Advertisement
by Prosorusiya » Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:53 pm
by Iltica » Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:03 pm
by Connori Pilgrims » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:19 pm
Iltica wrote:Suppose for a moment its ~ 1950 and you're making a twin boom fighter similar to the DH Vampire/Venom, but want to give it swept wings. What do you do with the tailplane? Some sort of V- shape or something or would it be okay to leave it unswept?
(Yes I'm aware the Venom has a small amount of sweep on its leading edge, this is much steeper, closer to 45 degrees.)
by Iltica » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:24 pm
by Alteran Republics » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:40 pm
by Connori Pilgrims » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:12 pm
Iltica wrote:Yes and no. That's very much along the lines of what it would look like, but I was talking about the horizontal portion of the tail which is still unswept on the Vixen... Along with seemingly every other twin-boom design.
The closest thing I can find to a swept horizontal tail is this Chinese UAV and it's only about 10-15 degrees or so.
(Image)
by New Vihenia » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:53 am
by Onekawa-Nukanor » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:27 pm
by Covenant of Man » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:07 pm
by Post War America » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:19 am
Covenant of Man wrote:-Snip for space-
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by Isilanka » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:54 am
by Gwrachbyd » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:26 am
by The Manticoran Empire » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:36 pm
Isilanka wrote:Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.
by The Corparation » Wed Sep 26, 2018 2:54 pm
Isilanka wrote:Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by The Manticoran Empire » Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:18 pm
The Corparation wrote:Isilanka wrote:Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.
The idea for the Akron was to use the aircraft to scout ahead with their findings being relayed to the conventional naval fleet. This would be a perfectly reasonable job except for the fact that battleships were capable of carrying their own scout aircraft and conventional aircraft carriers were rapidly becoming a thing. The ability for a naval fleet to carry its own scouting aircraft makes a large slow moving and vulnerable airship like the Akron redundant.
Also since "realistic" airborne aircraft carriers have come up I am legally obligated to shill my not CL-1201 clone.
Fr "realistic" flying aircraft carriers there's the 747 AAC with microfighters.
by New Chilokver » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:41 pm
The Corparation wrote:Isilanka wrote:Speaking of airborne aircraft carriers, but realistic this time, I was wondering : are dirigible carriers (like the defunct Akron) as stupid as they sound - and look - or were they actually a sensible idea in a pre-WWII era ? Because albeit they look and sound cool (treading on the very thin line between stupid and cool) I don't really see the point of them.
The idea for the Akron was to use the aircraft to scout ahead with their findings being relayed to the conventional naval fleet. This would be a perfectly reasonable job except for the fact that battleships were capable of carrying their own scout aircraft and conventional aircraft carriers were rapidly becoming a thing. The ability for a naval fleet to carry its own scouting aircraft makes a large slow moving and vulnerable airship like the Akron redundant.
Also since "realistic" airborne aircraft carriers have come up I am legally obligated to shill my not CL-1201 clone.
Fr "realistic" flying aircraft carriers there's the 747 AAC with microfighters.
About User Hong Kong-Australian Male Pro: Yeah Neutral: Meh Con: Nah | | [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [HOI I - Peacetime conditions] Head of Government: President Sohum Jain Population: 195.10 million GDP (nominal): $6.39 trillion Military personnel: 523.5k IIWiki | There is no news. | | Other Stuff
|
by Covenant of Man » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:27 pm
by Post War America » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:40 pm
Covenant of Man wrote:Post War America wrote:
But how do any of this actually fly? Those designs look frankly like they'll just fall out of the sky. The carrier especially wouldn't work given that there's no way in hell that thing is generating any lift enough to stay airborne.
Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.
Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.
What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?
Gravlen wrote:The famous Bowling Green Massacre is yesterday's news. Today it's all about the Cricket Blue Carnage. Tomorrow it'll be about the Curling Yellow Annihilation.
by The Manticoran Empire » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:43 pm
Post War America wrote:Covenant of Man wrote:
Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.
Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.
What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?
That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.
by Evil Dictators Happyland » Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:57 pm
by The Corparation » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:44 pm
Post War America wrote:Covenant of Man wrote:
Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.
Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.
What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?
That doesn't solve your problem though. Unless you're flying really low to the ground, those rotors aren't keeping the skyship up, and even then its doubtful.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Onekawa-Nukanor » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:38 pm
by Gwrachbyd » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:13 am
Covenant of Man wrote:Lmfao, that's what I was thinking when I picked this design. But if you look carefully, it looks like there could be wings towards the back and in two sections in the mid section, one above the other (but the angle is exactly sideways from the wings). I gave the design the benefit of the doubt.
Also, they're great for making quick deployments above solid ground, without the limits of a static airbase or the coast keeping away your carriers.
What do you think of this design instead, but with propulsion below the hull?
(Image)
by Connori Pilgrims » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:26 am
Onekawa-Nukanor wrote:Well if my last question didn't get much traction, anyone got much clue about the state of the PLAAF in the eary-to-mid 80's?
It seems like their fighter force woul've been mostly MiG-21/19 knockoffs. How well did they compare to equivalent era soviet versions? I've heard that at least the 21's were until their redesign were equivalent to older variants partly because of the length of the cultural revolution and the aircraft industry was still getting back on its feet.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement