Advertisement
by Gallia- » Sat May 13, 2017 4:05 am
by Dostanuot Loj » Sat May 13, 2017 6:33 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat May 13, 2017 6:39 am
Dostanuot Loj wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Could you go into more detail on what makes it a bad design?
No, he can't. Because he has no idea what he's talking about.
CdeG has a reputation among US carrier fans because it's not lolhuge, and therefore not 'Murica enough.
It also had serious issues with its propellers when completed, but this is unrelated to its design as a carrier. The propellers were cast improperly, making them absolute crap. Then, of course, the company that made the propellers ceased to exist, so new ones had to be designed and made by another company. That takes time. So in the mean time, the propellers from the previous Clemenceau class were used, and they were not designed for the CdeG.
by Atlantica » Sat May 13, 2017 6:58 am
by Kassaran » Sat May 13, 2017 7:16 am
Zarkenis Ultima wrote:Tristan noticed footsteps behind him and looked there, only to see Eric approaching and then pointing his sword at the girl. He just blinked a few times at this before speaking.
"Put that down, Mr. Eric." He said. "She's obviously not a chicken."
by -Celibrae- » Sat May 13, 2017 10:07 am
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Sat May 13, 2017 10:10 am
The Corparation wrote:So apparently Trump has decided that EMALS is to complicated to understand and wants a return to steam catapults.
-Celibrae- wrote:How difficult would it be to produce a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan, like the F-35, but with two engines?
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Gallia- » Sat May 13, 2017 2:31 pm
by -Celibrae- » Sat May 13, 2017 2:35 pm
by North Arkana » Sat May 13, 2017 2:36 pm
-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?
by -Celibrae- » Sat May 13, 2017 2:39 pm
North Arkana wrote:-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?
Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.
by North Arkana » Sat May 13, 2017 2:50 pm
by Prosorusiya » Sat May 13, 2017 2:52 pm
North Arkana wrote:-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?
Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.
by -Celibrae- » Sat May 13, 2017 2:53 pm
North Arkana wrote:-Celibrae- wrote:
Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?
If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.
by Gallia- » Sat May 13, 2017 3:03 pm
North Arkana wrote:-Celibrae- wrote:
Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?
If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.
-Celibrae- wrote:North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.
True, but in terms of man hours for maintenance, I'd think a single engine design is superior to a twin engine design, assuming a uniform level of engine quality.
by United Earthlings » Sat May 13, 2017 3:17 pm
Hrstrovokia wrote:I there any sense in following a rising scale of artillery strength, say providing Brigades with 122-130mm and then allocating 152-155mm at Division?
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Okay, so I have been thinking up an alt-history timeline for a nation that I may start RP-ing with, and I want to know if this scenario seems possible.
In 1917, after Nicholas II abdicates, a regency council made up of members of the Imperial family and military officers takes power; instead of embarking on what would be the disastrous Kerensky offensive, they decide to remain on the defensive, and the Germans are never able to gather the men for the July Offensive in 1918, and are forced to sign an armistice. At the peace negotiations, it was decided to give what would become interwar Poland in our time to the Russian Empire; dismayed at the thought of being forced back into Russian servitude, the Poles revolt, quickly followed by the Balts. Desperate, the Russians ally themselves with the German freikorps in East Prussia, and, after a two year war, though the Russians lose Congress Poland, and can never take Galicia, they maintain control of the Baltic States, and Germany maintains control of Danzig.
snip...
Allanea wrote:Except this is untrue.
Russia was rapidly industrializing before WW1. Industrial output was growing, and so were wages, consumption, etc. This was set back by the war, revolution, and Civil War. It took the Soviets until themid-1930sto return to 1914 production levels.
by United Muscovite Nations » Sat May 13, 2017 3:58 pm
United Earthlings wrote:Hrstrovokia wrote:I there any sense in following a rising scale of artillery strength, say providing Brigades with 122-130mm and then allocating 152-155mm at Division?
On a related note, {division dependant of course}, when determining the right amount of artillery firepower at the Regimental/Brigade level is it better to go with large mortars (120mm or larger) for lighter weight/lesser crew requirements/smaller range or standardized with your 152/155mm howitzer, but higher weight/more crew and larger logistical tail/longer range?
Initially, I went with a L119 105mm howitzer for infantry support in regimental artillery companies as part of my regiments TOE before deciding to switch to 155mm to standardize the 155mm howitzer throughout the divisional structure of my armed forces. Lately, I’ve decided 120mm regimental mortar companies would probably be a better investment, with the 155mm re-standardized at the divisional/corps/army level.United Muscovite Nations wrote:Okay, so I have been thinking up an alt-history timeline for a nation that I may start RP-ing with, and I want to know if this scenario seems possible.
