Print

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

[NAV]

Fast <--- Monoplane ---- Biplane ---- Triplane ---> Maneuverable

Do we want maximum speed, maneuverability, or a mix of both?
What are we actually designing this plane for, what tactics should it use, who is it fighting against?

If we go for a triplane, their speedy monoplane could be to much faster than us and allow them to choose all the engagements.

[Thanik]

Harkiss Aviation Bureau "Harkiss Rhadain Vitoria" or Harkiss RV.1 DN1915-1AK "White Victor"
Following the VSC's contract competition, for which a substantial grant was in place, the Harkiss Aviation Bureau sought out to develop a new aerial knight design incorporating several innovative choices which the company felt could put it ahead of the competition. The design is that of a light and nimble biplane fighter with a sturdier wooden fuselage, streamlined for a more aerodynamic craft, and powered by two powerful 120 hp 9-cylinder radial engines in a tandem push-pull configuration, with the tailplane mounted on a twin boom. This arrangement, Harkiss & Co. assures the airforce, gives numerous advantages. It allows for a shorter fuselage and thus a weight reduction in terms of structural support, necessitates smaller wings and ailerons for an equivalent effect, aiding it's already supposed excellent maneuverability, and also makes it safer to fly in case one of the two engines fails, as the thrust provided by the remaining engine stays in the centerline, while the twin booms distribute the load along the wing span and stiffen the overall structure while also giving the plane a large tail control surface, enabling effective pitch, yaw and roll. The upper wing of the aircraft is put close to the fuselage and behind the pilot, at eye level, to offer much greater visibility, and the craft's pilot is armed with not one, but two Bolt machine guns connected to synchronization gear, in addition to a frontal mounted Bolt going through the fore radial engine! This, coupled with the craft's increased maneuverability and higher speed, is expected to bolster the VSC's capabilities at a reasonable, low - even - Harkiss & Co. assures, price.

[NAV]

Harkiss Aviation Bureau "Harkiss Rhadain Vitoria" or Harkiss RV.1 DN1915-1AK "White Victor"
Following the KPAF's contract competition, for which a substantial grant was in place, the Harkiss Aviation Bureau sought out to develop a new aerial knight design incorporating several innovative choices which the company felt could put it ahead of the competition. The design is that of a light and nimble biplane fighter with a sturdier, aerodynamic fuselage, powered by two powerful 9-cylinder radial engines in a tandem push-pull configuration, with the tailplane mounted on twin boom. This arrangement, Harkiss & Co. assures the airforce, gives numerous advantages. It allows for a shorter fuselage and thus a weight reduction in terms of structural support, necessitates smaller wings and ailerons for an equivalent effect, aiding it's already supposed excellent maneuverability, and also makes it safer to fly in case one of the two engines fails, as the thrust provided by the remaining engine stays in the centerline. The upper wing of the aircraft is put close to the fuselage and behind the pilot, at eye level, to offer much greater visibility, and the craft's pilot is armed with not one, but two Bolt machine guns connected to synchronization gear! This, coupled with the craft's increased maneuverability and higher speed, is expected to bolster the KPAF's capabilities at a reasonable, low - even - Harkiss & Co. assures, price.

Have ny vote

[Thanik]

Have ny vote

I could go even more innovative and make it unstallable, but that would probably be too much for right now.

[piratejoe]

I don't think something like a biplane version of a Dornier Do 335 Pfeil is a wise idea at this moment in time, that would probably be better as a monoplane design so it can get the best out of its extra speed. Anyway this is my idea for an aircraft that I posted earlier with some minor changes, though I believe we should finish the synchronization gear before doing anything else, as if we do 2 dice to the synch gear and make a new design we won't get any revisions. But these are decent suggestions for next turn.

