Print

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

[Taricus]

The problem with wood is that previous experince suggested that screws us over. We need the yellowjacket, we can't afford to use anything else. So long as we beat back Arstotzka's air forces, and do so soundly we're fine. Something which the Yellowjacket is perfectly suited to do.

[Kashyyk]

As both side's cyphers are only effective in the short term, due to effective cracking, I feel we should order all high level communications to be sent with multiple levels of encryption. This is a pretty standard way of making messages more secure,  but will take more time to transmit/receive.

By multiple levels of encryption,  I mean doing something like encrypting it with key 1, decrypting with key 2 then encrypting with key 3 for example. To then read the message someone would decrypt with key 3, encrypt with key 2 and then decrypt with key 1.

With regards to our current design I vote for the yellowjacket.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I can change to full alluminium if that what people prefer but I insist on light, nimble, modular mount, cheap and not risking fibreglass. Besides, grenades required oil to make... plastics will likely require oil, too. We are short of resources.

Yellowjacket sounds like 3 ore, 3 oil or 2 ore, 3 oil aircraft. I want 1 ore 2 oil or 2 ore, 2 oil.

I prefer to keep using wood, because we are not swimming in 5 ore us our enemy does.

[Taricus]

We also don't have the ability to use modular mounts (And using a multi-role aircraft where we need a dedicated anti-fighter is sub-par to me)

And 3 ore, 3 oil is an acceptable cost, since that's only expensive.

[LordSlowpoke]

so we have ur who is plain on resources but ambitious on design, taricus who is relatively plain on design but ambitious on resources, and me somewhere in the middle

huh.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

My design is somewhat ambitious but it should work fine even if universal  mount will fail we will get a light fighter with two machineguns.

Yellowjacket offers 6 Sorraria and 1 stallion, my aircraft offers 2 Sorrarias  if universal under-fuselage mount will fail. Assuming that cheap = 3-4 times more aircrafts, it will be 6-8 0.3 machineguns in the air. Machineguns that are harder to shoot down in dogfight. If underfuselage mount will allow Stallion, then  3-4 cheap and light aircrafts will  have much more firepower for the same cost.

While my aircraft will have lower speed than the monoplane , it can outmanoeuvre enemy fighters. (Fighters, that are modified dive bombers) and do well in hunting their dive bombers before they bring death to our positions. We need to stop their dive bombers, not go for more ambitious goal of clearing their skies to let our bombers drop their load

[Taricus]

Your aircraft is underarmed compared to their fighter-bomber. We need to seriously upgun our new one so as not to lose the airwar. Furthermore, we do need speed in the air, and the biplanes are getting outdated now. We need modern, well-armed fighters to counter them.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The thing is that their fighter is heavy fighter (my own design, khek). It should outgun light fighter I try to design. Light aircraft uses other advantages to win the dogfight. Real danger is that they may make theirs fighter cheap but then I think my design has better chances to win 1 on 1s, then yours to win 3 on 1 in their favor.

It is 1930, biplanes aren't outdated, yet. They are more manoeuvrable and easier to handle.

Also, I believe that universal aircraft is better than air superiority aircraft, because it fills more roles. We can use gathered experience and design expensive air superiority fighter next turn to work together with lighter, cheaper fighter-bomber.

Again, I can change to full alluminium if that what people prefer. Monoplane is possible, too.

[Elfeater]

They are outdated compared to their planes however.

[Taricus]

Their aircraft are entirely 'light', no twin-engine craft there.

And a 'generalist' aircraft would be worse off than a specialist craft. We don't need to worry about strafing runs as of now because we don't have any weapons that can be used on them.

[Elfeater]

Their aircraft are entirely 'light', no twin-engine craft there.

And a 'generalist' aircraft would be worse off than a specialist craft. We don't need to worry about strafing runs as of now because we don't have any weapons that can be used on them.

I think we need a dedicated air superiority fighter.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

They are outdated compared to their planes however.

How is so? They got early dive bombers but nothing in the description implies that they are better than biplanes.

