But this IS my idea of relaxation!

[kaigou]

For a takeoff using pure thrust and no wings, the thrust-weight ratio for the vehicle has to be more than one (for launch from the Earth's surface, for launch from the Moon it only needs to be more than 0.1654). In general, the thrust-to-weight ratio is numerically equal to the g-force that the vehicle can pull, provided the g-force exceeds local gravity then takeoff can occur. [Definition via Wikipedia.]

designation / name	series or country	length (m)	wt, emp (ton)	wt, gross (ton)	thrust (kN)	T/W ratio
RX-78-2 Gundam	MSG	18.5	43.4	60.0		0.93
RX-78GP01 Zephyranthes	0083	18.5	39.7	65.0		1.66
RX-178 Mark II	Zeta	19.6	33.4	54.1		1.50
F91 Gundam	F91	15.2	7.2	19.9		4.44
XXXG-00W0 Wing Zero	W	16.7	8.0	?		?
GT-9600 Leopard	X	16.8	8.5	?		?
WD-M01 Turn-A	Turn-A	20.0	17.5	28.6		?
GAT-X105 Strike	SEED	17.7	?	64.8		?
GN-001 Exia	00	18.3	57.2	?		?
Typhoon F2	UK	15.9	11.0	15.6	60.0	1.18
F-35 Lightning	US	15.4	11.7	20.1		0.89
F-22 Raptor	US	18.9	14.3	25.1		1.26
F-20 Tigershark	US	14.2	5.0	6.8		1.13
Kfir C-2	Israel	15.6	7.3	10.4	52.9
MiG-23MLD Flogger-L	USSR	16.7	9.5	15.7		0.88
F-89D Scorpion	US	16.4	11.0	19.2	24.9	0.35
F-117 Night Hawk	US	20.0	13.4	23.8		0.40
B-2 Spirit	US	20.9	71.7	152.6		0.20

...In other words, I am such a frickin' geek.

Comments

[penship.livejournal.com]

The one with the closest length/weight ratio to Exia looks like the B-2 Spirit. Is it reasonable to estimate Exia's gross weight would be in the 120-150 range?

Since I have no clue about Exia's acceleration capabilities, it's difficult to guesstimate the T/W ratio. I'd be really surprised if Exia's T/W ratio suppressed F91 Gundam. F91 is much lighter, therefore more capable of having a T/W ratio higher than 1, but Exia would need incredible G forces to reach that high of a T/W ratio. It can't be as low as the B-2 Spirit's .202 though (it's considered a low ratio for combat aircraft as well).

Er. Sorry about going off on the T/W tangent. The comparison chart you put up is very nice.

[penship.livejournal.com]

*slaps forehead* I forgot about the GN particles. Wiki def: enables a gundam to fly without any apparent propulsion or exhaust besides sparkles of light... Okay, since T/W is a factor of total propulsion and it seems the sparklies GN particles don't really need propulsion besides the glittery shiny things, T/W is moot. Blah! This is what happens when you replace physics/aerodynamics with fangirl glitter.

Oh, and one last thing: how does Exia move so gracefully when it's so freaking heavy? Graham's Union Flag is even heavier (base weight: 67.1 tons) so I'm guessing the MS in this series will be heavy-set.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The B-2 Spirit is a bomber, however, and it's not required to have the thrust or maneuverability capabilities of a fighter jet -- it's a big honking cruiser that carries a massive payload and would always be the loser in dodgeball. If we assume that F91 and Exia have similar propulsion levels, then naturally F91 would have the incredible 4.44 t/w ratio, because it's so light it'd be able to take full advantage of that powerful engine.

I suspect Exia and its peers are so incredibly heavy for two reasons: one, the immense number of armaments each carries (I mean, have you looked at the size of that sniping mechanism on the Dynames, or is it just me who wants to snark about the mecha designers overcompensating much?). Two, what may be a sort of battery-storage facility, that's charged as the gundam operates, since we do at least know now that the Gundams must return to Ptolomaeus (and I'm never going to spell that puppy right) on a regular basis, b/c their power sources form the backbone of the ship's power, and must recharge the ship (and not the other way around).

That tells me that the Gundams are getting energy in some manner or source that the mothership can't -- which cuts solar power right out. That ship is hovering in orbit, and theoretically should be able to get copious amounts of solar energy on a regular basis (which may, however, be powering some of its backup systems, I'd think). This leads into my theory about the Gundams' power source, but I'll technogeek on that in a later -- and hopefully more organized -- post, once it's simmered a bit more.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely certain that propulsion no longer is an issue: if an object is going to move, it is either dragged, pushed, pulled, but in some way propelled. Even maglev trains -- which operate thanks to the repulsive power of two energized magnets, in simple terms -- still have rated/measureable propulsion (though I guess that'd be repulsion, technically?)...

My current theory about the overall weight of the mobile suits is that the designers are possibly riffing off the current theories/working knowledge of hybrid vehicles. A fighter jet carries a certain payload of armaments, but this is limited based on several things: the curb weight of the jet, the intended thrust-ratio (I've read of jets that got sent back to the drawing board when the t/w ratio, fully loaded, would end up lower unless weight got cut somewhere), and the weight of the fuel that has to be carried to allow the jet a specific range.

Now, the first problem is that currently our most common technology for engines is combustion, which requires fuel + oxygen + spark. We could run cars off batteries, but the drawback is that lacking combustion, the car would be like many electrical trains: sure, it'll get up to speed, but it doesn't have a lot of spunk. Those older battery-operated cars were so slow off the green light that drivers got frustrated and didn't want to have anything to do with them, and in a fighter jet (or mobile suit), you need explosive, abrupt, versatile power to maneuver in a dogfight. Natch.

Which means, I'd think, that any engine operating via stored batteries (which in and of themselves probably are a significant payload, possibly even heavier than fuel -- because as fuel burns up, the aircraft gets lighter, but batteries go empty but remain the same weight, which may even the t/w ratio throughout a flight, whereas conventional aircraft have t/w ratios that vary from starting/full to ending/empty) -- would be not only heavier due to batteries, but also heavier due to the additional engine adaptations required to modify an electrical engine so it can mimic the intense compression we get easily from a combustion engine.

Except that right now I should be dealing with painting the dining room ceiling instead of rambling on like this. Le sigh, I don' wanna... because OMG my brain is so happy when anyone makes a reply like yours. Don't mind me. This is my nirvana.