Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ukrainian Ranger]

It's saddens me that subs and counters see no use, would reduce clutter and stuff

17 is awfuly close to my 8, but I can't understand why it's called worse interceptor than Lightning... sure only 2 guns are bad for the fighter, but not for interceptor.

4 Is weird... Haven't we develop new engine with better ceiling?

Finally - N is a clear waste of resources, it will be cheaper to lose several factories

[RAM]

I considered using a modified proposal, but fuel pod and rocket pod really are quite different. And the airship fighter isn't really the same thing as the ground-based fighters.

Interceptors need guns more than fighters. The interceptor is based around the principal of quickly reaching a target and quickly destroying it, ideally the interceptor will take down another aeroplane in a single pass and be gone before anyone can retaliate. The fighter is designed to avoid damage and close range, then keep in range while it acquires an effective hit. It will need to will want to turn faster than whatever it is chasing, it can afford to be a bit slower because whatever it is chasing can either try to avoid fire, and slow down as a result, or run away in a straight line and be an easy target. The interceptor needs to do a lot of damage in a single pass, the fighter can afford to wait until it has a good shot. Extra guns help, but manoeuvrability helps more, and increasing the momentum of the wings in not going to do much to help that. Of course, there is the issue of being able to aim being rather difficult in a plane, so having lots of guns spread out is not all bad, but I suspect that varied calibres will confuse aiming and excessive guns will reduce turning. Interceptors are for attacking things that don't want a fight, fighters are for attacking things that do...

Well, we have the engines, but more is better right, and this should improve other altitude affected systems, such as the pilot, and the lift surfaces, and the fuel tanks, and pretty much everything really...

Replacing factories keeps folk busy and losing factories makes folk permanently not busy. Getting our civilians fortified is a nice bit of preparation that could see us gain some significant savings in the long-run. Also, covering our nation in bunkers is just cool...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

RAM, Interceptor = antibomber aircraft  not what you describe.

Fighters need more guns to hit nimble targets in dogfights
Interceptor needs more powerful guns, because it is designed to counter targets that doesn't dodge

[RAM]

Bombers tend to have turrets and shoot back. If you are just loitering around they will shoot you. You want to come in from a sharp angle and drop them quickly. And they generally don't have the capacity to dodge your initial attack, so you can finish the engagement quickly with a powerful salvo. Bombers also tend to avoid fights when they can, so you need to be fast enough to catch them before the drop their load. This means that shooting down bombers requires that you be fast and heavily armed.

Interceptors and fighters tend to be agile enough to dodge a bit, this means accurate ammunition, which means either lots of small guns to spray away and hope to hit something, or accurate guns, which means high velocity, rapid rate-of-fire, and large calibre to get a fairly straight trajectory, low chance of targets dodging between bullets, and low travel-time. It also means being able to dodge and, to a lesser extent, keep up with your enemy. So when building a fighter pretty much everything that you do will sacrifice something else. You can build something with lots of engine and lots of gun and hope it can keep up, or you can build something with little weight and a concentrated centre of gravity and hope it can send its targets down. Personally, I would prefer the latter...

The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning less specialized fighter designs. Yet they tend to fare poorly in fighter-to-fighter combat against the same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability.

While light, highly maneuverable aircraft did have some advantages in fighter-versus-fighter combat, those could usually be overcome by sound tactical doctrine, and the design approach of the Italians and Japanese made their planes ill-suited as interceptors or attack aircraft.

In early combat operations, the Zero gained a legendary reputation as a dogfighter, achieving the outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1,[2] but by mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment enabled the Allied pilots to engage the Zero on more equal terms.

The P-47's initial success in combat was primarily due to tactics, using rolls (the P-47 had an excellent roll rate) and energy-saving dive and zoom climbs from high altitude to outmaneuver German fighters.
...
"The P-47 was very heavy, too heavy for some maneuvers. We would see it coming from behind, and pull up fast and the P-47 couldn't follow and we came around and got on its tail in this way".

When the Fw 190 started flying operationally over France in August 1941, it quickly proved itself to be superior in all but turn radius to the Royal Air Force's main front-line fighter, the Spitfire Mk. V.[1] The 190 wrested air superiority away from the RAF until the introduction of the vastly improved Spitfire Mk. IX
...
Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way.
...
Compared with the Bf 109 series of the time, the Fw 190 was superior, but this did not hold true at altitudes above 8,000 metres (25,000 feet). Especially against bombers the Fw 190 was by far superior because of its heavy armament, its lower vulnerability, and its better protection for the pilot. All these features were favourable for bomber and schlachtflieger operations.
...
Goldonikov noted that Germans pilots appreciated the Fw 190 radial engine as a shield, and frequently made head-on attacks in air-to-air combat. "The plane", noted Golodnikov, "had extremely powerful weapons: four 20 mm guns and two machine guns. Soon, however, the Germans started evading frontal attack against our "Cobras". We had a 37 mm gun, so no engine would save you, and one hit was enough to kill you."[80]

The general rule for Soviet airmen in the latter war years was to take advantage of their turning ability, acceleration, and rate of climb to force the adversary into entering a horizontal or vertical manoeuvre. Likewise, La-5FNs freely took up the challenge as an "energy or angles" fighter against all Fw 190As, and as "angles" fighters against the Fw 190D, which was considered by the Soviet pilots as a fighter that "burned as well as other aircraft, and was easier to hit

