First off, a variant on the Thunderbird, with centrifugal compressors:
UFAF-F-40 "Thunderbird" Variant BNamed for the distinctive roar of its engines, the Thunderbird represents a fundamental change in the nature of aircraft. It is powered by twin turbojet engines using
centrifugal compressors, mounted in and forming the wing root to minimise drag as much as possible, and removable on a frame for easy maintenance given the revolutionary nature of the engines. The wings include a moderate degree of sweep to minimise high-speed drag, and inbuilt air-brakes should it need to engage low-speed bombers. For armament, it carries two nose-mounted AS-AC18s and one Sorraia. This purpose-built fighter is built entirely for speed, using aluminium alloys to save weight along with leaving out the manganese bathtub of the Haast, although self-sealing fuel tanks are still included.
If time permits, a foldable-wing design could be attempted, although this is not a priority.
On the Discord, there was some discussion between whether to go for axial-flow compressors or centrifugal compressors. Thus, this alternative variant of the Thunderbird, but I still prefer the original.
Arguments for Axial/against Centrifugal:
-Efficiencies are greater than the centrifugal, and engine efficiency is God in aircraft design.
-Smaller frontal cross-section than equivalent centrifugal, translating into less drag and higher speed. Since speed is the only reason early jet fighters had an advantage over heavy prop-fighters, may as well go for the axial to enhance that.
-it's what's in use in all jet engines from the postwar period to today, except for the tiny ones. This is honestly the main reason why I'm in favour of it, I don't want to go down a technological dead end. Much like the ridiculous argument regarding pigeon-guided bombs in Discord, they were effective but ultimately couldn't be improved at all. If the Cannalans go for axial while we go centrifugal, they will slowly gain a lead over us in engine power, ceteris paribus.
-
we sided with the Axis Me 262 has axial-compressor Jumo 004s, and outperformed the Gloster Meteor in speed and rate of climb. How much of this is attributable to engine vs other factors is debatable, though.
Arguments against Axial/for Centrifugal:
-Easier to manufacture/less complex.
-More reliable, in terms of engine service life. ((I would argue that this is more a reflection of the difference between Reich/UK's war economies, than the engine itself. In particular, the lack of high temperature materials for the turbine portion really hampered the Jumo 004. Regardless, the Jumo made it to mass production nearly a year before the Welland, and the Nazis churned out 8000 of them despite being bombed to shit. Apparently it was easier to machine than piston-engines.))
-Centrifugal-compressor jet engine planes have already flown: the
He 178 in August 1939 and the
Gloster Pioneer in May 1941. The first axial-compressor jet engine plane hasn't flown yet, the Me 262 in July 1942.
-Somewhat more resistance to FOD ingestion?
I don't really have many arguments to contribute for the Centrifugal compressor variant, to be honest.
Additional stuff from Discord:
eS's argument for the 4x20mm AS-AC18s on the Sobriety. I still think that will be way beyond the capabilities of our indigenous jet engine, especially a single one.
NUKE9.13 - Yesterday at 4:25 PM
One problem with the Sobriety: 4 ACs in the nose? Isn't that a bit much?
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:25 PM
lots of planes used 4x20 mm's in ww2
later spitfires
me 262
NUKE9.13 - Yesterday at 4:26 PM
Huh, okay.
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:26 PM
p-51
Andrea - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
we had problems with the haast for the 4 autocannons
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
4 is about as many as you can put in before it becomes a major issue
Andrea - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
2 autocannons and a machinegun should work well
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
we had problems with the haast for 4 autocannons and 2 machineguns
and a huge bomb load
NUKE9.13 - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
And 1 tonne of bombs
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:27 PM
and a bathtub
4x20 mm's is fine, and I'm not adding in machine guns.
Not gonna budge on the armament.
Andrea - Yesterday at 4:28 PM
machineguns are very useful for aiming
aiming without needed tons of ammo
NUKE9.13 - Yesterday at 4:28 PM
I'll vote for it for now.
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:28 PM
Not budging, andrea.
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:30 PM
I respect and understand your position, Andrea. I don't feel as though the benefits of the light machinegun - which has completely different flight characteristics than a 20 mm bullet - outweighs the extra weight.
Our pilots can aim plenty well enough and have plenty of killing power with 4x20's
Taricus - Yesterday at 4:30 PM
Well, a single MG could be used as an ammo-efficient rangefinder for the autocannons
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:32 PM
It has gyroscopic reflective sights for targeting, and an MG round has such different characteristics than a 20 mm that it's practically useless.
Andrea - Yesterday at 4:32 PM
wouldn't that increase difficulty?
evictedSaint - Yesterday at 4:33 PM
It doesn't need more guns, and it especially doesn't need them for rangefinding. Our pilots can score a kill without having to fire preliminary MG ranging shots.
I still think too many weapons comprising performance is not ideal, based on this
citation:
Weapon system effectiveness was fourth in the fighter effectiveness criteria only because their weapons have generally been adequate. Throughout the history of air combat, fighters which, by surprise or maneuver, attain a good firing position have achieved the kill about one third to one half the time, no matter what weapons were carried.The only major historic exception to this has been the low effectiveness shown by guided missiles in the first one to two decades of their existence.However, the weapons are critical, as the reason for the existence of fighter aircraft is to place their weapons within their operational envelope with respect to an enemy, and deliver ordnance on target.
Clarification on the rudder-elevator configuration of the Sobriety.
Andrea - Yesterday at 9:18 PM
about the elevator, I think the point is that if it is right behind the wings, it could be immersed in disturbed air flow from the wing trailing edge, resulting in reduced efficiency
Azzuro - Yesterday at 9:28 PM
oh, okay that's the wake, not the spanwise flow. And that can be fixed via accounting for downwash angle in the elevator's angle of incidence/in-flight trimming, except perhaps on rotating take-off
If you don't yet have Discord, I urge you to join it. I try to crosspost arguments to here as much as possible, but huge amounts of stuff goes through without being posted here (admittedly some of it random spammage).
Additionally, Powder Miner spends time to rewrite NationStates Issues into Forenian terms and posts them there as well for us to vote on the option to pick, which really adds to Forenian CultureTM.
Additional titbit from the He 178 article:
This seems to have marked a turning point for jet aircraft, Hitler deciding that the most promising jet fighter aircraft be re-purposed as a 'blitz bomber'.
When used as an air-superiority fighter, the task for which it had been designed, the Luftwaffe's Me 262s performed admirably but this was at a time when Hitler's stricture that no one could so much as mention the aircraft unless it was in the context of its use as a bomber effectively concealed this inconvenient truth. In September 1944 this policy was reversed but by then it was too late, there were far too few Me 262 available to make a difference, and far too few pilots.
Future demands for one tonne of bombs will be referred to as Literally Hitler.
Poll
17 (16%)
Author
Topic: Intercontinental Arms Race: Finale (Read 602412 times)