61,078
edits
Talk:UH-144 Falcon: Difference between revisions
m
Removing Captain G1 file
m (clean up, replaced: {{Article Quote → {{Article quote (2)) |
m (Removing Captain G1 file) |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
Got a Falcon image from Bungie.net: | Got a Falcon image from Bungie.net: | ||
[[File: | [[File:Falcon 02.jpg|thumb]] | ||
From here: [http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/cutouts/Falcon_03.jpg] | From here: [http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/images/cutouts/Falcon_03.jpg] | ||
It's titled "Falcon 2". [[User talk:Chris-015|Chris-015]] 17:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC) | It's titled "Falcon 2". [[User talk:Chris-015|Chris-015]] 17:39, February 13, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
:All your points are excellent. The 'H' type letter exists because it is a helicopter, despite its obvious similarities to the Osprey. If the nacelles tilted forward, or if it had some other means of forward propulsion like a pusher, then it would be logical to change that H to a V. The U stands for utility, and is used for the Falcon because this is a light, versatile helicopter, much like the Huey and Blackhawk. Economically speaking, the Falcon seems like a poor choice. I conjecture that not enough funds/time were available to deliver Pelicans to the frontlines, so the Falcon remained the primary method of aerial transportation. Speaking from an aerodynamic perspective, the Falcon appears to make poor use of its turboprops. Even modern day helicopters have rear-facing exhaust stacks. | :All your points are excellent. The 'H' type letter exists because it is a helicopter, despite its obvious similarities to the Osprey. If the nacelles tilted forward, or if it had some other means of forward propulsion like a pusher, then it would be logical to change that H to a V. The U stands for utility, and is used for the Falcon because this is a light, versatile helicopter, much like the Huey and Blackhawk. Economically speaking, the Falcon seems like a poor choice. I conjecture that not enough funds/time were available to deliver Pelicans to the frontlines, so the Falcon remained the primary method of aerial transportation. Speaking from an aerodynamic perspective, the Falcon appears to make poor use of its turboprops. Even modern day helicopters have rear-facing exhaust stacks. | ||
:I have no clue why the Pelican is a 'D77-TC' and not a CV-XX, a more logical alphanumeric label. The current label looks like it came from Star Wars, since TC = Troop Carrier just as nearly every abbreviation stands for the machine's mission (AT-AT = All-Terrain Attack Transport I believe). But it does fly pretty fast, and I believe it was determined that it used rocket fuel, as you don't see to many intakes on the hull, and the Pelican is capable of sublight flight, albeit for a small duration, so it must use rocket fuel or some other derivative at least part of the time. The Hornet and Falcon use turboprops and thus jet fuel. The Chinook would by no means do better, nostalgic intent aside. | :I have no clue why the Pelican is a 'D77-TC' and not a CV-XX, a more logical alphanumeric label. The current label looks like it came from Star Wars, since TC = Troop Carrier just as nearly every abbreviation stands for the machine's mission (AT-AT = All-Terrain Attack Transport I believe). But it does fly pretty fast, and I believe it was determined that it used rocket fuel, as you don't see to many intakes on the hull, and the Pelican is capable of sublight flight, albeit for a small duration, so it must use rocket fuel or some other derivative at least part of the time. The Hornet and Falcon use turboprops and thus jet fuel. The Chinook would by no means do better, nostalgic intent aside. <small><span style="border: 2px solid black; -moz-border-radius:24px">[[User:orionf22|'''<span style="background-color:#787878; color:white; -moz-border-radius-topleft:24px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:24px"> ΘяɪɸɴF22 </span>''']][http://halopedian.com/User:orionf22 <span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:24px; -moz-border-radius-topright:24px"> Me </span>][[User talk:orionf22|<span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:24px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:24px"> Talk </span>]][[Special:Contributions/orionf22|<span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick"> Contributions </span>]][http://xfire.com/clans/coag <span style="background-color:#787878; color:gold; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:24px; -moz-border-radius-topright:24px"> <b>CAG</b> </span>]</span></small> 