WesWorld

be filled with the models listed above

Guoyong G8L1
Guoyong Aircraft Inc.
Type: Bomber

With the experiences of the Sino-Filipino War and now the Chosen-Sino Skirmish, engineers and technicians of Guoyong Aircraft Inc. have modified the successfull Kawanishi H8K aircraft to a landbased bomber.


Variants:
G8L1 - bomber
G8L2 - fuel transporter - removed armament, additional 3000 gallons of fuel in several storage tanks inside the hull (it's a fuel transporter, not a tanker for inflight refueling.)


General characteristics:

Dimensions:
Length: 24.00 m
Wingspan: 38.00 m
Height: 8. 50 m
Wingarea: 160 m²
Empty weight: 15,500 kg
Loaded weight: 24,500 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 31,000 kg

Engine:
4x license build Mitsubishi MK4B Kasei 12 radial engines, 1530 hp each

Performance:
Maximum speed: 450 km/h
Cruising speed: 300 km/h
Service ceiling: 7630 m
Range: 7200 km
practical range: 4720 km

Crew:
7-9 men

Armament:
5× 20 mm Type 99 cannon (one each in bow, dorsal, and tail turrets, plus one each in two waist blisters)
2× 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine guns in fuselage hatches

bombload
up to 5000 kg bombs

Now that people see this, they will probably realize now that Japan declared war on China because they ruined the awesome looks of one of their coolest planes.

I don't know, it has a certain charm. Strongly reminds me of the B-24. The undercarriage looks a bit complicated to me though, probably a source for all kinds of trouble!

My initial impression is that it'd tip back on its tail.

Probably wouldn't get a lot of volunteers for a flying gas tank...

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

My initial impression is that it'd tip back on its tail.

Probably wouldn't get a lot of volunteers for a flying gas tank...

Yes. I think that the center of gravity on the aircraft would be quite far aft, particularly when loaded. I suspect operational attrition rates would be quite high.

I don't see the point.

That's not a comment on the advisability of converting a flying boat into a heavy bomber, but rather my confusion about just what purpose this aircraft is supposed to serve. The fact is, China already has three different types of heavy bombers in inventory - two of them manufactured by Chinese companies, and with technical specifications on par with or exceeding this proposal. 5,000 kg bombload? Equaled by the EWIL EW-208C and exceeded by the Guizhou GA-5. 5,000km effective range? Exceeded by the EWIL EW-208C and the Guizhou GA-5. Service ceiling? Exceeded by far by the EWIL EW-208C, and less far by the Guizhou GA-5.

Are the EWIL EW-208C and the Guizhou GA-5 somehow such hideously unworkable aircraft designs that China is forced to take another country's flying boat and massively re-design it into a land-based heavy bomber?

Then I'd like to dissolve your confusion a little. Is it expedient to convert a flying boat in a heavy bomber ? I don't know ! Why does it China, even if it already has successful types in its inventory ? Are the other types unreliable or difficult to fly ? Are there any other problems with the other types ? One word : NO !!!!!

The reason is quite simple, Wesworld is full of successful designs, there are hardly any mistakes or false development. China owns the license for the construction of the flying boat, so why should not Chinese engineers attempt to make a land airplane out of the flying boat ? OTL the germans planed to make a bomber version out of the BV-238 !!!!! It was called BV-250 (see pictures below). And the BV-238 was a little larger ....
So this idea is not soooo reprehensible. If it is a successful adaptation, remains an open question. Incidentally, the japans really thought to develop a "land-version" from the "Emily", but it remains an project. It was called G9K . It was a proposed land-based attack bomber variant, but only a project.

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/bv250.html

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/in…3.html#msg89303

Quoted from "parador"

China owns the license for the construction of the flying boat, so why should not Chinese engineers attempt to make a land airplane out of the flying boat ?

More to the point, why should Chinese engineers attempt to make a land plane out of a flying boat?

Let me attempt tp expound upon my position. New designs need to offer some new advantage in fit, form, or function in order to offset the cost of research and development (which for an aircraft in this era should take anywhere between three to five years). I'm simply noting that this design does not appear to have any new advantages in fit, form, or function that aren't already replicated or bettered on other aircraft elsewhere in Chinese production. You say the other types I referenced are not unreliable or problematic. Then what benefit does China gain from putting R&D money into a new design?