Also KPAF is our enemies, we are the VSC.
Teverum Air Company Rhydwyn Maddox 3 or TAC R.M.3 "African Swallow"
The Teverum Air Company Rhydwyn Maddox 3, or TAC R.M.3, also nicknamed the "African Swallow" is a new aircraft design proposed by the previously civilian Aircraft company as part of the VSC contract competition. The design is made to be light and aerodynamic to create a nimble and fast biplane fighter. The fuselage has had work to make it as aerodynamic as possible from past experience and the craft is powered by a single fairly powerful 8-cylinder V Inline engine with a radiator along with water cooling to increase its ability to produce power, which is important due to the revolutionary new ability to adjust its speed instead of having to rely on a blip switch to slow down. When asked why they chose such an engine, Rhydwyn said that the aircraft was made with the intent of speed and maneuverability so he had the engine in mind and that due to its lightweight design the power to weight ratio would be quiet good and not only would such a engine do well, but it also would help keep costs down compared to if it used a larger one. The upper wing of the aircraft is close to the fuselage and along the pilots eye level which should offer greater visibility than if it was higher up as well as reduce drag and the tail of the aircraft is fairly open giving a clearer view to the pilot allowing them to make decisions quicker and better. The aircraft as one can easily tell is specifically designed for making any enemy aircraft have a bad day, and this is made more apparent when one sees that to top it all off is armed with not one but two machine guns connected to synchronization gear to be able to quickly down any enemy it comes across.

1 die to crossguard (0):
2 die to crossguard (1): Piratejoe
2 die to crossguard and start work on Harkiss (0):
2 die to crossguard and start work on TAC R.M.3 (0):

[Thanik]

Also KPAF is our enemies, we are the VSC.

I blame the design report / battle report for being confusing as fuck on that. The reason one goes for a push-pull configuration is if they want the power of a two-engine aircraft in a short frame with some of the benefits of both a pull and a push configuration, and it has it's own considerations. (It's also both cool, imho, and a logical development given we went with pushers right off the bat )

The main thing, though, is that it would have unparalleled engine power and thus both superior maneuverability and speed compared to whatever they're fielding right now, in addition to being more capable of lifting a nice bomb load given what we have right now. It's not a stop-gap, it's a natural evolution in relation to what we have and would be perfect for this time period in my honest opinion.

Also, I was under the impression that the Crossguard was finished. Is it not? If not, I'd be willing to spend 2 dice on the sync gear and 2 on the design, without revisions for this turn if no other setup can be achieved. We both need to invest a number of dice into our designs, so the outcome is the same, but the fact is we need a new fighter/bomber. I believe the Rhadain Victor accomplishes that role more effectively on a positive roll than the African Swallow.

1 die to crossguard (0):
2 die to crossguard (1): Piratejoe
2 die to crossguard and start work on Harkiss RV.1 (2): Thanik, NAV
2 die to crossguard and start work on TAC R.M.3 (0):

I'll review if the Crossguard really needs 2 dice for completion.
Edit: 5/11 right now. So we need a 6 to push it out with a single die, which probably isn't happening assuming this is using an averaged die system. 2 dice seems fair (this costs us 2 PP right?), but I fail to see why we wouldn't invest 2 dice into the planes, unless we can't.

[piratejoe]

KPAF = Kolechian People's Air Force. VSC = Verusian Sky Crusaders

[Happerry]

Do we really need to design a new plane this turn? We just got the Emu and it's pretty good, so is making another new design actually that vital? If we do make a new design right now I think it should be a dedicated bomber design, because we have an advanced fighter design as is. But honestly I'd prefer to run up a Sky Eye II design this turn, switch off using hot air for proper helium or hydrogen (preferably helium), redesign the balloon so it's better in bad weather and so it can actually be used on ships (because their ships having balloon spotters and ours not is going to end up hurting us), and maybe add in a machine gun post to make shooting the balloons down harder for enemy planes, add individual internal sections to make it harder to shoot down, all that stuff.

[evictedSaint]

We aren't making a new plane this turn.

We're making a new plane three or four turns from now.

Either a conventional biplane or a triplane is what we should shoot for.  We won't be able to build a plane that can catch a monoplane without building one of our own, but we can certainly build a bi or tri that has better maneuverability or lift.

[piratejoe]

I think we are making a new plane not three or four turns from now but one or two. We can probably fix the baloon wit a revision or two if need be. Actually thinking about it here is a list of things that I wouldn't mind as a revision from most wanted to could live without.

Bar's shelf bomb rack actually a bomb rack edition
Sky Crusader Armour
Tracer ammunition
Sky eye upgrade
Synchronization gear upgrade
Emu engine modifications
Rhino engine upgrade

Edit: also es, we can make a biplane that can out run a monoplane, after all, if you couldn't then monoplanes would be more common in ww1. Really it relies mostly on the engine of the craft, and while having one pair of wings instead of two can help with speed, it isn't a make or break kinda thing.

