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

[evictedSaint]

Upscaling from 20 to 25 mm's will make the guns more lethal, and give them a better chance at inflicting damage in strafing runs against tanks.

On the other hand, the larger ammo means the plane can carry less of it, and it will have a lower muzzle velocity (hurting its dogfighting performance)

[Strongpoint]

NUKE9.13 IMO, We want a good air superiority fighter to beat enemy fighters in dogfight not something big and powerful. It should be hard to hit, hard to kill and yet armed with two deadly guns to make big holes. More guns(and ammo) will make it heavier and reduce the advantage of going for a very powerful engine and advanced auerodynamics. Also, remember that fitting more of them on our carriers is very important.

I want an aircraft similar to Zero but with more powerful weapons, (oops, editing machineguns in)

PS. Note that 25mm*125mm is a huge calibre by ww2 standards, especially early WW2. I am even worried that I am pushing too much... Four of them will be absurd. They are 1.25*1.25*1.25= 1.95 times heavier than the 20mm version

[evictedSaint]

I'm not so sure going from 20 to 25 is feasible.  20 mm's are already plenty lethal on their own, 25 is a bit overkill - especially since it decreases the rate of fire and ammo count of the plane. 

I am against 25 mm upscaling.

[NUKE9.13]

Hmm. If upscaling them is impractical, can we improve them in some other way? If we're using a research credit, I'd like to be somewhat ambitious. Would a better RoF be feasible/useful?

[andrea]

it would make us run out of ammo faster. Muzzle velocity and accuracy would be better improvements, I feel. it makes hitting easier and we don't need many hits to bring down an aircraft. Not a fighter, at any rate.

[Strongpoint]

Edited my proposal for the upgrade instead of scaling up. Still two of them because I don't want to stress wings with more of them

[evictedSaint]

We can upgrade the guns fire rate and accuracy.  Akin to the USA going from M2's to M3's.  Also tack on air brakes - a nice luxury for carrier landings.

[Wolfhunter107]

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, Powder Miner, Andrea, Wolfhunter107
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV
1 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (variant B) (with research credit), strongpoint

[Azzuro]

I am also against upscaling the weapons, since I think we'd be better off designing or revising a completely new autocannon for all vehicles using them instead of lumping it into a plane design. As pointed out somewhere, the current AS-AC-18 was, as the name implies, made in 1918. We can definitely do a lot better now, but as a separate action.

Also, I would like to point out that weight of fire does matter, especially since you have dropped to two cannons from four. Not an expert on armament, though, so if you can show that larger calibre outweighs that then it's good.

better chance at inflicting damage in strafing runs against tanks.

NOT A POUND FOR AIR TO GROUND! NOT A GRAM FOR LAYIN' DOWN BLAM!

Seriously though, I made this design just so we could have a option for pure air-superiority fighter. Strafing tanks, and its effectiveness in doing so, is not a consideration at all. If you want, you could put that into a variant design.

Hmm. If upscaling them is impractical, can we improve them in some other way? If we're using a research credit, I'd like to be somewhat ambitious. Would a better RoF be feasible/useful?

If it needs to be specified what the research credit is for, I'm thinking of putting it toward high-speed aerodynamic design. Suggestions welcome, though.

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

Radios are part of our design doctrine already, so they're considered to be auto-included in our vehicles.

[evictedSaint]

Since it looks like the Hornet has the most favor, I can accept a pure air superiority fighter.

We should definitely keep it with 2x20 mm's.  That was the armament that was on most planes by the end of the war; high rate of fire, lethal-sized rounds, plenty of ammo.

Upgrading the AC-18 should be done eventually, but not in this design.  They currently do their job and the Hornet is getting plenty ambitious now.  Let's see...we want it to have:

1. Super-charged V12
2. Drop-tanks
3. Retractable landing gear
4. O2 regulator
5. Pressurized cabin
6. Mangalloy bathtub
7. Folding wings
8. Improved Aerodynamics
9. Reliability improvements
10. Catapult-capable landing gear


I notice it's not twin-charged?

[Kashyyk]

If we're wanting to overkill the autocannons, what about Minengschoss ammo? That should ruin everything.

[evictedSaint]

Dear god.

If we ever need a bomber-killer, we should invest in that.

[Strongpoint]

We have a research credit and should try to use it by adding many advancements instead of going for a very modest normal design. Upgrading the auto-cannon fits nicely. It is highly unlikely that we will find a design action for a brand new auto-cannon

BTW, I am not sure that folding wings is a great idea... It hinders  performance of aircaft and there are other ways to fit a fighter on a carrier (like making it smaller)

Also, if we go for V-12 (still doesn't fit in my vision of the aircraft) than two stage supercharger may be better than turbocharger. And please don't mention twincharger. It is a way to make engine way too complex for a very dubious benefit.

[Azzuro]

the Hornet is getting plenty ambitious now.  Let's see...we want it to have:

1. Super-charged V12
2. Drop-tanks
3. Retractable landing gear
4. O2 regulator
5. Pressurized cabin
6. Mangalloy bathtub
7. Folding wings
8. Improved Aerodynamics
9. Reliability improvements
10. Catapult-capable landing gear


I notice it's not twin-charged?

2,3,5,8,9 are things we already have and are mentioning in the design so Sensei is reminded of it. None of them are exclusive anyway, save for the drop-tanks and aero performance. We have V12s on the Yellowjacket already, and turbocharger on the V10-engined Stinger, so it's just combining them for 1. So the only real improvements are 6, 7, 10 and further improvement of 4 and 8.

Is twin-charger important?

[Powder Miner]

Don't go TOO hard on adding advancement, guys. We don't want this to end up as Very Hard or Impossible, I think.