Print

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

[NAV]

Okay you have me convinced. Can someone change my vote to the Euro Swallow? I'm on phone.

[Happerry]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(2): Piratejoe, es
Verusan F1 European Swallow: (3) Sensei, NAV, Happerry
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

I'm convinced, and Sensei's design goes into better detail too, so I'm switching my vote.

[evictedSaint]

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(1): Piratejoe
Verusan F1 European Swallow: (4) Sensei, NAV, Happerry, eS
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 (3): NAV, Sensei, eS
Ask Navy for Torpedo (4): eS, Piratejoe, NAV, Sensei

WW2, here we come.  And to think, I wanted to build a triplane in 1915.  How laughable!

Edit: that being said, seems a bit of a waste that we don't use our Crossguard for it.

[piratejoe]

Uhm, if I recall correctly, Biplanes are more maneuverable than Monoplanes, especially in this time period, and the major issues with drag for a biplane only start to pop up at 350kmh/220 mph, so until we get 600 or so horse power engines we should be fine and even if we do they probably won't be seen until the end game, where we could still use biplanes anyway unless we somehow get early ww2 tech. Besides, we have more experience with biplanes and switching all production to monoplanes is literally catch up in every single way, and its not at all thematic to use monoplanes in ww1 when I can only name 1 notable monowing design from the conflict, that being the Fokker E.III and you can argue all you want about the Fokker D.VIII, but at max speed it can only go to 204 kmh or 127mph which is only faster by about 30 KMH or 15 MPH then the Fokker Dr.1 and while both have the same 110 hp engine, we don't exactly have something too much faster. So, I believe, that at this moment in time, the biplane is a better option and will be for some time. Besides, Sensei, you seem to forget the simple fact that altitude is needed for energy fighters, and biplanes have more lift then monowings which gives them an edge in climbing ability which allows them to have more potential energy, and the fact that the emu could climb better even was listed as one of its advantages over the enemys monowing.

Regardless, when this design crashes and burns, probably literally, I'm not taking the blame...

Edit: I also feel like mentioning this, the Rolls Royce Falcon. Ever hear of the Bristol F2b? It has a slightly more powerful engine than the one we have, and the aircraft can go faster than the Fokker D.VIII and at sea level and wasn't too much slower at 1000 m... and I remember someone mentioning the S.E.5a which can go faster than the Fokker D.VIII even at 1000m and is barely slower then it at 2000m and that has exactly a 200HP engine...

[evictedSaint]

Well now I'm confused; which is faster, the European Swallow or the African Swallow?

[piratejoe]

Depends on the situation. But chances are, they would be roughly equal in speed with the African Swallow having more potential energy, while the European Swallow has slightly more direct energy, but I favor more potential energy over slightly more direct energy... Also, something sensei fails to mention about the Junkers J 1 and J 2 is that their climb performance was sup par, and only 7 of both aircraft types where ever built, to quote the wiki.

Despite the attempts to improve the J 2's performance and handling, by late in the summer of 1916 Hugo Junkers had come to the realization that the continued use of sheet electrical steel was no longer practical for aircraft construction, writing in his diary that:
"As a result of the first (J 1) and second (J 2) aircraft, one would ascertain that the aerodynamic efficiency was very good. We thought we [the Junkers designers] were over the hill. This, unfortunately, was not the case. We had to start again from the very beginning. The reason was that in spite of the favorable horizontal speed, the aircraft could not meet the military climb specifications...we had to develop an aircraft that not only had low drag for ease of maneuver in the horizontal plane, but that could climb well-an aircraft with a low weight to power ratio...

...This could not be achieved with iron, and we had to choose a new material...light-weight metal. But not only the choice of iron had resulted in high weight. We had built too heavy because we wanted a safe aircraft and partially because we had not extracted the optimum structural strength from the material".

I also feel that the European swallow will cost an arm and a leg, along with taking an amount of time we don't have.

I also hope Cnidaros gives us time not to go for the stupidly expensive project that everyone decided to bandwagon on for some reason...

[Sensei]

Well now I'm confused; which is faster, the European Swallow or the African Swallow?

The European swallow, because it has less drag considerably.

It is a risk that the metal construction could be too expensive- this thing does invite disaster if the rolls are bad. At this rate though I think it might be prudent to make a bit of a gambit to catch up with the kols (who are currently running circles around us in their monoplanes!)

At eS's suggestion, I'd like to just tweak the Euro Swallow to take advantage of our Crossguard though. Hopefully this is a small enough change we needn't re-vote.

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 two Bolt machineguns in the center, using the Crossguard, and the pilot has a set of sights to aim with between them. With its low-weight, low-drag design compared to biplanes it is intended to be as fast and maneuverable as possible.

