WesWorld

Due to complaints about the realism of Mexican Aviation, I will be opening this thread for said discusion. Critiscisim, complaints, mudslinging, go ahead, but please be specific.

Allright, I'll bite, though I have questions about Australian designs too. How is it Australia has a Mustang, an aircraft with Laminar wings, when to my knowledge the U.S. doesn't have one, nor does any nation have Laminar flow wings on their aircraft.

What is the design progression that got Mexico to the Aguila III design?

Quoted

Alright, I'll bite, though I have questions about Australian designs too. How is it Australia has a Mustang, an aircraft with Laminar wings, when to my knowledge the U.S. doesn't have one, nor does any nation have Laminar flow wings on their aircraft.

The Mustang is actually a US/Dutch design by Fokker-America (I asked KK and Hrolf before entering the plane), Australian Aviation was looking at a similar design and due to its previous work license building Fokker-Avia FXXIb fighters, it joined Fokker-America as a partner in the Mustang's development. But the burnt of the work was done by the US.

As far as laminar flow wings, they aren't that hard to develop, nor are they as good as advertised. Definitely an advancement but not to the extent they have been made out to be.

Quoted

What is the design progression that got Mexico to the Aguila III design?

Its started out with the Curtiss P-23, Mexico bought quite a few of those in the early 1930's. TNCA then took the P-23 and developed a single wing version of it as the Aguila I in 1934:

Quoted

April 1st TNCA has unveiled its latest product. The C-5 Aguila (OOC Name has been changed) is a monoplane development of the (P-23) Tecolote II being used by the FAM. The Aguila will be capable of 320 MPH, and will carry 4 machine guns. It is being touted as a cheaper alternative to other high performance aircraft like the I-100. Orders have already arrived from the FAM for 5 pre production aircraft. The Aguila will form the backbone of the FAM for years to come. An advanced model with retractable gear is rumored to be in development.

The next member of the Aguila family to fly was the Aguila I+, it introduced RG and heavier armament to the Aguila family:

Quoted

Also TNCA will build an interim C-5 Aguila design. Problems with the new engine will delay deliveries of the new fighter, so TNCA will introduce the C-5+, the plane will have the retractable gear but with the old 700hp engine. Armament will be 2 50cal MGs in the nose (cannot mount 1' cannon in nose, and MGs can't be mounted in wing due to RG gear). 15 will be built and flow exclusively by TNCA test pilots.

The Aguila I+ was just an interim design while the kinks where worked out of the new Curtiss engine. The Aguila II would first fly in 1935 but would not enter service until 1936. An improved high-altitude version called the II+ would also enter limited service.

Quoted

TNCA C-10 Aguila II


Power: Curtis Emperor V-1720 1,000hp
Armament: One 25.4/1in cannon, Two 7.62/0.3in machine guns (all in nose)
Size: Wingspan - 30ft Length - 25ft Wing area - 200sq ft
Weight: Empty - 3500lb Max take-off - 4500lb

Performance:
Max speed - 350mph
Ceiling - 30,000ft
Range - 450 miles
Climb - 2500ft per minute

An improved C-5 Aguila, with Allison V-1710, and retractable landing gear. Wing MGs removed due to landing gear and replaced with single 25.4mm cannon.

In 1937 the 'Ultimate' member of the Aguila family was unveiled. The Aguila III introduced a number of new features as a result of limited combat experience (SA War, Yugoslav clashes, Talons). The aircraft was delayed and would not enter service untill late 1938.

Quoted

The final member of the Aguila/P-6 family. The Aguila III has two major changes from the II.

First is a new wing which changes the retractable gear from outward to inward retraction. This gives the gear a wider stance and reduces landing accidents. It also allows four MGs to be mounted outboard of the landing gear. Two hardpoints are also fitted, making the III the first multi-role member of the family.

The second change is replacing the engine with a more powerful variant, with twin superchargers. This change required the two nose guns to be moved to the wing.

Other minor changes include a new canopy, and moving the radiator further back, to make room for the landing gear. The cockpit was also moved foward slightly, improving visibility.



