|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 6, 2021 8:51:02 GMT -6
I would like to have the ability to research, design and build twin-fuselage aircraft like the XP-82 and the Heinkel He 111 Z. I think it would be interesting and useful to explore this virtual technological path. BTW, I've seen the XP-82 at the USAF Wright-Patterson AFB museum. Very cool looking aircraft. www.nestofdragons.net/weird-airplanes/twins/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_MustangNote: This and other suggestions are based on the fact this game is virtual history not real history. Yes the geography and nations are realistic but the historical path from 1900 to 1955 or farther is virtual. Therefore, let's explore virtual technology like the twin-fuselage aircraft.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on May 6, 2021 11:58:25 GMT -6
You want heavy fighters basically as that's what the F82 really was. Long range heavy fighter. I concur although I doubt if they implemented heavy fighters it would have twin frames connected by a wing since the picture on the map doesn't affect things. Although I imagine it'd be easy to add it into the game as possible pictures for fighters
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 7, 2021 7:39:21 GMT -6
game-wise the option would be less about 'twin fuselage' and more about 'twin engined', which would increase the upkeep cost of the aircraft
that being said it would be cool to have the option of designing fighters (and perhaps torp bombers) to be twin engined, where choosing that option would increase the chance of having decreased manoeuvrability and speed, but increase the chance of having higher range, firepower, toughness, and bomb load
in a somewhat related thought when designing aircraft i was thinking about how twin engined fighters would help Japan and the long flight distances in the Pacific, which would (possibly?) be less historically accurate for Japan to want to design and build twin engined fighters to give them a longer range, when historically they went the route of the Zero which traded toughness and perhaps firepower for range
so it might be interesting to also allow a checkbox option to trade toughness and/or firepower for range and/or manoeuvrability, as long as (generally, perhaps not always) the loss of toughness/firepower is marginally/significantly greater the the gain of range/manoeuvrability
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 8, 2021 3:01:22 GMT -6
that being said it would be cool to have the option of designing fighters (and perhaps torp bombers) to be twin engined, where choosing that option would increase the chance of having decreased manoeuvrability and speed, but increase the chance of having higher range, firepower, toughness, and bomb load Actually, I'd do reliability instead of speed as the disadvantage: twice as many engines means (roughly) twice as many mechanical failures, but will tend to increase the amount of engine per pound of plane, which will tend to make the plane faster. Also, the cost of a twin will be higher than that of a single. Actually, given the constraints that made the Zero what it was (the Japanese being behind on aircraft engines), I'm rather surprised they didn't do more with twin engined fighters. That said, the only really good twin engine day fighter of the war was the P-38, and even it was arguably inferior to the single-engine version of the same specification, the P-39/P-63. The P-39 was crippled by having the turbocharger removed, and got a bad reputation for a nasty flat spin that was difficult to recover from. From simulation flying I actually regard the venerated Mustang as having a more treacherous spin: the P-39 can easily be stopped within a quarter turn, whereas you have to be really on your toes to stop a Mustang in one rotation, otherwise you're committed to three, and then you've got a significant nose-down angle and can easily end up in another spin if you're not careful about pulling back into level flight. But where the P-39 got its reputation as a widowmaker is that if the spin is allowed to develop beyond that easy-to-stop incipient phase, recovery becomes almost impossible, whereas the Mustang will recover on its own after those three rotations unless you take deliberate action to hold it in the spin. But you have to be practically asleep to hit the point of no return in a P-39, and a quarter turn bleeds a lot less speed and altitude than the three violent rotations a Mustang gives you if you're not on your toes: I've spun a lot more Mustangs into the ground than 39s. In any case, the P-63 corrected the removal of the turbocharger, but by that point the poor reputation of the 39 had taken its toll, and the 63s ended up lend-leased to the Soviets rather than seeing use in US squadrons. Funnily enough, air combat on the eastern front was generally at low altitude, where the lack of a turbocharger was less of a problem, but the Eastern front was the only place that the 63 saw much action.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 8, 2021 11:58:47 GMT -6
To the issue of the Japanese, they did design and build three prototypes of the Ki-96 a twin engine heavy fighter. It went no where.
But, in the game.... a virtual history game, the multi-engine fighter or fuselage has missions that, if available could be perfect for these aircraft. Missions such as point to point defense against bombers, photo reconnaissance, land based scouts, ground attack aircraft etc. Even anti-shipping missions can be good missions for aircraft such as these with multiple 20 mm or 30 mm cannons, and .50 cal. machine guns. Ordnance loads such as 4000 lbs. could very effective against ships and land targets.
The two famous twin-engine fighters of the pre-WW2 era were both built for the same reason: bomber killers. Engines of the day could not provide the power for a good climb rate to intercept the bombers, so they had to use two engines. This also allowed them to be equipped with heavy armament like 20mm cannons, .50 caliber machine guns. They could also double as ground attack aircraft. Neither were designed for fighter versus fighter combat unless tactics were changed to dive and climb.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 10, 2021 1:35:44 GMT -6
Twin fuselage is probably too fine of a detail compared to just having heavy fighters in general.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2021 7:09:58 GMT -6
Twin fuselage is probably too fine of a detail compared to just having heavy fighters in general. I actually agree with that, so just add heavy fighter which assumes twin-engine or twin fuselage. This would increase range, endurance and speed appropriately. It might also assume that it is not a naval aircraft unless the carrier is large enough to carry it. The Imperial Japanese Naval Air Force might be a good example of a naval air service that has larger aircraft not carrier usable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2021 9:28:21 GMT -6
Has anyone attempted to edit the types of aircraft available and their performance characteristics? Is it possible?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 11, 2021 5:14:16 GMT -6
Neither were designed for fighter versus fighter combat unless tactics were changed to dive and climb. But the P-38 absolutely *excelled* at boom and zoom. It was the number one Zero killer of the war.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 11, 2021 12:06:51 GMT -6
Neither were designed for fighter versus fighter combat unless tactics were changed to dive and climb. But the P-38 absolutely *excelled* at boom and zoom. It was the number one Zero killer of the war. Whilst falling apart in Europe due to not coping with the climate...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2021 15:45:31 GMT -6
But the P-38 absolutely *excelled* at boom and zoom. It was the number one Zero killer of the war. Whilst falling apart in Europe due to not coping with the climate... It definitely had problems with the cold weather in Northern Europe. www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-wayne.htmlSimply, it was the temperature at high altitude which made the engine oil and lubrication oil for the turbo supercharger get viscous and freeze. Not good over Germany at 20,000 feet. Now how could this happen? Well, the plane was built and tested at Burbank, California.... a Mediterranean climate.... OOps. Now this happens all the time. It happened to the LAU-7A missile launcher of the F-4. it was tested along with the plane in Nevada and Arizona. Nice, hot and very dry climates. Then, it was sent to Vietnam..... Oops. Hot, muggy and the launcher did not have a moisture coating on it. So, it failed regularly. Where you test is very, very important.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 19, 2021 15:35:57 GMT -6
Has anyone attempted to edit the types of aircraft available and their performance characteristics? Is it possible? I only did so in the savegame but one could edit the aircraftbasicdata.dat, I barely remember some posts on this in the forum more than a year ago IIRC. There is also a curretnly open thread in the mods subforum on that.
|
|