Print

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

[NUKE9.13]

If we are makeing a scout/bomber i think we should fo with a bi-wing design to five it better lift. additionally we should include some sort of camera mount that can double as a bomb sight for "high altitude" bombing.

I think we should hold strong on the single-wing plane method, but I agree on the bomb sight. Have a lens in the bottom of the plane pointing ahead of the flight path that let's our men aim their bombs.

Why do you want to stick to monoplanes? For a bomber in this day and age, a biplane design is superior. You get more lift (=more bombs) for the same engines, albeit at the cost of speed.

[Taricus]

Well, we should work on getting better engine performance too.

[Doomblade187]

If we are makeing a scout/bomber i think we should fo with a bi-wing design to five it better lift. additionally we should include some sort of camera mount that can double as a bomb sight for "high altitude" bombing.

I think we should hold strong on the single-wing plane method, but I agree on the bomb sight. Have a lens in the bottom of the plane pointing ahead of the flight path that let's our men aim their bombs.

Why do you want to stick to monoplanes? For a bomber in this day and age, a biplane design is superior. You get more lift (=more bombs) for the same engines, albeit at the cost of speed.

I basically want to get us to WW2 tech asap, and as such I will basically only be backing monoplane designs.

I will also be suggesting wing based guns at some point. Not yet tho.

[Taricus]

Well, we need bombers in the meanwhile, and we'll be stuck at WW1 tech for a while. Might want to get an all-metal fighter first.

[Kashyyk]

I would personally like to push for radio now. Aircraft radio has been used by the Allies for the last six months, and it plays right into our teamwork perk. It also allows more direct communication between our aircraft and the forces on the ground/at sea.

It would also allow us to phase out the Hykib balloon in favour of plane spotters.

[Doomblade187]

Well, we need bombers in the meanwhile, and we'll be stuck at WW1 tech for a while. Might want to get an all-metal fighter first.

Huehuehue

A Shiny New World

For as long as we have known it, the world of aeroplanes has been one of wood and canvas. It's time for that to change. The recently cheapened metal "Aluminum" shows promise as a metal light enough to lift into the air (with some engine upgrades) but strong enough to truly surpass wood. Our goal is to order some samples from the captains of industry in whatever formulations they possess, and to generate a truly innovative airframe material.

The samples are to be accompanied by a shipment of stock aluminum. Our engineers have some ideas regarding possible designs, and would like to explore alloying it with Zinc and Magnesium.

((OOC: my goal is a primitive version of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy ))

@Kashyyk, I am on board with a radio design.

[NUKE9.13]

Designing a radio before we have a plane capable of lifting a radio would be sub-optimal, I feel. Cos whilst airborne radio might exist already, I'm pretty sure they're big bulky things that won't fit into the EFM, and certainly not the Feather.

[Kashyyk]

Wikipedia says two seater-spotters have had one way morse code radio comms since March 1915, so we should be able to do at least that if not better. Two way morse code comms will allow us to phase out the Hykib entirely in exchange for a two-seater plane, which would be useful in both a spotter, bombing and combat role.

The sooner we get those crewmen out of balloons and into planes, the sooner they'll start gaining useful experience.

EDIT: Furthermore, the groundwork for aircraft carriers has already been laid. A sturdy two seater could be used as a naval bomber to strike enemy ships with impunity. The hardest would be convincing the navy to let us re-purpose one of their ships.

[NUKE9.13]

March 2015

So we have almost a century to wait, then?

Anyway, yes, we should design a two-seater. A twin-engined wooden-frame biplane, I think. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Kashyyk]

Indeed. But we have the power of time travel and editing old posts, so we're okay.

Anyway! Let's get some votes shall we?

(1) 1 die to the Equilibrium: Kashyyk

Requisition:
(1) Army Field Radio: Kashyyk

[Taricus]

I think we'd be better off requisitioning proper uniforms for our pilots; should allow them to stay in the air themselves a bit better and generally reduce their profile to make spotting them harder (And provide us with an easier time of identifying their fighters)

[Kashyyk]

I figured we'd have to design our own for that. I'm not sure if anyone has anything that really fits the niche.

[Doomblade187]

(2) 1 die to the Equilibrium: Kashyyk, Doomblade

Requisition:
(1) Army Field Radio: Kashyyk

I'm unsure on the requisition. I wonder if we should just include borrowing one from the army in our design. It's not like we're going to be ordering a bunch.

[Kashyyk]

I'd like to officially requisition one so that we can modify it as needed to fit into out future planes. Also so that we can design the planes with the radio in mind, rather than leaving a space and hoping it'll fit.

[Khang36]

If we are makeing a scout/bomber i think we should fo with a bi-wing design to five it better lift. additionally we should include some sort of camera mount that can double as a bomb sight for "high altitude" bombing.

I think we should hold strong on the single-wing plane method, but I agree on the bomb sight. Have a lens in the bottom of the plane pointing ahead of the flight path that let's our men aim their bombs.

Why do you want to stick to monoplanes? For a bomber in this day and age, a biplane design is superior. You get more lift (=more bombs) for the same engines, albeit at the cost of speed.

I basically want to get us to WW2 tech asap, and as such I will basically only be backing monoplane designs.

I will also be suggesting wing based guns at some point. Not yet tho.

While i get what you are saying but untill we get engine powerful enough to reach 300km/h we are needlessly handy capping ourselves building monowings. We don't save much in weight by going monowing since you will have to make plane with larger wing spans to get the nessesary lift for the plane to fly. Additionaly the air drag is negligible untill we hit around 300km/h.

If you are that adament on getting ww2 tech you are focusing on the wrong tech tree path.we don't need monowing experience we need better engines.