Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Voltrovia]

Is this good for an Airforce?

Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)

Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).

Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)

EDIT:

Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

Because F-16s are an excellent Multi-role fighter and has been proven in combat over and over again while the Block 52s are just a Polish variant.

They're not just a Polish variant. Greece has Block 52 aircraft in addition to Poland and the latest Singaporean and Israeli variants are both directly based on the Block 52 format. Which also makes it the latest NATO variant of the F-16C/D.

Ontorisa, I understand your cost argument though, thanks for answering my question.

[Ontorisa]

Is this good for an Airforce?

Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)

Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).

Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)

EDIT:



Because F-16s are an excellent Multi-role fighter and has been proven in combat over and over again while the Block 52s are just a Polish variant.

They're not just a Polish variant. Greece has Block 52 aircraft in addition to Poland and the latest Singaporean and Israeli variants are both directly based on the Block 52 format. Which also makes it the latest NATO variant of the F-16 (which is why I brought it up).

Ontorisa, I understand your cost argument, thanks for answering my question.

Ohhh, I think I missed that and went to another one. I just typed in Block 52 in google and hoped for something that I recognized. I saw Polish Variant so I thought it was talking about it.
But yeah, still, I would keep it to the F-16 and upgrade it on your own.

[Voltrovia]

Ohhh, I think I missed that and went to another one. I just typed in Block 52 in google and hoped for something that I recognized. I saw Polish Variant so I thought it was talking about it.
But yeah, still, I would keep it to the F-16 and upgrade it on your own.

Never mind. Anyway, it seems a good start for a cost-effective military so best of luck designing it.

[Vassenor]

For what it's worth, they're Block 20 F-16A/Bs.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Is this good for an Airforce?

Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)

Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).

Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)

EDIT:

Also, why use F-16A/Bs when you could use Block 52s?

Because F-16s are an excellent Multi-role fighter and has been proven in combat over and over again while the Block 52s are just a Polish variant.

- Interceptors aren't meant to be agile; they're meant to be fast and have long range, and to get that speed and range they sacrifice agility.
- In the modern era, there's no sense in having a specialized "night fighter." All-weather/night-capable ground attack aircraft used to be a thing, but by the end of the Cold War most "basic" aircraft had already been upgraded with those night-flying capabilities.
- Likewise, whether a specialized ground-attack aircraft in the role of the A-10 is even needed is in doubt. A multirole fighter (say, F-16 Block 52) can carry the same anti-tank missiles, but drop them from a safe standoff distance instead of flying head-first into a storm of anti-aircraft fire and trying to plink tanks with an autocannon.
- As an added note: "anti-vehicle" and "anti-ship" capabilities are a world apart. The former is generally conducted at ranges of less than 10 kilometers, the latter at ranges of over 100. This means different missiles and tactics, but not necessarily different planes, as I've noted above.
- The B-52 has indeed proven useful against opponents with fairly weak air-to-air/surface-to-air capabilities, but against a parity opponent in a large-scale war they would be excessively vulnerable. The only proper role for strategic bombers in the modern era is as cruise-missile launchers.
- Four machine guns on a transport helicopter is rather superfluous. It was experimented with in Vietnam, but against guerrillas and in limited service.

As a whole, it looks like you've fallen into the admittedly tempting trap of "too much variety." Having a different plane with its own strengths and weaknesses for every separate role sounds good in theory - but in reality it means your pilots have to be trained for four different sets of controls, your engineers have to be trained to repair four different airframes, and your supply chain has to keep track of four different sets of spare parts. These days, a single, properly upgraded multirole airframe can be an air-superiority fighter, a ground-attack aircraft, and a nuclear-weapon-delivery platform all in one.

Additionally - and more disconcertingly - it sounds from the writeup like all you've done is taken existing real-world vehicles and boosted their "stats." While this isn't in itself a bad thing, and is how a lot of real-life equipment tends to begin its design process, it runs the risk of making it look like your goal is to make a super-stronk military that will steamroll the others. This is sort of a personal thing, but I tend to associate phrases like "superior to most aircraft today" or "basically almost unstoppable" with the kinds of players that godmod incessantly in order to make sure they win. You don't want to end up making that impression.