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(1): Piratejoe
Verusan F1 European Swallow: (4) Sensei, NAV, Happerry, eS
--Verusan F1 European Swallow, but with a wood frame and canvas: (0)
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 (3): NAV, Sensei, eS
Ask Navy for Torpedo (4): eS, Piratejoe, NAV, Sensei

[piratejoe]

Running circles around us? The turn specifically stated they aren't much faster then the Emu, and a major advantage the emu has is the ability to get to the Equilibrium level after it takes only a few attack runs. Also, I feel like mentioning this, the Gloster Gladiator, that one Biplane design that flew in 1934? That had a cruise speed of 210 mph. Most late WW1 aircraft are lucky to get 100mph...Also, there is a reason that before the mid 30's biplanes where still being used for military aircraft as more then just trainers...

I feel that the European Swallow will turn out as a Boom and Zoomer that doesn't have the speed, an Energy Fighter that weighs to much and doesn't have the power or lift to maintain its energy advantage, or a Turn fighter without the maneuverability for it, while I feel that the African Swallow is just an energy fighter with good lift to help it gain energy and good speed to keep it up. Drag is an important factor in aircraft, but until we have 400 horse power engines the advantages of a biplane wont outweigh the disadvantages.

I predict that with the metal sheets, the guns on the wings, adjustable flaps, retractable gears, and basically everything else that makes this thing at least a late 1920's design, it will take at bare minimum 50 total dice roll progress, cost at least 10 production points, and also be a buggy unusable mess. Its just far far to advanced for this time, and if we somehow made it without any bugs and it preformed exactly like you wanted it to, it would be able to shoot down anything the rest of the world could make for at least 5 years, 10 if the engine was upgraded...speaking of, do you think the thing can even take off?

[evictedSaint]

We should have named the Bar’s Shelf-AABR the "Coconut"

[piratejoe]

We probably should have. Maybe our next ace will be named Arthur...Seriously though eS, biplanes aren't a bad investment, unless we get into late 30's tech which I doubt, the advantage of 2 wings over 1 will be larger then the disadvantage. besides, the enemy surely has a monoplane design advantage, and we have a biplane design advantage, I see no reason to play catch up with our enemy when we have a viable design choice for energy fighters and turn fighters for at least 10 or so years and an extremely good choice for bombers.

[evictedSaint]

I wanted to do a triplane, personally.  But nooooooo

[piratejoe]

...If you are a bit salty over that, you can make a design for one, and I would vote for that over the totallynota1930'sdesignjustwithastupidlyweakengine if others voted for it. But really, Biplane is the sweet spot for ww1 aircraft, no major issues with drag, and good lift for the engine power.

[evictedSaint]

Not really salty.  Just kinda impassive about the whole deal.  If both sides do monoplane then it doesn't really matter.

[piratejoe]

For the early and mid game, if you made the exact same plane except one was a biplane and the other was a monoplane, the biplane would win more often then not if the pilots where equal in experience. In the late game, then things might be more equal and it would purely depend on the actions of the pilots. Still, we are in 1915 still and we will be at the end of world war one in give or take 24 entire turns. By then the arms race would probably have ended tbh.

[Thanik]

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 two Bolt machineguns in the center, using the Crossguard, and the pilot has a set of sights to aim with between them. With its low-weight, low-drag design compared to biplanes it is intended to be as fast and maneuverable as possible.

I like this plane - it sounds fun. What I would do with it is thicken the wing roots (actually lessening weight and improving structural integrity for a little extra drag) and make the whole thing out of wood and canvas to save on costs. The low-wing configuration is great given it will shorten take-off length and make the plane more maneuverable than a centerline wing arrangement. Given it'd be primarily a fighter, instead of the fighter-bomber we've gone with for now, I can see this being advantageous.

Given this route, I'd recommend going for an engine revision first, to beef up the Barnett, and a Crossguard revision, to make it capable of synchronizing two guns - otherwise I recommend putting the second gun in a Hispano-Suiza-like arrangement, as I'm sure it's not that big of a modification to the Barnett already. Overall, I like the proposal and it's ambition.

TAC R.M.3 African Swallow(1): Piratejoe
Verusan F1 European Swallow: (4) Sensei, NAV, Happerry, eS
--Verusan F1 European Swallow, but with a wood frame and canvas: (0)
--Verusan F1 European Swallow, but with a wood frame, canvas and thicker wing roots (1): Thanik
    --...But after revisions (1): Thanik
Shoot down bailed out Pilots (0):
There is no honor in killing the unarmed (5): Piratejoe, Happerry, NAV, Sensei, Thanik
--Unless it's with a sword (4): NAV, Sensei, eS, Thanik
Ask Navy for Torpedo (5): eS, Piratejoe, NAV, Sensei, Thanik