WesWorld

*Tinkers away on his F-86 Sabre while whistling innocently.*

To be honest, I hadn't given much thought to jets as it mostly falls outside of the Wesworld timeframe. I have the US flying P-80s, working on the F-86 with an expected entry into service in 1950, and the Navy getting the FJ-1 Fury. Aside from that, props will remain to bolster the numbers for awhile.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

In my view, it ought to be a guideline to ensure we don't introduce something too advanced, rather than something ironclad.

If that is the case, why slam me with the +0 rule back in 2011 with the NX eventhough the He-178 flew OTL one year earlier than the NX? It wasn't really advanced and definitely not too advanced.

I suppose it's probable that I was less-than-happy about the NX's 1940 flight date and chose to make an issue of it. I suppose I can try to remember what my complaints were, but so far as I'm concerned, we accepted that state of things a long time ago and moved on.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Now it may not have been your intention, but with that and adding some other +0 rule things, it really comes over negatively to me, kind of "It's okay for me to ignore the +0 rule (I'm a mod after all) and I will accept it of Players A and B, but I will not allow Players C and D to do so."

Walter, I can cite several occasions where you and other people have challenged me on things you thought were too advanced. In some of those cases, I convinced people that I had sufficient justification. In other cases, people convinced me that I was wrong, and I tried to work out a fair compromise.

When, in any of those situations, has my status as a moderator had any bearing on how I handled the issue? If you have complaints, then why not address me about them privately, or speak to another mod? And if the answer to that question is 'none', then why are you bringing that jab into the conversation at all?

Quoted

I suppose it's probable that I was less-than-happy about the NX's 1940 flight date and chose to make an issue of it.

Well the one thing you immediately brought up was the +0 rule with that thing despite the fact that the He-178's 1939 flight makes it actually a -1 plane instead of a +something plane. I think that DF brought that up pretty quickly.

Quoted

Walter, I can cite several occasions where you and other people have challenged me on things you thought were too advanced. In some of those cases, I convinced people that I had sufficient justification.

Well, you never convinced me that applying a +6 rule for the Leduc is okay. That is a lot more than "some leeway" for a piece of technology like that but I immediately got the impression that I would be talking to a brick wall so never bothered to waste my time argueing about it some more. Not to mention that the Leduc suddenly appeared not that long after DF's ramjet ideas were shot down by the mods. Ever though of how that looks to a guy like me?

Quoted

If you have complaints, then why not address me about them privately

Guess I will... *attaches bomb to PM*

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

If you have complaints, then why not address me about them privately

Guess I will... *attaches bomb to PM* :)

Bomb safely received - thank you. :) I'll respond to it more fully later...

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

Walter, I can cite several occasions where you and other people have challenged me on things you thought were too advanced. In some of those cases, I convinced people that I had sufficient justification.

Well, you never convinced me that applying a +6 rule for the Leduc is okay. That is a lot more than "some leeway" for a piece of technology like that but I immediately got the impression that I would be talking to a brick wall so never bothered to waste my time argueing about it some more.

Since you've brought up the issue of Leduc, I will mention what I might have back at that time.

Yes, I ran the Leduc test well ahead of OTL, but I believe I have very good reason for doing so. If you read up on the historical program, particularly a few French-language sources that I've found, you may discover that Leduc actually had a mostly complete test aircraft, including an engine, in 1940. The aircraft was moved in order to keep it out of German hands, and due to the fall of France, could never be flown - ultimately being destroyed (accidentally) by Allied bombing raids. The O.10 that eventually flew in 1946 had to be built according to the original plans, and the flight testing proceeded very sluggishly due to a shortage of aviation parts... since the French factories had pretty much been flattened by Allied bombers or stripped by the German Army.

When I took over France, I figured that on that basis, I could likely justify - in my own eyes - a 1940 first flight. However, I decided not to do anything with it until a full year later, reasoning that in peacetime there was no great hurry to get things going. Even when I did finally fly it, I stuck with gliding tests for awhile, and then intentionally wrote the first plane off in an accident during the first planned powered test flight.

Did I break the +0 rule for jets? Eyup. After all, I did fly a ramjet seven years before it was historically done. Did I follow the +0 rule for jets? Eyup. After all, the only reason the first plane never flew was because the war overtook it - and that's not a factor in our timeline.

That what you are saying here is (pretty much) the same as the last time and I was not convinced by that. To me there is too big a gap to justify doing that considering the technological difference between the point when the French started the O.10 project prior to the war and the point when it was completed. If the original was destroyed and the new one was built post WW2, even if it was built according to the original plans it would have been built with post WW2 knowledge, ideas, technologies and methods so it is not 100% the same as the one that was initially built.

You stated "some leeway" in an earlier post. Now if that is considered to be acceptable then it should be only be acceptable in some cases (like the war interrupting the O.10) but I really think that the absolute max to that should be that what we apply to the normal propeller powered aircraft so +3 should be applied and not the +6 you applied. Also I think that the official breaking of the sound barrier is not one such case nor is introducing a plane based on the La-15 in 1946.

It seems like a reasonably convincing explanation to me, the project basically started where it left off in 1940, in fact it would be regressed due to the need to build the test aircraft again reguardless of improved building practices speeding up the second planes fabrication. Brocks given a perfectly plausible timeline for the Laduc, in my opinion.

I'm satisfied with Brock's explanation, your claim that the rebuilt prototype must have used post WW2 knowledge, ideas, technologies and methods probably doesn't stack up when you consider the French aero industry in 1946 had been bombed and asset stripped and was rebuilding itself building copies of the German designs it had built since 1943 and some pre-war types that had already been in series production before 1940.
All the cutting edge research was in Great Power hands and German data was being spirited away pretty quickly, although some of those fruits like the BMW jet programme did go to France.

Is the 1940-45 gap a reasonable argument, I think so. Especially when no-one has asked whether the missing World War really justifies the current crop of jet fighters or the pro-jet argument. I think it can be made, but no-one has asked that question. We are where we are and technological progress should not be tied purely to military concerns. The growing crop of turboprop airliners in WW I think backs this.

As to my posts a few days ago, I was mis-remembering the Attacker for the Swift! So, yes 1946 is correct. The Attacker is not being used by Britain in WW so I see no problems here.