Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:21 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:Pretty.

Any military gubbins going to be stuffed in it?

The closest it comes are the ones purchased for use as VIP government transports. Existing airlifters already fill the other military roles (including MRTT). The government versions will probably get Israeli-style basic anti-missile defenses though.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:25 am

Not even a long-haul troop transporter?

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:27 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:Not even a long-haul troop transporter?

While I'm sure a lot of troops would rather be flying one of these than an RTS-225, the government isn't quite so generous.

by **Dat cua Tien** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:05 am

Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

Also - what's the JG scale? 1:72 what?

Mallaska wrote:Decided to screw around and make my rudimentary take on a COIN/training aircraft based on the A-1 Skyraider. Any thoughts?

(Image)

yup, that's a Skyraider alright

You'll probably be able to fit in more detail if you used a larger scale.

by **Mallaska** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:18 pm

Dat cua Tien wrote:
Mallaska wrote:Decided to screw around and make my rudimentary take on a COIN/training aircraft based on the A-1 Skyraider. Any thoughts?

(Image)

yup, that's a Skyraider alright
You'll probably be able to fit in more detail if you used a larger scale.

I'll likely do a larger version at a later date, when Lacrosse and schoolwork don't weigh me down. For now my notSkyraider is pretty basic.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:28 pm

Dat cua Tien wrote:Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

Why would you want it derated? Unlike a reciprocating engine, turbines have fairly narrow efficient power bands; de-rating an engine without redesigning it may push it out of the band and thus sharply decrease efficiency.

by **Triplebaconation** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:38 pm

And yet derated turboshafts are almost universal in helicopters.

by **Dat cua Tien** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:21 pm

The Akasha Colony wrote:
Dat cua Tien wrote:Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

Why would you want it derated? Unlike a reciprocating engine, turbines have fairly narrow efficient power bands; de-rating an engine without redesigning it may push it out of the band and thus sharply decrease efficiency.

The engine I have in mind (LHTEC T800) has smaller dimensions than engines with less power, but two T800s at full power would be lulzy for what I need, and one engine isn't an option.

by **New Vihenia** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:17 pm

Dat cua Tien wrote:Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

reducing the rotor inlet temperature perhaps by constraining the fuel consumption.

by **Gallia-** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:22 pm

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... ckbird.png

by **Vitaphone Racing** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:58 am

Dat cua Tien wrote:Can a turboshaft be de-rated like a reciprocating engine can? I'm assuming not because a reciprocating engine is usually de-rated by limiting the revs which is hard to do with turbines, but there's also flat rating which involves a slight de-rate, so I figured I'd double check.

Reduce the amount of fuel and air that is allowed into the turbine which can be done via restricting the air flow through the intake and a re-programmed engine control unit.

by **Estovakiva** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:14 am

Estovakiva is currently expanding its fleet of AY-05NG and NGE-variant all of which are being bought from ANKITEC

by **Oaledonia** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:45 am

Estovakiva wrote:Estovakiva is currently expanding its fleet of AY-05NG and NGE-variant all of which are being bought from ANKITEC (Image)

2scary4me <:c

by **Oaledonia** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:46 am

How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

by **Vitaphone Racing** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:56 am

Oaledonia wrote:How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

F-4E 2020.

It's worth noting that totally redesigning an aircraft defeats the purpose of using an older aircraft to begin with. Uncomplex and relatively inexpensive upgrades make the most sense.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:56 am

Oaledonia wrote:How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

Either the F-4E Kurnass 2000 or the F-4E Terminator 2020. Both Israeli-built.

IAI and Boeing both had their own "Super Phantom" proposals which may be worth looking into.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mc ... I_variants

by **Anacasppia** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:33 am

Funny that you mention that.

I concocted a pretty radical F-4 upgrade for my alt a while back, and as radical as it is, it stopped short of AESA radar. The most notable improvements were a more capable (especially on the air-to-ground front) radar, data linking, more powerful engines, integration with newer munitions, and more comprehensive countermeasures.

