WesWorld

Ok, so it's only the last of 1935, but this is the new plane that Siam has decided upon to become it's newest medium bomber. Three versions will be developed over the course of 1936, at which time the versions that will be produced will be decided upon.

Version 1: level bomber, carries a 1600kg bomb load
Version 2: torpedo bomber, carries a single 533mm torpedo
Version 3: mounts 2x37mm cannon in blister below fuselage*

All three versions mount 3x13mm machine guns: one in the nose (fired by the pilot), one on the ventral aft the bomb bay and one in the rear cockpit.



General characteristics
* Crew: Three - pilot, gunner, bombardier
* Length: 12.66 m (41 ft 6 in)
* Wingspan: 17.16 m (56 ft 3 in)
* Height: 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in)
* Wing area: 40.5 m² (436 ft²)
* Empty weight: 5,875 kg (12,952 lb)
* Loaded weight: 7,563 kg (16,639 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 8,495 kg (18,728 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× liquid-cooled V-12, 903 kW (1,210 hp) each

Performance
* Maximum speed: 580 km/h (290 knots/360 mph)
* Range: 1,160 km (721 miles)
* Service ceiling 8,800 m (28,870 ft)
* Rate of climb: 7.2 m/s (1,410 ft/min)
* Wing loading: 186 kg/m² (38 lb/ft²)
* Power/mass: 250 W/kg (0.15 hp/lb)

Armament
* 3x13mm machine guns
* 1,000 kg of weapons (internal)
* 600 kg of weapons (external)


* the 37mm cannon are mounted under the fuselage where the bomb bay would be. They carry 50 rounds per gun. As recommended, 300kg per gun has been reserved for the weapons and bracing and 100kg to ammo and other sundries.

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian
Version 3: mounts 3x37mm cannon in blister below fuselage*

emmm, 3X37MM???????

3 x 20mm - yeah, no problem, given the size of the plane, but 3 x 37mm seems WAAAAY over the top!!
I know some planes carried single 37's, but 3........

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian
Version 3: mounts 3x37mm cannon in blister below fuselage*

emmm, 3X37MM???????

3 x 20mm - yeah, no problem, given the size of the plane, but 3 x 37mm seems WAAAAY over the top!!

Yes... if she could handle a 2 ton torpedo almost 2 feet across and 21 feet long, I think this is not unreasonable. Also, they are mounted in a semi-external fashion- think like the way that 20mm gun pods were bolted under a Phantom, but the guns aren't in detachable pods, rather, just bulged under the airframe. Sure, she won't handle like a dream, but I don't know why it wouldn't be possible; I mean, the weights match up.


And they aren't 'over the top' for it's intended duty.
She's a heavy ground/maritime attack bomber like the B-25J, with special attention to being able to knock out MTB's and damage DD's and sloop/frigates.

The 3x37mm ain't gonna happen. I should point you back to the ruckus when the Eclipse Hurricane's original specs came back with 4x20mm nose guns - it was downgraded promptly to 2x20mm plus 4x12.7mm guns. 3x37mm just won't fly.

Also... aerial torpedoes are MUCH shorter and lighter than you apparently think. The standard USN aerial torpedo, the Mk13, was only 13.5 feet long and weighed 1,927 pounds (under one ton). The comparable destroyer torpedo was 24' long and weighed 2,841 pounds.

The IJN used 17.7" torpedoes through WWII, with a weight of 1,872 pounds and a length of 17.3 feet.

Fine... would 2x37mm work, then?
We are talking about something the size of the de Havilland Mosquito here, which carried 4x20mm or 1x57mm in the same manner and assorted light guns. I see no reason why at least 2x37mm couldn't fit space-wise.

If I go with 2x37mm, they'll have about 60 rpg, maybe more, since the bombardier would be there to reload them.

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian
Fine... would 2x37mm work, then?
We are talking about something the size of the de Havilland Mosquito here, which carried 4x20mm or 1x57mm and assorted light guns. I see no reason why at least 2x37mm couldn't fit space-wise.

...it's not an issue of space, it's an issue of historicity.

The Mosquito didn't come out until 1941. With our three-year rule, that puts anything comparable at the 1938 mark.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
...it's not an issue of space, it's an issue of historicity.