[Ontorisa]

Is this good for an Airforce?

Jets in service:
O-35b 'Scavenger'(Multi-Role Fighter, all the works of the current F-35C model except with added speed, agility, weapons and protection.)
O-26c 'Warrior' (Air Interceptor, easy to fly and well armed and extremely agile.)
O-72e 'Poison' (Air Superiority Fighter, agile and superior to most aircraft fielded today. Well built, easy to fly and cheap.)
O-90h 'Midnight' (Night Multi-Role Fighter, agile and can easily detect and attack hostile targets at night. Can also be used during the day.)
C-130 (All variants)
U-60 (Ground Attack Jet, upgraded version of the A-10 with both anti-vehicle (it can take on ships) and anti-infantry weapons)

Bombers:
ISD-53 Strategic Bomber (Well built and fast bomber for long range missions.)
IER-60 Multi-Use Bombers (Fast and Agile bombers that are used alongside O-35bs.)
B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-52 Support Bomber
HYU-22 Heavy Bomber (Modern-ized version of the B-52, basically almost unstoppable).

Helicopters in service:
UH-1X 'Sabre' (An Ontorisan built gunship modeled off of the UH-1Y. Increased agility and aerodynamics while adding on more armour.)
CH-47 'Chinook'
SDD-43 'Clover' (The Ontorisan version of the UH-60 'Blackhawk'. Armed with four MG36s, two in the front door gunners, two in the back and the basic rotors, the SDD-43 can run both transport missions and combat support missions.)
SDD-45 'Fever' (The Ontorisan version of the AH-6/MH-6 'Littlebird'. The Attack version has two 7.62mm Miniguns, 2 JS3 50 calibre machine guns on the front and two 82mm Rocketpods. The Transport version can seat 10 passengers and three pilots; the pilot, co-pilot and coordinator.)
SDD-46 'Faithful' (The Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 7.62mm Minigun, 52 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and 6 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, it is a highly upgraded and well armed and armoured helicopter.)
SDD-47 'Viking' (Another Ontorisan Attack Helicopter. Equipped with 1 50 calibre JS3 Machine Gun, 48 82mm Rockets fired from 2 rocketpods, 6 AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 8 AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles. It is extremely manoeuvrable, more than the SDD-46 however offers less protection to compensate for the speed, agility and weapons.)

EDIT:



Because F-16s are an excellent Multi-role fighter and has been proven in combat over and over again while the Block 52s are just a Polish variant.

- Interceptors aren't meant to be agile; they're meant to be fast and have long range, and to get that speed and range they sacrifice agility.
- In the modern era, there's no sense in having a specialized "night fighter." All-weather/night-capable ground attack aircraft used to be a thing, but by the end of the Cold War most "basic" aircraft had already been upgraded with those night-flying capabilities.
- Likewise, whether a specialized ground-attack aircraft in the role of the A-10 is even needed is in doubt. A multirole fighter (say, F-16 Block 52) can carry the same anti-tank missiles, but drop them from a safe standoff distance instead of flying head-first into a storm of anti-aircraft fire and trying to plink tanks with an autocannon.
- As an added note: "anti-vehicle" and "anti-ship" capabilities are a world apart. The former is generally conducted at ranges of less than 10 kilometers, the latter at ranges of over 100. This means different missiles and tactics, but not necessarily different planes, as I've noted above.
- The B-52 has indeed proven useful against opponents with fairly weak air-to-air/surface-to-air capabilities, but against a parity opponent in a large-scale war they would be excessively vulnerable. The only proper role for strategic bombers in the modern era is as cruise-missile launchers.
- Four machine guns on a transport helicopter is rather superfluous. It was experimented with in Vietnam, but against guerrillas and in limited service.

As a whole, it looks like you've fallen into the admittedly tempting trap of "too much variety." Having a different plane with its own strengths and weaknesses for every separate role sounds good in theory - but in reality it means your pilots have to be trained for four different sets of controls, your engineers have to be trained to repair four different airframes, and your supply chain has to keep track of four different sets of spare parts. These days, a single, properly upgraded multirole airframe can be an air-superiority fighter, a ground-attack aircraft, and a nuclear-weapon-delivery platform all in one.

