WesWorld

massive wing loads? Yeah they had a wingspan of some 60 ft.

But Planebuilder accounts for my wingspan of 52 ft. Plus that record setter had a 500 HP engine.

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/gravity/bristol138.php

In the mid-1930s, European pilots began setting altitude records approaching 50,000 ft., and Britain felt itself under some pressure to regain the record. The Bristol aircraft company was asked, in June 1934, to tender for two prototypes of an aircraft based on a 1933 proposal. The single-seat design was to be powered by an adapted Pegasus radial engine with a two-stage supercharger.

It was to be a low-wing design of wooden construction, with fixed undercarriage, all intended to minimise weight. A special pressurised flying suit with an oxygen helmet was developed for the attempt and the cockpit was completely enclosed.

The first aircraft made its initial flight on May 11, 1936 at Filton, with a standard Pegasus engine driving a three-bladed propellor. More flights followed, with tests of the oxygen equipment in August, and fitting of the supercharged engine with four-bladed propellor.

The Type 138A was flown from Filton to Farnborough in early September 1936. On 28 Sept., Sqn. Ldr. F.R.D. Swain achieved a record altitude of 49,967 ft. (15230 m.), a record which lasted until May 1937, when an Italian Caproni CA.161 reached 51,362 ft. (15,655 m.).

Sqn. Ldr. Swain regained the record on 3 June 1937, after some modifications to the aircraft, this time reaching 53,937 ft. (16,440 m.).

The second aircraft, a Type 138B, was to have received a supercharged Rolls-Royce Kestrel engine, but installation was not completed.

Swampy just remember that I have the S-42...

A point on advanced aircraft in this race. Ill be randomly eliminating aircraft from the race (about 1/2 will not finish) and also randomly inserting delays (weather, politics, mechanical problems, etc) advanced aircraft will be more prone to these problems. That should keep the field level unless they are extremly lucky.

Quoted

Originally posted by Salaam86

Very cool, but I'm afraid the reality check is bouncing...

Don't say "Check" after I've watched an outstanding Ottawa vs. Buffalo hockey game!

Hmmm

I'd like to see that flying wing design with its tail done with planebuilder, just out of curiousity.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I'd like to see that flying wing design with its tail done with planebuilder, just out of curiousity.

Alright.

I could...but I didn't use the parameters of the mantra. The planebuilder plane i designed is totally different. The diagram of the Mantra just shows a general concept.

Keep her, she looks great especially with the tail. And I can see Chosen building that, makes a nice counter to the Canadian designs. Only you can expect it to have more problems due to its advanced design.

So you figure Chosens aircraft industry is more advanced than say Mexico's?

I figure Chosen will have received considerable help from the Japanese. I would put them on par with the Canadians, they even have the same disease.

The equivilent would be the Mexicans gaining help from the U.S. and subsequently developing the B-29 bomber. Recieving help doesn't nessassarily mean your equal with your partner technically.

Okay. I exchanged PM's with Red Admiral and now the plane is actually vastly improved. One thing to note however, is the tail. It has a tail now...the tail cost it some of the turning radius and relatively...gave it an extreme boost in climb. It can outclimb the previous version by about 300 to 400 ft on average. However, I don't think thats all that useful. So the actual version will be tail-less. But for now here is the plane that will participate in this race...and yes, it has that unfortunate tail. (Although the war version won't). I figure rushed into production two prototypes will fly in the race. I don't see how more than 2 could reliably produced.

With tail:


X11-F
Flying Wing
Monoplane With Struts
Twin-Boom Tail
High-Altitude Fighter

Crew: 2

Length: 25 ft
Wingspan: 52.3 ft

Wing sweep: 25 deg.

max takeoff weight: 13,500 lbs

User weight & payload: 893 lbs

Airspeed Design Limitation: 400 kts

Airframe Weight: 6,582 lbs
Airframe reinforced: 7,240 lbs

Empty Weight: 11,385 lbs

Armament:

x4 .50 MG

-Flight Characteristics-

Max Speed: 315 kts=362 mph/582 kmh@ 35,000 ft
Max Altitude: 48,000 ft

Cruise Speed: 250 kts
Cruise Altitude: 30,000 ft

Cruise Range: 820 NM/ 1517 km @ 250 kts & 30,000 ft.