Please understand, I'm not attacking the design's capabilities or whether or not a flying boat can be converted. I'll leave that to the aviation masters here. My point is that it appears the Chinese are pointlessly replicating capabilities for no obvious purpose. (For instance, if China did not already manufacture two equivalent designs, I might find this conversion fairly reasonable, if ugly.)

If the reason is "Because I think the idea and the drawing is cool", well... just say that, then, and I'll stop trying to practice logic on it! :P

Quoted

More to the point, why should Chinese engineers attempt to make a land plane out of a flying boat?

May be as testbed of their capabilities. Will they manage to design a meaningful conversion ... i think there are sure some reasons.

Quoted

New designs need to offer some new advantage in fit, form, or function in order to offset the cost of research and development (which for an aircraft in this era should take anywhere between three to five years).

In peacetime i fully agree with you, but in wartime development will rush ....

Quoted

I'm simply noting that this design does not appear to have any new advantages in fit, form, or function that aren't already replicated or bettered on other aircraft elsewhere in Chinese production. You say the other types I referenced are not unreliable or problematic. Then what benefit does China gain from putting R&D money into a new design?

This new design sure won't get in huge serial production. May be there will only be a handfull build. I love strange designs and in my eyes it is very boring if no dead end development will take place. Must this aircraft have advantages ??? May be the engineers thought to expand the range or the payload so a "landbased" version will be usable.... but reality showed it doesn't take place ..... who knows. Where will be in otl the advantage of the landbased emily compared to other japanese heavy bombers ? If there is none, why the project was planed ?!?! May be, because there is no advantage, it is the reason, it was only a project and not reality.

Quoted

Please understand, I'm not attacking the design's capabilities or whether or not a flying boat can be converted. I'll leave that to the aviation masters here. My point is that it appears the Chinese are pointlessly replicating capabilities for no obvious purpose. (For instance, if China did not already manufacture two equivalent designs, I might find this conversion fairly reasonable, if ugly.)
If the reason is "Because I think the idea and the drawing is cool", well... just say that, then, and I'll stop trying to practice logic on it!

It's okay, i don't understand your thoughts as an attack on the design . In my eyes, even if it is a little bit of waste and time to develop this conversion, China will sure get some experiences which will help them to build better aircrafts.
And finally .... i love the drawing, so may be you shouldn't spend much more thoughts on it ;-)

Okay, I shan't attempt to practice logic on it, then. :)

"Gotta collect them all."

Nanchan N2-F1B "Hulang" (jackal)
Nanchan Aircraft Inc. Ltd.
TYPE: Heavy Fighter


The "Hulang" is a twin-engined fighter of the chinese manufacturer Nanchan Aircraft Inc. Ltd. It was developed under the working name N2-F1 at its own cost as a replacement for the obsolete N1-F1. In contrast to the N1-F1 the dual fin was dispensed, and replaced by a single. The first batch of the N2-F1A were ready in late 1941, but they proved to have poor flight characteristics from serious, unanticipated design flaws. A large-scale operational testing program throughout 1942 and early 1943 did not cure the aircraft's problems. Meantime the production of the A-Series was halted and a complete redesign were started.
The major change between the A and B series was the introduction of the larger and more powerful supercharged Huang Po 24-cylinder radial engines, which increased power to 1,750 hp compared to the 1,475 hp inline engine of the A series. The engine performance increased the B's maximum speed to 635 km/h, greatly improved rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the maximum cruise speed, which jumped to 529 km/h. It also improved payload capability to the point where the aircraft could lift more war load than could fit into the bomb bay under the nose. To address this, shackles were added under the wings for four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. The changes added an extra 680 kg (1,500 lb) to the A-design, but the extra engine power more than made up for the difference.

The redesign eventually entered limited service in early 1944.