Additionally - and more disconcertingly - it sounds from the writeup like all you've done is taken existing real-world vehicles and boosted their "stats." While this isn't in itself a bad thing, and is how a lot of real-life equipment tends to begin its design process, it runs the risk of making it look like your goal is to make a super-stronk military that will steamroll the others. This is sort of a personal thing, but I tend to associate phrases like "superior to most aircraft today" or "basically almost unstoppable" with the kinds of players that godmod incessantly in order to make sure they win. You don't want to end up making that impression.

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind.

I'll nerf the HYU and get rid of everything but the Scavenger and add a couple different multi-roles.

Thanks again!

[Hurtful Thoughts]

In contrast, I field about 5 to 6 brands of fixed-wing military aviation.

HF-7 an indigenous twin-seat twin-engine variable-geometry 'heavy fighter-bomber' or interceptor. Despite the 3rd-gen appearance, is more of a 5th-gen airplane that believed in superior targeting ability and flight performance over stealth.*
-I tend to use an Su-24 as a placeholder-image.

F-5M Was a plane purchased from L3 Logistics, a single-engine variant of the F-5E/F-20. Also shares surprisingly heavy parts-commonality with the HF-7 (engine, avionics, flight-management computers, datalinks, control-scheme).*

The HA-8 was a fixed-wing twin-engine design largely devoted to patrol, attack, AEW, naval-tanker, bomber, and EW duties; very loosely modeled off the F-18E. This project was largely canceled and a stop-gap order of Su-34 Fullbacks were used until enough HF-7s could be built.

For our training/light-attack role, we have a flying slab called the TA-6 (previously FCM-5 and FCM-6) and QTA-6 drone. Later models are powered by a motorjet that can utilize coal-slurry reheat to assist in takeoff or to make targeting easier during training.

For bigger duties, I tend to rely upon old reliable Tu-95s and Y-8. Some of which have been converted to operate on steam heat-exchangers powered by liquid Thorium reactors. The goal of these mobile airborne reactors is ironically in post-nuclear disaster relief efforts.

There have been recent efforts to build a nuclear-powered guided-missile hover-erkranoplanetank of a metric kiloton capacity. Again, solely for disaster relief, such as fighting forest-fires with superior firepower.

We used to have other planes. Very good planes. But alas, poor utilization has seen the last Hurtian F-4 Phantom IIs shot down via Pudite forces, alongside our last EB-52 Stratofortresses.

*The F-7 and F-5 largely fill same role operationally as the Chinese Q-5 and J-5 respectively, but far more advanced than their analouges of the 1950's for obvious reasons.

[Finorskia]

OK so before I get to my nations primary fighter I just want to point out that your whole reason behind why FSW being bad is false. First you stated that the aircraft are unstable at high speed. This is true, but most aircraft these days are built unstable on purpose so that's not really a flaw. Plus fly-by-optic doesn't really make this an issue. Third you mentioned that increased stress and the need for a heavier wing. From what I've read most of the stress is isolated to the wing root as the wings tend to twist off at high speeds when poor materials are used. However both of these things can be lessened, not made to vanish, nut fixed enough to make viable. The Russians when they were designing the SU-47 had developed composites that were resistant to the twisting effect. This was in the late 90's early 2000's, technology has advanced much farther. Finally you stated that because of heavier wings you have less payload. This is also not true as payload size is dictated by the PtW ratio, which is a combination of weight and engine. If your engine can handle it you can have any payload you want on a fuselage of any weight. I would also like to address why the X-29 and SU-47 never became combat aircraft. Both these programs never went anywhere, because neither were ever meant to go anywhere. Both were technology test aircraft for things such as fly-by-wire and advanced composites. The truth is FSW has never been used because no nation really has a desire for it, but this doesn't mean its discredit it. Besides FSW provides more than simple maneuverability advantages. Aircraft with FSW also have lower stall speeds, better fuel efficiency, higher RoC, and since the wing root is at the back of the aircraft the pilot has a clear view behind and down making unguided bombing easier.

