Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[Purpelia]

Hand loaded recoilles rifle for WW2 era attack aircraft. Y/N?
And yes, I know it's not a novel idea. That is why I am asking. I am being inspired, not inventive.

Like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_(lieutenant_colonel)

No. I mean like take an IL-2 equivalent and stick a single recoilles rifle down under the center so that the end pokes out right behind the rear gunner. Than poke a hole in the floor for the rear gunner to reload the weapon through by shoving stuff into the back of the tube.

[Zhouran]

Like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carpenter_(lieutenant_colonel)

No. I mean like take an IL-2 equivalent and stick a single recoilles rifle down under the center so that the end pokes out right behind the rear gunner. Than poke a hole in the floor for the rear gunner to reload the weapon through by shoving stuff into the back of the tube.

I found a forum thread regarding the idea of putting a recoilless rifle on an aircraft. The idea is novel but interesting.

Also found an image for a proposed recoilless rifle attached to an OV-10, although this one seems to have an automatic reloading system and not a manual reloading configuration.

Also, the Germans wanted to fit what appears to be an oversized recoilless rifle/cannon on a Do-217.

It should be possible to fit a recoilless rifle unto an IL-2.

[Taihei Tengoku]

sparky lmbo

[Iltica]

Finally made a 3d version of the not-Himat fighter thing.

I'm a little concerned that the wing is too far forward for the elevons to work propely but any further back and it's nose heavy.
What do you guys think?

[Kanugues Wed]

My 45x117mm AGL gunpod is mostly finished, thanks for all the help!:

The massive rounds take a very big curve to get pointed straight into the receiver, so thats why the thing looks like a damn neanderthal in ordinance carrier form. The rear of the gunpod is hinged so an automatic loading cart can be plugged into it, loading all the rounds quickly for faster turnaround. The Gunpod is intended for use on both low-speed fixed-wing CAS aircraft and helicopters, but is too draggy for supersonic flight.

(Image)

Heres all the ammo it can fire, not that it would be shooting something like buckshot or CS gas normally, but the same grenade launcher exists in other applications.

(Image)

I also did a sketch of the basic operation to get the size right, what did I fuck up?

(Image)



Weapon Weight: 56kg
Empty Weight: 160kg
Loaded Weight: 304kg
Ammunition: 440 rounds
Fire rate: 350rpm
Velocity: 290m/s
Max Stores Replenishment time: 38 minutes
Weapon Operation: Gas piston, electrically fired, linkless belt fed
Length 2.5m
Height (Incl. Pylon bolts): 0.5m

What else should go on the statblock?

I can't really give anything concrete on much until I get a chance to have a snuggle with my Tony Williams collection tonight but I have a few thoights:

Ammo drawing seems way off even for when this was a big boy cannon round. You probably could have gotten away with a straight case in that instance and now a straight case at 70mm or so long should do the job.

Ammo range also seems off even for a range of launcher applications., no need for training and inert examples of each type. One training round ballisticaly matched to the main he round is all you need. You would also benefit to consolidating HE and HEAT into one HEDP loading. Paraflares cs and buck shot loads would only be of much use for handheld launchers which are probably not happening with this round.

Any particular reason for a gas OP? At thecrevised specs it's a perfect candidate for blowback or API.

The actual reason so many weird ammo types exist is I’ve already got the designation system for all the different types listed so it took me literally ten extra seconds to draw. I had a list of different 40x53mm grenade types open and just drew every single one cause ten more minutes of fun work when in Chinese class doesn’t matter.

I envisioned the training rounds as all having only a small paint charge in the front, so they would still be identifiable to whoever evaluated the training. Something so you can say stuff like “Private chucklefucks, you just shot an entire belt of smoke at these guys who came around this wall”. Almost all would be functionally identical, just given different markings so the choice of rounds can be evaluated. The training rounds would actually have two versions, range and some sort of simunition/paintballing round for war games. The totally inert (no functional propellant/payload) rounds are there for generals to use as paperweights and for teaching boots how their weapon actually works.

It’s gas-operated cause that’s the only operation I actually understand. No matter how many diagrams I look at of blowback, it makes approximately 0 sense to me.

[Taihei Tengoku]

blowback is literally "it bounces back on a spring" though

[Zhouran]

Finally made a 3d version of the not-Himat fighter thing.

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

I'm a little concerned that the wing is too far forward for the elevons to work propely but any further back and it's nose heavy.
What do you guys think?

Looks fine. I don't think you need to move the wings backwards.

