WesWorld

Scheduled for first flight roughly now-ish, entering service in a year to a year and a half, Nordmark is replacing their existing torpedo/dive bomber design.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/valles_uf/Rapier6.png

Lumimyrsky


Specifications
Wingspan: 18m (59.05 ft)
Length: 12.7m (41.7 ft)
Height: 4.63m (15.2 ft)
Wing Area: (522.7 sqft)
Empty Weight: ~7,000 kg
Loaded Weight: ~10,500 kg
Max Takeoff Weight: ~12,000 kg
Engine: 1x 2,133 kW Saab X100-2900
Crew: 2 (pilot, navigator/gunner)

Performance
Max speed: ~600 kph
Cruise Speed: ~350 kph
Range: ~2000 km
Service ceiling: ~8,000 m
Rate of climb: ~9 m/s (1,770 feet/minute)


Armament
- 2x 20mm cannon (wing roots)
- 1x flex-mounted 20mm cannon (rear)
- 1 centerline and eight wing hard points, carrying...
- 1,800 kg bombs or torpedoes (catapult launch)
- 3,000 kg bombs or torpedoes (rolling take-off)

I don't know.... the specs are science fiction in my opinion....even compared to the A1 Skyraider (first flight 1945) the parameters are very, very and I mean very optimistic. Your plane is about 85 Km/h faster than a AD-1, ha
s about 25% more range while at the same time it has about the same engine power and is even a little bit heavier...
The drawing shows a rather small and delicate plane which hardly corresponds to the given specifications.
I just stay with the AD-1 as expample as it's the only example which is not too far away from your design concerning parameters and era...for a single enigine plane the the AD-1 was a pretty big plane, with a strong fuselage and a powerful radial engine. You would need a massive fuselage not only for the weapons loadout but to hold the considerable amount of fuel which would be necessary to keep that 2800hp+ engine running for 2000km....
Maybe the Fairey Gannet would be another example for the kind of plane you had in mind....but that had its maiden flight in 1949....

On the whole I must agree - for the warload specified the design *looks* quite spindley; that is something that could be adjusted.

What does confuse me is the ordnance load:

Quoted

- 1,800 kg bombs or torpedoes (catapult launch)
- 3,000 kg bombs or torpedoes (rolling take-off)

While high, given the example of the Skyrader, they are not impossibly high in themselves (whether the aircraft has the strength and HP is a different matter). What seems strange is that the catapult launch value is less than the rolling take off value - unless the latter is supposed to be from a shore base with a much longer runway than a carrier deck. Some clarification there might be in order.

The drawing is at 20-pixel-per-foot scale, and corresponds exactly to the given dimensions; the wingspan, in particular, is larger than most carrier aircraft of the period. Given the size of the thing, I'm intending to calculate them as 1.5 planes each for carrier airgroup purposes.

The two models I was mostly using were the Aichi B7A and the Martin AM Mauler, with a dash of Yokosuka D4Y. Of those, the D4Y flew in 1940 and was in full service by 1942, the B7A flew for the first time in '42, and the Mauler took its first flight in 1944, well within what I understand to be the 'margin of error' between OTL and Wesworld aviation capabilities.

Compared to the Mauler, the Lumimyrsky has about the same amount of power, being powered by an X-engine that's literally a siamese-twinned version of an engine I think of as having been developed by Saab to meet the spec-sheet for the DB-601 without having to pay royalties. Since it is an in-line engine, the engine itself generates a good deal less drag, and the radiators are a Meredith Effect design. Both of the Japanese planes had much less power available, but were almost as fast. All three examples could outclimb the Nordish plane handily.

Payload wise, the 'rolling takeoff' figure is, indeed, intended to be for shoreside work off of longer airstrips, although I'm not sure how better to phrase it concisely.

Fuel tanks are intended to be in the wings and possibly rear fuselage, although I'll admit that I haven't sat down and tried to calculate out the needed volume. Since the payload is also hung more or less right off the wing-spar, the only really heavy component that isn't either in or over the wing is the engine... which is also the thickest part of the fuselage. Rangewise, the B7A has 50% more, the D4Y 25% less, and the Mauler and Skyraider a couple hundred km more. Hardly out of bounds.

Well, I guess that depends on which aircraft you are looking at (B7A1, B7A2 or B7A3; 13-Shi, D4Y1-C, D4Y1, D4Y2, D4Y2a, D4Y2-S, D4Y1 KAI, D4Y2 KAI, D4Y2a KAI, D4Y2-R, D4Y2a-R, D4Y3, D4Y3a, D4Y3, D4Y4, or D4Y5). If you used the data of one of the later D4Ys, then I can assure you that that one did not fly in 1940... but I guess that that is fairly obvious.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
Since it is an in-line engine, the engine itself generates a good deal less drag, and the radiators are a Meredith Effect design.

Not necessarily. X-layout engines are more akin to radials in their frontal area, which is the factor affecting drag.

