WesWorld

I was looking at some stuff to see what I could come up with for that MXN8 experimental carrier jet mentioned in the news... and ended up with something completely different...

I used bits from the linedrawings of the F-86 and the Supermarine Attacker on wiki. Probably not perfect but I kinda like how it turned out. Feel free to shoot holes into it.

Given what little I recall seeing on Japan's development of jet aircraft (and I admit I may have missed something along the way) it seems rather well developed for a first attempt for a design.

Critiquing the drawing itself, the forward portion seems a bit chunky compared with the F-86 aft fuselage.

Quoted

Given what little I recall seeing on Japan's development of jet aircraft (and I admit I may have missed something along the way) it seems rather well developed for a first attempt for a design.

That is one thing to work on and since I have nothing really to work with except some of the vague stuff around it is not easy. I'm not a word magician like you or Brock to create a proper line of development.

Quoted

Critiquing the drawing itself, the forward portion seems a bit chunky compared with the F-86 aft fuselage.

True, but I kinda like that aspect.

The picture below shows you what's from what. Blue is from the Sabre linedrawing and Red is from the Attacker linedrawing. A large part of the fuselage (including the aft part) is from the Attacker.

I moved the cockpit a bit back with what I originally had so it would not interfere with the intake which meant I had to alter the dorsal line because the cockpit was now higher than on the original linedrawing of the Attacker so it ended up a bit thicker in that part.

You reckon that it is a bit chunky acceptable or is it a bit chunky too much?

Quoted

You reckon that it is a bit chunky acceptable or is it a bit chunky too much?

Oh it's certainly acceptable; the bulk suggests that perhaps the engine would be more a centrifugal-flow than an axial-flow type. It's also difficult to say "too bulky" when one does not know the technical or performance parameters. But as a drawing, it's not bad - if not quite "right" to my eyes. ;)

Quoted

the bulk suggests that perhaps the engine would be more a centrifugal-flow than an axial-flow type.

Sake storage tank for the pilot?

Quoted

It's also difficult to say "too bulky" when one does not know the technical or performance parameters.

Considering that the Sabre and the Attacker are both about 11.4 m, that would put the length of this jet at 12.16 m. With the tail, it's a couple of pixels taller than the Sabre (4.5 m) giving me a height of 4.62 m.

Not sure yet about the other aspects. Hell, I haven't even decided which firm name to stick to it.

Quoted

But as a drawing, it's not bad - if not quite "right" to my eyes.

It is all about preferences. In general I prefer the looks of having the wings low and the stabilizers attached to the fuselage so when I look at your Bf329, I'm like "Hmmm... Well, I guess that is what Bruce likes...". BTW, looking at that post, is there a reason why you omitted the dimensions of the Bf329?

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

You reckon that it is a bit chunky acceptable or is it a bit chunky too much?

Eh, I think it's probably fine. After all, the Saab Tunnan was chunky, too - and that makes this plane look downright sleek.

I'd agree with Bruce that it's very advanced for a first attempt. Visually, I think it'd fit better in 1948-1949 period. The biggest concern I'd have is about the highly-angled sweep of the wings. While it raises the effective speed of the aircraft in the air, it will also result in the stall speed being rather high, a long take-off and landing roll, and poor handling at lower speeds. For that reason, I don't think it would make a very good carrier aircraft.

I think it might be a good drawing to reuse in a few years, though. I definitely like the results.

Quoted

BTW, looking at that post, is there a reason why you omitted the dimensions of the Bf329?

Uh, I failed to notice that the Wikipedia article failed to include them? Yeah, that's my answer and I'll stick to it until I can find the dimensions... :huh:

Quoted

After all, the Saab Tunnan was chunky, too - and that makes this plane look downright sleek.

That one sure is...

Quoted

I'd agree with Bruce that it's very advanced for a first attempt. Visually, I think it'd fit better in 1948-1949 period.

It won't be Japan's first attempt at a jet-powered aircraft. I have that 1940 Experimental Nakajima jet plane for that purpose. Still, around 1948 is what I am looking at for the introduction of this plane.

