Guys, I really really hate to say it, but Strongpoint is right here. He's so right it isn't even funny anymore. The Sobriety is
beyond the Me 262, and is somewhere in the postwar jet-fighter design space.
In an attempt to not be like him and passive-aggressively beat around the bush, here's why:Design: UF-JF-40 'Sobriety' Pattern A
Named after Cannala's greatest fear, the United Forenia Jet Fighter 'Sobriety' is Forenia's premiere fighter aircraft, using an innovative new engine design known as a "jet engine". The Sobriety features a single, large, centrally-mounted jet engine that runs the entire length of the aircraft.
Here's the first, and ultimately biggest problem. Single-engined jet aircraft are quite infeasible at this stage of jet design. The two typically quoted examples of WWII jet-fighters, a.k.a. the ones that saw combat, the
Me 262 and
Gloster Meteor, were both twin-engined. Early jet engines are simply not reliable enough to base a single-engined fighter on. But Azzuro! you say. How about all those single piston engine fighters we've done? Jet aircraft fly at a higher speed than props, and don't have the same low-speed flight characteristics that a prop fighter can use, even if the engine fails, to make a slow glide back to the runway. And even if they did, jet fighters have higher stall speeds, making any unpowered landing even more risky.
Practically, this will translate to losing more pilots to failed engines at every phase from basic training to combat.
Wait! There's a single-engined WWII jet-fighter that also saw combat, the
He 162! That was little more of a plane than the Japanese purpose-built kamikazes were, and is the first and last time the term "throwaway fighter" has ever been used to describe a jet fighter. In fact it's probably the real-world fighter most analogous to the "Dart" proposal. But in any case, it's good to bring it up, since the He 162 will figure in my argument later.
The positioning of the engine within the fuselage is also problematic for maintenance. Modern fighter jets do have the engine as "fuselage", but then modern jet engines are literally
orders of magnitude more reliable than the ones of our time period. All three of the above fighters have the engine outside of the fuselage for far easier maintenance and replacement, which is absolutely essential if this thing's not going to become a hangar queen. We're not suddenly going to jump to post WWII jet engine technology and the luxuries of engine lives measured in the triple digit hours.
Practically, this will translate to either a higher cost for each fighter per-unit, or present maintenance issues as a bug.
Oh, and just as a parting remark, manufacturing such large jets that take up the
entire length of the fuselage will be prohibitively expensive. Not to mention, where are you going to put the cockpit and avionics, if not on top, which increases drag? In fact, I don't think a combat jet-fighter with the turbine taking up the
entire fuselage length (not counting air intakes) has ever been made successfully.
The wings are back-swept to increase structural stability and place the center of gravity further forward,
Right, but for the wrong reasons. I have no idea how exactly structural stability will be improved, so someone more knowledgable in aircraft design will have to explain this to me. If the designer meant "structural strength", then wouldn't a non-swept wing be better for having a straight centreline-crossing spar? Oh, and again I have no idea how sweeping the wings
back would move the CG further
forward. Unless it's meant to move the AC further back, which would make the aircraft too stable for use as a fighter.
In actual life, swept-wing is the correct answer, but for compressibility reasons. Swept wings minimise the wave drag that forms in the transonic range, essential for fighters to operate effectively at those speeds.
and the elevator is moved further up the rudder to prevent span wise airflow from diminishing its effect.
Again, I have no idea what those words mean, but presumably Sensei's going to do some actual research instead of falling for word vomit. I've never heard span-wise airflow being used in the context of the rudder, though. Is this a cruciform tail?
These aerodynamic aspects were noticed during numerous wind-tunnel tests; additionally, an air-brake system is installed on the rear of the aircraft that uses hydraulics to extend two panels of the fuselage outwards to dramatically increase drag and slow the aircraft down.
Perhaps the only good part of the design. High-speed fighters engaging with gunfire against low-speed targets can benefit from having the option to reduce speed if necessary.
Without a propeller necessitating bulky timing gear or heavy rotor shafts, four AC18 20 mm's can be installed in the nose in-line with the aircraft.
The other huge issue with the design. So with the bulky piston engine removed, the solution is to...replace it with
four autocannons?!? Okay, a quick reference:
Me 262: 4x30mm cannon
Gloster Meteor: 4x20mm cannon
He 162: 2x20mm cannon, with 120 rounds per gun
So what's the issue? Me 262 and the Meteor both did fine, right? Well, they both had two engines, and
double the power. The He 162 is the one you should be looking at here. And again, the Sobriety vastly overestimates the power of its lone engine. I would say it would be very lucky if we rolled a 6 and got a
Jumo 004 engine-equivalent, but realistically we'll end up with something like the also contemporary
BMW 003. Something like the
Derwent is way beyond our reach, first run in 1943.
In summary, this thing Will Not Work As Intended. In fact, while the Haast luckily found a role as a ground-attack plane, I can't imagine to what use a failed jet fighter could double as. I'm writing up a more reasonable proposal now.
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 602304 times)