Edit 2: Thanik, we have a fighter bomber/CAS, and it's called the Emu...

[Thanik]

We won't be able to build a plane that can catch a monoplane without building one of our own

Let's see about that, shall we?

Some biplanes:
* Airco DH.5 - 1x 110 hp 9-cylinder radial engine - 164 km/h at 3,000 meters, 2 hours 45 minutes endurance.
* Airco DH.2 - 1x 100 hp rotary engine - 150 km/h at sea level, 2 hours 45 minutes endurance.
* Vickers F.B.26 Vampire - 1x Hispano-Suiza 8 water-cooled V-8, 200 hp - 195 km/h at 1,500 m, 3 hours endurance.
* RAF N.E.1 - 1x Hispano-Suiza 8 water-cooled V-8, 200 hp - 153 km/h at 3,000 m, 2 hours 45 minutes endurance.
* Nieuport 11 - 1x Le Rhone 9C nine-cylinder 80 hp air-cooled rotary engine - 156 km/h, 2 hour 10 minute endurance.

Some Monoplanes:
* Fokker Eindecker - 1x Oberursel U.I 9-cyl.air-cooled 100 hp rotary piston engine - 140 km/h, 1.5 hour endurance.
* Morane-Saulnier L - 1x Le Rhône 9C 9-cylinder 80 hp rotary engine - 125 km/h, 4 hour endurance.

Early on, the main constraint is engine power, and at the same horsepower, here you can see biplanes possess an edge in top speed due to their higher lift. The DH.2 in particular helped end the Fokker Scourge, and the Nieuport had a weaker engine but superior performance due to the lightweight wooden airframe and streamlined design.

Biplanes start hindering speed at around the 300-400 km/h mark, where the drag from the wings starts becoming noticeably more difficult to overcome. (Look at, for example, the Gloster Gladiator)

we have a fighter bomber/CAS, and it's called the Emu

And this would be more effective at the role, due to it's higher estimated lift and superior engine power.

[evictedSaint]

Oh sweet, actual numbers.

Yeah let's design a conventional biplane. Single engine, single tailboom. Maybe two Bolt MG's with synch gear. 

[piratejoe]

The issue is that we have one already. Making another right after deploying it for the first time wouldn't be too wise in my opinion as we will fall behind in other areas, especially if their aircraft proves to be better at dogfighting the Emu. I will admit however the because it is a fighter bomber does not mean it is instantly bad in a dogfight or bombing, especially with aircraft that are of world war one levels of tech, but I think we should get a dedicated fighter aircraft first. Besides, I believe your idea is a bit too ambitious, a duel engine aircraft after we designed only one and one that's cheap at that. If it is passed it probably will take quite some time, and quite a few production points.

Also, more than just me, ram, and Thanik should vote.

[Thanik]

...a duel engine aircraft after we designed only one...

While it uses 2 radial engines, they can both be made smaller than the Emu's inline 8 and thus I don't anticipate a major cost increase for the added benefits. The fact that it's a fighter/bomber shouldn't matter - since it's a fighter first and foremost and geared as such, but it has the capability to ferry bombs...

Edit: Given bombs currently aren't at all large (our standard bomb stands at a puny 75 lb), making a fighter-bomber isn't difficult and doesn't infringe on the flight characteristics as much as you seem to be anticipating.

Information on the dogfighting ability of the Emu compared to the Emerald would've been welcome, but I think we can assume the Emu would hold it's own in a fight. What the White Victor brings to the table is a promise of higher speeds (I'd assume it could reach something like 180-200 km/h) while retaining good maneuverability and presenting a smaller target. The overall airframe shouldn't weight above 450 - 500 kg, even with the weight of the engines estimated at 100 kg (which is absurd for a 9-cylinder water-cooled radial), two engines bring 200 kg to the table, while the overall structure, using time-appropriate planes as a reference, should be around 500 kg when empty. This means we'd be dealing with a 700 kg aircraft (900 kg with fuel, passengers and ammo, assuming 100 kg as a norm for a human, something like 5 belts and 35 liters of fuel) with something akin to 240 hp (most likely less, something like 200 hp, due to interference).

