Search results
Search results 1-20 of 139.
it's amazing. good work. but will you make it so that we can scroll over or something? because we're limited to how large we can make the ship at the moment.
Or it could be phrased as, Navalism 3.0, home of the whiney mutineers. No offense. And for the record, Navalism was daniels sim. You all stole it. I'm not trying to start a beef, but thats exactly what you all did. You could have at least changed the name.
glad my nation isn't in south america.
Type 5, Neutral Battlecruiser laid down 1936 Displacement: 39,982 t light; 42,090 t standard; 47,184 t normal; 51,259 t full load Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep) (898.35 ft / 849.00 ft) x 97.00 ft (Bulges 99.10 ft) x (33.61 / 36.01 ft) (273.82 m / 258.78 m) x 29.57 m (Bulges 30.21 m) x (10.24 / 10.98 m) Armament: 8 - 16.00" / 406 mm 50.0 cal guns - 2,168.09lbs / 983.43kg shells, 100 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts , 1936 Model 4 x ...
Okay. That's officially awesome.
i don't know if it's okay to post this here but~ ...after it's last reincarnation it makes it's appearance again. Navalism 1.3. Theres currently 6 players in place. Looking for more if anyone has the time. :-) http://z4.invisionfree.com/Navalism/index.php?act=idx Um, theres still a lot of nations available for play. Such as Germany and France...hungary, Austria, Italy, Spain, Russia, China. Theres also a lot of fictional nations in place. Some from the previous incarnation. if someone would like...
good luck rocky. hopefully we'll see u back lots. :-)
Yup. navalism has some major powers up for play currently such as Italy and Persia and possibly Gran Columbia, peru ect. ect. So you might wanna go check over there. or PM me for details.
Quoted Originally posted by Swamphen Yes they did. With a few very specialised aircraft a number of years later, not in the mid 1930s. I have no idea why we're still arguing anyway, since The Moderator Has Spoken. Because you prompted it. Quote: Quoted Subsequently, Major Cardenas stated for the record that the airplane was marginally stable, rather than "extremely unstable." On November 16, 1948, an official Air Materiel Command report on the bombing evaluation, which was conducted under manua...
Quoted Originally posted by Swamphen Both the XB-35 and YB-49 were unstable in yaw, even with the 'propeller fins' on the former and the vertical stabilisers on the latter. They 'snaked' significantly which was a major factor in their rejection by the USAF. The Go 229 is largely speculative for obvious reasons. There's a reason flying wings didn't see service until fly-by-wire was available. Me 163, Me 329 etc. have a orthodox fuselage and aren't really comparable. The XP-56 also but its fate m...
Quoted Originally posted by Swamphen Quoted So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft. Were they overcome in real life? No. Nuff said. BTW, we have had 'sharped designs thrown out... excuse me, I thought you didn't know how to use planebuider? besides, they DID overcome them in real life. nuff said.
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral Please tell me what you don't understand about this statement: The cutting edge superchargers (centrifugal single stage single speed) fitted to the Merlin I series had a critical altitude of 16250ft. At that altitude they gave their maximum 1000hp. I understand it all. But I got the plane working with a 17,000 ft supercharger. So I overcame the technological limitations you said would keep it from achieving 48,000 ft.
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral Quoted How about 38,000 ft? More realistic 15000ft is more than pushing the available technology. For 38,000ft you need a centrifugal compressor a couple of foot across and 600-800hp to drive it. The spitfires were flying at 35000 ft with a wingspan of 36 ft. and... the 1937 record setter: 49,967 ft POWERPLANT: One Bristol Pegasus PE.VIS radial engine of 500 hp / 373 kW. MAX. TAKEOFF WEIGHT: 5,310 lb (2,409 kg) WING SPAN: 66 ft 0 in (20.12 m) LENGTH: 44 f...
Okay, how about a compromise. Red Admiral doesn't lke the supercharger? How about 38,000 ft? More realistic.
Quoted Originally posted by HoOmAn The Manta looks really cool but.... Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta. This design will not fly in WesWorld until 1942 if ever, sorry. I rate technologies necessary for such a plane to be successful beyond current state of the art. - Tail less designs are highly instable. Only very few such designs were successful in the pre-computer era (like those of the German Horton brothers). - Contra-Probs are technically difficult to handle and are too e...
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral An additional problem is that as simmed the aircraft looks something like this. It is beyond me how it would be possible to fit either flaps or ailerons onto the trailing edge thats swept forward at about 70°. Similarly a massive extensive shaft for the engine to hte props would be needed. It's a positive 25 percent now. the negative was a typo to begin with.
Okay. I exchanged PM's with Red Admiral and now the plane is actually vastly improved. One thing to note however, is the tail. It has a tail now...the tail cost it some of the turning radius and relatively...gave it an extreme boost in climb. It can outclimb the previous version by about 300 to 400 ft on average. However, I don't think thats all that useful. So the actual version will be tail-less. But for now here is the plane that will participate in this race...and yes, it has that unfortunat...
Quoted Originally posted by thesmilingassassin I'd like to see that flying wing design with its tail done with planebuilder, just out of curiousity. Alright. I could...but I didn't use the parameters of the mantra. The planebuilder plane i designed is totally different. The diagram of the Mantra just shows a general concept.
WesWorld »
Thursday, April 18th 2024, 4:16pm
Go to the top of the page
