Print

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

[NUKE9.13]

Any particular reason for that?

[Doomblade187]

Any particular reason for that?

We have experience with Radial engines.  Also, I don't know which one is better, but I *assume* it's the radials.

[NUKE9.13]

Well, they have different strengths and weaknesses both. From what I can tell, most multi-engine bomber aircraft used inline engines (be they straight or V). I'm not sure why, exactly, but I think the fact that if the engines are on the wings you want them to have a small frontal profile (which isn't as big of a deal if the engine is in the fuselage, since it's going to be that big regardless), and the high fuel consumption of radial engines were factors.
Also, we have experience with rotary engines, which are similar but not the same as radial engines. Either way, I'm sure we can find an inline engine. We aren't so invested in rotary engines that we should never branch out.

[Doomblade187]

Well, they have different strengths and weaknesses both. From what I can tell, most multi-engine bomber aircraft used inline engines (be they straight or V). I'm not sure why, exactly, but I think the fact that if the engines are on the wings you want them to have a small frontal profile (which isn't as big of a deal if the engine is in the fuselage, since it's going to be that big regardless), and the high fuel consumption of radial engines were factors.
Also, we have experience with rotary engines, which are similar but not the same as radial engines. Either way, I'm sure we can find an inline engine. We aren't so invested in rotary engines that we should never branch out.

Okay, cool. Just was wondering rationale.

[10ebbor10]

Can we spend extra dice for better results in this game?

[NUKE9.13]

We can put extra dice into project time and cost (but not progress), but the prototype rolls cannot be influenced. At least, I think that's how it works.

[Chiefwaffles]

Is there anything that we can requisition along with the design, actually? We don't have a vote for one of those yet.

EDIT: Also, forgive my lack of engine experience, but the bomber is moving ahead with it, right? Not just sidegrading our current stuff?

[Jilladilla]

Chief, do we even have anything we want to requisition? Also, we did just upset some Generals greatly. Unless we have a thing we're in dire need for, it may be best to wait a bit. Requisitioning does annoy them a bit IIRC.

Anyhow, I've dug back and fetched my old Prospect proposal, now with improvements! Intending to go for a lighter, faster bomber than the Levib. Not that I have anything against the biplane. Just a different proposal.

Prospect Scout-Bomber
Compared to the Equilibrium, the Prospect is a larger and clumsier plane, but that's intentional due to its differing role. The Prospect is a 2 seater monoplane aircraft intended to fulfill roles that are not air superiority, primarily bombing and reconnaissance. It carries a 9-cylinder rotary engine to help it carry its greater bulk.

The pilot is situated in the front seat, they have access to a forwards facing Type 11 LMG with a synchronization gear to allow it to fire through the propeller. The rear seat is on a swivel, allowing its occupant to comfortably observe to the rear and sides easily. There is also a twin mounted Type 11 setup here, allowing this occupant to fend off attacking aircraft from the sides and rear. This rear seat also has access to some storage space, allowing them to carry things ranging from more bullets or whatever they wish.

The Prospect also has several mountings on its underside, meant to accommodate up to 150kg of bombs.

[Chiefwaffles]

We only annoyed the army, right? Anything from the Navy or any other parts of the military we can requisition, maybe? Dunno what kind of gear it'd have, but since we haven't requisitioned them before it probably shouldn't hurt.

And I'm not too sure about a monoplane bomber at the moment. While I definitely maintain that the future is in monoplanes, I think a better idea is using a biplane bomber (and not doing a bomber-scout hybrid) and making progress in areas directly helpful to monoplanes, like engines.

[Kashyyk]

Other people have already taken  off and landed on ships. We could see about "requisitioning" an older battleship from the Navy, and having it refitted as an aircraft carrier. Deploying feathers at sea will give us a big advantage.

[Chiefwaffles]

I... don't know if the navy will be okay with us requisitioning a battleship. Though it could be an interesting idea.

But on another note, I checked and the first torpedo aircraft was in 1915. We could requisition a torpedo from the navy then make our bomber design able to use it?

[Jilladilla]

Other people have already taken  off and landed on ships. We could see about "requisitioning" an older battleship from the Navy, and having it refitted as an aircraft carrier. Deploying feathers at sea will give us a big advantage.

I think our state of the art Battleship would be called a heavy cruiser by other nations... Would still likely be big enough to serve as an early CV, but uh... That would be a fairly major thing to ask for.

May be a good idea to go with floatplanes (just make design that's a quick EFM (or whatever plane) modification with a catapult (those are a thing already) that we can toss to the navy), use those to convince the navy of the usefulness of Naval Aviation and warm them up to the idea of full, proper, carrier. Before then we'll have to accept seaplane tenders and spotter aircraft at best.

But for now, proper bomber.

[10ebbor10]

Creating a carrier is not going to happen. But we may be able to launch a scout or two from a tender.


Anyway, here's a few requisition ideas :

Request blueprints of naval tenders : If we want to do any future conversion
Request copies of military maps : If we want to do some longer range bombing
Request bigger gun with 150 rpm firerate : For future consideration

[Chiefwaffles]

Alright, I say:

Requisition Torpedos
Design Bomber (focused on land bombing, but with torpedos as a consideration)
- Bomber either has better engine or better material construction
Revise general-use floats
Revise better engine OR proper bombs based on the mortar shells

That way we get lots of progress on an effective (hopefully) bomber front, while still making notable advanced in the field of aeronautics as a whole.

[NUKE9.13]

Levib IIa 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 pilot has access to a forwards-firing LMG (no need for sync gear, as the propellers are not in the way), whilst the gunner has one on a (by default rear-facing) 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.

CW is right, making some engine progress with our bomber wouldn't go amiss. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Suiza_8 engine was a high-quality piece designed towards the start of WWI (first deployed in 1915), with newer versions being rolled out right up to the end. It's easier (and cheaper) to build than a V12, but makes us progress towards it (because as this drags on past WWI, V12s are what we will want to work towards). And as mentioned, rotary engines are limited in how much power they can provide.
Also, by not having an engine in front of the pilot, he can be given a MG. I've cut a MG from the rear, because they're pretty pricey.

Anyway, feel free to suggest changes. Or even copy my proposal and edit it to your liking. But I think we should go for a dedicated medium bomber biplane of some sort- monoplane bombers just don't make sense in this time period, and we don't have the development resources to spare to go for a light bomber right now- a medium bomber will fill a bigger gap in our roster than a light bomber.

If no one has any suggested changes, consider my vote to be for spending three dice on starting the Levib II.