Why not?
>>65617740GDI carryall from the C&C tiberium games.
>>65617740Mostly cost and complexity, a bigger Osprey would be cheaper to build and maintian than something with double the engines and rotors.
>>65617740Maybe in 60 years but not today.
>>65617748>carryall
>>65617740It would require too many sacrifices.
>carryall
>>65617748That's a Tarantula from Nuclear Option.And to answer OP... it's a four-engine tiltrotor. Such an aircraft would be spending 99% of its life in constant maintenance.
When I first saw it I assumed the 76mm was a gimmick but it's flat out the best air to ground weapon in the game.
MIC just doesn't have the 20th century wanderlust anymore
>>65617740>Why not?Way too cool to exist in our reality.
>>65617740Square cube law, all eggs in one basket bad.
>>65618069How do you use it? I find myself getting incredibly bored pinging guided shells from relative saftey
>>65617740It doesn’t look like the wings provide any lift so the rotors have to do all the lifting. It is more efficient to have one giant rotor (like the CH-53) than several smaller motors plus other benefits like lower complexity and cost. When you have a tiny vehicle like a multi copter that weighs a few pounds it isn’t that big a deal to add extra motors and rotors, but efficiency absolutely tanks when you try to scale that up. My estimate is above 500 lbs. it’s better to use a conventional layout. Now if you change those stubby little wings for ones that actually produce lift, that idea looks brighter.
>>65618298>lock up 20 targets on the map>get into a firing position>fire 2 shells>unlock target>fire 2 shells>unlock target>lock up 20 more targets while you wait for the gun to cool downBoltstrikes usually need 5 shells and Aerosentries usually need 10, but everything except HELs go down eventually, and when everything is dead you can immediately drop a LAV25 to capture the base. The excitement comes from trying to survive enemy players while you do it.
>>65618334Ah yeah so pretty much what I do only a bit more efficient. I'm gonna continue trying to infiltrate enemy airspace in a chicane and dying repeatedly instead.
>>65617740Zero recovery from engine failure.
>>65618380But enough about the osprey
>>65617740
>>65618496
>>65618497
>>65617828You don't have to mechanically connect all rotors together with a billion clutches and universal joints, at this point one could reasonably envision a hybrid electric system to provide redundancy; IIRC GE has developed such a system recently. Granted it would still be a four engine beast, but such an aircraft would be much better than an Osprey. Cooler too.
>>65618069>blocks your path
>>65618507Anduril's Thunder attack tiltrotor uses electric motors powered by a conventional engine/generator. Idk if it would be enough for a C130 size plane
Why not? Because >MISSILE [ARH] 12.6 km>MISSILE [ARH] 12.4 km>MISSILE [ARH] 10.5 km>MISSILE [ARH] 9164 m >MISSILE [ARH] 5261 m
>INCOMING INCOMING INCOMINGWHZZZZ
>>65618765I remember when ARH was duked by just hovering slowly in one spot
>>65618507If it relies on four engines and no interconnected drive then where is the redundancy?
>>65618256That thing is pure sex. Quadcopter AC130, basically. I am terrible at flying it in-game, though. You really have to plan your flight path out, fly below radar, stay close to friendly aircraft, and pray you don't have to manoeuvre it too much.
>>65617740why use props and not turbo fans? Why not use turbofans on the Osprey and eliminate the giant blender blades?
>>65618514>SIR GET DOWNhttps://www.instagram.com/reel/De6CE8sqe1d/
>>65619340Turbofans and turbojets produce thrust, turboprops produce constant power. A turboprop is better suited to produce more thrust at lower speed. You can see variable pitch propellers like a CVT in a car.
When is the Rafale-Gripen-Viper going to get a model update? It's clearly outdated compared to newer plens, and the pug nose has to go
>>65618380If you can CTOL on a runway even if you only have two engines left. Set rotors to 70 degree tilt to avoid a groundstrike, and just land it like a C-130
>>65619456The disc loading is going to be ridiculous even with all 4 props running. No way it stays airborne at landing speed with only 2.
>>65619445I reject that thing being Rafale anything, the intakes are ugly, it's a single engine and it really need that QoL-mod extra pylon.The game definitely need a Rank 4 fighter based on the Rafale-Eurofighter.That said I'm impressed how this game don't limit itself to fighter fighter fighter fighter and let you use aircraft with very specific job in a complete battlefield.https://nuclearoption.wiki.gg/wiki/CargoJet1
>>65619340Thrust is proportional to exhaust velocity squared whereas power consumption is proportional to exhaust velocity cubed, so for maximum fuel efficiency you want to expel the largest mass of air at the lowest speed possible. The caveat to that is that engines don't produce any thrust if the exhaust velocity is lower than the airspeed, which is why fast jets use turbofans instead of props and why even faster jets use turbojets instead of turbofans.
Reminder that if you compare the size of a hexhound to the size of a GPO-500, an Ibis should be able to fit six of them in the rear cargo bay in addition to the twelve AGM-48s in the front cargo bay.
>>65620096I'm sittin' here strokin' mah dick right now
>>65620101You could, but it sure would suck to suddenly have to take evasive action with that load.
>>65617740the v-22 is shityou'll notice all the next chen chopper designs are looking at hybrid autogyros not tilt rotors, dead end technology
>>65618256>shooting right into your engine and rotorsgreat plannotice the v22 has no side guns?
>>65620362Can you rotate an apple in your head?
>>65621100Ruined that retards life with this one
>>65620349I want the Ibis Trigger to take a fat load on my face
>>65620362While the game take liberties, did you somehow manage to forget the number of engines?
>>65617759
>>65617740Useless in an ion storm.
>>65618765Optical. I don't fear ARH or IR in a Tula.
>>65622238I have taught numerous Tulas to fear the AGM-99. Shit as an anti-ship missile, hilariously competent in anti-air. They will not stop chasing you
>>65622251AGM-99s are bugged at the moment and don't trigger MAWS. Even pilots that know to evade them can just get randomly collected.
I do think Nuclear Option unironically shows how a future mechanized force would actually be. >EW up the ass>High altitude flight is suicide due to SAM's up the ass>Lasers defending key points>Lasers that are mobile>Lasers on tanks>Lasers everywhere>Mixture of extremely high tech, super expensive shit with the majority going Cold war tier purposefully cheap but still useable airframes for mass and economy And of course if there was every a time where MAD doctrine ever gets replaced by strategic level active defensive systems rendering strategic level nuclear exchanges useless than I can definitely see a drunk pilot flinging a 1.5kt nuclear dummy bomb with a fucking trainer jet at enemy positions.
I love the FS-3 Ternion. Let's just throw all the super F-15 projects (Silent Eagle, Strike Eagle, EX, MTD) into one plane and give it EOTS to boot.
>>65623290>finngolian cavalry assault korean positions under nuclear artillery barrage
>>65623290>nuclear dummy bombThat would be a nuke with an inert warhead, which wouldn't be very useful.You want a:>nuclear dumb bomb
>>65618980Well in theory it should be able to get down safely with only three engines, so you have a some degree of redundancy.
thoughts?