Quoted

The biggest concern I'd have is about the highly-angled sweep of the wings. While it raises the effective speed of the aircraft in the air, it will also result in the stall speed being rather high, a long take-off and landing roll, and poor handling at lower speeds. For that reason, I don't think it would make a very good carrier aircraft.

Well I wanted to create something that could be used for the MXN8 experimental carrier jet, but I ended up with something that isn't and which would be used from land bases by the Army Air Service and the Navy Air Service, not from carriers (sorry I didn't make that clearer). I was looking for a 'now' plane and instead ended up with a 'coming soon' one. I kept the arrestor hook of the Attacker there in the picture but since it operates from land bases, it's kinda useless to have it on the jet. It's only there for looks.

In the meantime I still have to figure out how the MXN8 would look like...

Quoted

I think it might be a good drawing to reuse in a few years, though. I definitely like the results.

I like how it came together and it felt like a shame to wait those few sim years before posting it so I decided to share it now instead of somewhere in 2016. It's not going to be reused. It's going to be used.

Quoted

Uh, I failed to notice that the Wikipedia article failed to include them? Yeah, that's my answer and I'll stick to it until I can find the dimensions...

Actually, the stupid thing is that while I was looking around at various period planes, I ran across your "Bf329" so...

Source is Russian Wiki (considering that it is a Russian jet, that would be the better option to use)...
Length: 9.563 m (fuselage 8.235 m)
Wingspan: 8.83 m
Height 3.8 m
Wing Area: 16.167 m²
Wingsweep: 37° 20'
Maximum speed: 1026 km/h at 3000 m

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

...but I ended up with something that isn't and which would be used from land bases by the Army Air Service and the Navy Air Service, not from carriers (sorry I didn't make that clearer).

Oh, okay - thanks for clarifying. :)

I like the Attacker looks and mixing with the Sabre has produced a decent image, not necessarily beautiful but not fugly either.

As to time periods, it feels more 1949ish to me, we do seem to be pushing the swept wings a bit more than OTL but considering the sound barrier has now been broken (without swept wings and without fizzpop rockets!) then I think its logical.
The British specs for such machines as the DH110, Hunter and Javelin are in the in-trays of various manufacturers now so I think we are truly on the way to the transonic era, so I don't feel overly left behind or worried about the Bf-329 and MNX8.

Quoted

Source is Russian Wiki (considering that it is a Russian jet, that would be the better option to use)...
Length: 9.563 m (fuselage 8.235 m)
Wingspan: 8.83 m
Height 3.8 m
Wing Area: 16.167 m²
Wingsweep: 37° 20'
Maximum speed: 1026 km/h at 3000 m

Thank you. I’ve got a couple of sources to check (real books too!) and will certainly include the dimensional data before posting the design to the German encyclopedia.

Quoted

I'm not a word magician like you or Brock to create a proper line of development.

It’s not really a question of ‘magic’ but consistency. I’ve got the luxury of time to devote to the game plot out the timelines for development of projects. Not that I’ve not lost track of things, but keeping focus is, IMHO, important for the enjoyment of my fellow-players.

Quoted

I like the Attacker looks and mixing with the Sabre has produced a decent image, not necessarily beautiful but not fugly either.

Ugly Aircraft, Inc. talking about beauty and fugliness...

Quoted

As to time periods, it feels more 1949ish to me, we do seem to be pushing the swept wings a bit more than OTL but considering the sound barrier has now been broken (without swept wings and without fizzpop rockets!) then I think its logical.

Well I noticed no one said anything regarding that but now that you mention it here, I really feel that the +0 should be applied to it and the barrier should not be broken prior to the historical date of October 14, 1947... but that is my opinion.

Quoted

I don't feel overly left behind or worried about the Bf-329 and MNX8.

Good thing to know when I create the MNX8. I need to create a design that'll leave you far behind and make you really worry.

Quoted

Thank you. I’ve got a couple of sources to check (real books too!) and will certainly include the dimensional data before posting the design to the German encyclopedia.

Real books?? You mean to tell me that they still exist?? Darn! Maybe my books aren't as rare as I thought.

