Print

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

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Strongpoint]

Not changing the cost though, don't give Sensei ideas!

I think this is a very wrong approach. We want an (very)expensive aircraft and should clearly state that, otherwise we risk getting a mass produced fighter that is only slightly better than the current one

[NUKE9.13]

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Powder Miner
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
2 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet": Azzuro, NUKE9.13

[NAV]

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Powder Miner
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
2 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet": Azzuro, NUKE9.13
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV

[Strongpoint]

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Powder Miner
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
3 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet": Azzuro, NUKE9.13, strongpoint
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV

Shouldn't we consider using the credit on the fighter?

[Azzuro]

Not changing the cost though, don't give Sensei ideas!

I think this is a very wrong approach. We want an (very)expensive aircraft and should clearly state that, otherwise we risk getting a mass produced fighter that is only slightly better than the current one

Fine, I've revised the project cost up 1 oil for better engines, with the option of +1 more for drop-tank equipped versions. We don't want Very Expensive, only Expensive though. Otherwise it will be fielded in too little numbers to make a difference.

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Powder Miner
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
3 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet": (using Research Credit) Azzuro, NUKE9.13, strongpoint
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV

Yes, using Research Credit on the fighter design.

[Powder Miner]

3 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    2 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
4 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (with research credit): Azzuro, NUKE9.13, strongpoint, Powder Miner
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV

[evictedSaint]

I would encourage you to go with a V engine rather than a radial.  Modern piston aircraft tend to rely on V engines.

I would urge you to read what others have to say about radial vs V engine.

[andrea]

3 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    2 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
5 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (with research credit): Azzuro, NUKE9.13, strongpoint, Powder Miner, Andrea
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV

[Azzuro]

Changed back the engine to V12. Strongpoint, if you want you can make a separate fighter, sorry about that.

From the Discord:
Andrea - Today at 11:05 PM
@Sensei how much do you know about the difference between radial and inline engines? has such a difference ever had effects on design effectiveness?
Sensei - Today at 11:08 PM
I've kinda considered radials easier to do, but once you have liquid cooling down pat inlines are probably better

For reference we have V12 on the Yellowjacket and the Reckless Effect, and V10 on the HF-32b Stinger. The only radial engine we have is on DB-HF-23.

[evictedSaint]

Thanks Azzuro!

[Chiefwaffles]

I'm assuming we don't need to specifically include mention of radio in its design?

[Strongpoint]

I would encourage you to go with a V engine rather than a radial.  Modern piston aircraft tend to rely on V engines.

How modern aircraft piston engines relate to beasts required to power ww2 era fighters? Different materials, different engineering experience, different goals. 

I want twin row radial because it makes aircraft shorter and gives good weight to power ratio, both are important for the carrier use. We could try to go for own Rolls-Royce Merlin but I prefer our own BMW-801 or Nakajima Sakae. After all we get help from Axis

Azzuro, There are no good reason to use V-12 over 14 cylinder radial, also, you may even add the help from BMW\Nakajima engenieers in the discription. Please, edit it back in Nevermind, I'll just propose my own version

[evictedSaint]

Azzuro, There are no good reason to use V-12 over 14 cylinder radial.

Blatantly false

[Strongpoint]

UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (variant B. Differences are bolded)

The Hornet is the latest and most advanced, short narrow and nimble fighter in United Forenia's Air Force, built with experience from the high-speed Glorious racecar. Turbocharged 14 cylinder two row fuel injected radial engine with fuel injection developed with assistance of Axis engineers provides immense thrust, which in conjunction with a sleek, semi-monocoque steel-aluminium fuselage and elliptical wing planform gives it breathtaking speed. Servo and trim tabs on its control surfaces, from our aerodynamics research, allow it to out-manoeuvre enemy fighters even at these high speeds. Self-sealing fuel tanks in the wings provide some measure of resilience, while a manganese-alloy armour shell around the cockpit helps to enhance pilot survivability. For weapons, it carries two UF-AC39 autocannons on its wings. UF-AC39 is modernized AS-AC19 developed exclusively for aircraft use. Modernization try to increase muzzle velocity improving both accuracy and penetration. Additionally, Hornet Has has two Sorraria machineguns mounted into engine cowling From our previous fighter the HF-32b, retractable landing gear, pressurised cockpit and an improved oxygen system are installed. Finally, foldable wings and reinforced landing gear for catapult launch and arrestor recovery allow it to be deployed on our carriers in greater numbers as well, with optional drop tanks for very-long range missions. Additionally, Hornet is built with high survivability in mind benefiting from the experience gained during the development of reckless effect. Is engine can work even after losing few cylinders, its wings can do their work with multiple holes in them and it's armored cockpit keeps the pilot alive in majority of aces 

Target cost is 4 Ore (2 Al 1 Mn) 4 oil with optional +1 oil for the drop tanks version.

3 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    2 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint
    1 Without using a research credit: Piratejoe
0 The UF-SHB-39 Ice Giant:
1 UF-F-39 "Yastreb"(Using a research credit): Mulisa
1 UF-MA-Ta/Fa "Cacophonous Pseudonym": RAM
1 UF-HAT-39-A "Vanguard": Khan Boyzitbig
4 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (with research credit): Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Powder Miner, Andrea
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV
1 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (variant B) (with research credit), strongpoint

[NUKE9.13]

I dislike specifying 'small and nimble'. We want something powerful, to augment our plentiful Stingers.
I know little about engines. On the other hand, Sensei did say that inline is better if we can make it work properly.
I like the idea of upscaling the AC18 into the AC39, I dislike there only being two of them. Again, we want power. More dakka = more power, it is known.
I think working on survivability is a good idea. We have the experience, so if we can we should.