Anyway, looks like a possible love child of the Rockwell HiMAT and MiG-1.44

[Purpelia]

It’s gas-operated cause that’s the only operation I actually understand. No matter how many diagrams I look at of blowback, it makes approximately 0 sense to me.

I'll try to explain it to you in lots of detail:

Parts:
A blowback firearm has these essential parts:

• Big heavy spring
• Barrel
• Big heavy block of metal (called the bolt)
• Some sort of frame to hold it all together

The parts are arranged so that the bolt is stuck between the barrel and the spring so that the spring keeps trying to shove it down the barrel but can't because it won't fit. And its all fitted inside of the frame.

Operation

• You shove the bullet or shell into the barrel and plug the barrel behind said with the big metal block.
• When you fire, Newtons 3rd law takes over. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) In this case that means that both the bolt and bullet are accelerated with the same force in opposite directions.
• The bullet flies out of the barrel really fast because it's light where as the bolt moves backward much slower because it's both heavier (thus harder to accelerate) and has a big powerful spring desperately trying to stop it from moving.
• The spring just is not strong enough to stop it completely and the bolt eventually does move back to the very rear of the frame.
• By this time, the bullet has left the barrel and there is no force any more pushing the bolt back meaning that the spring is free to push it forward resetting the system.

[Gallia-]

[quote="Iltica";p="33462470"
What do you guys think?[/quote]

It's certainly not HiMAT I guess?

[Prosorusiya]

I did consider using a trainer, but I figured a liason aircraft would be a safer role for a pregnant woman... since Nonna would solely be in command and not some newb pilot looking to become the subject of a training film. Arguably, a trainer could also be used for liason... but might not serve as well for evacuating wounded with a tandem cockpit design, and I was also thinking that off duty Nonna might also use the aircraft to give her friends a lift to other bases, which would be better served by a four seat aircraft. I’m not a pilot though, so I can’t say how much the difference in cockpits between a trainer and a liason aircraft would matter to someone who used to fly supersonic jets.

There will be very little difference other than the liason aircraft having side by side seating. Honestly having a couple of laison aircraft attached to a squadron makes more sense than a couple of trainers as they are simply more useful and allow pilots to keep flight hours up whilst carrying out actually important duties like medevac, collecting spares, flying brass around, getting the (liquid) lunch in and generally going on jollies.
It's a more common approach in the western world although the definition of laison aircraft can vary from a simple Cessna to actual bizjets (IIRC the French use falcon 20s).

Thanks, that was more or less my thinking. Still debating what I want in the way of Liason aircraft, though I am thinking something STOL. I’m half tempted to use the good old Storch... does anybody know if the Soviets captured any during/after the war? I know Antonov tried to make a copy, though from what I heard it was a pretty poor copy in regards to performance.

Other strong candidates are the Yak-12 and the L-60 Brigadyr.

[Free-Don]

Would it be of any worth to have laison and observation aircraft equipped occasionally with anti-tank missiles and bomb? Less as a dedicated anti-armor doctrine but as a way to make opportunistic attacks against such assets when no anti-aircraft threats are visible or present. This basically ending when man portable anti-craft weapons start coming about (1960's ish).

[Iltica]

I don't know how to do a preview so fug it.

You can copy the BB code, and then highlight it in your post and select spoiler to make a popup thing.

It's certainly not HiMAT I guess?

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Gallia-]

Make a thumbnail and go like this.

Code: Select all

[url=<your big image link>][img]<the thumbnail link>[/img][/url]

[Taihei Tengoku]

Thinking of a vaguely F-117N shaped fighter-bomber for TT

it has
1) fairly new J-11/J-15 so another high-speed fighter is somewhat out of the question unless it wants to stick with the ancient planes they're replacing forever (or god forbid import yet another plane)
2) but its missiles are new, so its weapons are better/more modern than the airframes
3) if FB-2 is unstoppable then several smaller FB-2s would also be fairly unstoppable on the "cheap"

it would be transonic (Mach 0.9) CATOBAR attack plane. Internal bays are six-shooter for AAM and fits bombs of sufficient size. Radar antenna integrated into leading edge of wing to save space in the nose for EOTS. Maybe flap-based thrust vectoring for trim.

[Zhouran]

Thinking of a vaguely F-117N shaped fighter-bomber for TT

it has
1) fairly new J-11/J-15 so another high-speed fighter is somewhat out of the question unless it wants to stick with the ancient planes they're replacing forever (or god forbid import yet another plane)
2) but its missiles are new, so its weapons are better/more modern than the airframes
3) if FB-2 is unstoppable then several smaller FB-2s would also be fairly unstoppable on the "cheap"

it would be transonic (Mach 0.9) CATOBAR attack plane. Internal bays are six-shooter for AAM and fits bombs of sufficient size. Radar antenna integrated into leading edge of wing to save space in the nose for EOTS. Maybe flap-based thrust vectoring for trim.