And if you expect an upgraded F-4 to come anywhere close to being competitive with modern multiroles, you'll probably want an AESA radar. Which, in my opinion, is going too far for an upgrade of old airframes dating from the 60s.

by **Gallia-** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:42 am

Oaledonia wrote:How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

Not very well.

OTOH Mach 3+ Phantom could just turn and run away from any better fighters. Give it a decent AESA radar or something and make it fly at 60,000 at Mach 3. Give it decent missiles and it will be enough to fight stupid F-15s by simply swatting them out of the sky from 100 km I guess.

The air crew would need pressure suits like SR-71, though.

Anacasppia wrote:Funny that you mention that.

I concocted a pretty radical F-4 upgrade for my alt a while back, and as radical as it is, it stopped short of AESA radar. The most notable improvements were a more capable (especially on the air-to-ground front) radar, data linking, more powerful engines, integration with newer munitions, and more comprehensive countermeasures.

And if you expect an upgraded F-4 to come anywhere close to being competitive with modern multiroles, you'll probably want an AESA radar. Which, in my opinion, is going too far for an upgrade of old airframes dating from the 60s.

That's not "very radical".

That's actually quite pedestrian as far as F-4 upgrades go. It doesn't even have variable geometry inlets.

by **United states of brazilian nations** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:02 am

i remember making a design long ago. nothing really serious, just a slightly revamped A-29 Super Tucano. i made it so long ago i can't even remember what changes i made to it, but i did some.

so, did i make any facepalm-worthy mistake?

by **Padnak** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:06 am

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=padn ... /id=221317

Padnak is a former soviet and current Chinese ally and an Island nation, given that I've tried to make a reasonably well equipped if somewhat outdated air force.

asses and criticize please

by **Dat cua Tien** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:20 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Oaledonia wrote:How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

Either the F-4E Kurnass 2000 or the F-4E Terminator 2020. Both Israeli-built.

IAI and Boeing both had their own "Super Phantom" proposals which may be worth looking into.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mc ... I_variants

lol

A variant cancelled because it would give performance too close to an SR-71, and one because it was too close to the F/A-18? I knew I liked this plane for some reason, and they even had a variant proposed with canards. Want, wish I could have. Maybe I could have something like that instead of tailed delta winged Su-17s/super Mig-21s.

by **Imperializt Russia** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:29 am

I assume the "flies like a brick" rhetoric doesn't come from just nowhere.
SR-71s have turning radii variously described as "measured in [US] States", so I can't imagine a Mach 3 Phantom being any better. If you can somehow push it to Mach 3, then a cleaner airframe with the same powerplant could be ridiculously capable.

by **United States of PA** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:18 pm

Gallia- wrote:
Oaledonia wrote:How far could one reasonably upgrade (totally redesign) a Phantom to compete with MT multiroles?

Not very well.

OTOH Mach 3+ Phantom could just turn and run away from any better fighters. Give it a decent AESA radar or something and make it fly at 60,000 at Mach 3. Give it decent missiles and it will be enough to fight stupid F-15s by simply swatting them out of the sky from 100 km I guess.

The air crew would need pressure suits like SR-71, though.

Want to redo my air forces with the plane that would defeat the ground now :3

by **Gallia-** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:49 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:I assume the "flies like a brick" rhetoric doesn't come from just nowhere.
SR-71s have turning radii variously described as "measured in [US] States", so I can't imagine a Mach 3 Phantom being any better. If you can somehow push it to Mach 3, then a cleaner airframe with the same powerplant could be ridiculously capable.

F-4 was quite maneuverable. The "flies like a brick" comes from comparing it to aircraft like F-15 and F-14.

by **Val Nube** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:32 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:I assume the "flies like a brick" rhetoric doesn't come from just nowhere.
SR-71s have turning radii variously described as "measured in [US] States", so I can't imagine a Mach 3 Phantom being any better. If you can somehow push it to Mach 3, then a cleaner airframe with the same powerplant could be ridiculously capable.

Mach 3+ F-4X

[img]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz307/Pateorian/F-4X.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz307/Pateorian/F-4X03.jpg[/img]

Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

Re: Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

Who is online