04:47, June 8, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Well, yeah, I suppose Chinooks would be more inefficient. Although, I see no reason to use rocket fuel in an atmosphere, and also there are air intakes above, though I seriously doubt those wouldn't take in enough air and get them to the combustion chambers(I'd assume each nacelle has a different combustion chamber), ''and ''provide enough thrust to keep the Pelican from losing lift. I always thought the Pelican used downward thrust to keep it in the air, though there doesn't seem to be any visible exhaust. Also, if the Hornets use turboprops, where's the 'prop' part as in 'propeller'? But I'm getting off topic. The point is, though the Falcon was, from my perspective, generally welcomed in a good way by the fans, there's been a little mix-up as to what it is exactly, aside from a troop transport. Some say it's a tiltrotor, some say it's a V/STOL(like me), some say it's an economic transport, and some much less notable ones. I'm not saying that these are all in one field(e.g. tiltrotor in operation, economic transport in role/purpose) though. [[Special:Contributions/125.60.241.224|125.60.241.224]] 05:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC) | :Well, yeah, I suppose Chinooks would be more inefficient. Although, I see no reason to use rocket fuel in an atmosphere, and also there are air intakes above, though I seriously doubt those wouldn't take in enough air and get them to the combustion chambers(I'd assume each nacelle has a different combustion chamber), ''and ''provide enough thrust to keep the Pelican from losing lift. I always thought the Pelican used downward thrust to keep it in the air, though there doesn't seem to be any visible exhaust. Also, if the Hornets use turboprops, where's the 'prop' part as in 'propeller'? But I'm getting off topic. The point is, though the Falcon was, from my perspective, generally welcomed in a good way by the fans, there's been a little mix-up as to what it is exactly, aside from a troop transport. Some say it's a tiltrotor, some say it's a V/STOL(like me), some say it's an economic transport, and some much less notable ones. I'm not saying that these are all in one field(e.g. tiltrotor in operation, economic transport in role/purpose) though. [[Special:Contributions/125.60.241.224|125.60.241.224]] 05:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
::The rocket fuel, for all we know, may be a more efficient means of propulsion than jet fuel. Yes, the Pelican does have intakes located at the main nacelle roots, but those could not provide enough airflow to the fans for enough combustion. The ''Halo 3'' Pelican has about 3 times more intakes, most of which are located on the rear winglets and nacelles. It appears that this would provide adequate airflow. Yes, each nacelle has its own combustion chamber. The downward thrust is used for VTOL, and can be seen on the bottom of each nacelle. In the first two games, there are two exhaust stacks on the bottoms of the main nacelles, and one on each of the minor nacelles. Forward propulsion is accomplished by switching the direction of the exhaust from the downward facing nacelles to the aft facing nacelles, with two such exhaust stacks on every nacelle. The nacelles rotate to assist in directional control. It has been debated, but the general consensus seems to be that the Pelican must use some lifting body principles to sustain flight, as its wings could not provide enough lift as they are. One will notice that the downward facing stacks do not assist in keeping it aloft once in flight (watch a Pelican in ''Halo: CE''. When it lands, the downward stacks are operating. IT then hovers up by using them, and when it starts to move forward, the amount of exhaust sent to the downward stacks slowly decreases, and the amount sent to the aft stacks gradually increases, eventually to the point where all thrust is directed out of the aft stacks). | ::The rocket fuel, for all we know, may be a more efficient means of propulsion than jet fuel. Yes, the Pelican does have intakes located at the main nacelle roots, but those could not provide enough airflow to the fans for enough combustion. The ''Halo 3'' Pelican has about 3 times more intakes, most of which are located on the rear winglets and nacelles. It appears that this would provide adequate airflow. Yes, each nacelle has its own combustion chamber. The downward thrust is used for VTOL, and can be seen on the bottom of each nacelle. In the first two games, there are two exhaust stacks