Print

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

[Happerry]

I vote to refrain from shooting their pilots on the way down as long as they refrain from shooting ours.

[NAV]

Killing of downed pilots shall only be considered honourable if it's with a sword.

[piratejoe]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(1): Piratejoe

Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (3): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV
Ask Navy for Torpedo (2): eS, Piratejoe

[Cnidaros]

@GM, while we're on the topic of law of war issues... are we signatories to the whole no hollow-point/soft-point agreement on 1899?  JSP/JHP .303 would be brutal against wood and canvas aircraft.

Yes, you are party to that agreement. Although, both countries are pretty out of the way, so you might hope that the great powers close one eye if you do go down that route.

[piratejoe]

I feel like noting we shouldn't make incendiary or HE ammo either considering what Cnidaros said...don't want the great powers to cause us to lose prestige or PP.

[Happerry]

Tracers/Burning Bullets are really really useful though, when all the aircraft are primarily made out of wood.

[piratejoe]

Yeah they would be, but there is a reason that they never used incendiary against anything that wasn't a zeppelin in ww1.

[NAV]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(2): Piratejoe, NAV

Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (3): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV
--Unless it's with a sword (1): NAV
Ask Navy for Torpedo (3): eS, Piratejoe, NAV

[ConscriptFive]

Yeah they would be, but there is a reason that they never used incendiary against anything that wasn't a zeppelin in ww1.

To piggyback off that .303/7.62 is basically too small a round to carve open and fill with anything too substantial.  Law of War bans doing anything too fancy with anything smaller than 20mm anyways.  With no zeps out there, I don't see a good reason to roll out incendiary .303.

[piratejoe]

We probably need more people to vote so...yeah...

[evictedSaint]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(3): Piratejoe, NAV, es

Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (3): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV
--Unless it's with a sword (1): NAV
Ask Navy for Torpedo (3): eS, Piratejoe, NAV

[Happerry]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(4): Piratejoe, NAV, es, Happerry

Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (3): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV
--Unless it's with a sword (1): NAV
Ask Navy for Torpedo (3): eS, Piratejoe, NAV

[Sensei]

Alright, so I have a couple issues with the plane. First off, if we are making a dedicated fighter and we have a powerful engine to put in it, I think it's time we graduated from biplanes to a low-wing monowing design for better speed and maneuverability. Here's my design:

Verusan F1 European Swallow: The European Swallow is a low-wing monoplane, with dihedral wings for stability. It carries a single pilot, and is powered by a Barnett 1915 engine attached to a four-blade propeller in front. The frame is constructed of hollow metal tubes, of steel or aluminum if it can be found, and the wings and frame are covered in very thin sheets of metal to reduce drag and loss-of-lift to permeability, with large ailerons and additional, adjustable flaps which can give the wings extra lift for takeoff or slow maneuvers. The tail boom frame is uncovered to reduce cost and weight, and terminates in a tail with a rudder and elevator. It also includes landing gear which fold horizontally into an indent under the wings (powered by a long hand lever), and it's armed with one Bolt machinegun in each wing, aimed to cross at 500 meters, and the pilot has a set of sights to aim with. With its low-weight, low-drag design compared to biplanes it is intended to be as fast and maneuverable as possible.

Whichever one we make we WILL need to revise the engine. I'm hopeful that this can give us the edge by being optimized to be much faster than a biplane could hope to be.

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(4): Piratejoe, NAV, es, Happerry
Verusan F1 European Swallow: (1) Sensei
Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (4): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV, Sensei
--Unless it's with a sword (2): NAV, Sensei
Ask Navy for Torpedo (4): eS, Piratejoe, NAV, Sensei

[NAV]

...Its 1915! We're still making planes out of wood and canvas! I'm voting for the biplane, we don't have the tech to make a low wing monoplane better yet. Speed mayyyybe, but not maneuverability.

[Sensei]

I argue that the only thing stopping us from making a low-wing design is a lack of engine power. The biplane format makes a lot of lift at low speeds, which is why it works well for very weak engines. The downside is all that lift also means more drag so your high speed is going to be... more of a medium speed, at best. If this Barnett engine is enough to get a monowing off the ground, and I think it is, it will go a lot faster than a biplane. Besides, the ARAC does a better-than-terrible job, I think a biplane fighter would be a bit redundant.

The one point of concern might be the metal construction, the rest should be easy. But it's not impossible! The Junker's J1 was made in 1915, and it's an all-metal monoplane, the design of which led to a proper fighter just the next year. With that as an example, I think it should prove that all we need is decent rolls. The J-2 had a 160HP powerplant, so we've already got 25% more power with our Barnett, if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: Also the Kolechians have a monoplane already. Trying to play catch-up to that with a biplane is a lost cause, I think. Even if we don't leap for metal construction and go wood-and-canvas instead (or metal tube and canvas) I beg you all to consider going for a monoplane design for our next fighter.