Print

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

[Kot]

It's necessary that we get cheaper tanks this turn because they have an Expense credit too and they're likely to use it on their tank. We need to develop radios before we can develop cheap aircraft and the temporarily cheaper tanks will hold the line long enough for us to do so.

Then I don't get what you're babbling about. If we're developing the radio now and using expense credit on tanks, then what's not going right according to your plan? I don't recall everyone thinking that turbocharger might be better for next year.

[andrea]

actually, the planes don't use exactly the same engine.  the fighter uses a fuel injection one. making it cheaper in general is nice, and I would hope we can cram into the revision also uniformation of engine, so that our dive bomber gets that nice fuel injection.

[Andres]

It's necessary that we get cheaper tanks this turn because they have an Expense credit too and they're likely to use it on their tank. We need to develop radios before we can develop cheap aircraft and the temporarily cheaper tanks will hold the line long enough for us to do so.

Then I don't get what you're babbling about. If we're developing the radio now and using expense credit on tanks, then what's not going right according to your plan? I don't recall everyone thinking that turbocharger might be better for next year.

There's nothing else to revise besides the plane engines and the turbocharger. Given the choice, people will go with the turbocharger. In 1925, we had the choice between revising the plane engine and the tank. The primary objective was to cheapen fuel injection and it would've made both cheaper, but deciding which specific engine we worked on was what mattered.
If we chose to revise the tank engine, we might've gotten a cheap turbocharger. If we revised the plane engine, it might've used less Oil. Most people voted for revising the tank engine.

I have no reason to believe that anyone's opinions have changed since then, but I may be being overly cynical.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Kot]

There's nothing else to revise besides the plane engines and the turbocharger. Given the choice, people will go with the turbocharger. In 1925, we had the choice between revising the plane engine and the tank. The primary objective was to cheapen fuel injection and it would've made both cheaper, but deciding which specific engine we worked on was what mattered.
If we chose to revise the tank engine, we might've gotten a turbocharger. If we revised the plane engine, it might use less Oil. Most people voted for revising the tank engine.

I have no reason to believe that anyone's opinions have changed since then, but I may be being overly cynical.

Glory to Arstotzka.

Two things...
Turbochargers could be used in planes too, but I really don't see the point of adding another plane engine, as right now we have regular one and the one with fuel injection. Ideally we could design an engine utilizing both those technologies (but we would need cheaper turbochargers) and use it in every big vehicle from now on, after all tank can use airplane engines.
And if you're so good at predicting what will happen, why don't you transfer to army command and start winning the war for us.

[andrea]

had we gotten both tech cheaper, we could have revised the plane engine to be cheaper AND have better performance.

Honestly, I want to see what happens before we decide on a revision for next year.

[tryrar]

had we gotten both tech cheaper, we could have revised the plane engine to be cheaper AND have better performance.

Honestly, I want to see what happens before we decide on a revision for next year.

This.

[Andres]

Turbochargers could be used in planes too

Unlike fuel injection, turbochargers actually increase the amount of fuel used to increase the engine's power. Since the goal is to decrease the amount of fuel they use, revising them to have turbochargers is counter-productive.

And if you're so good at predicting what will happen, why don't you transfer to army command and start winning the war for us.

The system doesn't allow for weapon designers to join High Command.

On an entirely unrelated note...

The following is outside of the Revision phase: Telephone High Command, asking for some guards to watch the research facility at night, citing the incident where our design for the mortar was nearly stolen had it not been for our spy.

You speak to a representative, who simply says, "Your concerns have been noted." Days later, you receive a letter addressed "to some engineer who called" from the palace. It states that too many guards are currently assigned to the palace's Department 17, the purpose of which is not stated and unknown to you.

Anyone have any ideas on what Department 17 is all about?

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Kot]

Unlike fuel injection, turbochargers actually increase the amount of fuel used to increase the engine's power. Since the goal is to decrease the amount of fuel they use, revising them to have turbochargers is counter-productive.

We will have to use them sometime anyway, and we're about in time they were introduced en-masse to airplanes. Turbocharges will allow our planes to be more powerful and more importantly, more useful at higher altittudes. We could bomb them all the day long being outside their AA weapons range and their maximum altittude.

The system doesn't allow for weapon designers to join High Command.

Sadly.

The following is outside of the Revision phase: Telephone High Command, asking for some guards to watch the research facility at night, citing the incident where our design for the mortar was nearly stolen had it not been for our spy.

You speak to a representative, who simply says, "Your concerns have been noted." Days later, you receive a letter addressed "to some engineer who called" from the palace. It states that too many guards are currently assigned to the palace's Department 17, the purpose of which is not stated and unknown to you.

Anyone have any ideas on what Department 17 is all about?

Guarding the toilet. Or something.

[10ebbor10]

I don't think there are many ways to improve fuel efficiency. I mean, I can't think of a single system.

[tryrar]

Unlike fuel injection, turbochargers actually increase the amount of fuel used to increase the engine's power. Since the goal is to decrease the amount of fuel they use, revising them to have turbochargers is counter-productive.

We will have to use them sometime anyway, and we're about in time they were introduced en-masse to airplanes. Turbocharges will allow our planes to be more powerful and more importantly, more useful at higher altittudes. We could bomb them all the day long being outside their AA weapons range and their maximum altittude.

The system doesn't allow for weapon designers to join High Command.

Sadly.

The following is outside of the Revision phase: Telephone High Command, asking for some guards to watch the research facility at night, citing the incident where our design for the mortar was nearly stolen had it not been for our spy.

You speak to a representative, who simply says, "Your concerns have been noted." Days later, you receive a letter addressed "to some engineer who called" from the palace. It states that too many guards are currently assigned to the palace's Department 17, the purpose of which is not stated and unknown to you.

Anyone have any ideas on what Department 17 is all about?

Guarding the toilet.
[/quote]

My preference would to be get turbos(or superchargers, which while not as efficient are generally cheaper and less complex) on our panes and get the performance boost rather than getting enough to outnumber them. At some point quantity stops being a force multiplier.

[Sheb]

Doesnt mean the GM cannot think of a system. :p

[Kot]

I don't think there are many ways to improve fuel efficiency. I mean, I can't think of a single system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Fuel_economy-boosting_technologies
Funilly enough one of those is using smaller engines with turbo/superchargers.
EDIT: Those are car-specific, so there may be even more when it comes to planes.
EDIT2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_saving_devices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

[andrea]

I was thinking that we would need high performance aircrafts as well, but then I remembered: unless they capture and exploit the jungle or the mountains, they can't really field whole metal airplanes. Which means they can't increase in performance much compared to what they have. So, even at a performance hit it would be beneficial to cheapen them: they can't build a significantly better fighter that would pick our ones as they were flies.

[Kot]

I was thinking that we would need high performance aircrafts as well, but then I remembered: unless they capture and exploit the jungle or the mountains, they can't really field whole metal airplanes. Which means they can't increase in performance much compared to what they have. So, even at a performance hit it would be beneficial to cheapen them: they can't build a significantly better fighter that would pick our ones as they were flies.

We still may want to make an high-alt bomber.
They won't have ANY way to defend against it.

[10ebbor10]

High altitude flak isn't that expensive, and we won't have enough fuel for mass deployement.