You are not logged in.

1

Tuesday, March 20th 2007, 6:25pm

Schneider Trophy 1934



To be held in Venice around the beginning of October.

Entry deposit raised to 500,000francs to discourage frivolous entries.

Italy will be defending the trophy with two MC.72bis aircraft with more powerful and reliable AS.6 engines and three-blade props.

2

Tuesday, March 20th 2007, 7:52pm

Mexico despite having an entry prepared, in the form of a heavily modified C-5 Halcon, will boycott this race.

Australia will enter:

A modified CAC/Gloster VII with more powerful engine, contra rotating props.

And

A secret plane...RA you know which one it is

3

Tuesday, March 20th 2007, 8:16pm

Quoted

Mexico despite having an entry prepared, in the form of a heavily modified C-5 Halcon, will boycott this race.

Hmmm... I wonder why... :D

4

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 2:32am

Brazil delivers an entry form; the aircraft type is specified as "U-45 (TNCA C-5)".

( :D )

As part of the 'sideshow', both EMBRAER and Sienar will have examples of their seaplanes available for inspection by prospective European buyers; the EMB-28 (Seversky SEV-3XP) and second prototype V-25 (Hall PTBH-2), respectively.




The Siamese briefly consider stuffing some sort of Italian monstrosity in the nose of a He 70 and putting the whole thing on floats; the engineers quickly determine that no good shall come of this and Siam decides not to participate.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Swamphen" (Mar 21st 2007, 2:36am)


5

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 10:14am

In any sort of sane reality there'd be no way that Mexico would compete, as 1) they have very little money 2) definitely not enough to build a competitive racer + team and ship it to Italy 3) no chance of winning. Considering Mexico have no history in this event (or in having indigenous aircraft) I fail to see how this is "boycotting"

The same arguments would also apply to Oz to a lesser extent.

I'm skeptical about that secret plane. It'd probably fly like a dog and probably wouldn't be that fast. You could go for mounting two "R" engines of 2500hp but then you need a much larger plane to get anywhere near enough cooling area. The "device" on your float means that mounting radiators on either the floats or the fuselage is out. All this means that you've got to have really really big drag inducing wings.

6

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 11:52am

As we all know money is not an issue in wesworld, just look at how many prototypes have acctually made it to production in Italy.

Atlantis won't be going, not to boycott, just on principle.

7

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 2:28pm

Its indicative of our technological rules which bring everyone up to the same baseline when in fact countries most definitely aren't equally developed technologically.

Quoted

As we all know money is not an issue in wesworld, just look at how many prototypes have acctually made it to production in Italy.


Realism compared to OTL went out of the window at the start of the sim. I've tried to balance things out more. Historically the army took around 2/3rds of defense spending. Italy has massively reduced the size of its army - and the spending on it so it can afford to better fund the other services. Couple the fact of increased economic development and no expensive colonial wars and Italy has a lot more to spend compared to OTL.

However this increase is nothing compared to other countries.

I've got to ask on principal of what? In OTL all entrants were sent with an expectation of winning. If the plane wasn't ready then it wasn't sent as in the case of the French HV.41 in 1929 or the C.72 in 1931. This isn't some compulsory event, by the end of the twenties it had matured into a straight speed event with national pride and one-upmanship becoming stronger motives.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Mar 21st 2007, 2:31pm)


8

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 3:16pm

Mexico did participate in the last Schneider Trophy Race, but RLHB forgot about it. The entry was a joint Mexican-Curtiss project, with Curtiss providing the engine, Mexico the plane. And it did have a chance of winning. With all the other bleeding edge entries, Mexico could win by just surviving the race. You dont have to be the fastest, just the first to cross the finish line.

9

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 9:24pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Its indicative of our technological rules which bring everyone up to the same baseline when in fact countries most definitely aren't equally developed technologically.


What tech rules?

Quoted

Originally posted by Red AdmiralRealism compared to OTL went out of the window at the start of the sim.


Please explain.

10

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 9:53pm

I believe he means the lack of tech rules.

As for the OTL being out the window, that probably means the inclusion of alternate history and never was nations. (OTL meaning "Over-the-Line" correct?)

But I could be reaching and am certainly guessing.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ithekro" (Mar 21st 2007, 9:56pm)


11

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 10:00pm

If thats the case I fail to see how geographical and cultural/historical changes would effect realism in all other aspects.

12

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 10:43pm

OTL: Our Time Line. I use @ in the same way, but only in notes. Matter of taste, I guess.

There will be a British entry, once I've figured out what it is.

13

Wednesday, March 21st 2007, 11:56pm

I see...fortunately my thoughts fit more or less with that definition as well.


Chile will not send an entry this year due to lack of funds, home built racers, and general interest in getting the war ended and settled at this time.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Ithekro" (Mar 21st 2007, 11:57pm)


Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

14

Thursday, March 22nd 2007, 12:09am

Hmm I translate OTL as 'Original Time Line'.

In any case, Fokker/Koolhoven use imported or Avia-built licensed copies of production engines, so producing something to actually compete vs the Mc72 is unlikely.

15

Thursday, March 22nd 2007, 9:58am

Quoted

What tech rules?


As in +3/5yrs for whatever which brings everyone up to the same baseline of the historical development of technology. Historically in OTL(our time line) Mexico and Oz had basically no aviation industry. Here it is possible for them to produce advanced designs out of nothing.

Quoted

Realism compared to OTL went out of the window at the start of the sim.


It made no sense for Italy to stick to a historically (by OTL standards) building program when Greece was turning out massive numbers of ships right next by.

16

Thursday, March 22nd 2007, 3:06pm

Neither Mexico or Oz are producing advanced designs out of nothing and they certainly did have aviation industry. The Tololoche II and Quetzalcoat line is no more than a continuation of the historical Tololoche design. The B-1 Condor is a modified DC-3, and the C-5 Halcon is a monoplane version of the XP-23.

The CAC-7 Shrike (XP-29) was pulled out of nothing but it has nothing extraordinary and laggs considerably behind other designs out there.

17

Thursday, March 22nd 2007, 5:05pm

Quoted

they certainly did have aviation industry.


Oz had next to nothing because there was no need. I'm not sure Mexico producing 4 indigenous fighters qualifies as an "aviation industry" I'm sure some homebuilders produce more. I don't have any particular problem with it as this isn't OTL but it just annoys me to have Italy constantly nick-picked for being non-historical.

18

Thursday, March 22nd 2007, 9:35pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It made no sense for Italy to stick to a historically (by OTL standards) building program when Greece was turning out massive numbers of ships right next by.


The more realistic responce would be to out build Greece instead of turning every concept under the sun into production in a short span of time. The latter responce has simply forced others to do the same. Others have also recieved the scorn for un-realistic projects so no ones being singled out.

Theres non-historical and theres "Futuramaland".

19

Friday, March 23rd 2007, 6:48am

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Theres non-historical and theres "Futuramaland".


-quietly burns plans for Canada's PE-3001 Bomber/Transport...-

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "ShinRa_Inc" (Mar 23rd 2007, 6:48am)


20

Monday, March 26th 2007, 4:53pm

Hmm, that reminds me...

Can it be disassembled to fit on a train? Does it have a wingspan less than 100 feet? If so, I could use it :p