Versions:
XNF : 2 Prototypes built
N2-F1A: canceled after first batch of 25 aircrafts
N2-R1: serial Air Force Version (Recon version with additional camera installed in fuselage)
N2-G1: serial Air Force Version (Ground attack version with 4x RUG under each wing)

General characteristics:
Dimensions:
Length: 12,46 m
Wingspan: 16,5 m
Height: 4,6 m
Wing area: 36,51 m²
Empty weight: 7.520 kg
Loaded weight: 8.750 kg
max. takeoff weight: 9.650 kg

Engine:
Two supercharged Huang Po 24-cylinder liquid-cooled radial engine each 1750 hp

Performance:
Max Speed: 635 km/h at 7200 m
Cruise speed: 529 km/h
Range (normal): 1.950 km
Range (max): 2.980 km
Service Ceiling: 12,000 m
Climb to/in: 10.000 in 10 min
Endurance: 3 h 45 min

Crew: 1 pilot

Armament:
2x 20mm machine gun fixed in nose (350 rpg)
2x 7,92mm machine gun fixed in nose (1000 rpg)
2x 13mm machine gun forward firing in wing root (500 rpg)

bombload:
up to 1080kg

In general, seems to be okay.

There are two things I notice. First, the tail / rudder appears to me to be on the small side - I think it might look better if it was perhaps 50% larger and taller. Second, I have a feeling that the range is on the high side. Perhaps this might be with drop tanks?

Normal range is with internal fuel and maximum of course with drop tanks.

Drawing now better ?

The armament is weird with 3 different calibers, wouldnt just 2 calibers be better?

Liquid cooled radial engines? Are you using annular radiators like the Germans?

The used Huang-Po is not a pure radial engine, it's more a symetrical X24-Motor with pressure-liquid cooling for cylinders and cylinder heads. (comparable with the Junkers Jumo-222 or the Rolls-Royce-Vulture). But due to delivery issues the aircraft could also have air-cooled, supercharged EW-R-2000-24 motors.

The engines look like radials to me, even the exhausts are laid out like a radial.
To be honest I'd expect more than 1,750hp out of an X-24, right now the engine has the power of a high-medium radial or a high-end V-12. An X-24 should be kicking out 2,500hp+ to make it worthwhile.
Perhaps sticking to radials would be best?

Shennong SF-203D
Shennong Ltd.
TYPE: Fighter

The predecessor of the SF-203 is the Shennong draft SF 202, which has been designed, as also already all previous Shennong designs, by chief designer Chee Wing Jeang. In April 1943, the Chinese Air Force ordered two prototypes the X-203 and X-203A, which were, however after the first field reports from the theater of war, seen as too weak armed and not considered powerful enough and were not built or scrapped.
Jeang began work on the revision X-203B. The design was again a cantilever all-metal low-wing monoplane with retractable landing gear and an air-cooled radial engine. After 85,000 hours of work and 143 days later the prototype rolled out of the hangar on 9 February 1944.

Versions:
X-203: Prototype not built
X-203A: Prototype not completed and parts scrapped
X-203B: Prototype 3 built
SF-203C: first serial version, batch of 25 built
SF-203D: large series version with stronger engine (Methanol-water injection), performance increase with a new propeller type, improved visibility provided by bubble hood, Suspension for bombs, rockets, and external fuel tanks

General characteristics:
Dimensions:
Length: 9,25 m
Wingspan: 12,00 m
Wingarea: 22.3 m²
Height: 3,39 m
Empty weight: 2.560 kg
Loaded weight: 3.800 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 4.120 kg

Engine:
1x EWIL-2000-24 air cooled radial with methanol-water injection, 2018hp

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 628 km/h at 6.000 m
Cruise Speed: 435 km/h
Range (standard): 1.850 km (combat / internal)
Range (maximum): 2.880 km (with external drop tanks)
Service ceiling: 11.160 m
Climb to/in: 6.000 in 6'11"

Crew: 1 pilot

Armament:
6x 13mm MGs in wings 350 rpg
2x 20mm cannon in nose synchronized firing 150 rpg

Ordnance
2x 250kg bombs
2x drop tanks

Quoted from "Hood"

The engines look like radials to me, even the exhausts are laid out like a radial.
To be honest I'd expect more than 1,750hp out of an X-24, right now the engine has the power of a high-medium radial or a high-end V-12. An X-24 should be kicking out 2,500hp+ to make it worthwhile.
Perhaps sticking to radials would be best?

As said ..... it's the first try of an X-24 so it sure as an bad efficiency. That's also the reason, why the "normal" radials will be used.

I tend to agree that a X24 engine is not worth it given the poweroutput. You'd better use a 14 or 18 cylinder radial. Just think of maintenance issues on forward airfields. No, the X24 is no good idea until you need it for 2500+hp.