Now since that is out of the way I give you the:

Type: Multirole
Length: 22.6m
Wingspan: 15.16m
Height: 6.7m
Propulsion:
Total Net Thrust: 32,630kgf
Empty Weight: 16,380kgf
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 40,950kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 10,237kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 14,332kg
Normal Payload: 2,718kg
Maximum Payload: 6,344kg
Normal Combat Weight: 33,430kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: .97/1
Combat Range: 1,300km
Ferry Range: 4,750km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 17,000m
Maximum Altitude: 20,000m
Cruising Speed: Mach 0.8
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Maximum Speed: Mach 2
Rate of Climb: 275ms
Limit per/number of pylon(s): 2 internal 4 missile revolver bays rated at 453kg per launch rack. 2 wing pylons rated at 453kg, under-wing pylons rated at 907kg.
Crew: 1
Price: $160 million
Avionics:
APG-77v1
AN/AAQ-37
AN/ASQ-239
Mira AI

This is the primary fighter of the Finorskian Air Force. The Air Force along with the Navy and Marines also use theUNADS F-29 Warrior, and certain squadrons of the Air Force use theLyran LY910 Shadowhawk.

Note: I actually have a full write up for F-54 and the aircraft was approved by the NS Draftroom and Viranna (maker of the F-29). However do to some complications I have to work something new for the Propulsion.

[Ontorisa]

Pretty sexy tbh.

[Triplebaconation]

It's just from Ace Combat.

[San-Silvacian]

OK so before I get to my nations primary fighter I just want to point out that your whole reason behind why FSW being bad is false. First you stated that the aircraft are unstable at high speed. This is true, but most aircraft these days are built unstable on purpose so that's not really a flaw. Plus fly-by-optic doesn't really make this an issue. Third you mentioned that increased stress and the need for a heavier wing. From what I've read most of the stress is isolated to the wing root as the wings tend to twist off at high speeds when poor materials are used. However both of these things can be lessened, not made to vanish, nut fixed enough to make viable. The Russians when they were designing the SU-47 had developed composites that were resistant to the twisting effect. This was in the late 90's early 2000's, technology has advanced much farther. Finally you stated that because of heavier wings you have less payload. This is also not true as payload size is dictated by the PtW ratio, which is a combination of weight and engine. If your engine can handle it you can have any payload you want on a fuselage of any weight. I would also like to address why the X-29 and SU-47 never became combat aircraft. Both these programs never went anywhere, because neither were ever meant to go anywhere. Both were technology test aircraft for things such as fly-by-wire and advanced composites. The truth is FSW has never been used because no nation really has a desire for it, but this doesn't mean its discredit it. Besides FSW provides more than simple maneuverability advantages. Aircraft with FSW also have lower stall speeds, better fuel efficiency, higher RoC, and since the wing root is at the back of the aircraft the pilot has a clear view behind and down making unguided bombing easier.

Now since that is out of the way I give you the:

(Image)

Type: Multirole
Length: 22.6m
Wingspan: 15.16m
Height: 6.7m
Propulsion:
Total Net Thrust: 32,630kgf
Empty Weight: 16,380kgf
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 40,950kg
Minimum Fuel Weight: 10,237kg
Maximum Fuel Weight: 14,332kg
Normal Payload: 2,718kg
Maximum Payload: 6,344kg
Normal Combat Weight: 33,430kg
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: .97/1
Combat Range: 1,300km
Ferry Range: 4,750km
Operational Ceiling/Altitude: 17,000m
Maximum Altitude: 20,000m
Cruising Speed: Mach 0.8
Supercruising Speed: Mach 1.4
Maximum Speed: Mach 2
Rate of Climb: 275ms
Limit per/number of pylon(s): 2 internal 4 missile revolver bays rated at 453kg per launch rack. 2 wing pylons rated at 453kg, under-wing pylons rated at 907kg.
Crew: 1
Price: $160 million
Avionics:
APG-77v1
AN/AAQ-37
AN/ASQ-239
Mira AI

This is the primary fighter of the Finorskian Air Force. The Air Force along with the Navy and Marines also use theUNADS F-29 Warrior, and certain squadrons of the Air Force use theLyran LY910 Shadowhawk.