In 1917, after Nicholas II abdicates, a regency council made up of members of the Imperial family and military officers takes power; instead of embarking on what would be the disastrous Kerensky offensive, they decide to remain on the defensive, and the Germans are never able to gather the men for the July Offensive in 1918, and are forced to sign an armistice. At the peace negotiations, it was decided to give what would become interwar Poland in our time to the Russian Empire; dismayed at the thought of being forced back into Russian servitude, the Poles revolt, quickly followed by the Balts. Desperate, the Russians ally themselves with the German freikorps in East Prussia, and, after a two year war, though the Russians lose Congress Poland, and can never take Galicia, they maintain control of the Baltic States, and Germany maintains control of Danzig.
snip...
UGH! You glossed over so much history just in the first few years after 1917 you made me want to drop a very large stack of thick history books on your head.
Just a few, but what happened with the following?
- How was the February Revolution continued and expanded by the Russian Provisional Government {which seems the direction your Alt History is going}?
- The Arrival of Lenin and his stirring the pot which would eventually lead to the October Revolution, the latter two things listed below and the rise of the USSR itself in 1922. This doesn’t give you much time to alter things and inertia being what it is.
- Breakup of the German Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire
- Allied Intervention into Russia
- The Russian Civil War itself which as others have pointed out is going to be one hell of a herculean task to contain, subdue let alone prevent.
- Polish–Soviet War and its direct predecessor the Polish–Ukrainian War {Poland didn’t just revolt by 1919 they had their own state and army}.
Furthermore, if the Soviet’s do rise to power of some type to control Russian, Soviet Russian making an alliance with the Freikorps against the Second Polish Republic is unlikely.
by Tekeristan » Sat May 13, 2017 4:14 pm
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Sat May 13, 2017 5:42 pm
North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by North Arkana » Sat May 13, 2017 5:46 pm
The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.
You're not landing on a carrier with an engine out on a two engine plane, at least not safely. Navy pilots land near the back of the power-required curve which means full throttle and relatively low horizontal speed. The throttle to the engines is used to control glide-slope angle while the elevator controls your velocity, essentially the reverse of what you do normally. With one engine out you need to use rudder to prevent the moment from yawing the plane with robs you of the rudder control you would need to land in any kind of crosswind. The point of keeping the engines near full throttle is so you can takeoff again if you miss the arresting wires, with on engine out you'd lack the necessary thrust to take off again and would crash into the ocean (BAD!). So if you lose the engine, regardless of the plane is single or twin engined, you're going to eject, period. The air force goons can land with engines out and/or or do glide landings when they're out of fuel. Navy guys aren't so lucky.
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Sat May 13, 2017 5:54 pm
North Arkana wrote:I was more referring to getting near the carrier and ditching.
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Gallia- » Sat May 13, 2017 6:26 pm
North Arkana wrote:The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:
You're not landing on a carrier with an engine out on a two engine plane, at least not safely. Navy pilots land near the back of the power-required curve which means full throttle and relatively low horizontal speed. The throttle to the engines is used to control glide-slope angle while the elevator controls your velocity, essentially the reverse of what you do normally. With one engine out you need to use rudder to prevent the moment from yawing the plane with robs you of the rudder control you would need to land in any kind of crosswind. The point of keeping the engines near full throttle is so you can takeoff again if you miss the arresting wires, with on engine out you'd lack the necessary thrust to take off again and would crash into the ocean (BAD!). So if you lose the engine, regardless of the plane is single or twin engined, you're going to eject, period. The air force goons can land with engines out and/or or do glide landings when they're out of fuel. Navy guys aren't so lucky.
I was more referring to getting near the carrier and ditching.
by The Technocratic Syndicalists » Sat May 13, 2017 6:57 pm
SDI AG Arcaenian Military Factbook | Task Force Atlas International Freedom Coalition |
by Maverica » Sat May 13, 2017 6:58 pm
by Gallia- » Sat May 13, 2017 7:00 pm
The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:Single engine out in a two engine plane is actually much more dangerous (in terms of accidents and fatalities) than losing the engine is a single engine plane. Generally the only aircraft where flying with an engine out is safe are aircraft where this feature was designed in from the start, usually four engine airliners or airlifters which are designed with the ability to takeoff, cruise, and land with an engine failure.
This is what an engine loss in a twin engine fighter looks like. Notice how the aircraft immediately starts to yaw until the nose pushes over and drops the aircraft. At low altitude where the pilot doesn't have the cushion to correct with rudder and/or shut off the other engine and glide the only option is to immediately eject. If this happened on a carrier at takeoff or landing the aircraft would crash into the ocean. So with regards to single vs twin engine fighters on a carrier there really is no safety or operational advantage to the twin engine aircraft.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Darussalam
Advertisement