As long as this NotF-117N is fitted with powerful long-range AESA radar like the APG-77 and carries beyond-visual-range AAM, then it's all good. However, since the F-117 itself was kinda expensive, I'm not sure if a naval transonic stealth attack plane would be financially suitable, especially when you have the F-35C which itself is multirole (and probably cheaper than a hypothetical notF-117N, but I might be wrong).

[Taihei Tengoku]

In the regional canon there is no "F-35." I think a fairly inactive player claims it but obviously not anywhere near the economies of scale that it has IRL.

F-35C will also stabilize at ~$120m/plane, rather than $80m of the A model.

[Zhouran]

In the regional canon there is no "F-35." I think a fairly inactive player claims it but obviously not anywhere near the economies of scale that it has IRL.

F-35C will also stabilize at ~$120m/plane, rather than $80m of the A model.

Ah, I see. Also, you cold probably go with a supersonic design like this rather than have a transonic stealth ground attacker.

[Gallia-]

In the regional canon there is no "F-35." I think a fairly inactive player claims it but obviously not anywhere near the economies of scale that it has IRL.

F-35C will also stabilize at ~$120m/plane, rather than $80m of the A model.

Ah, I see. Also, you cold probably go with a supersonic design like this rather than have a transonic stealth ground attacker.

That's not supersonic. And F-117/A-12/whatever are all subsonic, not transonic, since you aren't pedantic enough to use transonic in that way.

[Purpelia]

I really like the P-39 with its rear engine front gun arrangement. And it has me inspired to do a number of things.

First I thought of the obvious, which is something I'll 100% do. Like 3D model is half done sort of 100%. And that's a ground attacker with a NS-37 in the nose for AT action. And I am doing that in 1940 because of reasons. So it's going to work.

Next though I thought of the concept I want you lot to comment on. And that's as follows. A P-39 layout (rear engine, front empty and loaded with guns) fighter with lots of 20mm's in the nose. Maybe 30mm's if I can but I doubt that propeller engines will sustain that weight with meaningful performance. But 20mm's I can do.

[The Akasha Colony]

Ah, I see. Also, you cold probably go with a supersonic design like this rather than have a transonic stealth ground attacker.

CATOBAR planes for carrier use basically have to choose between payload, range, and speed. They can only get two of those. For an attack plane, the first two are generally more important than the last.

[Iltica]

If they want a stealth aircraft that comes with a payload penalty from the internal weapon bays anyway right?

Btw Purp, iirc we've been over this before, you can only fit one gun through a propeller spinner albeit a very big one.

[Purpelia]

If they want a stealth aircraft that comes with a payload penalty from the internal weapon bays anyway right?

Btw Purp, iirc we've been over this before, you can only fit one gun through a propeller spinner albeit a very big one.

Don't care about that. Just synchronize the stuff like you'd do MG's. And if I have talked about this I forgot. Been ages. Ideas repeat in my mind.

[Kanugues Wed]

I don’t see a fundamental obstacle to putting three MGs in a tube and firing them all through the propellor spinner. What stops it?

[Iltica]

You have to take into account the width of the entire gun, not just the barrel diameter, not to mention clearence for the ammo feed. Yes you could stagger them but even then they're still too far apart.
Go look at a picture of the nose guns on a P-38 or something similar. That's as close together as they can get.
You miiight be able to fit a gast gun but even that's a stretch.

[Zhouran]

CATOBAR planes for carrier use basically have to choose between payload, range, and speed. They can only get two of those. For an attack plane, the first two are generally more important than the last.

Well at least CATOBAR is better than STOBAR, especially with payload. But anyway, with a hypothetical notF-117N carrier-borne stealth attacker, wouldn't the internal payload be pretty small? The F-117 only carried two weapons, plus the airframe of the F-117 wouldn't be big enough to expand the internal bays. The McDonnell Douglas A-12 is said to have been designed to carry 2,300 kg worth of payload including two AIM-120 AMRAAMs and two AGM-88 HARMs.

Also, what's the payload limit for CATOBAR planes? STOBAR planes would definitely have it worse with planes like the Su-33/J-15 having no chance of taking off from a STOBAR carrier with full payload and maximum fuel.