Note: I actually have a full write up for F-54 and the aircraft was approved by the NS Draftroom and Viranna (maker of the F-29). However do to some complications I have to work something new for the Propulsion.

how 20th century



welcome to 5.5th gen sun

[Transnapastain]

It's just from Ace Combat.

No, I don't think it is. Its not nearly derpy enough to be an AC "super" plane.

[Triplebaconation]

Oh. It's Ace Combat fan art:

http://fighterman35.deviantart.com/art/ ... -327680688

[Kusthet]

Suddenly 1940s!

Can I get some feedback on this before I start working on stats and stuff? It's supposed to be a light, cheap jet fighter/dogfighter to act as a counter to other early jet aircraft and faster propeller-driven fighters. Just need to make sure the proportions and stance all check out for the layout and design. Tentatively armed (at inception) with twin 7.7mm machine guns and provisions and weight allotment for the addition of unguided rockets or up-gunning as required. Should be somewhat on par weight and performance wise with early single-engine jet fighters, but probably more reliable.

edit;

It's just from Ace Combat.

No, I don't think it is. Its not nearly derpy enough to be an AC "super" plane.

Isn't that from Yukikaze?

[Finorskia]

Oh. It's Ace Combat fan art:

http://fighterman35.deviantart.com/art/ ... -327680688

Yes it is. I actually asked Jetfreak (the guy who made the original) if I could use the art for it. He said yes and even made a couple of custom skins for me as well.

how 20th century

(Image)

welcome to 5.5th gen sun

Actually its very much a 21st century aircraft. But seeing as my nation is constitutionally bound to neutrality, a super stealthy penetration fighter isn't really necessary. We went for a design that would provide the best multi role performance.

Suddenly 1940s!

(Image)

Can I get some feedback on this before I start working on stats and stuff? It's supposed to be a light, cheap jet fighter/dogfighter to act as a counter to other early jet aircraft and faster propeller-driven fighters. Just need to make sure the proportions and stance all check out for the layout and design. Tentatively armed (at inception) with twin 7.7mm machine guns and provisions and weight allotment for the addition of unguided rockets or up-gunning as required. Should be somewhat on par weight and performance wise with early single-engine jet fighters, but probably more reliable.

7.7mm is small, especially for late 1940's era aircraft. If you are only planning to mount two guns, make em cannons no smaller than 20mm. If your gonna have a lot go for 12.7mm, and have no less than six.

Also your gonna want to have some sort of boom connector, otherwise it might suffer from instability.

Also don't know if it was intentional but the design is very reminiscent of the Heinkel He 162 jet fighter.

[Kusthet]

Suddenly 1940s!

(Image)

Can I get some feedback on this before I start working on stats and stuff? It's supposed to be a light, cheap jet fighter/dogfighter to act as a counter to other early jet aircraft and faster propeller-driven fighters. Just need to make sure the proportions and stance all check out for the layout and design. Tentatively armed (at inception) with twin 7.7mm machine guns and provisions and weight allotment for the addition of unguided rockets or up-gunning as required. Should be somewhat on par weight and performance wise with early single-engine jet fighters, but probably more reliable.

7.7mm is small, especially for late 1940's era aircraft. If you are only planning to mount two guns, make em cannons no smaller than 20mm. If your gonna have a lot go for 12.7mm, and have no less than six.

Also your gonna want to have some sort of boom connector, otherwise it might suffer from instability.

Also don't know if it was intentional but the design is very reminiscent of the Heinkel He 162 jet fighter.

Would something like cross-braced cables work as a boom connector? or are we talking about an entire wing/major structural component between the two booms? Trying to keep weight and materials down to help with the cost and efficiency. Which probably flies in the face of a twin-boom design, but shut up. The unintentional resemblance to an He162 would only be worse if it was a single strut to the tail, and I needed some way to keep the plane itself out of the way of the turbojet's exhaust. Which I kind of envisioned as having a slight downward angle to help decrease takeoff run, and hopefully limit any tail strike issues.

twin 20mm cannons does sound rather...appealing, it rolls off the tongue nicely. Probably best to stick with 20s for whatever little advantage the extra ammunition would provide in a dogfight. Maybe have variants with either six 7.7s or twin 20s for testing, sales, or variety. Maybe some kind of early gunpod could be installed instead of munition racks...

