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]

I would argue that twincharging is important.  It would have given the Glorious the acceleration it needed to win the Grand Prix.  It's the next step in coaxing as much power out of the engine as we can.

You can read more about twincharging here

[Strongpoint]

The main disadvantage of twincharging is the complexity and expense of components. Usually, to provide acceptable response, smoothness of power delivery, and adequate power gain over a single-compressor system, expensive electronic and/or mechanical controls must be used.

This is why twincharger is out of the question. We don't want a complex tag for almost nothing. Also, as far as I know, no mass produced ww2 era aircraft used twincharger

I think that very hard is a good target when you spend research credit on something. Hard is fine, too. That doesn't mean that we should go for stuff as complex as twincharger.

We wasted our revision on "easy"(c) reactive armor, lets not try something you will not see in the vast majority of modern engines because it is too complex

[Light forger]

MmmmMmmmkay, this is a new one I'm a bit salty at players for a change.

Let's go through some design options.
First of all you complain it's not powerful enough and then changed the super to a turbo. A turbo is worse it offers less power and lowers your altitude ceiling. On that note let me go through the process of a few other engines:

V-16: You can't make V-14 aircraft engine as they are unstable so you need to go right up to a V-16 which is huge and complex. So either you make the piston smaller(and therefore a less powerful aircraft) or you make a huge fighter which by it's nature is less agile.
X-24: Full on wacky town this would produce massive amounts of horsepower. At the cost of being massively complex and heavy. I'm really warily about pushing the design into VH and this would do that.
R-18: Less powerful and radial engine fell out of favor for a reason.
R-18 doublestack: The limit of radial engines really you can't stack the engines anymore and still get proper airflow and we have more know how with inline engines.
Motorjet: This would be great of we were making something when we had the skies under our control as a step to jet engines. However motorjets eat fuel like candy and are more complex then good old inline engines. We need to the skies again.
Jet: would be pushed up to impossible if coupled with the updates to our designs we want.

Bomb mounts:
Don't put stickers on you car folks otherwise you make it slower. Also if you have drop tanks you have bomb mounts where else do you think they are mounted one?

Twincharging:
I couldn't find a aircraft engine that used it. Maybe i didn't look hard enough but, I'm guessing that is some reason for that as I figure someone would try adding both to a aircraft and it didn't work or was too complex or something.

On that note to stop my salt level from rising above dead sea level I'm going to step out until the revision see you then folks!

[evictedSaint]

The tl;dr of lights argument:

Anything but a V12 gets into "stupid" and "impractical" territory.

Superchargers are better than turbo or twinchargers because its more power and less complex, respectively.

Bomb mounts are negligable weight and we will need them for drop tanks, anyways. 

Quite frankly, I agree with him.

[3_14159]

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

We don't want an aircraft like the Zero because, frankly, outside of its niche the Zero makes too many compromises. You have an extremely nimble aircraft with great range, but you suffer by deleting every last bit of armour and such optional things like self-sealing fuel tanks. This makes it far less survivable, but was necessary coupled with the anemic engine. It still is a good fighter for the time, but especially once tactics adapted to it and enemies were no longer drawn into turnfights, casualties rose rapidly.
And, couple the bad replacement and training system of the pilots with the lack of pilot survivability features, and you get a gigantic lack of experienced pilots.

However, none of the proposals are actually close to the Zero, each features armour and focuses on survivability.

The Zero, actually, provides us with another example. Even the Zero, with its focus on reducing weight whatever way possible, actually had hardpoints for bombs. As did the Bf 109. As did the Hawker Hurricane or the P-51. In fact, it's more difficult to find fighters that were unable to mount bombs - and we need the hardpoints anyway for drop tanks. There is, after all, a large difference between being able to mount bombs and being optimized for both bombing and fighting.
In addition, those hardpoints also allow us to mount gunpods, if we ever have to shoot down heavy bombers.

Personally, I'd vote for the Hornet assuming that it includes hardpoints.

[evictedSaint]

The hornet is identical to the Haast, the only difference being the Haast has bomb hardpoints included.

[Light forger]

The hornet also has a turbocharger instead of a supercharger.

[NUKE9.13]

The hornet is identical to the Haast, the only difference being the Haast has bomb hardpoints included.

I mean, the Haast has a capacity for 1t of bombs, right? That's quite significant.

But yeah, I suppose the hardpoints themselves won't cause the plane to be drastically less effective. The Stinger has a 250kg bomb capacity, and it does fine.
...which reminds me, these planes we're talking about are significantly better than the Stinger, right? I don't want to spend a design creating a slightly better fighter.

[evictedSaint]

Yes, especially if the supercharger is included (which it is in the Haast).  It should perform *significantly* better.

Remember, our goal here is a fighter we can make relevant for the rest of the war.  This is why I support the Haast - it's a fighter that just so happens to be able to drop bombs.

[andrea]

I am convinced about haast, but I think it would be nice to keep the high manoevrability at high speed from the hornet ("Servo and trim tabs on its control surfaces, from our aerodynamics research, allow it to out-manoeuvre enemy fighters even at these high speeds") and specify that aerodynamics of the plane should be tailored for air to air fights

[evictedSaint]

If Light wants to edit the design proposal, I'm sure it'll fit in nicely. 

[Light forger]

Edited in

[andrea]

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Andrea
    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, Wolfhunter107
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV
1 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (variant B) (with research credit), strongpoint

[Strongpoint]

Well, intentionally not including bomb mounts serves no purpose at all. I  assumed that bomb mounts are there by default because there are zero reasons to give fighter no ability to be a fighter-bomber.

[evictedSaint]

4 UFAF-F39 'Haast':
    3 Using a research credit: Lightforger, evictedSaint, Andrea
    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, Wolfhunter107
1 Armoured War Tigers: NAV
1 UFAF-F-39 "Hornet" (variant B) (with research credit), strongpoint

I feel as though the Haast is our best option for this turn.  Lots of things we would want to have, a research credit to hedge our bets, and the result being the best fighter in the world for the time period.