TNCA C-11 Aguila III

Power: Supercharged Curtiss-Mexico Emperor V-1720-2 1,400hp
Armament: One 25.4mm cannon (nose), Four 0.3in machine guns (wing)

Size:
Wingspan - 29ft
Length - 25ft
Wing area - 200sq ft
Weight:
Empty - 4200lb
Max take-off - 5900lb

Performance:
Max speed - 410mph
Ceiling - 34,000ft
Range - 500 miles
Climb - 3,200ft per minute

Despite designed to be the 'Ultimate' Aguila, the Aguila III would not be the final member of the family. For there would be another...

Looking at the numbers, I doubt the series of Agula designs is possible - or if such an aircraft could be constructed, that it would not quickly crash.

The wing loading of the Agula III is only 7 lb/f2 - by comparison, the Spitfire V had a wing loading of 24.56 lb/f2 and the Bf109G 40 lb/f2. The wing loading of the Agula III seems impossibly low.

Add to that the probable weight of the engine - I'm guessing around 1300 pounds for the comparable Allison V-1710 - stacked up against the empty weight of the design - 4200 pounds. I do not see how a structure could be built that would stand the aerodynamic forces at the speeds the aircraft is supposed to operate at.

Where did you get those numbers? I get a Wing loading of ~25 lbs/ft for the Aguila III. That said I will agree that the weights for all 3 aircraft are lighter than they should be. I didn't really research that area well, since it doesn't really matter in game terms. All we really care about is how the aircraft perform, and those numbers are in-line with comparable OTL aircraft.

For comparison, the XP-23 came out to 3,270 lbs light, 4,120 lbs max, and was capable of 223 mph with a 600 hp Curtis Conqueror engine. It was considered overweight, partly due to a turbosupercharger.

Sorry, got my notes confused. I should have been talking about power loading, not wing loading.

But you have spoken to the point - it doesn't matter in game terms how you got the design untill you push matters to the improbable. To this extent I have to agree with RA about what is possible and what is improbable. How he chose to address that issue is another matter, and I am not in agreement with him there.

For myself, I prefer to lay a chain of development, which takes a lot longer - in game time - than throwing a design concept.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
I didn't really research that area well, since it doesn't really matter in game terms. All we really care about is how the aircraft perform, and those numbers are in-line with comparable OTL aircraft.

Who's 'we'? I know you're not speaking on my behalf here, dude. I'm more a fan of the backstory than stat-spam (possibly because most of the stats don't mean much to me, as a layman in the area)

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
For myself, I prefer to lay a chain of development, which takes a lot longer - in game time - than throwing a design concept.

I've always been of the opinion that this is the preferance for the sim as a whole, as well. For example, despite RA's disputes with Canada's productivity, it hasn't come out of nowhere; It's been a steady (and as far as I can tell logical) process for the last decade or so. Longer, if you count a few news items I posted as backstory when I first took over. That buildup has only started to pay off in the last year or two, with indigineous designs starting to appear, none of them being class-leaders.

For the sake of those who didn't hear it on IRC, I don't really agree with Foxy's estimation of Mexico's industrial potential. Mexico's news have been more dominated by civil wars and other domestic unrest, and frequent poking and needling of other powers around the world rather than the stability and aquisition of talent and experience for his projects.

This is were Foxy said Mexico is the world's largest exporter of oil, and that revenue somehow translates into industry....but then again, I don't see top-line military equipment coming from the current oil-rich middle-east; They shop elsewhere. Selling oil drilling rights to the gringos keeps the upper class rich, it doesn't really drive industrial innovation.

Quoted

But you have spoken to the point - it doesn't matter in game terms how you got the design untill you push matters to the improbable.

Is the Aguila design improbable? Is there any reason why such a plane could not have been built in this time period?

Quoted

For myself, I prefer to lay a chain of development, which takes a lot longer - in game time - than throwing a design concept.

Which I have done. Every step in the Aguila's family has been detailed and the design has followed a logical progression.