And yes, the He162 similarity was unintentional, but I probably saw it somewhere else, that whole 'media influencing imagination' thing that everyone goes on about.

[Grand Tyrannia]

We got destroyed by Kolechia.

[Triplebaconation]

A "boom connector" isn't strictly necessary, but it's a handy place to put a stabilizer - yours are far too small, roughly the size of the fins on two-seat Vampires. All the control surfaces are too small, really.

Why does the fuselage stick out behind the engine?

[Kusthet]

A "boom connector" isn't strictly necessary, but it's a handy place to put a stabilizer - yours are far too small, roughly the size of the fins on two-seat Vampires. All the control surfaces are too small, really.

Why does the fuselage stick out behind the engine?

I have no idea why the fuselage would stick that far back, other than aesthetics (And I'm the kind of person who hates the F-22 for the fact it's cockpit looks like a fucking duck.)... It looked kind of weird having the fuselage moving straight up to meet the engine, but I'll see about trying some different shapes. The control surfaces being enlarged should be easy enough, too. Maybe some kind of vampire-like upper tailplane would be in order, and I could lower the main wing to compensate...Hmh, maybe some kind of downward V-tail might work...

[Bulgaria-Serbia]

Is the F14 a good fighter for its price?

[Finorskia]

Would something like cross-braced cables work as a boom connector? or are we talking about an entire wing/major structural component between the two booms? Trying to keep weight and materials down to help with the cost and efficiency. Which probably flies in the face of a twin-boom design, but shut up. The unintentional resemblance to an He162 would only be worse if it was a single strut to the tail, and I needed some way to keep the plane itself out of the way of the turbojet's exhaust. Which I kind of envisioned as having a slight downward angle to help decrease takeoff run, and hopefully limit any tail strike issues.

twin 20mm cannons does sound rather...appealing, it rolls off the tongue nicely. Probably best to stick with 20s for whatever little advantage the extra ammunition would provide in a dogfight. Maybe have variants with either six 7.7s or twin 20s for testing, sales, or variety. Maybe some kind of early gunpod could be installed instead of munition racks...

And yes, the He162 similarity was unintentional, but I probably saw it somewhere else, that whole 'media influencing imagination' thing that everyone goes on about.[/quote]

Yes I was talking about a wing, like on the P38. Also don't worry about a wing or anything effecting exhaust, there were a few aircraft that were twin boomed with the jet exhaust passing right over the boom. Adding the elevator/boom connector shouldn't add to much to the cost.

Don't even bother with 7.7s, there not worth it. The brits were about the only ones using them late war, and they only had 4 of them and they were meant to compliment the twin hispano 20mm's. Plus your not gonna get 6 7.7s on that thing.

A "boom connector" isn't strictly necessary, but it's a handy place to put a stabilizer - yours are far too small, roughly the size of the fins on two-seat Vampires. All the control surfaces are too small, really.

Why does the fuselage stick out behind the engine?

I have no idea why the fuselage would stick that far back, other than aesthetics (And I'm the kind of person who hates the F-22 for the fact it's cockpit looks like a fucking duck.)... It looked kind of weird having the fuselage moving straight up to meet the engine, but I'll see about trying some different shapes. The control surfaces being enlarged should be easy enough, too. Maybe some kind of vampire-like upper tailplane would be in order, and I could lower the main wing to compensate...Hmh, maybe some kind of downward V-tail might work...

You could also always do what the russian's did and build the plane around the engine rather then the engine around the plane.

Is the F14 a good fighter for its price?

F-14 is an interceptor, not a fighter. Also you'd be better off with the F-15 (its cheaper) unless you are specifically looking for Navy. In which case I'd recommend the F-8 Crusader, unless your looking for an interceptor in which case I would recommend the F-14.

[Triplebaconation]

Someone's never seen Top Gun.

[Bulgaria-Serbia]

Someone's never seen Top Gun.

I want to, but I've never gotten to

[The Akasha Colony]

It's just from Ace Combat.

No, I don't think it is. Its not nearly derpy enough to be an AC "super" plane.

>Talks about Ace Combat
>Posts image of Yukikaze

[Gallia-]

Is the F14 a good fighter for its price?

Yes.