You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

41

Sunday, May 8th 2011, 4:47pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
One word sums up this fighter. Sweet.

Any pictures for us to gaze at? From the descriptons it looks a beauty.

Not yet. I am fiddling a wee bit with a Yak-9U drawing to see if it can serve as a starting place for a conversion; but I've also thought of dishing out £50.00 to commission Claveworks to draw it.

Regardless, it'd look like a cross between the VG39 and a late-model Yak. There might be a wee bit of the OTL Italian "Serie 5" fighters in her looks, too, but not quite so much.

42

Sunday, May 8th 2011, 5:27pm



Historical VG.60 with turbocharged Jumo 213 engine from post-war.

43

Sunday, May 8th 2011, 5:39pm

Yes. That's the one I'm DEFINITELY not doing. :P French fighters should look pretty. As I said in the original post: "uses the VG.60 label but is not the historical VG.60."

44

Thursday, May 12th 2011, 4:10pm

Since I mentioned these aircraft in the Paris Air Show, here's the specs.

Quoted

[SIZE=4]Nord Normandie[/SIZE]
The Nord Normandie is a long-distant transport designed to carry cargo and paratroops; it is a result of the struggles the French suffered with cargo aircraft during the Rif-Atlas War in 1937-38. Existing transports proved highly unsatisfactory (and in some cases downright unsafe) particularly for paratroop operations, and were insufficient in quantity; an immediate request for new aircraft was made. Requirements included the capability for rough-field operation (such as the Sahara), tricycle gear to keep the aircraft level during cargo loading and unloading, and the capability to drop paratroopers without undue risk. Design started at Nord in 1938, and although a prototype was prepared by the end of 1940, acceptance did not occur immediately as flight trials resulted in a number of alterations which delayed construction.

[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Crew: 4 (pilot, copilot/navigator, radio operator, flight engineer)
Capacity: 42 paratroopers or 7,500kg (16,534.6 lbs) of cargo
Length: 86 ft 1 in (26.25m)
Wingspan: 113 ft 8 in (34.65m)
Height: 24 ft (7.315m)
Wing Area: 1,545 ft² (143.5 m²)
Empty Weight: 37,478.6 lb (17,000 kg)
Max Takeoff Weight: 60,000 lb (27,215 kg)
Powerplant: 4 × Gnome-Rhone 14R, 1,650hp each, with 4-blade propellers

[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Max Speed: 248.5 mph (400 km/h)
Cruise Speed: 186.4 mph (300 km/h)
Range: 2,982.6 mi (4,800km) at 6,000m
Service Ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Rate of Climb: 21.3 ft/s (6.5 m/s)
Max Wingloading: 38.8 lb/ft²

[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 1 × 20 mm in dorsal hatch
- 1 × 13mm MGs in nose

[SIZE=3]Special Notes[/SIZE]
- Tricycle landing gear
- Rear clamshell doors permit loading of light vehicles on the ground (doors cannot be opened in flight, paratroops exit through rear side-facing doors)


Quoted

[SIZE=4]Bloch MB.970 Transatlantique[/SIZE]
The MB.970 Transatlantique was previewed in late 1940, and a rough mockup was presented at the Paris Air Show. The Transatlantique's design was optimized to carry a minimum of eighty passengers in a pressurized cabin nonstop from Paris to Cleito, or nonstop from Cleito to New York. Bloch pushed for the Transatlantique to live up to its name, aiming for the capability for nonstop Paris-to-New York service, with the goal of completely replacing airships on that route by 1941. The long-range requirement led to the selection of Clerget aero-diesel engines for better fuel efficiency, although both regular inlines and radials were also proposed.