Quoted

Who's 'we'? I know you're not speaking on my behalf here, dude. I'm more a fan of the backstory than stat-spam (possibly because most of the stats don't mean much to me, as a layman in the area)

That's what I was trying to say. Aircraft weight (a stat) matters very little in the whole scheme of things. And the Aguila is not better than other planes out there.

Quoted

I've always been of the opinion that this is the preferance for the sim as a whole, as well. For example, despite RA's disputes with Canada's productivity, it hasn't come out of nowhere; It's been a steady (and as far as I can tell logical) process for the last decade or so. Longer, if you count a few news items I posted as backstory when I first took over. That buildup has only started to pay off in the last year or two, with indigineous designs starting to appear, none of them being class-leaders.

Have you read the Mexican news? The Mexican aviation industry didn't come out of the blue, nor did the Mexican economy. There's been a steady progression, its buried in old news articles, but it's there.

Quoted

For the sake of those who didn't hear it on IRC, I don't really agree with Foxy's estimation of Mexico's industrial potential. Mexico's news have been more dominated by civil wars and other domestic unrest, and frequent poking and needling of other powers around the world rather than the stability and aquisition of talent and experience for his projects.

A single localized civil war, later and shorter than the OTL version, with the Government winning this time. Only unrest in Mexico in WW. Oh and no real IC prodding of others, except Italy and that was very recently.

Quoted

This is were Foxy said Mexico is the world's largest exporter of oil, and that revenue somehow translates into industry....but then again, I don't see top-line military equipment coming from the current oil-rich middle-east; They shop elsewhere. Selling oil drilling rights to the gringos keeps the upper class rich, it doesn't really drive industrial innovation.

F-16 Block 60? Saudi Arabia with every new toy on the block? Sure they haven't developed anything, but they sure have the money to spend. And really, money is everything.


Since it's come to the topic of Mexico's economy...

Mexico currently has the 13th largest economy in the world, in the same rank as countries like Australia, Spain, Canada, and Italy. In the 20s Mexico was also pretty strong economically. It was the leading exporter of oil and growing rapidly, except the Great Depression hit and it hurt Mexico pretty bad. However, in WW there was no Depression, and even more money is coming into Mexico in the form of the Mexican canal. Mexico has the economic potential to maintain a decent aerospace industry.

Look at OTL Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Romania, Poland. Look at Sweden and Israel today. What I have in Mexico was done in OTL, its not like I have 10 different cutting edge designs with 5 different cutting edge engines all at the same time. Look at other WW countries. Canada, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Romania, Poland, Australia, heck even Latvia and Siam.

And besides, Mexico probably has the worst factories to Economic Potential ratio of ANY WW nation. All that money that would go into ship building has to go somewhere else.

The reason in OTL has not and did not develop a decent aerospace industry was due to two main facts. One, no real enemies. Mexico is a peaceful nation (unlike its neighbor...) and spends the least amount of its GDP on its Armed Forces of ANY nation in the Western hemisphere. Two, money is a big player, and with no threat to open the politician's pockets, there is no reason to spend what little it has on aircraft. Now in WW, the situation is different. Iberia is a threat, and with no Depression there is more money to spend.

This is good post. It shows there is some thinking about a powers capabilities and background story. I like that and will not complain about the result. We have no economy rules in WesWorld because this was never inteded to be a worldwide full-scale sim. It was all about ships, really.

To me it is fine to see people are taking care and considering background information. I have no problem with Mexico producing their own designs. It´s just a bit early probably for laminar wings but we may have different opinions of what is realistically possible. You know, it´s not only the idea of laminar flow you have to master, it´s also production quality. Even in the US, with the NA P-51 already in the air, other US aircraft companies failed to make use of the technology.

Okay, here goes then.