The Mosquito didn't come out until 1941. With our three-year rule, that puts anything comparable at the 1938 mark.

The P-39 Aerocobra prototype flew in 1939 and armed with a 37mm cannon. The Pe-2 (which this plane is based off of) made it's maiden flight in 1939 as a prototype. As this is a statement of what is in development for 1936 and not what will be FIELDED in 1936, I think that's a pretty legal combination of legal weapons and legal aircraft. No final decision would be made until 1937, which is when the airframe and the weapon would come up as available (as both were historically ordered in 1940), and so the design and weapon would be fair game when I plan to begin production.

And don't forget, the first model Mosquitoes were either unarmed or armed only with .303 mg's, the 20mm armament was later than 1941

I can't think of a single plane that carried 3 x 37mm (or similar) guns.

As brockpaine said, it's not about space, nor is it about weight, the plane can handle both; its just too much at this time

2 x 37's is a little more realistic, remember the Hurricane MkII with the 2 x Vickers 40mm anti tank guns, or the tank-buster version of the Stuka with 2 x 37mm gun pods?

...I'm just saying, with the debates we've been having about other aircraft, the idea is going to get some serious and lively discussion.

Seconded!!

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
I can't think of a single plane that carried 3 x 37mm (or similar) guns

I know that it's quite a bit later on, but being as some fighters were built with 40mm and even 57mm, and medium bombers were built with 76mm guns in their noses, I don't see why 3x37 would be out of line, even if nothing IRL mounted that many guns of that particular caliber.

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore GreenAs brockpaine said, it's not about space, nor is it about weight, the plane can handle both; its just too much at this time.

Nor were there as many 350+mph fighter designs, or as many planes with as heavy a bomb load, or any of a number of other inconsistencies. Siam has a useful reason to field something armed in that manner (coast defense) and it's within the technological limits of the time even if no one bothered to do it. No nation really used autogyros until 1945 (Japan, and then only on one ship), either... but in WW, there are nations using them- 3 that I have been told of.

I'd be very surprised if 3 37mm guns would fit under a Pe-2 sized aircraft. Take a look at the Ju-88 P-2, which is about 50% heavier than the Pe-2, and really had only enough room for 2 37mm guns mounted side by side in a blister beneath the fuselage.

I'm also kind of dubious about the choice of weapon: the 37mm, while it's big enough to damage a MTB pretty seriously, is too small to be very effective against anything larger. Against MTBs, the 20mm shells fired from the MG-FFs that Siam already has in service would do a LOT of damage, and would be more likely to get a hit than the relatively slow firing 37mm.

Quoted

Originally posted by Carthaginian
Nor were there as many 350+mph fighter designs, or as many planes with as heavy a bomb load, or any of a number of other inconsistencies.

I have found that when I take historical Fokker/Koolhoven designs, and apply +3 years streamlining and install the more advanced engines and supercharger.. I get a much faster plane. However not terribly out of line with things 3-5 years ahead.

On things like the 75mmHOW armed B-25, one has to be careful. While obviously feasible and it existed, it was the result of war experience, after they had tried other weapon suites. That experience is lacking in WW. Another example is we tend shoot down forward throwing ASW weapons simply because the war experience that showed their need was not there. Yes they were real world, but they were in response to problems that have not quite shown themselves yet.

You should at least have tried to hide those Russian markings like I did for the Ki-35 Fu...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I'd be very surprised if 3 37mm guns would fit under a Pe-2 sized aircraft. Take a look at the Ju-88 P-2, which is about 50% heavier than the Pe-2, and really had only enough room for 2 37mm guns mounted side by side in a blister beneath the fuselage.

Which is more or less how I intended to mount these.
I know that a 40mm would take about 18" to mount and allow adequate room for the belt to move without jamming, so again, using that for my reference point, I thought that three 37mm's would fit if they were mounted under the wing along centerline with their magazines accessible from within the bomb bay.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonI'm also kind of dubious about the choice of weapon: the 37mm, while it's big enough to damage a MTB pretty seriously, is too small to be very effective against anything larger. Against MTBs, the 20mm shells fired from the MG-FFs that Siam already has in service would do a LOT of damage, and would be more likely to get a hit than the relatively slow firing 37mm.

