - very few offense on it. You're getting really boring on that, really.

No AIRCRAFT is gonna look like a real fighter unless we have specific turrets for them and bodies especially designed for aircraft, with propulsion especially designed for those models.

Stick to the reality and see that tank bodies won't fit a fighter, and a fighter body won't fit a tank, and a tank turret won't fit a fighter, and a fighter turret won't fit a tank, and a propulsion that makes a tank body an aircraft won't make it look like a fighter, and a propulsion that was made for a fighter won't fit a tank body.
The "typos" were intended.

This would belong in somewhere that someone was designing new bodies as well, but here we are thinking about propulsions that would fit a tank body and make it look more like an aircraft - but nobody talked about changing the bodies, ok?

If that goes on, I may very well get out from this topic, because it IS getting really boring to see a new post an see that's still about STOVL/STOL/VTOL/WTFTOL or about things that have barely the name in common, such as turrets.

About the "air terminator", I really didn't see any of the Terminator movies, so I can claim that it didn't affect my design. But I also think that it is somewhat similar in some parts, yes.

~Olrox

[3drts]

#1) I never said we should have anything like an F-35 body. ("more like" != exactly like, it only means an increase in similarity)
#2) This thread is about VTOL propulsion graphics/design
#3) the F-35 is in fact a VTOL design
#4) Therefore a propulsion resembling the layout of the F-35 (fuselage mounted engine, wings with weapon pylons, fuselage mounted lift fan, rear engine nozzle), as the topic creator made, is quite reasonable for WZ's VTOL propulsion graphics.
#5) Post length: If you would quit your unreasonable objections, requiring people to justify their statements with longer posts, we wouldn't have this problem

none of the aircraft you've used as inspiration are VTOLs

wrong

Red is a lie and blue proves that. Further explanation below:
...
All the F-35 designs (A, B and C if I remember it right) aren't VTOL, you're speaking about JSF C, which is designed for aircraft carriers as a STOVL. STOVL is not VTOL. The footage shows that it can lift itself off the ground, but didn't show that it could actually reposition its parts and get a decent trajectory without the "ST" from "STOVL". Actually the take-off footage shows it gaining speed in a short airstrip. Probably its fans/ rotational thrusters are for landing only (the jet uses the rotational thrusters to reduce speed, the big fan to stabilize, and then the rotational thrusters again to actually land smoothly, vertically.

That's what STOVL is all about, but that's really unimportant to keep discussing about. With those rotational jet thrusters and the lifting speed, it is far from what we see on a WZ VTOL (takes off fast, gain speed fast, stop fast and land fast).

Long post, doesn't change the fact you are still objecting to something not worth objecting to, the design is VTOL, STOVL is just better in operation if at all possible, and there is nothing at the design level that prohibits VTOL operation.

Is that really important since WZ2100 VTOLS need to be VTOLS only, and not STOVL or any other design?
Also, is a hammer a can opener only because it can be used to open a can but it's never used like that in practice?

Who says it needs to be VTOL only? Anything with wings will benefit from a STOVL takeoff

IMO, BP should use true "VTOL aircraft" instead of an aircraft that is capable of but isn't used like that in practice, for inspiration. We shouldn't get "bogged down by semantics"

Even the V-22 Osprey can do STOVLs, It is only operationally vtol most of the time, because it is expected to deliver its payload via a vertical landing, and perform vertical landings with over 50% fuel remaining, whereas a fighter-bomber carrying ordinance does not need vertical capability to unload its payload, and thus can be loaded up beyond the capacity for vertical flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey
"STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°."
It would only use this capacity if it were to be loaded to resupply troops with heavy equipment/supplies, that could be parachute dropped.
It is, thus S/VTOL just like the F-35, whose propulsion you so vehemently object to because it is not pure VTOL- neither is the propulsion you advocate.

Not to mention your whole "are you kidding, its so easy...." and then post a solution that is utter garbage and not a solution at all (engine upgrades pre-reqs for weapons), requiring a semi-long post to tell you why it is garbage.

And you spend paragraphs complaining about long posts, brought about by your continued, unjustified, objections to previous posts.

This could have ended a long time ago with you admitting the F-35 is just as much VTOL as the Osprey is, so both are equally viable as propulsion design inspirations, but every time someone comments about that, you see fit to unjustifiably object yet again.

You have no right to complain about post/thread length, you brought it on yourself.

[Black Project]

I thought that this damned discussion about VTOLs was ended after a long time...

Instead of complaining and fighting each other about VTOLs, why not enjoy the new GFX and gave me feedback to improve it

Otherwise, just leave this topic, please, or i'll call a moderator to lock this topic for good

I'm getting really pissed off with this

[3drts]

I like your vtol graphics, and I'm saying I don't agree with the objections Olrox had to them

[Olrox]

You have no right to complain about post/thread length, you brought it on yourself.

Oh, I have. You don't have to try to prove me of anything in here, I don't see why you need to pollute the topic with your "righteousness" instead of sending me PMs to tell me why I'm wrong, since I seem to be the only one truly objecting.

Or at least I don't remember a forum rule about asking people to stop personal discussions on other people's topic.

...and then post a solution that is utter garbage and not a solution at all (engine upgrades pre-reqs for weapons), requiring a semi-long post to tell you why it is garbage.

This, however, is very risky to write. You may think that it's "utter garbage", but that's only your opinion, and you aren't "captain truth" afaik. Mocking people is, even if not against the rules, very unpolite. I'll take that as if you had a bad day and couldn't be more educated in your post.

Anyway, I'll not participate here anymore anyway since the whole post is with a heavy feeling after all.
I can send you the files if you want, BP. After you do so, I'll make my part in mantaining this topic clean by withdrawing from this stubborn misplaced discussion that I seem to have accidentally created with my opinions.

~Olrox

[Alpha93]

I like the first model pretty much.

[Olrox]

I'm posting the model and texture files here, since they were requested via PM

Looking at this texture after all that time, it looks actually really bad, but nevermind
I did have a bump map for it (yeah, a bump map ) but it was painfully pointless and dirty, no reason to post it here, really.

But here you go

V22VTOL.png

v22vtol.3DS

[MaNGusT]

Thank you again. This model has very sweet design, but just needs a few tweaks/updates to fit the wz.