One point about the whole oil thing Foxy, is that it is all very well and good to be a top exporter of oil, but if there is no demand for said oil, well if your entire economy is driven by the price of oil, things can get pretty tight pretty fast. I speak from experience on this, living in Alberta where the current recession has spiked unemployment from one of the lowest in the country to among the highest in a relatively short time. Another point is, there seem to be a few areas in WW where oil was discovered ahead of its historical discovery, so is there much of a demand for oil, now that things are relatively peaceful? Nor is there a country in WW that can match RL US for demand at the present moment, so things may or may not be as rosy as you think on that front.

Thats all speculation of course, there is potential for a larger demand for oil than historically with all the ships floating around, various countries being more modernized than OTL, Russia being open for trade, and the extra bodies on the Big Blue Blob in the middle of the Atlantic, but there is also a larger supply of the black gold as well.

My second point is to do with the aircraft. I really don't have much of a problem with the design of the airframe, nor the setting up of an aircraft industry, nor the production of aircraft engines so long as there is this: that to set up the aircraft industry, to begin designing aircraft, and to begin producing aircraft engines, TNCA had the assistance of either the U.S. or some other Great Power in doing so. Because unless history deviated greatly in WW, despite your arguments to having money to do so, and despite there being a different strategic picture for Mexico than there was in OTL, I just can't see the Mexicans doing it on their own. Romania had assistance in OTL, and presumeably in WWTL, Poland did have the capability in OTL to produce designs but not design engines, and quite frankly if neither of those two powers can build an aircraft industry on their own, I just can't see Mexico doing so. The argument is similar for Australia.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

But you have spoken to the point - it doesn't matter in game terms how you got the design untill you push matters to the improbable.

Is the Aguila design improbable? Is there any reason why such a plane could not have been built in this time period?


That's what I was trying to say. Aircraft weight (a stat) matters very little in the whole scheme of things. And the Aguila is not better than other planes out there.

I do not say such an aircraft could not be built - I believe such an aircraft, if built, would not be a success and certainly not an effective combat aircraft.

An aircraft's empty weight can be considered a surrogate measure of its strength, as the empty weight represents the structure of the aircraft and what it has to carry - engine, armament and other gear.

Consider some historical examples -

North American P-51D - empty weight 7125 pounds
Grumman F8F - empty weight 7070 pounds
Nakajima Ki84 - empty weight 5864 pounds
Mitsubishi A6M - empty weight 4175 pounds
Kawasaki Ki61 - empty weight 5798 pounds
Supermarine Spitfire - empty weight 5300 pounds
Focke Wulf 190 - empty weight 7000 pounds
Messerschmidt Bf109 - empty weight 5900 pounds

At specified weight of the Aguila III - 4200 pounds empty weight - puts it closest to the Zero's 4175 pounds. However, the Zero had a radial engine of far less power and achieved a speed of only 346mph. And the Zero's lack of strength as a combat aircraft is well known. The mass of the Aguila's engine accounts for nearly 1/3 of its total empty weight - and I therefore do not believe that there is sufficient structure remaining to create an aircraft that can perform to that stats credited to it, and still be an effective combat aircraft.

Quoted

The Mustang is actually a US/Dutch design by Fokker-America (I asked KK and Hrolf before entering the plane), Australian Aviation was looking at a similar design and due to its previous work license building Fokker-Avia FXXIb fighters, it joined Fokker-America as a partner in the Mustang's development. But the burnt of the work was done by the US.

That sort of thing isn't readily apparent. Australia buying some P-51s off NAA I don't have a problem with. Australia developing the P-51 which is what has been presented, is rather more questionable, especially when Australia has been developing 1 or 2 fighters per year over the past decade. Historically; only two from 1935-1950.

Quoted

As far as laminar flow wings, they aren't that hard to develop

I don't see how you can be an aeronautical engineer and say that sort of thing. Summarising a decade of concerted development into "not that hard". They don't work particularly well in the real world though.

Quoted

Its started out with the Curtiss P-23, Mexico bought quite a few of those in the early 1930's. TNCA then took the P-23 and developed a single wing version of it as the Aguila I in 1934:

So how many P-23s were actually built? O wait, one historically. So why is Mexico 15 years early in having turbocharged fighters?