Quoted

It’s not really a question of ‘magic’ but consistency. I’ve got the luxury of time to devote to the game plot out the timelines for development of projects. Not that I’ve not lost track of things, but keeping focus is, IMHO, important for the enjoyment of my fellow-players.

I would probably be struggling coming up with a line or two for history and have no further ideas and inspiration once I managed to squeeze a third line out.

Right now what I have as lineup is this...

1940 Nakajima NX Experimental Jet

1943 Nakajima J1N2

1943 Nakajima J1N3

1944 Mitsubishi J4M2

1944 Watanabe J7W2

1945 Nakajima Kikka


The J4M2 I recently threw into the J4M post and while I have mentioned it in the news, the Kikka still needs to be placed into the encyclopedia.

Then there is the MXN8 and the carrier jet that will be based on the MXN8 that need to be sorted out.

There is also a jet version of the Yokosuka R2Y in the Japanese Secret Projects book which I should put into the encyclopedia as well.

Considering that that J4M jet version has an air intake in the nose and that OTL Mitsubishi license-built Sabres, it seems to make sense to me to make the posted jet a Mitsubishi one.

One thing I would have to keep in mind is that I put those 20mm cannons in the Sabre wings like on the Attacker. I got the impression from the drawings that it should be doable when I keep them close to the hull, but they would interfere with the volume of the wing tanks. Maybe a reason why the jet looks a bit chunky is because the fuselage tanks are bigger or it has an additional one on top of the engine.

A question - where is the jet exhaust located on the Nakajima NX Experimental Jet? It's not immediately clear to me.

Tail... which is where the rocket exhaust of the BI-1 is and I took the tail section of that plane for the NX pic.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Tail... which is where the rocket exhaust of the BI-1 is and I took the tail section of that plane for the NX pic.

Okay... there's no obvious exhaust nozzle, so I wondered.

Just a poor quality pic I used.

Quoted

Well I noticed no one said anything regarding that but now that you mention it here, I really feel that the +0 should be applied to it and the barrier should not be broken prior to the historical date of October 14, 1947... but that is my opinion.

For the record, this was something me and Brock agreed on in view of our respective programmes (Leduc ramjets and Miles M.52) and he graciously allowed Britain to bag this record.
As far as I'm concerned the events of October 14 1947 means nothing. The Miles M.52 was ahead of the American efforts and had it not been cancelled (I don't 100% buy official sabotage claims but there's no smoke without fire), I am certain that Britain would have broken the speed of sound before October 14, 1947. I won't even mention the shameful handing over of Miles data to the US to use on the X-1 programme either. I don't know if Jason is planning the X-1 for WW.

I here a lot about +0 for jets and I've stuck to that 100% for all British jet first flights (though I have been slightly laxer in turboprops to give them more breathing room than historically). However, the +0 rule cannot be applied to fictional aircraft or those that never flew beyond best guesses of performance and first flights; both Sabre and Attacker are much later than 1946 and the Lavochkin La-168 first flew on April 22 1948. I'm not making a fuss about this, but just pointing this out. I see a lot of jumping to conclusions, for example your timeline of Japanese jets is very helpful but I find the dates misleading; is 1943, 1944 etc. date of start of design, date of first flight, date of production, date of entry into service? I'd expect any jet to take 2-3 years (minimum) to go from first pencil sketch to first service pilot getting the first examples in squadron use.

I'm feeling a need to post a timeline for Atlantean jets that was cooked up some time ago.....

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

I'm feeling a need to post a timeline for Atlantean jets that was cooked up some time ago.....

You really should. :P

Quoted from "Hood"

Quoted

Well I noticed no one said anything regarding that but now that you mention it here, I really feel that the +0 should be applied to it and the barrier should not be broken prior to the historical date of October 14, 1947... but that is my opinion.

For the record, this was something me and Brock agreed on in view of our respective programmes (Leduc ramjets and Miles M.52) and he graciously allowed Britain to bag this record.
As far as I'm concerned the events of October 14 1947 means nothing. The Miles M.52 was ahead of the American efforts...