The Mauler was almost 2 tons lighter than your design and while having more engine power it was slightly slower.
I don't say you havent thought through the details of your design but I think the problem is when you take good characteristics of real-life designs and merge all those good characteristics into one fictional design while disregarding the drawbacks...
For example: The D4Y would certainly not be the plane you would like to sit in when coming under heavy AA fire and sitting on a shitload of ordnance and fuel.
Moreover I think those metioned Japanese planes and Skyraider/Mauler like planes are technical wise too different to merge them into one.
Neither the D4Y nor the B7A reaches a speed of 600km/h and they couldnt even carry half of the Bombload you have stated for your plane.
Sorry, I really don't want to be too fussy but I think the specs you have given are just way over the top.

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Neither the D4Y nor the B7A reaches a speed of 600km/h and they couldnt even carry half of the Bombload you have stated for your plane.

Quite correct. 600kph is blazing fast for a single-engine bomber, carrier-based or not. Even the most modern of comparable Wesworld aircraft are around the 500kph mark.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
Well, I guess that depends on which aircraft you are looking at (B7A1, B7A2 or B7A3; 13-Shi, D4Y1-C, D4Y1, D4Y2, D4Y2a, D4Y2-S, D4Y1 KAI, D4Y2 KAI, D4Y2a KAI, D4Y2-R, D4Y2a-R, D4Y3, D4Y3a, D4Y3, D4Y4, or D4Y5). If you used the data of one of the later D4Ys, then I can assure you that that one did not fly in 1940... but I guess that that is fairly obvious.

I think it was the D4Y2, but since the Mauler postdates the lot, I think the differences are fairly academic. ^_^

Quoted

Originally posted by BrockpaineNot necessarily. X-layout engines are more akin to radials in their frontal area, which is the factor affecting drag.

If that were the only factor, I'm not sure what all those experiments with cowling over radials were about - like the earliest designs for the Fw 190, for example. I'll concede that the layout does have proportionally more bulk than a V-engine, certainly, though.

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
The Mauler was almost 2 tons lighter than your design and while having more engine power it was slightly slower.

It's possible that my source is unreliable, but what I'd seen painted the Mauler as almost exactly the same weight across the board.

Quoted

I don't say you havent thought through the details of your design but I think the problem is when you take good characteristics of real-life designs and merge all those good characteristics into one fictional design while disregarding the drawbacks...

Certainly that wasn't my intention, and, while I think that it might be easier to land, due to the landing windows in the cockpit and the narrower nose, the Lumi is probably far short of the kind of agility ascribed to the Japanese aircraft and in fact handles at least as sluggishly as the Mauler, which was the main inspiration. I was mainly using the others to spot check to try and figure out what would be expected of, say, an inline-engined carrier bomber and the mere plausibility of a dual-profile attack aircraft.

I probably would've done better in that regard to look at various Fairey bombers, but those were the tabs I ended up keeping open.

Quoted

For example: The D4Y would certainly not be the plane you would like to sit in when coming under heavy AA fire and sitting on a shitload of ordnance and fuel.
Moreover I think those metioned Japanese planes and Skyraider/Mauler like planes are technical wise too different to merge them into one.

See above; I was mostly trying to project a slightly earlier Skyraider/Mauler parallel and ended up picking what might not've been the best examples for my 'period checks'.

Quoted

Neither the D4Y nor the B7A reaches a speed of 600km/h and they couldnt even carry half of the Bombload you have stated for your plane.
Sorry, I really don't want to be too fussy but I think the specs you have given are just way over the top.

No offense taken. I'll note that the D4Y and B7A both had about a thousand less horsepower to work with, though.

Quoted

Originally posted by BrockpaineQuite correct. 600kph is blazing fast for a single-engine bomber, carrier-based or not. Even the most modern of comparable Wesworld aircraft are around the 500kph mark.

*shrug* I'm aware that most bomber aircraft were slower, yes. But I think that the configuration I'm going with - limited cross section, modern wing, Meredith Effect, lots of power even by radial standards, etc - would be faster than most other options, so that doesn't in itself dissuade me.

Besides, the Mauler was 20km/h faster.

What does the name mean?

Per Google Translate, the name is Finnish for 'Blizzard' or 'Snowstorm'; I'm intending that the Nordish Navy adopt the habit of naming its aircraft in that language rather than the Swedish that's the Nordish default.

Thanks for the answer

Six visual drafts later, I come to a revised design that looks like this:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…zps7ee85bd1.png


and performs like this:

Kongsberg Lumimyrsky


Specifications
Wingspan: 18m (59.05 ft)
Length: 12.7m (41.7 ft)
Height: 4.63m (15.2 ft)
Wing Area: 48.56 m2 (522.7 sqft)
Empty Weight: 6,300 kg (13,900 lbs)
Loaded Weight: 10,500 kg (23,150 lbs)
Max Catapult Weight: 12,000 kg (26,450 lbs)
Max Total Weight: 13,200 kg (29,100 lbs)
Engine: 1x 1,839 kW Saab X85-2500
Crew: 2 (pilot, navigator/gunner)

Performance
Max speed: 570 kph (355 mph)
Cruise Speed: 300 kph (186 mph)
Range: 2,000 km (1,250 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (26,250 feet)
Rate of climb: 13 m/s (2,560 ft/min)


Armament
- 2x 20mm cannon (wing roots)
- 1x flex-mounted 20mm cannon (rear)
- 2 centerline and eight wing hard points, carrying...
- 1,800 kg bombs or torpedoes (catapult launch)
- 3,000 kg bombs or torpedoes (rolling shoreside take-off)