Then Mexico took an engine design that didn't really work that well historically, pretty much doubled the power, added turbochargers, two stage superchargers, a cannon firing through the actual crankshaft. Wait a moment, how many engines did Mexico develop historically? Now they're going from nothing to world leading in a couple of years?

Quoted

Looking at the numbers, I doubt the series of Agula designs is possible

They are pretty small. Might be ok if they're weren't stressed to high g, carry much fuel, carry much armament, carry much armour - oh wait, it does all those things. It's probably killing a fair few pilots with a massive engine stuffed up the front and a really small fuselage lacking stability.

Quoted

That buildup has only started to pay off in the last year or two, with indigineous designs starting to appear, none of them being class-leaders.

There has been more of a backstory from Canada, rather than "look at my cool stuff". A few too many planes being developed all at once for my liking. It doesn't help that the planes being pursued didn't really work very well historically yet here they're fine. Unconventional usually doesn't work, and if you're going for a low risk development approach it's something to stay away from.

Quoted

Have you read the Mexican news? The Mexican aviation industry didn't come out of the blue, nor did the Mexican economy. There's been a steady progression, its buried in old news articles, but it's there.

I'm not sure how nothing -> world leader in about 5 years is steady progression. This is bearing in mind that Mexico is now designing and building the P-47 amongst many other aircraft projects.

Quoted

In the 20s Mexico was also pretty strong economically. It was the leading exporter of oil and growing rapidly, except the Great Depression hit and it hurt Mexico pretty bad. However, in WW there was no Depression, and even more money is coming into Mexico in the form of the Mexican canal. Mexico has the economic potential to maintain a decent aerospace industry.

Mexico isn't even close other major powers in the 1920s and 30s and there's no technical baseline. How do you go from being farmer to aircraft designer/manufacturer/maintainer? Oil is pretty much irrelevant in the period unless you're in a war and your armed forces need it. There is nowhere near the same market as today. Surely the money from the US and Atlantis is going into digging a massive hole rather than being spent on Mexico developing cool stuff?

Decent aerospace industry for Mexico = something like historical Yugoslavia or Romania. i.e. able to produce modern fighter aircraft that aren't quite as good as the top flight. Decent does not equal world leading.

Quoted

What I have in Mexico was done in OTL, its not like I have 10 different cutting edge designs with 5 different cutting edge engines all at the same time.

No, that pretty much seems to be situation. Mexico is coming up with around 5 modern designs per year rather than 1 every few years. The engines just seem to be appearing magically in the country from the US and elsewhere.

Quoted

And besides, Mexico probably has the worst factories to Economic Potential ratio of ANY WW nation. All that money that would go into ship building has to go somewhere else.

That money went into building a massively stronger navy than historically, and buying loads and loads of destroyers. Quite how you're going to man and operate them I've no idea.


Overall, I'd say that the strategy just isn't rational. Look at foreign aircraft purchases. You don't buy half a dozen of a many different designs. What with crashes, mechanical failures etc. you're likely to only have 1 or 2 operational after a year, with the others being smoking wrecks or cannabalised for parts. Operating all those different types requires more specialised pilots/mechanics etc. and all adds up to a massive unsupportable cost.

I haven't even got around to Mexico's jet aircraft yet...

My question to RA is this. If we are to restrict Mexico, Australia, and Canada to what they had historically, we should also restrict Italy to what they had historically as well, so no carriers for you, sir. And if we are doing that, everyone can restrict themselves to what they had historically then to make it fair for all.

Funny thing is, I thought this was alternate history? Good luck then trying to introduce realism into alternate history.

Here I have to agree a little bit with RA. I can understand a research line like Canada's but I agree with RA than three and four different designs and jumps in tech every couple of years without a reason why is not reasonable. If you're a poor nation in peacetime you go with proven first and jump to something else after long testing.

For example the Bharati Air Force have being using the same bomber with improvement for close to six years now. We didn't have the tech to make our own dive bombers so we purchased abroad and examined Japanese designs to produce our own attack aircraft in 1940.