Without going into aerodynamics, even assuming a drag coefficient of 0.05 based on this, we're looking at something like 150 km/h with 4 m/s^2 of acceleration and an assumed weight of 900 kg, which seems accurate without checking average acceleration times for the period.  After checking, the Nieuport had 2.25 m/s^2 of acceleration with a shoddier engine, meaning that if we match that, we're looking at roughly 265 km/h without drag - which fits with my earlier estimate, but without calculating for drag, which might reduce this to something like 190-170 km/h.

Given the shorter wings and plane in general, we can assume a much better roll rate as well. Given two 75 lb bombs we're looking at a reduction of 18.5 km/h without drag, so let's round that up to 20 km/h. We've now reached standard operating speeds of WW1 fighters WITH a bombload, and surpassed them considerably without one, all while carrying an impressive armament and possessing an edge in a dogfight. Keep in mind I grossly overweight this just as a proof of concept.

Basically, we'd be making a F.B.26 equivalent from the stats alone.

Anyhow. The production cost really depends on the dice. It could go anywhere between costing less than the Emu (by a bit) to costing double that, but I feel the performance would be worth it, and that at it's core, this is a plane that would cost about as much as the Emu.

Edit 2: Other than that, we could go for a proper bomber incorporating two 18-cylinder 2-row radial engines and try to get up to a load of something like 200-250 lb at 110 km/h. It would appear we're lacking in the bomber category right now, so we can't exactly make use of any air superiority, but while this would be effective, it would also be expensive to procure and maintain - which is problematic depending on what our budget is by the end of this. It's currently 22, with a cost of 5 for our main fighter/bomber and PP needing to be spent on dice and on maintaining what we already have at a certain rate I haven't checked yet (which comes out to 12 PP this turn), leaving us with just something like 7 PP for this turn. If you can buy dice with that, we could invest the other 2 into revisions, a new plane and what-not while spending 5 on a squadron of Emus.

Not to mention we're paying 2 PP for every Emu in operation, which is basically half it's production cost anyways! That's absolutely insane, as running costs are generally much lower than the purchasing cost for an aircraft. Next turn our maintenance costs would be 14 out of 22 PP. We should look into replacing some of our Rhinos with Emu squadrons, but then we risk being at a loss with planes, and operating costs would come out to 19 PP/turn if we turned all our Rhinos to Emus within the next few turns, leaving us with only 3 PP to conduct any kind of operations!

[ConscriptFive]

Er, we can finish a project this design phase and immediately start another one same phase?  ...that doesn't sound right.

Anyhow, some nerdy nitpicking.  Our current synch gear design (The Fokker Stangensteuerung gear) can really only fire one gun per plane.  We'd basically have to make a next gen synch gear (drivershaft, hydraulic, or electro-mechanical) for multi gun setups.

The White Victor's push-pull engine setup is something that I'm not that hot about.  We're pre-hydraulics, so the pilot would have to be manually throttling two engines.  I don't know how that would work dogfighting, while also juggling his three guns and flight yoke.  Our pilots only have two arms you know.  It would work for a bomber or two seater, but you lost me when you claimed this could be a "nimble" single seater fighter.  Also we have zero "puller" engine experience and only "basic" pusher XP from the Emu.  Trying to force both to work, rather than just committing to one or the other seems like it would be more difficult.

The African Swallow is more conventional but the engine choice is questionable.  The whole advantage of radial engines is that they are easily aircooled so a well-engineered design shouldn't need any cooling system.  The disadvantage is the form-factor and thus drag.  (Not saying that it can't be aerodynamic though.  US WW2 fighters were mostly radial engines including the Hellcat and P-47 Thunderbolt.)  Inline and V's allow a tighter form factor and thus less drag.  Except low drag means air literally isn't rushing over the engine block.  You either have to induce airflow with scoops (adding drag) or just switch to a water-cooled system.  Aviation engines run high RPM so that's a lot of cooling that needs to be done.  So yeah, strangling an inline engine with weak cooling seems like a bad idea.  I'd either go radial or keep the water-cooling.

Also, what are we doing for requisition?  My idea would be a trench periscope.  That way when we revise the bomb mounts to work with the Emu, we can add a bomb sight.  Otherwise that revision is pretty much going to be "GM, make the racks also work with the Emu please."

Anyhow, my vote is two dice to finish the synch gear, saving three for revisions.  One revision being the Sky Crusader armor, the second being bombmount+sight, third being whatever brainstorm we all come up with over the week.