The Spitfire was designed as a short-range, high-performance interceptor aircraft[6] by R. J. Mitchell, chief designer at Supermarine Aviation Works (which operated as a subsidiary of Vickers-Armstrong from 1928). Mitchell continued to refine the design until his death from cancer in 1937, whereupon his colleague Joseph Smith became chief designer.[7] Where speed was seen as essential to carrying out the mission of home defence against enemy bombers,[6] the Spitfire's thin cross-section elliptical wing allowed it a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters
...
Although the key aim of Fighter Command was to stop the Luftwaffe's bombers, in practice the tactic was to use Spitfires to counter German escort fighters, particularly the Bf 109s, while the Hurricane squadrons attacked the bombers

The versatile Yak-9 operated with a wide variety of armament for use in anti-tank, light bomber and long-range escort role. At low altitude in which it operated predominately, the Yak-9 was faster and more maneuverable than its main foe, the Bf 109, but was far less well-armed. A series of continual improvements in performance and armament did not hamper the superb handling characteristics that allowed its pilots to excel at dog-fighting.

[Funk]

In order to mount bigger guns we should have two or more engines mounted in pods on the wings.
this lets us put the guns under main cockpit and keep there bulk inside the main fuselage this helps with both aiming the guns and streamlining the aircraft .

For an interceptor sub 5000kg, 2 Improved V12 Aviation Engines, 4 Jackhammers or 6 GVS-14s mounted in the nose.

id like to use less guns but we need a high rate of fire to score the hits. 
as long as we meet the target weight it will have a better power to weight ratio than the Lightning.

[Nadaka]

Hmm, I am going to have a hard time doing an update. Work is looking like its going to kick my ass this week.

[3_14159]

I'm having a question at Brood (for original design work), or alternatively Taricus and Funk: What exactly does proposal four entail?

The proposal itself is "Increase our operational ceiling". Now, as far as I know (and I may be wrong here), this can be done by designing a new, high-altitude engine (we have one), redesigning the plane or - when the ones before are done - giving the pilot breathing gear. Which of those does the proposal entail (because it doesn't say so), or is it something I have overlooked?

@Nadaka: Don't stress yourself. RL's important, and you're doing a great job with the game!

Edit:

17 is awfuly close to my 8, but I can't understand why it's called worse interceptor than Lightning... sure only 2 guns are bad for the fighter, but not for interceptor.

Well, I thought about making 17 a counterproposal to 8, but it fills a different role. The Lightning(c) is designed for only one thing: Taking down bombers. Contrary, 17 is designed to provide a multipurpose platform to our frontal aviation and maybe later carriers. We can have both, and actually when having both they fill different niches.

[kahn1234]

I'm having a question at Brood (for original design work), or alternatively Taricus and Funk: What exactly does proposal four entail?

The proposal itself is "Increase our operational ceiling". Now, as far as I know (and I may be wrong here), this can be done by designing a new, high-altitude engine (we have one), redesigning the plane or - when the ones before are done - giving the pilot breathing gear. Which of those does the proposal entail (because it doesn't say so), or is it something I have overlooked?

@Nadaka: Don't stress yourself. RL's important, and you're doing a great job with the game!

Edit:

17 is awfuly close to my 8, but I can't understand why it's called worse interceptor than Lightning... sure only 2 guns are bad for the fighter, but not for interceptor.

Well, I thought about making 17 a counterproposal to 8, but it fills a different role. The Lightning(c) is designed for only one thing: Taking down bombers. Contrary, 17 is designed to provide a multipurpose platform to our frontal aviation and maybe later carriers. We can have both, and actually when having both they fill different niches.

well, by process of deduction, as we already have the engine and plane available and capable, it would logically mean breathing gear and pressure suits for our pilots?

[Taricus]

Or likely a new airframe design.

[Brood]

That and also might require some minor changes to the engine depending on if our current engine will stall or not at higher altitudes, I don't know much about them so I'm not certain.

[3_14159]

That and also might require some minor changes to the engine depending on if our current engine will stall or not at higher altitudes, I don't know much about them so I'm not certain.

Well, our current engine has "Special: fuel efficient, high altitude.", so I was assuming it already had that. As for the rest, I also assumed that a redesign of our fighter would be more extensive. I may be wrong, however. We'll see.

[Funk]

do we know how high Capian and Morivian can fly vs our currant planes?
let work on flying suits with in built electric heaters so our turret gunners don't freeze, and we really need to give more meth and other drugs to our troops, stop them getting brunt out so fast.

i think we need review of all captured Capian and Morivian equipment, tanks and planes.

[Taricus]

I think we need a moratorum on any drugs in the military. We really don't need the substance abuse there, nor do we want the withdrawal effects either.

And we shouldn't bother with turreted aircraft at this point, more efficient to focus on small craft at the moment.

[10ebbor10]

Also, I'm pretty sure Burned out = Shell shocked or the like. Drugs don't help with that.

On another note, how would you think about ending the war. Because well, we're slowly winning a phyrric victory.

On another note, how do you people feel about biochemical weaponry.*

*Like teargas, or some simple, nondeadly yet virulent disease.

[Brood]

Ending it no, it'd be taken as a sign of weakness and they'd attack us even more.