I have to admit I sometimes have commited the same sin but I try to be reasonable and use combat as the learning tool, the reason I'm always looking for a fight.

My point is, although RA may or may not have a point about Mexico, and the other countries, he is being hypocritical when Italy, the least of all the Great Powers in OTL can suddenly afford the largest carrier fleet in WW?

The same can be said for all of us though, there is not a single player in WW that has not deviated from OTL in some way and arguments can be brought against all players really. Britain can afford the navy she can, when she could barely afford what she had in OTL? Same goes for all of our nations actually, and I quite admit the Romanian Navy is likely too big, as is the Brazilian one. The problem is, if you punish one player, it would only be right to punish all back to OTL status.

Quoted

My question to RA is this. If we are to restrict Mexico, Australia, and Canada to what they had historically, we should also restrict Italy to what they had historically as well, so no carriers for you, sir. And if we are doing that, everyone can restrict themselves to what they had historically then to make it fair for all.

Its fair enough. Italy has cut out a lot in some areas, and gone for more in other areas. That's mostly in reaction to what other countries are doing. Notice how the Greek navy is larger than the historical Italian one. Even with the designs in WW, the gulf between Italy and Greece is nowhere near as wide as it was in OTL.

As before, ahistorical is fine so long as it's reasonable. Going from essentially no aviation industry to world beating aviation industry over a few years is not reasonable (or even necessary come to that).

Well, you seem to want to push the smaller powers back to OTL status but keep Italy at its current levels, which does not reflect the different strategic challenges the smaller powers face in WW. If you just want us to buy foreign aircraft and not be able to build our own stuff, then I quit.

Quoted

If you just want us to buy foreign aircraft and not be able to build our own stuff, then I quit

Not really, but it isn't really reasonable to suddenly jump in technology and become self sufficient. A small country is never going to produce a technically complicated piece of kit like an aeroplane that is better than those large countries are building. Usually it doesn't need to be as good performance wise either. Having something that can be built and maintained in country is a lot more valuable than a bit higher performance.

Italy's aviation program is reasonable and affordable. About the same size as historically (unlike some of the smaller powers running 100%s larger) and with a lot of historical things cut out in order to pool resources into a fewer number of better projects. Projects that have some aim as well. ( I fancy shoehorning the Macchi C.205 in somewhere but I can't really justify it with the G.55 and the Re.2005 (soon) in production. Don't need it so cut it out and save the money. Macchi probably goes under as a result unfortunately)

The problem comes back to economy mainly. I also doubt that Italy can sustain its expensive carrier program, its current level of airforce, and its Army all at the same time without cuts somewhere, Italy had a difficult time OTL maintaining its large airforce, its expedition to Spain, and building its navy all at the same time. Your airforce may be more streamlined, but your Naval budget would be much higher than OTL and even if your army budget is lower, Italy will still run into difficulties funding all of the above at the same time.

This whole thing is supposed to be fun, something we do in our spare time. If we try and make things "reasonable" then I think we will find holes in everyones countries, mine included. The only "reasonable" timeline would be to go back to what everyone had in OTL.

Quoted

For economy purposes I'd like to see a wesworld ranking of oil exporters as I find it surpising that theres a claim that Mexico is the top exporter.

Not claiming it is the current top oil producer, just stating that in OTL in the 20's it was the top oil producer.

Quoted

It doesn´t matter if Mexico is 1st tier or 2nd..... This is about aircrafts. Don´t let it erode to the usual economy discussion.

Unfortunately that is exactly the argument being presented. That Mexico economically can't have these aircraft.

Quoted

That sort of thing isn't readily apparent. Australia buying some P-51s off NAA I don't have a problem with. Australia developing the P-51 which is what has been presented, is rather more questionable, especially when Australia has been developing 1 or 2 fighters per year over the past decade. Historically; only two from 1935-1950.

I did mention it was the Fokker-America Mustang... Yes, Australia has been developing more aircraft than historically, but none of them are world beaters. Just... average.

