Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kashyyk]

Personally, I'd move the front mounted MG and give it to the gunner. The Levib isn't supposed to be manoeuvrable enough to line up shots, the gunner's swivel mount is there to do that.

[NUKE9.13]

Hmm. Another option would be to have the pilot in the middle, have the bomber in front, and give him a swivel-mounted MG as well.

[Kashyyk]

Wouldn't he be in the way of the pilot there? Unless you're talking about a bottom mount to match the Gunner's top mount.

[NUKE9.13]

Not necessarily, no. This german bomber had a similar configuration: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=427

Two 7.92mm machine guns were fitted for local defense, one forward and one aft (the pilot seated in between the two)

[Kashyyk]

Oh I see. That could work. My personal preference is still the double MG for the gunner though. We're unlikely to deploy them without an escort, so I don't think we need 360' of fire. Just plenty to discourage riding the bomber's tails. The three options are all very valid though, so it might be worth making three proposals and having people vote.

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, I guess.

Levib IIb Bomber Biplane:
Dropping things on people is hard. Or maybe it's just that none of our aircraft are designed to do so? Perhaps designing a dedicated 'bomber' would be wise. This was the thought process that led to the Levib. The Levib is a size or two larger than both the Feather and the EFM, is a wooden-framed biplane, and is powered by two V8 engines mounted on the wings.
The engines in question are RE-18L-V8s produced by Revolutionary Engines (Founded during the Year Of Revolutions, with the slogan "More revolutions per minute than even the Kolechian government!"). They are water-cooled, with the two four cylinder banks at a 90° angle. The crankshaft is solid steel, whilst the cylinder blocks are made of aluminium to reduce weight. They produce considerably more power than our rotary engines, with an equivalent or slightly better power/weight ratio. (Making rotary engines this powerful would mean increasing the torque caused by the spinning engine, making the plane harder to control). The engines have four-bladed propellers mounted to them in a puller configuration, and should result in respectable speeds, despite the considerably increased bulk of the Levib- though the focus is on lifting a heavy payload, not racing through the skies.
Said bulk consists of room for three crew members- from front to back, a pilot, bomber, and gunner. The gunner has access to two machine guns on a swivel mount allowing him to fire to all sides, as well as upwards. The bomber is free to focus on bombing/observation, with access to a bomb sight that compensates for height, airspeed, and windspeed (entered manually with dials and sliders). Once a target has been acquired, he can release any number of bombs attached to the underside of the craft on bomb mounts, which are adjustable to a wide variety of munitions, with a capacity of 450kg.
The Levib should be classified as a Medium Bomber. Its range should be more than sufficient for tactical missions of all sorts, whilst some bomb capacity can be sacrificed for extra fuel tanks to enable longer-ranged 'strategic' missions.

Levib IIc Bomber Biplane:
Dropping things on people is hard. Or maybe it's just that none of our aircraft are designed to do so? Perhaps designing a dedicated 'bomber' would be wise. This was the thought process that led to the Levib. The Levib is a size or two larger than both the Feather and the EFM, is a wooden-framed biplane, and is powered by two V8 engines mounted on the wings.
The engines in question are RE-18L-V8s produced by Revolutionary Engines (Founded during the Year Of Revolutions, with the slogan "More revolutions per minute than even the Kolechian government!"). They are water-cooled, with the two four cylinder banks at a 90° angle. The crankshaft is solid steel, whilst the cylinder blocks are made of aluminium to reduce weight. They produce considerably more power than our rotary engines, with an equivalent or slightly better power/weight ratio. (Making rotary engines this powerful would mean increasing the torque caused by the spinning engine, making the plane harder to control). The engines have four-bladed propellers mounted to them in a puller configuration, and should result in respectable speeds, despite the considerably increased bulk of the Levib- though the focus is on lifting a heavy payload, not racing through the skies.
Said bulk consists of room for three crew members- from front to back, a bomber, pilot, and gunner. The bomber and gunner both have access to a machine gun on a swivel mount, facing forwards and backwards respectively, providing almost 360° coverage. When approaching a target, the bomber has access to a bomb sight that compensates for height, airspeed, and windspeed (entered manually with dials and sliders). Once a target has been acquired, he can release any number of bombs attached to the underside of the craft on bomb mounts, which are adjustable to a wide variety of munitions, with a capacity of 450kg.
The Levib should be classified as a Medium Bomber. Its range should be more than sufficient for tactical missions of all sorts, whilst some bomb capacity can be sacrificed for extra fuel tanks to enable longer-ranged 'strategic' missions.

Prospect Scout-Bomber:
Levib IIa Bomber Biplane:
Levib IIb Bomber Biplane:
Levib IIc Bomber Biplane: (1) NUKE9.13

[Kashyyk]

Prospect Scout-Bomber:
Levib IIa Bomber Biplane:
Levib IIb Bomber Biplane: (1) Kashyyk
Levib IIc Bomber Biplane: (1) NUKE9.13

A tl;dr for people who don't want to wade through those three designs:
They are identical apart from gun placement. Mod A. has a rear-facing swivel MG and a fixed front-facing MG. Mod B. has a a dual rear-facing swivel MG. Mod C. has two swivel MGs, one at the front, one at the back.

[10ebbor10]

May I make some minor suggestions. Maybe adding flaps and airbrakes can be usefull..

[Khang36]

Air brakes is not really needed for level bombers, though flaps would be good to have.

[NUKE9.13]

What kind of flaps?

[10ebbor10]

Maybe landing/take-off flaps.

Those are neat for a bomber.

[Doomblade187]

Prospect Scout-Bomber:
Levib IIa Bomber Biplane:
Levib IIb Bomber Biplane: (2) Kashyyk, Doomblade
Levib IIc Bomber Biplane: (1) NUKE9.13

[Rockeater]

Prospect Scout-Bomber:
Levib IIa Bomber Biplane:
Levib IIb Bomber Biplane: (2) Kashyyk, Doomblade
Levib IIc Bomber Biplane: (2) NUKE9.13, Rockeater

[NUKE9.13]

Maybe landing/take-off flaps.

Those are neat for a bomber.

Any suggestion for how to word this addition? Ie, how does it work, and what will it achieve? It sounds like a decent idea.

[10ebbor10]

Something like this :

On the prototype, the lower wing reportedly featured flaps along the trailing edges, that partly emulated the manner of operation of "single-acting ailerons" in only "coming up" from their "down" position at rest, as the aircraft accelerated during takeoff; these possessed a limited angle of depression and were not directly controlled by the pilot, instead being actuated by a set of 12 adjustable rubber bungee cords.[7]

This is from the bregeut 14. Apparently flaps were a later invention than I thought.