[SIZE=3]General characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: 4
Capacity: 82 passengers minimum
Length: 34.66 m (111 ft 7in)
Wingspan: 43.46 m (142 ft 7 in)
Height: 10.2 m (33 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 192 m² (2067.7 ft²)
Empty weight: 35,499 kg (78,261 lb)
Gross weight: 63,290 kg (139 530 lb)
Powerplant: 4 × Clerget 16H diesel engines, 2138.7 kW (2868 hp) at 6,400 m

[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 497 km/h (308 mph)
Cruise speed: 441.5 km/h (274 mph)
Range: 6,000 km (3,728 miles)
Service ceiling: 7,210 m (23,655 ft)
Rate of Climb: 7 m/s (23 ft/sec)

[SIZE=3]Notes:[/SIZE]
Designed to fly nonstop from Paris to Cleito, or from Cleito to New York, without stopovers. A later version (MB.972) will have 6,800km range to fly from Paris to New York without stopovers.

45

Thursday, May 12th 2011, 7:28pm

Lots of company for the Caproni Atlante from the Transatlantique and Lockheed Constellation. Italy's not the only one using diesel engines as well.

I found a nice pic of something that could double as the Atlante on display at Paris;


46

Thursday, May 12th 2011, 11:25pm

I suppose, though the aircraft in the picture looks substantially smaller than I'd envision the Atlante being...

47

Thursday, May 12th 2011, 11:45pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I suppose, though the aircraft in the picture looks substantially smaller than I'd envision the Atlante being...


Well that's because it is... The AZ.8 is much more DC-3 sized but is the right sort of shape. Haven't been able to find any decent airbourne photos yet.

48

Thursday, May 12th 2011, 11:51pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I suppose, though the aircraft in the picture looks substantially smaller than I'd envision the Atlante being...


Well that's because it is... The AZ.8 is much more DC-3 sized but is the right sort of shape. Haven't been able to find any decent airbourne photos yet.

Here?


49

Wednesday, May 18th 2011, 7:47pm

Can't sit on this! Must show!

I commissioned Bill (at Claveworks) to draw the Arsenal VG.60 Revenant for me, and he's given me this simply awesome drawing that I've just got to show off.


Image by Claveworks (click to see full view).

Feast your eyes upon it's magnificence.

Now taking export orders for 1941.

50

Wednesday, May 18th 2011, 8:45pm

wow...
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
-Siegfried Sassoon

51

Wednesday, May 18th 2011, 9:15pm

Phantastic !!!! I think he needs hours and hours and hours ... or years to draw such a great pic !!!!!! ;)

52

Wednesday, May 18th 2011, 9:42pm

Outstanding. Well worth the effort to get that drawn up. A real sleek looking beast.

53

Wednesday, May 18th 2011, 10:48pm

Très frais!!!

54

Friday, May 20th 2011, 5:26pm

Well, now that the single-engine planes are taken care of... I still think I need to solve the night-fighter need. As proposed earlier in this thread, I've got two alternatives: the Hanriot H.312 and the Bloch MB.178CN.

On the one hand, the MB.178CN makes use of a known, existing aircraft that's been in service since 1937, while the Hanriot is definitely more competitive in France's neighborhood, though, and I might just delay the design a year or two to let the bugs get worked out. Please note that France is NOT buying twin-engine day fighters, so both of these designs are aimed primarily at the night-fighter role only.

Opinions, please? Should I introduce the MB.178CN in 1940, then the H.312 in 1942? Or skip one for the other? Or some third option?

Quoted

[SIZE=4]Hanriot H.312 Night Fighter[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]General Characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: two (pilot, gunner)
Length: 11.52 m (37 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 15 m (49 ft 2 in)
Height: 5.16 m (16 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 35.32 m² (380.04 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,208 kg (13,657 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,600 kg (16,720 lb)
Powerplant: 2× supercharged Hispano-Suiza 12Z liquid-cooled V12 engines, 1,650 hp each

[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 640 km/h (397 mph) at 6,400 m (20,990 ft)
Cruise speed: 500 km/h (308 mph)
Range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)
Rate of climb: 3,850 ft/min (19.58 m/sec)

[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 2x23mm HS.406 cannon in nose
- 2x23mm HS.406 cannon in upward-firing installation


