Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

by **Voltrovia** » Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:38 am

Sahrani South wrote:What would you think was the best WW2 era plane with the best combat performance (handling, speed, armament etc.) ?

With the areas of performance you suggest I take it you are talking about fighters. The answer is that it depends for what mission and setting because it is very difficult to justify a single plane being 'the best' all round, especially when range is taken into account. If you are simply looking for the greatest armament, highest airspeed and nothing else than the P-47, F-80, the Gloster Meteor and Me-262 are probably the best fit for your question (they all had capable armament but were hardly the best gunned fighters of the war though). There was no single aircraft that flew during the War that totally fulfills the very fast, very powerful, very maneuverable brief.

I'n not entirely sure what the question is asking - do you mean the best plane in a certain situation or simply the best spread of figures?

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:30 pm

New Vihenia wrote:
Vancon wrote:Anyone have more info on this?

(Image)

It's just a "fan-made" Design. No serious attempt to revive arrow or even whole Canadian aviation industry like what it was when it designed arrow so far.

It received quite a lot of press attention back when criticism of the F-35 in Canada was at full pitch. The design is quite different to the CF-105 (the original Arrow) and placed a premium on the aircraft's performance. IIRC the stated specifications of the Super Arrow were on a par with or better than the F-35 in most areas except stealth (although that isn't necessarily saying all that much

) however it is very much a paper design. That said, with F-35 type avionics the Super Arrow would make a quite compelling hypothetical purchase for the RCAF.

I actually remember an article about someone designing the planform and fuselage using CAD and testing it in X-Plane although that hardly confirms the capabilities of the design. It's an interesting project though.

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:37 pm

Voltrovia wrote:I actually remember an article about someone designing the planform and fuselage using CAD and testing it in X-Plane although that hardly confirms the capabilities of the design. It's an interesting project though.

This.

According to the Super Arrow website this model took them to Mach 5.1 in X-Plane which ~~seems to be~~ is totally separate from their previous statements on performance. Even though it is an intriguing design the 21st Century should probably be taken with a grain of salt IMO. It does look cool though.

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:07 am

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:canards or no canards

N/A or 2D or 3D jet vectoring

swept or delta or trapezoidal or variable

in short plox : o 3

i want to into aircraft but is hard

edit: also tailed vs tailles

I liek canards.

Thrust vectoring depends

cranked arrow stronk!!

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:30 pm

Voltrovia wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:canards or no canards

N/A or 2D or 3D jet vectoring

swept or delta or trapezoidal or variable

in short plox : o 3

i want to into aircraft but is hard

edit: also tailed vs tailles

I liek canards.

Thrust vectoring depends

cranked arrow stronk!!

In all seriousness, it depends.

TVN is broadly desirable but is dependent on the role, design period and the other characteristics of the aircraft.

I personally prefer the use of canards on account of maneuverability, minor lift (and aesthetic) benefits but there are some relatively minor problems relating to stealth to be considered.

Planform design is entirely dependent on the intended characteristics of the aircraft.

Tailless is less advantageous a design route though, partly because it requires an entirely reliable 3D thrust-vectoring system augmented by a very complex flight control system. And while the concept is possible, tailed aircraft (esp. those with TVN) can simply better it.

It depends...

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:41 pm

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:canards or no canards

N/A or 2D or 3D jet vectoring

swept or delta or trapezoidal or variable

in short plox : o 3

i want to into aircraft but is hard

edit: also tailed vs tailles

If you're looking for elements to add to your design, a full IRST-suite would be a good start as well.

by **Voltrovia** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:47 pm

Radicchio wrote:What would be a set of reasonable trainers for my harriers?
With a fleet of 110 aircraft i think it would be reasonable to have 10x two seat trainers, and 100 aircraft of atleast 2 variations.
I operate a lot of helicopters so perhaps one of them would be a good introductory vertical takeoff/landing trainer but i probably ought to list a fixed wing trainer (or two.)

How many aircraft are assigned to a ground attack (i.e. Harrier) squadron in your air force? I would base your specific Harrier training squadron/establishment size off the scale of the operational squadrons and the nature of the Harrier force at large. 1x, 1.5x or 2x operational squadron size depending on the general purpose and use would strike me as a good start.