Stall & Takeoff Speed @ 0 ft: 51 kts=59 mph
Stall Speed at 20,000 ft: 69 kts=79 mph

Climb at 0 ft @130 kts/150 mph: 1,453 ft/min
Climb at 0 ft @ 200 kts/230 mph: 662 ft/min

Climb at 5000 ft @ 200 kts: 798 ft/min
Climb at 15000 ft @ 200 kts: 1,023 ft/min
Climb at 25000 ft @ 200 kts: 1,131 ft/min
Climb at 30000 ft @ 200 kts: 1,139 ft/min
Climb at 35000 ft @ 200 kts: 1,107 ft/min
Climb at 40000 ft @ 200 kts: 1,025 ft/min
Climb at 43000 ft @ 200 kts: 949 ft/min
Climb at 46000 ft @ 200 kts: 837 ft/min

Turn radius-
Altitude & Speed:
500 ft: 203 mph= 745 ft
1000 ft: 204 mph= 752 ft
3000 ft: 210 mph= 795 ft
5000 ft: 216 mph= 843 ft
10000 ft: 234 mph= 986 ft
20000 ft: 277 mph= 1,383 ft
30000 ft: 331 mph= 1,968 ft


ENGINE:

x1
JX-08 "Star Nova"

Prop Diameter: Counter-rotating 10.5 ft blades

Output: 961 HP
Thrust: 3,276 lbs

Engine weight: 1,039 lbs
W/ counter rotating setup: 1,767 lbs

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
And I can see Chosen building that, makes a nice counter to the Canadian designs.

...All I'm building (so far) are the Broncos and Gelnikas/Buzzards. o.O

Did I miss something?

An additional problem is that as simmed the aircraft looks something like this. It is beyond me how it would be possible to fit either flaps or ailerons onto the trailing edge thats swept forward at about 70°. Similarly a massive extensive shaft for the engine to hte props would be needed.

The Manta looks really cool but....

Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta. This design will not fly in WesWorld until 1942 if ever, sorry.

I rate technologies necessary for such a plane to be successful beyond current state of the art.

- Tail less designs are highly instable. Only very few such designs were successful in the pre-computer era (like those of the German Horton brothers).

- Contra-Probs are technically difficult to handle and are too early as I expect them to be designed, build and successfully tested BEFORE the plane itself was designed/build. That´s probably even pre-30s.

- Her engine/supercharger is too advanced for 1934. The Spitfire I with probably the best aircraft engine in the world first flew in 1936 with a 1200hp (supercharged) Merlin.

- Stats given are highly optimistic and unrealistic compared to anything available OTL +3 years.

- High altitude flights ask for a pressure cabin - hardly a technology available for everyone everywhere and for mass production in the early 30s. Again this is a technology that a powers aircraft industry would not build into a fighter plane first place due to weight and complexity. There are no indicators Chosen successfully developed such technology prior to this plane. If they did it would have been some time ago and again too early compared to OTL.

- I question the technologies are available to build such a complex curved fuselage and wing with mid-30s technology for a highly stressed fighter.

Now beat me if you like but a few things went out of controll lately and we better get things straight now before it really is too late. Wes and I agree WesWorld will not become some weird Sci-Fi-World.

We have no tech tree and will not introduce one. It simply wasn´t necessaary yet. We came this far without one using common sense but things tend to accelerate lately.

Hopefully you all understand this actions to be necessary. It is not directed against any single person and other technologies introduced lately will be checked too (such as 2000+hp super-heavy, super-large and super-powerful aircraft engines which are not rated as highly stressed single prototypes build for a race only) and probably stopped.

I agree on all Hoos points, cool design but far too advanced for 1934. It would most likely be another 15-20 years before something this complex gets beyond the prototype stage.

Heck I don't want to rain on everybody's parade, I'd like to see some new and fresh designs, but they still have to be within the tech levels of the era.

While I applaud other sites like Navalism mirroring our sim, I'm not too fond of their complex tech trees and etremely advanced designs for the era they are in.