It's worth mentioning that there are a number of earlier occasions where people claimed to or in fact probably did break the sound barrier; it just couldn't be verified in the same way as the X-1's flight. Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive writeup of many of them. I think Hood is correct in saying that the M.52 probably could have broken the sound barrier earlier than October 1947, if it had flown. How much earlier? I have no idea... but this seems acceptable to me.

I haven't posted much about ONERA's supersonic program and their Leduc O.20 Millénaire, but it should be understood that the British and the French were in a "space race" to grab the supersonic record. What I offered Hood was to let the British take 'first'; and then have the French do it shortly thereafter. ONERA's ramjet is a much more complicated and capable beast than the Miles M.52, though, and you can bet the Miles team is relieved that they managed to squeak out their record first.

Personally, I feel the +0 rule is a little bit of a sticky wicket. In my view, it ought to be a guideline to ensure we don't introduce something too advanced, rather than something ironclad. For instance, if we went solely by +0 rule, countries that got derailed so badly by WWII (France, Germany, Japan, Italy) wouldn't be able to function very well, while countries like China that have ahistoric capabilities would be even further harmed. So some leeway has to exist. Personally, that's why I like to have these discussions in the tech threads - we can work out what's too advanced and what's not, and compromise if necessary on the feedback.

Quoted

However, the +0 rule cannot be applied to fictional aircraft or those that never flew beyond best guesses of performance and first flights

Of course it can. In my opinion there are enough OTL jets to couple the fictional to and to use their data and dates (at least that is what I am trying).

Quoted

both Sabre and Attacker are much later than 1946

Actually according to wiki, the Sabre is October 1, 1947 and the Attacker is July 27, 1946 for their first flights so not really "much later than 1946". But just because the Attacker's first flight was in 1946, does not mean that I should apply the same to the Sabracker.

Quoted

the Lavochkin La-168 first flew on April 22 1948.

Based on the performance data, I thought it was the La-15 which (according to wiki) first flew in January 1948. Still, the Bf329 clearly breaks the +0 rule.

Now I could accept it if performance was reduced a bit compared to the 1948 La-15 (I believe I did that with the B6N) but it is not. Now if that is acceptable then I guess it should not be a problem if I were to apply the Attacker's first flight date instead of the Sabre's.

Quoted

your timeline of Japanese jets is very helpful but I find the dates misleading; is 1943, 1944 etc. date of start of design, date of first flight, date of production, date of entry into service?

If you look at the encyclopedia, you would see that those years are for first flights. My idea with the first flights being...

NX 1940 => He-178 1939
J1M2/J1M3 1943 => Me-262 1942
J4M2/J7W2 1944 => ? (not sure what I based that year on)
Kikka 1945 => Kikka 1945
Sabracker 1947 => Attacker 1946, Sabre 1947

Quoted

I'm feeling a need to post a timeline for Atlantean jets that was cooked up some time ago.....

Jet? I always felt that Atlantis was more of a rocket nation. Why use a crappy jet plane? Rocket planes are the future!

Quoted

Personally, I feel the +0 rule is a little bit of a sticky wicket.

Sticky wicket? There is no such thing as sticky wickets.Watch them fly!

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. 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."

Quoted

For instance, if we went solely by +0 rule, countries that got derailed so badly by WWII (France, Germany, Japan, Italy) wouldn't be able to function very well, while countries like China that have ahistoric capabilities would be even further harmed.

I think that there are enough OTL examples around to base stuff of and for those nations you mentioned (as well as Atlantis and South Africa you did not mention) to function. Just like I am doing with the Sabracker. Granted there will be a number of nations that would be using Jet 'X' as base for their fictional plane, but it is better than introducing Jet 'Y' a number of years earlier than historical.

Quoted

So some leeway has to exist.

I really got the impression that when the +0 rule was introduced when we got to the jet age it was a hard rule. Haven't seen any discussion regarding any leeway with that rule.

Now some leeway is probably okay but in case of the Leduc O.10 it is waaaaay more than 'some' in my opinion. Regardless of the differences of OTL and Wesworld, I really feel that the +3 rule for other stuff should have been the max allowed and it should not have flown prior to 1944 then... but that is my opinion.

... maybe I should go and make the Mekajiki a real plane in Wesworld.