-AS-DB-HF-23: An airplane built entirely from aluminium. This lighter, sturdier frame allows the plane be reasonably fast with a 9-cylinder radial engine and make aggressive dives and recoveries for bombing, with half a ton of bombs. The radial engine is designed entirely around an AS-AC18 which fires through the prop shaft, necessitating a relatively heavy and thick prop shaft. It has decent maneuverability, with its metal design allowing for strong forces on the wings and tail, and large control surfaces, but it is best at dogfighting while not carrying a bomb load. Costs 4 ore, 3 oil.
-AS-HF-24: An airplane built entirely from aluminium. Based on the AS-DB-HF-23's light and sturdy frame, with bomb mounts omitted in favor of four lightweight AS-1924 machine guns, modified to accept belts. Two barrels visibly protrude from the front of each wing. The radial engine is designed entirely around an AS-AC18 which fires through the prop shaft, necessitating a relatively heavy and thick prop shaft. Unlike the DB version, it is fuel injected which is terribly complex and a bit heavy but allows more power for the same fuel. It has decent maneuverability, with its metal design allowing for strong forces on the wings and tail, and large control surfaces, but it is a bit heavy. Costs 4 ore, 3 oil

Reasonably fast, decent maneuvrability.

BTW. note the 4 ore, 3 oil cost. It is what we may get from 6+1 machinegun full alluminium large fighter. Ready for it?

-M3 Wasp Fighter B: Using some aluminum structure, Moskurg is able to create their first sturdy cantilevered monoplane. Most of the aluminum is used to support the wings while the tail and body are made of (mostly) wood. The wings mount in the middle of the fuselage, with the pilot sitting between them and a fat radial engine in front. Due to its single pair of wings and lack of struts, than previous airplanes. The engine is also a bit of a monster, a 14 cylinder radial engine in two rows of 7 cyclinders. This makes it really quite fast. It mounts an M1 Stallion with interrupter gear. The plane pitches and rolls quickly on its single wing, but needs to be going faster than a biplane and this tends to make fast-but-wide turns. At its top speed, its wooden tail structure warps one way and the other, threatening to break. It uses retractable landing gear. Costs 2 ore, 3 oil.

We almost break even with this aircraft despite it being armed with one stallion and being not very maneuvrable

After rereading the description I am afraid that fitting biplane in 2 oil is not that likely... 2 ore, 3 oil is more like it but with it being light and byplane and later engine tech... we may get lucky and get a cheap aircraft

Their aircraft are entirely 'light', no twin-engine craft there.

It is one of the ways to differentiate heavy and light fighters. Another is too look at their weight and payload. It is heavy by this definition.


Remember, Yellowjacket will likely cost 4 ore 3 oil

[Taricus]

And that's a risk I'm willing to take. We need quality up in the air, we can't just use hordes of cheap fighters, especially not ones that aren't geared to the role.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

My proposal gives us

Minimum:
1) Nimble 2*7.62mm machinegun fighter, designed to exploit lack of manoeuvrability of their rather heavy and large monoplanes.
2) Nimble low-attitude optimized strafer that can aid us in mountains
and maybe even in town. Anything unaromored will be unhappy

If we are lucky:
3) Universal mount to use in future aircrafts
4) 2+1 machinegun aircraft that trades manoeuvrability for additional firepower
5) Light bomber that becomes a fighter as soon as it drop its bomb
6) Light cargo aircraft, something we don't have

If we are very lucky
6) We get experience in using recoilless gun on aircraft and not not bad anti-tank aircraft
7) Supplying by air using parachutes
8 ) Minor hydroplane experience

Note that minor failure of anything from 3 to 8 will give us useful experience

What will 100% air superiority fighter give us? My opinion for the best case scenario:
fighter that will give one turn of air superiority and lock their design phase for one turn(for designing their own air superiority fighter) + some generic aviation experience. Worst case scenario - too expensive to be useful aircraft

[Parsely]

haha, holy shit

basically a stunt plane with guns

that's hella moskurg, but there's only this much you can do with wood (our earlier wooden monoplane had stability problems at top speed) so let me double up on your idea

BUTTERFLY
small, nimble biplane made out of aluminum tubes and fiberglass cloth fit with a supercharged v8 engine in a pusher configuration
fitted with a modular weapons mount in front, for usage with hippo, stallion and (in the future) rocket systems
optimized for low-altitude flight and maneuverability

Why are we still on biplanes? Speed is how you beat guns.