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

[RAM]

How does the ski-jump help exactly? I can't help but think that it wuould just orce the plane to stick its nose up when it isn't ready and force a stall. Couldn't an aeroplanethat is ready to use a ski-jump just use its control surfaces instead? I suppose the control surfaces might spoil the lift a little, a minor elevation of the nose might be beneficial, but it really seems as though the altitude of the craft is based upon the amount of combined speed and altitude that it has accumulated, and that a jump would expend speed to gain altitude, thuse gaining nothing but a spontaneous stall and sudden swim.

[Kashyyk]

As I understand it,  it gives the plane more time to speed up before it hits the water.

Edit: Quoting Wikipedia:

"In aviation, a ski-jump is an upward-curved ramp that allows aircraft to take off from a runway that is shorter than the aircraft's required takeoff roll. By forcing the aircraft upwards, lift-off can be achieved at a lower airspeed than that required for sustained flight, while allowing the aircraft to accelerate to such speed in the air rather than on the runway. Ski-jumps are commonly used to launch airplanes from aircraft carriers that lack catapults."

[andrea]

US is basically the only country without ski jumps, so I think it is safe to say that the idea works.

[Strongpoint]

It is not a revision proposal. It is a current turn design proposal and attempt to stop the carrier train.

It looks like a bunch of revisions lumped together and I hope it is achievable with a design action. Please consider it for this turn. It is a great way for maintaining air superiority

Aircraft engine standardization and improvement project (+new design doctrine)

The first part of the project is developing a new engine for older designs (Yelloyjacket(evaluate its performance with better engine and consider bring it back to front-line use) AS-DB-HF-23 (new engine removes the nose gun), AS-1931-HAFB, AS-HF-32b "Stinger") It is a relatively low volume V12 motor built with the focus on fuel efficiency.

One of major goals of the first part is easier maintenance and same pool of spare parts allowing to save space on airbases and aircraft carries without the need to carry many different spare parts and reducing servicing time.

Second part of the project is developing a larger volume tho stage super charged V12 engine. This one is focused on power and rpm and meant to be used on Haast and Reckless Effect

The last part of the project is a jet engine aT-J04. It is a general upgrade of aT-J03 fixing any issues found during three months of service. New engine should fit in thunderbird jet fighter with little to no modifications of the airframe

New doctrine assumes that all aircrafts in service and potential designs will use one of those three engines unless stated otherwise. In that case fourth standard engine will be adopted



I think it is a great way to maintain air superiority and it is totally worth a design action. It may be too greedy... but if anything my design prove to be to modest so I try this instead

[andrea]

It is not a bad idea, although it may be late to make it competitive with the other.

Just a couple of remarks:
1)why does the Stinger mount the high efficiency engine? it is still our most plentiful fighter, shouldn't power be important for a fighter?
2)saving on spare parts should be moved after the development of the 3 engines. Since it has not been mentioned as a problem, I don't think the benefit would be that high. Getting all 3 engines working would be the priority
3)We don't need the jet engine to be less expensive, we need it to be less complex ( as in, improve our knowledge and manufacturing). Being uncomplex will reduce expense more than trying to reduce ore and fuel, likely.

I don't see why this couldn't work as a design. It is the same principle as infantry QoL, except scaled up for a design.

[Strongpoint]

1)why does the Stinger mount the high efficiency engine? it is still our most plentiful fighter, shouldn't power be important for a fighter?

Focus doesn't mean that it should be awful in other areas. It is meant that new engine will be at least as good as the current one in other areas. With it being a smaller aircraft we can't reasonably fit engine from Haast

2)saving on spare parts should be moved after the development of the 3 engines. Since it has not been mentioned as a problem, I don't think the benefit would be that high. Getting all 3 engines working would be the priority

It will happen by default if we go for standartized engine

3)We don't need the jet engine to be less expensive, we need it to be less complex ( as in, improve our knowledge and manufacturing). Being uncomplex will reduce expense more than trying to reduce ore and fuel, likely.

It tries to do both with a very slim chance of succes. In fact it is more like get jet engine experience... I will reword it to something like > small improvements from experience gained through three months of service

[evictedSaint]

Pattern D: identical to Pattern C, but with the steel deck and ski jump.  Still on the fence about the steel deck, though.


Design:

The Tiger Star is a new carrier designed to inexpensively project Forenia's airpower further at sea. Built from the ground-up to be a carrier, it features two runways, one angled, each with a rocket-powered catapult and arrestor cables to launch and land planes concurrently. There are two hydraulically powered open-ended lifts on the rear of the ship to increase the speed of spotting aircraft. Being open-ended means larger planes can be lifted by hanging the tail off the end. Additionally, the increased runway allows planes to be stored above-deck when expecting combat situations, allowing planes to be kept on standby. The Tiger Star also features an above-deck command tower/smokestack combo, off-set to one side of the runway and counterbalanced by engine placement below deck. The hanger features three "fire curtains" and has enough room for unused planes to be hung from the rafters. The edges of the carrier are liberally sprinkled with bumblebees and AC18's for defense, as well as a new "safety net" to prevent careless sailors from falling into the ocean. It's unarmored except for a medium torpedo belt.

Also features a modern steel deck to support the higher forces of jet aircraft and a ski jump to give heavier/slower aircraft extra help taking off.

[Sheb]

Isn't the point of angled runway that the angled runway has no catapult and planes are launched from the straight one to land on the angle one?

[andrea]

eh, you can still have a catapult on the angled runway.

Difference is, even when engled runway is busy with landing planes, you can keep launching. Also, when angled runway is free you can launch at double the rate using both catapults.

[Azzuro]

Except that it won't be as efficient as the Z, where both runways are aligned and the ship can make full use of sailing into a headwind. Takeoffs from the angled runway will have to deal with some degree of sideslip.

[Sheb]

eh, you can still have a catapult on the angled runway.

Difference is, even when engled runway is busy with landing planes, you can keep launching. Also, when angled runway is free you can launch at double the rate using both catapults.

Yeah, having your catapults are an angle to each other is annoying due to the fact that only one can be into the wind. Design with multiple catapults place them in parallels on the non-angled runway.

[Azzuro]

Also, worth noting that of all carriers built with ski-jump ramps and angled decks, none have ever had one on the angled runway as well. I suspect there would be issues with lateral stability?

[evictedSaint]

Well, Pattern A featured a straight runway and a ski jump, and no one was interested in that.

I'm tempted to think that an angled ramp wouldn't have any issue with an angled runway.  Angled runways have minor issues with headwind and direction of movement, but it doesn't seem likely that a ski jump would exacerbate that.

[andrea]

ski jump would be annoying during landing, since you can't quite use that part of the deck and a failed landing may impact on that. For take off, I guess it would add significant problems. So my guess would be that if you launch from elsewhere and mostly use the angled one to land, you don't want to bother with a ski-jump?

[evictedSaint]

The angled runway is longer than the straight one.  It'd be used for landings and for planes that needed longer runways for takeoff (like the Haast or Thunderbird).  Lighter planes (like an unloaded Haast or Stinger) could take off with the shorter straight runway and a catapult.

Honestly, though, I think Pattern A is the best.  Our goal is to obsolete the Stinger with the Thunderbird, so we wouldn't even need the shorter runway once it's cheap.  Without a shorter runway, we can make the angled deck straight, meaning we have no problems with headwind, landing, or adding a ski jump.  A catapult means it launches quickly, so a second below-deck runway that takes up hanger space is unneccessary.