Quoted

[SIZE=4]Bloch MB.178-CN[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]MB.178 was a historical but never-completed aircraft with more powerful GR-14N radials. These specifications are based on previous versions but represent a fictional development of a night-fighter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]General characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: Two (pilot, navigator/TD operator)
Length: 12.25 m (40 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 17.90 m (58 ft 9 in)
Height: 3.55 m (11 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 38 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,700 kg (12,566 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 7,275 kg (16,039 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Gnome-Rhône 14N-20/21 14-cylinder radial engines, 1,103 kW (1,479.5 hp / 1,500cv) each

[SIZE=3]Performance[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 580 km/h (313 kn, 360 mph)
Range: 1,800 km (972 nmi, 1118 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)
Rate of climb: 14 m/s (2,760 ft/min)

[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 2 × fixed, forward-firing 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns in the wings
- 2 × 23 mm HS.406 cannons in upward-firing mount

55

Friday, May 20th 2011, 5:42pm

I see several ancillary questions to be considered.

First - how immediate is the need for a night fighter view by the French Air Staff?

If the need is viewed as "right now" or "yesterday", the Bloch design is your option. If the need is viewed as "real soon", you might procure a small force of Blochs in the near term and expedite development of the Hanriot. If the answer is "some day" I'd suggest forgetting the Bloch design, expediting the Hanriot and get a design team cracking on a long-term successor.

Second - what is the picture for engine availability?

France has been introducing, or proposing, a number of designs based on the HS12Z engine. All these types will be competing for the finite quantity of engines that French industry can produce. The number of designs using GR14 engines, IIRC, is smaller than the HS12Z. In such circumstances the Bloch design with the GR radials would add less to the demand for fighter engines, which is heavily concentrated on the HS12Z. And of course, as a twin eingine aircraft, the engine demand will be doubled per airframe produced.

IMHO France is facing a engine production as a bottleneck for its overall aircraft production program and while investments can be made to overcome that, doing so will take time. In such circumstances easing demand for the HS12Z would make sense.

Just my two centimes. :)

56

Friday, May 20th 2011, 5:54pm

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I see several ancillary questions to be considered.

First - how immediate is the need for a night fighter view by the French Air Staff?

If the need is viewed as "right now" or "yesterday", the Bloch design is your option. If the need is viewed as "real soon", you might procure a small force of Blochs in the near term and expedite development of the Hanriot. If the answer is "some day" I'd suggest forgetting the Bloch design, expediting the Hanriot and get a design team cracking on a long-term successor.

To some extent, it's "need one yesterday" - the current night fighters are Potez 631s that have been in service since... well, a long time ago.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Second - what is the picture for engine availability?

France has been introducing, or proposing, a number of designs based on the HS12Z engine. All these types will be competing for the finite quantity of engines that French industry can produce. The number of designs using GR14 engines, IIRC, is smaller than the HS12Z. In such circumstances the Bloch design with the GR radials would add less to the demand for fighter engines, which is heavily concentrated on the HS12Z. And of course, as a twin engine aircraft, the engine demand will be doubled per airframe produced.

IMHO France is facing a engine production as a bottleneck for its overall aircraft production program and while investments can be made to overcome that, doing so will take time. In such circumstances easing demand for the HS12Z would make sense.

Just my two centimes. :)

That is a major issue, yes. It must be noted, though, that while there are fewer GR14-powered types than 12Z-powered aircraft, most of those planes are multi-engine (including four-engine bombers and four and six-engine flying boats). While I'm still working with the numbers, I suspect that the GR14N is in just as great a demand at the moment as the 12Z.

57

Friday, May 20th 2011, 6:07pm

I'd go with the MB.178CN for the moment. Performance is sufficient for the current crop of bombers and it's already available. Sticking whatever AI radar France has come up with onto an existing platform seems like a good way to go to reduce risk. It gives some experience in actually operating the system, and the MB.178 has lots of space for training new crews (a criticism of the Mosquito's 2-seat cockpit). Getting everything to work in conjunction with systems on the ground is the major challenge, rather than going a bit faster. To a large degree, the platform choice doesn't particularly matter.