Note: is your nation very stable and does it maintain cordial relations with the UK. Were the two nations close at the time of independence?

I can give you some absolute recommendations if I know this info. It's also relevant to the other conversation because in certain scenarios inherited/accessible equipment could play an important role in the composition of your air force (as you say in your RP explanation post).

by **Voltrovia** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:42 pm

Purpelia wrote:Here is a question for y'all regulars. And for everyone else I guess. Which autocanon if any do your aircraft mount?
In my case, it is the awesome Oerlikon KCA chambered in 30x173mm. Because I enjoy that extra punch.

I tend to mount a :not:GIAT 30M 791 on the most of the modern fighter aircraft of the IVAF.

by **Voltrovia** » Sun May 03, 2015 4:26 pm

Monemvasia wrote:It is kinda funny that the F-111 entered service partially because of concerns that the B-52 airframes were getting old. After Boeing did a service life extension, they're still planning to keep the B-52 in service till 2040. Some of the airframes will be pushing 80 years at that point

As a programme, the C-130 has survived numerous replacement projects and holds the record for the longest production run of any aircraft since the beginnings of human flight. And it'll still be in service in a quarter of a century...

Of course, the Russians are trying their hand at longevity too!

by **Voltrovia** » Sat Jan 09, 2016 3:05 pm

Could someone please explain the the benefits of thrust-vectoring nozzles vs. paddles?

by **Vulturnia** » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:01 am

Roundel of the Vulturnian Federal Air Force:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roundel of the Vulturnian Federal Navy Air Auxiliary:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flag of the VFAF

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armistead-Gladwin 12 multipurpose fighter, designed entirely by Vulturnian engineers (OOC: pardon the MSPaint, I was just having fun)

by **Walosia** » Mon May 12, 2014 11:53 pm

The Legionis Classis Aeria (Air force) of Walosia uses the following equipment

by **Walrusko** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:49 am

61,000 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 4 .50 caliber machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1968 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

61,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (7000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters* (30 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 825 km/h Operational Range: 900km

73,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +5 crew Max Speed: 473 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

71,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted .50 caliber machine gun Carrying capacity: 8 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 342 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

35,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted .50 caliber Gatling gun, 2 wing tip 7.62 machine guns, 2 "EXO" Anti Personnel rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

This is taken directly from my factbook. This number is not complete, as i am currently downgrading my military (I got a bit god moddy when i first started).
*A gravity missile is not a missile that distorts gravity around it. It is a missile that is lobbed out of the aircraft, and uses its thrusters to gain speed and correct its course to the target. They can only be used on ground targets, as they were never designed to fly straight, they were designed as bunker busters and anti-armor*
(I'm sorta going for a cold war-esque military. Large amounts of vehicles and troops, but in reality, they don't preform as well as they should due to budget cuts or poor training. Please leave suggestions, as i don't want to be known as a god modder)

by **Walrusko** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 5:21 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Walrusko wrote:61,000 F5U7 "Hawkin Gridge": Type: Jet Role: Jet Fighter Armaments: 4 .50 caliber machine guns, 12 infrared sensitive missiles. Max Speed: 1968 km/h Operational Range: 1400km

Why .50 caliber machine guns? The best set up for anti air is a rapid firing gun of 20-25mm. Most modern missiles are Radar guided, and also use infrared, why is your restricted?
61,000 is a really high amount of aircraft, what is your air force budget?
Walrusko wrote:61,200 AP3X "Archangel": Type: Jet Role: Ground support Armaments: X37 Voltage 35mm Rotating Cannon (7000 rounds/m), 2 wing mounted rotating A2G gravity missile canisters* (30 GM's per canister). Max Speed: 825 km/h Operational Range: 900km

Again why so many?
Big guns for ground attack don't work so well, they just mean the plane gets shot down by enemy air defense.
How are you fitting 30 missiles large enough to kill a tank onto the wings of a plane? It either has to be very large or the missiles very small. If the missiles are small they probably aren't that effective.
Walrusko wrote:73,070 GET "Guardian": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Medical evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns Carrying capacity: 6 soldiers +5 crew Max Speed: 473 km/h Operational Range: 1100km