I agree on a generally '+3' for aircraft. Some designs that would be a +5 might be feasible because they weren't as advanced as they 'could have been', but those are exceptions.

Note that in 'starting up' industries in the countries I'm running Siam started at the bottom (50hp trainer) and is slowly working their way up, while in Brazil there's a defined development path of increasing sophistication (along with a bit of a failure, but that's for Q1 news...) aided by licensed designs introducing new ideas.

Quoted

Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta.

So... you're saying "no" to the Manta, but that Canadian 'thing' is okay? In my opinion, the manta design is far more realistic than that air contraption, which I think should be considered to be a 1997 design (when the game came out) and comes out of a game with the word "Fantasy" in the title. I think it should either be "yes" to both or "no" to both and not "yes" to the one and "no" to the other.
... of course that is my opinion.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral



An additional problem is that as simmed the aircraft looks something like this. It is beyond me how it would be possible to fit either flaps or ailerons onto the trailing edge thats swept forward at about 70°. Similarly a massive extensive shaft for the engine to hte props would be needed.

It's a positive 25 percent now. the negative was a typo to begin with.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The Manta looks really cool but....

Using my moderator powers I say "no" to the Manta. This design will not fly in WesWorld until 1942 if ever, sorry.

I rate technologies necessary for such a plane to be successful beyond current state of the art.

- Tail less designs are highly instable. Only very few such designs were successful in the pre-computer era (like those of the German Horton brothers).

- Contra-Probs are technically difficult to handle and are too early as I expect them to be designed, build and successfully tested BEFORE the plane itself was designed/build. That´s probably even pre-30s.

- Her engine/supercharger is too advanced for 1934. The Spitfire I with probably the best aircraft engine in the world first flew in 1936 with a 1200hp (supercharged) Merlin.

- Stats given are highly optimistic and unrealistic compared to anything available OTL +3 years.

- High altitude flights ask for a pressure cabin - hardly a technology available for everyone everywhere and for mass production in the early 30s. Again this is a technology that a powers aircraft industry would not build into a fighter plane first place due to weight and complexity. There are no indicators Chosen successfully developed such technology prior to this plane. If they did it would have been some time ago and again too early compared to OTL.

- I question the technologies are available to build such a complex curved fuselage and wing with mid-30s technology for a highly stressed fighter.

Now beat me if you like but a few things went out of controll lately and we better get things straight now before it really is too late. Wes and I agree WesWorld will not become some weird Sci-Fi-World.

We have no tech tree and will not introduce one. It simply wasn´t necessaary yet. We came this far without one using common sense but things tend to accelerate lately.

Hopefully you all understand this actions to be necessary. It is not directed against any single person and other technologies introduced lately will be checked too (such as 2000+hp super-heavy, super-large and super-powerful aircraft engines which are not rated as highly stressed single prototypes build for a race only) and probably stopped.

As reposted it has a tail Hoo...

But tail-less aircraft were stable. Such as the XB-49, XB-39, ME-163 ect. The tail-less flying wings only were unstable in stall. Otherwise they were absolutely stable in flight.

Pressure cabin? Not it doesn't. The record setters flew with pressurized flight suits. And I have 1% of my aircraft set to be pressurized. Planebuilder accounts for that. Altthough maybe not the flight suits. I'd say the pressurized cockpit could be squeezed into 1%.

Stats are given are planebuilder specified.
I played by the rules.

Now...this isn't sci-fi. This was an actual real world concept design. I would point out hoo, that it's no where near sci-fi. And if you start censoring players then you have the problem of censorship when its all within the rules. If I went and created an amazing springsharp design nobody would complain.

Lets remember that the flying wings WERE in flight by 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M



Not to mention the Horton 229 was a jet powered wing in flight late war.

The Horton 229 flew in 1944.



And was basically the first German attempt at a flying wing that was ever taken seriously.

Secondly, the altitude isn't all that advanced. The spitfire's came close with their Merlin engine's which were in service 1936 and 1938 respectively.

And thirdly, the YB-35 first flew in 1946



And was extremely advanced for it's time.