When to change aircraft is when opposing aircraft start cruising at 250-300mph instead of <200mph as they'll be much more difficult to catch. What's out there that might push things? A small number of He 177s, maybe some Vickers Windsors in a few years. The MB.178 is probably sufficient for the time being.

58

Friday, May 20th 2011, 6:10pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'd go with the MB.178CN for the moment. Performance is sufficient for the current crop of bombers and it's already available. Sticking whatever AI radar France has come up with onto an existing platform seems like a good way to go to reduce risk. It gives some experience in actually operating the system, and the MB.178 has lots of space for training new crews (a criticism of the Mosquito's 2-seat cockpit). Getting everything to work in conjunction with systems on the ground is the major challenge, rather than going a bit faster. To a large degree, the platform choice doesn't particularly matter.

When to change aircraft is when opposing aircraft start cruising at 250-300mph instead of <200mph as they'll be much more difficult to catch. What's out there that might push things? A small number of He 177s, maybe some Vickers Windsors in a few years. The MB.178 is probably sufficient for the time being.

That's echoing my own opinions, at least for the moment. The MB.178 isn't something to write home about, but it seems it'll do the job just as well as the Hanriot will (and Bruce has a point with the engine supply concerns).

59

Saturday, May 21st 2011, 12:36pm

I agree the MB.178 offers the most sensible choice for perhaps the next five years.

Further updates with 14R radials (and perhaps even future 14 series upgrades?) and home-grown radar would certainly keep it up to date.

Actually looking at the stats it has superior ceiling, you could ask whether the extra complexity of the H.312 is worth the extra 37mph, 200km range and 5.5m per sec climb. Not exactly a massive improvement given the lower ceiling and roughly the same armament.
I say that becuase the dorsal cannon armament is likely to be far more effective at night than any forward-firing guns. Two 7.5mm on the Bloch seems a bit lightweight though assuming that the pilot will open fire when the target is sufficently in radar range for accurate positioning (but two 7.5mm lacks the punch to seriously threaten a strategic bomber). And it would place the aircraft inside the bomber's defensive armament zone, hence why the dorsal cannon are the better weapon but of course trickier to aim.

In five years we might be seeing jet-powered bombers and then you might be looking at a whole new ball game than the H.312.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hood" (May 21st 2011, 12:37pm)


60

Wednesday, June 29th 2011, 12:00am

Appears I've never posted this.

Quoted

[SIZE=4]Farman F.400 Ourse[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Ahistoric heavy bomber.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]General characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: 12
Length: 31.91 m (104 ft 8 in)
Wingspan: 37.50 m (123 ft 0 in)
Height: 7.25 m (23 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 153 m² (1,646 ft²)
Empty weight: 22,762 kg (50,182 lb)
Loaded weight: 39,000 kg (85,980 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 42,300 kg (93,255.5 lb)
Powerplant: 4× Clerget 16Hd-20 16-cylinder engines, 1,428 kW (1,915 hp / 1,941cv) each, driving four-bladed adjustable-pitch propellers

[SIZE=3]Performance:[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 570.5 km/h (308 kn, 354.5 mph)
Range: 5,000 km (3,106 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,800 m (35,433 ft)
Rate of climb: 13 m/s (2,559 ft/min)

[SIZE=3]Armament[/SIZE]
- 2 × 13mm machine guns in dorsal turret
- 1 × 20mm cannon in tail position
- 2 × 13mm machine guns in ventral turret
- 1 × 13mm machine gun in nose/chin turret
- 5,000kg (11,023 lbs) bombs

[SIZE=3]Development Timeline[/SIZE]
- Development Start: June 1938
- First Flight: January 1941
- In Production: November 1941 (anticipated)
- In Service: February-April 1942 (anticipated)