Why a crew of 5? Most helicopters have a crew of 2-3.
Also speed your helicopters might be going around ~300 km/hour, and even that is darn fast.
Walrusko wrote:71,475 ARGO "Floatie": Type: Transport Helicopter Role: Troop transport/evacuation Armaments: 2 7.62 caliber machine guns, 1 nose mounted .50 caliber machine gun Carrying capacity: 8 soldiers +3 crew Max Speed 342 km/h Operational Range: 1100 km

Honestly you probably don't need separate helicopters for medical and transport. A medical helicopter is a transport helicopter with a medic and some equipment in the back.
Walrusko wrote:35,865 MEUR "Reaper": Type: Attack Helicopter Role: Ground Support Armaments: 1 nose mounted .50 caliber Gatling gun, 2 wing tip 7.62 machine guns, 2 "EXO" Anti Personnel rocket canisters (8 rockets per canister)

Attack helicopter hould probably have some type of cannon in 20-25 mm instead of the .50 caliber Gatling gun.
It also should have wing mounts where you can put 7.62 machine guns, rocket pods, anti air missiles, or Anti tank missiles. The last is the most important siince attack helicopters are for killing tanks.

Thank you, modifying it now into a more realistic military. Still gonna go for that "Quantity is quality" style though.

Here's the new list

by **Washington-Idaho** » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:43 pm

our 324 fighters are F-15's and the bombers are Rockwell B-1 lancers, which we only have 23 of.

by **Welgium** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:23 pm

Angelina Gyronefs of the Royal Welgian Army:

Crew: 2 (pilot and co pilot/gunner)
Capacity: 10 troops or 2550 kg cargo
Maximum speed: 350 km/h
Armament: Nose turret with 15 mm autocannon
Has six hardpoints on which rockets and other weapons can be mounted.

A gyronef is a rotor/rocket propelled craft that uses its rotors mostly for lift and rockets for propulsion. The Angelina has 4 rocket engines mounted on the back of the fuselage and 2 rotors mounted on either side.

Angelinas are used by the Welgian Royal Army, Welgian Royal Guard and the Welgian Royal navy. This versatile craft is used from all sorts of missions be it passenger or cargo transport, ground attack or even submarine hunting.

Welgium is steampunk so please don't assume this is meant to be a realistic design.

Partly inspired by the gyronef of Suske en Wiske fame.

by **West Aurelia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:19 pm

Would gunships be a good idea?

Like an MT, realistic version of this:

by **West Aurelia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:27 pm

Well, I found this.

by **West Aurelia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:33 pm

Vitaphone Racing wrote:
West Aurelia wrote:Well, I found this.

And it's neither MT nor realistic.

The people I RP with usually allow some leeway in tech, so I think it would be acceptable.

Could you point out what is unrealistic about it? It's not a drone, even though it looks like one.

by **West Aurelia** » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:46 pm

Kouralia wrote:How effective would this be at oppressing minorities?
(Image)

Very. Could I purchase one?

by **West Aurelia** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:30 pm

Is it best to have a swept wing or delta wing for a fighter?

by **West Aurelia** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:34 pm

Vancon wrote:
West Aurelia wrote:Is it best to have a swept wing or delta wing for a fighter?

Delta would give you more lift, and in turn you can maneuver easier. Swept wing is good for getting off the ground fast and going fast.

What roles would delta and swept wing fighters play due to their differences?

by **West Aurelia** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:50 pm

Organized States wrote:
West Aurelia wrote:
What roles would delta and swept wing fighters play due to their differences?

Delta Wings, at least in the US, were used mainly for interceptor duties (such as the F-102, F-106, and the F2Y Sea Dart) due to their ability to gain lift and quickly climb to altitude to engage Soviet bomber formations.

Swept Wing Fighters (such as the F-86, F-100, and F-101) were used primarily by Tactical Air Command as fighter bombers or day fighters.

But the Typhoon is used as a multirole and the F-14 is used as an interceptor, while both of them are capable of playing an air superiority role as well.

And I forgot to bring up trapezoidal wings as well. What role would they play?

by **West Aurelia** » Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:28 am

What are the features that I should be looking for on a 5th gen fighter plane while evaluating options to purchase?

by **West Suburbia** » Thu May 08, 2014 7:56 pm

The West Suburban Air Force (WSAF)

Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

Who is online