on the bottoms of the main nacelles, and one on each of the minor nacelles. Forward propulsion is accomplished by switching the direction of the exhaust from the downward facing nacelles to the aft facing nacelles, with two such exhaust stacks on every nacelle. The nacelles rotate to assist in directional control. It has been debated, but the general consensus seems to be that the Pelican must use some lifting body principles to sustain flight, as its wings could not provide enough lift as they are. One will notice that the downward facing stacks do not assist in keeping it aloft once in flight (watch a Pelican in ''Halo: CE''. When it lands, the downward stacks are operating. IT then hovers up by using them, and when it starts to move forward, the amount of exhaust sent to the downward stacks slowly decreases, and the amount sent to the aft stacks gradually increases, eventually to the point where all thrust is directed out of the aft stacks). | ||
::My bad on the Hornet using turboprops. It was erroneously grouped with the Falcon in my discussion up there. The Hornet likely uses turbofans to ensure it has adequate thrust to stay aloft and move about. The Falcon cannot be a tiltrotor. Its rotors are too large to permit movement downward. It'd cut its own fuselage. It is technically a VTOL, since it' a helicopter, but VTOL is implied in designating an aircraft as a helicopter. It seems economic because it is light, cheap, and comes in high numbers. It may not necessarily be economic in terms of fuel consumption or maintenance, but it does appear economic to the war effort. | ::My bad on the Hornet using turboprops. It was erroneously grouped with the Falcon in my discussion up there. The Hornet likely uses turbofans to ensure it has adequate thrust to stay aloft and move about. The Falcon cannot be a tiltrotor. Its rotors are too large to permit movement downward. It'd cut its own fuselage. It is technically a VTOL, since it' a helicopter, but VTOL is implied in designating an aircraft as a helicopter. It seems economic because it is light, cheap, and comes in high numbers. It may not necessarily be economic in terms of fuel consumption or maintenance, but it does appear economic to the war effort. <small><span style="border: 2px solid black; -moz-border-radius:24px">[[User:orionf22|'''<span style="background-color:#787878; color:white; -moz-border-radius-topleft:24px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:24px"> ΘяɪɸɴF22 </span>''']][http://halopedian.com/User:orionf22 <span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:24px; -moz-border-radius-topright:24px"> Me </span>][[User talk:orionf22|<span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:24px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:24px"> Talk </span>]][[Special:Contributions/orionf22|<span style="background-color:#787878; color:firebrick"> Contributions </span>]][http://xfire.com/clans/coag <span style="background-color:#787878; color:gold; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:24px; -moz-border-radius-topright:24px"> <b>CAG</b> </span>]</span></small> 14:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Yeah, but it doesn't seem economic to me. It's just that everything else around it is anything but economic. The only thing economic in my opinion is the Sparrowhawk, because it doesn't waste jet fuel or rocket fuel just for upward thrust or on something that flies pretty low and a little slow. It's just that Bungie keeps the usual sci-fi theme with over-exaggerated stuff, and the community gets the wrong ideas about those things, makes conspiracies about them, and in itself becomes a whole example of consensus reality. | :::Yeah, but it doesn't seem economic to me. It's just that everything else around it is anything but economic. The only thing economic in my opinion is the Sparrowhawk, because it doesn't waste jet fuel or rocket fuel just for upward thrust or on something that flies pretty low and a little slow. It's just that Bungie keeps the usual sci-fi theme with over-exaggerated stuff, and the community gets the wrong ideas about those things, makes conspiracies about them, and in itself becomes a whole example of consensus reality. | ||
:::And know I get why it's a helicopter. It isn't fixed-wing and it doesn't fly anything like the Osprey, actually. [[Special:Contributions/125.60.241.224|125.60.241.224]] 16:02, June 12, 2010 (UTC) | :::And know I get why it's a helicopter. It isn't fixed-wing and it doesn't fly anything like the Osprey, actually. [[Special:Contributions/125.60.241.224|125.60.241.224]] 16:02, June 12, 2010 (UTC) | ||