Quoted

I don't see how you can be an aeronautical engineer and say that sort of thing. Summarising a decade of concerted development into "not that hard". They don't work particularly well in the real world though.

What is the difference between a laminar flow wing and a regular wing? Isn't it just the airfoil shape? I might have understated it a bit, but its not as hard as you paint it to be.

Quoted

So how many P-23s were actually built? O wait, one historically. So why is Mexico 15 years early in having turbocharged fighters?

The Mexican ones had no turbochargers. And performance was not the reason the P-23 was not built in OTL, think F-20.

Quoted

Then Mexico took an engine design that didn't really work that well historically, pretty much doubled the power, added turbochargers, two stage superchargers, a cannon firing through the actual crankshaft. Wait a moment, how many engines did Mexico develop historically? Now they're going from nothing to world leading in a couple of years?

The Conqueror didn't work historically? That's news...

Oh and how many engines has WW Mexico developed? Oh wait, none. The Curtis Emperor is a, yes US designed and built engined. And it most certainly does not have turbochargers. Nothing special about it. I could have very well stuck with the Allison V-1710 (or Merlin, Hispani, DB etc...), just wanted something different.

Quoted

They are pretty small. Might be ok if they're weren't stressed to high g, carry much fuel, carry much armament, carry much armour - oh wait, it does all those things. It's probably killing a fair few pilots with a massive engine stuffed up the front and a really small fuselage lacking stability.

Yes, I know, yes , I've said it before. I friggin underestimated the weights. Ok? Yeah the weights should be at least 500lbs and quite possibly 1,000lbs higher. But since it doesn't make ANY difference IC why bring it up?

Oh and BTW the MAX weight of the Cr.35bis happens to be LESS than the EMPTY weight of the Aguila II. The Macchi C.200 also happens to be lighter than the Aguila III. If my planes are severely underweight...

Quoted

There has been more of a backstory from Canada, rather than "look at my cool stuff". A few too many planes being developed all at once for my liking. It doesn't help that the planes being pursued didn't really work very well historically yet here they're fine. Unconventional usually doesn't work, and if you're going for a low risk development approach it's something to stay away from.

How many 'unconventional' planes is Mexico developing?

Quoted

I'm not sure how nothing -> world leader in about 5 years is steady progression. This is bearing in mind that Mexico is now designing and building the P-47 amongst many other aircraft projects.

Five years for the Aguila family. TNCA has been around for a considerably longer time, and historically TNCA and its head Angel Lascurain, was known for its innovative 'ahead of their time' designs.

What P-47? Mexico is not and will not develop anything resembling the P-47.

Quoted

No, that pretty much seems to be situation. Mexico is coming up with around 5 modern designs per year rather than 1 every few years. The engines just seem to be appearing magically in the country from the US and elsewhere.

Please elaborate. What 5 modern designs per year? I didn't know I was that good.

So now I can't buy engines from the US?

Quoted

That money went into building a massively stronger navy than historically, and buying loads and loads of destroyers. Quite how you're going to man and operate them I've no idea.

Just like everyone else. Except I have the worst situation when it comes to naval economy. And if you look closely, half those destroyers happen to be in reserve, precisely because I can't man them.

Quoted

I haven't even got around to Mexico's jet aircraft yet...

What jet aircraft? Last I checked, I was not the one with jet aircraft...

Quoted

As before, ahistorical is fine so long as it's reasonable. Going from essentially no aviation industry to world beating aviation industry over a few years is not reasonable (or even necessary come to that).

World Beating Mexican Stuff:
Carriers, nope...
Battleships, nope...
Submarines, nope...
Tanks, nope...
Firearms, yeah but that's historical
Cars, nope...
Engines, nope...
Airlines, nope...
Long range bombers, nope...
Medium bombers, nope...
Torpedo bombers, nope...
Fighters, working on ONE

So I am working on a SINGLE world beating design, while pretty much ignoring everything else. Didn't know that as a small nation you just can't have world beating stuff ever.

I'm sorry Usain Bolt, gotta give back those Gold medals, Jamaica is just too small.