Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Their 2 engine model is fast and remarkably strong, and also carries a decent compliment of weaponry

Read that again. And again. Then think why lightly armored, lightly armed aircraft is a bad idea

[Taricus]

I can remove the rear MG. I would like to point out that the twin-engine could also be used to air-drop mines, and can also be more effective as an anti-sub craft due to it's larger payload capacity.

EDIT: The sparrow performs well, update the ammo to compensate for the increased amount of armour on the lightnings and it'll take them down, since as UR says that two-engine craft are not as manoeuvrable as a single-engine one, it should be easy to tail them and destroy them, with the suprisingly heavy armament on the sparrows.

And UR, it's the fact the craft won't even get into the air if we use raven engines. If we use it as a transport it has to be able to carry the goods, and it has to be able to carry a fairly large amount to actually be worthwhile to deploy.

[Patrick Hunt]

Remarkably strong does not mean that 4 10mm MG won't be enough to breach it's armor. It's a completely subjective term.
Speed won't help it in a dog fight which it seems to like getting into since it's tangling with the Sparrow and it's weapons are no use if it's slower in maneuvers which it must be to only be slightly better then Sparrow or it'd be doing far better.
Even if it is then we just make something thats smaller, more agile but with the same 2 15mm MG.

The Sparrow is a refitted bomber, we need something purpose built to dogfight not refitted for it.

So something with far better agility is the best way to counter it, you don't counter heavy with heavy.

You counter it with something more agile, at least in the air anyway.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I can remove the rear MG. I would like to point out that the twin-engine could also be used to air-drop mines, and can also be more effective as an anti-sub craft due to it's larger payload capacity.

As I said it's good. But it's not good enough, Ospreys are doing their job quite well, we can use our aviation team for something else

And UR, it's the fact the craft won't even get into the air if we use raven engines. If we use it as a transport it has to be able to carry the goods, and it has to be able to carry a fairly large amount to actually be worthwhile to deploy.

Raven has 200kw engines, so it's 800kw + 900kw = 1700kw, while two engined bomber will offer 1800kw.  1700kw is a lot for twin engined bomber of that era. 

[Taricus]

What you're designing is a four-engine aircraft however. Those had around 300kw and higher. If we're going to make such a large target, we need to make sure that it can make as much use of it size (Such as cargo carrying, transport etc), and that it can move as fast as we can make it go.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

No. It's not B-29 sized. I am making quasi twin erngine bomber, smaller engines don't need large wing, don't need large hull.

[Taricus]

Smaller engines still need fuel, and do actually need more wingspan to be mounted on.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Can't see how large wingspan is needed

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/XB-15_Bomber.jpg/300px-XB-15_Bomber.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg/300px-B-29_in_flight.jpg

And less powerful engines need less fuel

[Funk]

Do we go big and work on light auto cannons and recoilless guns to build a large fighter?
some thing like this?
or this?
or do we work on better engines and planes, keeping the 15mm around?

[Taricus]

You still have four engines that need be mounted, and with the propeller on the nose from the fifth engine, you severely limit any sort of wing/nose mounted weapons. Add in the low power of the engines, and it can't carry as much as a proper four-engine craft. It's also far easier to hit due to it's low speed and thin armour compared to a craft of it's size.

Your proposal is a disaster waiting to happen from an engineering perspective. It's far too over-engineered in an effort to cut corners and it lacks the inherent utility of a craft it's size.

@Funk The 15mm is good, just need to update the ammo for it so it can punch down the bigger planes, maybe make a fighter with more of them in it (And specialised as a fighter.)

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You still have four engines that need be mounted,

And that bad because more engines is bad, right? All logic I see here

you severely limit any sort of wing/nose mounted weapons.

Minus, but not that severe

It's also far easier to hit due to it's low speed and thin armour compared to a craft of it's size.

What size? I repeat it's not B-29 sized. It's B-10 sized

It's far too over-engineered

That's a use for our best team Besides I don't think that it is much harder than any other bomber

it lacks the inherent utility of a craft it's size.

What utility a level  bomber can have? Transport and bomber, two uses

[Patrick Hunt]

I'm sticking with we need a fighter.

The Sparrow is decidedly average, we need superior not average if we're ever going to get off defense and onto offense.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Fighter can wait, designing new fighter every turn is excessive. Especially when we are obliviously ahead of enemy.

Sparrow is not average, it's good. 

[Taricus]

You still have four engines that need be mounted,
And that bad because more engines is bad, right? All logic I see here

Every engine we put on an aircraft adds to it's mass. The 200Kw engine is literally obsolete by now. Add to that the added maintenance requirements of those engines compared to a twin-engine craft and we suddenly lose a lot of efficiency

It's also far easier to hit due to it's low speed and thin armour compared to a craft of it's size.

What size? I repeat it's not B-29 sized. It's B-10 sized

Limits the available amount of fuselage and wing space we can mount weapons and other objects onto

It's far too over-engineered

That's a use for our best team Besides I don't think that it is much harder than any other bomber

A waste of that team since it's already able to design something effectively

it lacks the inherent utility of a craft it's size.

What utility a level  bomber can have? Transport and bomber, two uses

And by designing it with such a small fuselage to wingspan, we don't have the ability to lift as much cargo as a standard. While we don't have a use for a level bomber, a high-capacity transport is a rather needed aspect considering the islands.

[Patrick Hunt]

Except the enemy fighter beats it 1 on 1 meaning it's better, we're not ahead at all and we can't count on superior numbers over the enemies territory where we have to spread ourselves out and they can concentrate and use AA.

We need superior not good unless we're gonna defend forever.