They would cause a lot more shrapnel damage than a 20mm and pack a lot more explosive, more by almost half. That was the reasoning for picking them. Yes, they do fire more slowly, and I'm well aware of the lead-time trouble that everyone ran into in using 30mm+ caliber shells against aircraft. In this application, the guns are meant to be fired at something doing 45 knots as opposed to 350 knots. The trouble they had against fast-moving aircraft should be far lessened against a target 8x slower.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser KirkOn things like the 75mmHOW armed B-25, one has to be careful. While obviously feasible and it existed, it was the result of war experience, after they had tried other weapon suites... Yes they were real world, but they were in response to problems that have not quite shown themselves yet.

Why should we 'be careful?' Didn't the Russians try something similar before the war with recoilless rifles? I believe they did, though the problems with the early recoilless weapons lead to the design being canceled and it's designer suffering the tender mercies of Stalin.

No, you don't need a war to come up with those kinds of ideas. Here is the logic of Siam on this aircraft:
The 37mm is a B-I-G round, and we already have the capacity to make them. They would be excellent for attacks against small craft and MTB's in our rather congested waters. They have a faster response time than MTB's, and comparable patrol ranges. This would make them excellent for defending our coasts from possible attackers. Also, they would make excellent attack craft against the 6-ton tank we possess- and comparable models- and which are plentiful in our area.

I had a valid line of thought that didn't need a war to develop- just a set of circumstances and a design idea.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10You should at least have tried to hide those Russian markings like I did for the Ki-35 Fu...

Sorry, not as good in photoshop as you. I'd do it if I could.

Oh man......

Have you checked if this weapon fits into your plane?

The Pe-2 was developed from a light bomber prototyp, the PB-100 or VI-100. The latter first flew on 22th of December 1939. However, the PB-100 was not the Pe-2. The latter first flew on the 15th of December 1940 without building any prototyp before. So I think you´re really beyond the +3 and even +5 rule if WesWorld is in Q3/35.

The weaponry has already been discussed as unrealistic.

So I will focus on the stats given and note that you´ve stated an unrealistic HIGH SPEED. The Pe-2 was good for Vmax ~530km/h on two Klimow V-12-engines WK-105R a 1.225 PS and variable pitch propellors. Those 580km/h are hightly unrealistic and way too high. Just compare that to fighter speeds in WesWorld - fighters already ahead of time - and you´ll find only a few even capable of keeping with your super-Pe-2. For example the RSAF only has the brand new D variant of the Swollow (aka He112).

I also wonder how SIAM - smallest power in WesWorld - could build such a plane? Where do you get those V12s from which are at the absolute top level regarding power output for the time being (1935+5)? Where does Siam get the (heat resistant) material from necessary to build such engines? We´re already hard pressed to accept Italy can do what RA wants her to do. But Siam?!?!

So I really have to ask you: Why are you fanning the discussion about bleeding edge technology? Your statements indicate you´re following the discussion we have with RA but you seem to have learned nothing. Why? Stupidity or ignorance?

Its maybe a bit extreme. Heavy machine guns and 20mm cannon would work fine against MTBs but not so great against tanks. One option would be to use a bigger 20mm round, like the 20x138 in the Solothurn anti-tank rifle. Converted to auto fire similar to the MG 30 CL and you have a reasonable weapon. 37mm weapons are not impossible, look at the clip fed guns on the Airacuda. The 37mm will be better, but there is a higher to performance. You can always strap on larger guns later when they are needed. Usually its better to mount one big gun rather than three smaller ones. For the same weight you can most likely get a 50mm weapon.

The US aerial torpedoes were short and fat designs. Most were longer at around 18ft.

The Siamese already have the Fw-42C, which is armed with a modified 37mm FLaK-30 (equipped with longer clip guides, so it can carry more rounds). It's big, it's heavy, it kicks a lot, but it does have a high velocity and therefore good range. The US M4 37mm isn't done yet, don't know about any other medium-velocity 37mm weapons.

I agree with RA, for killing Vickers 6-ton or FT-17 type tanks, a high-velocity airborne 37mm is overkill, there are several 15-20mm choices that will do the job just fine from the air.

But if Siam really wants a 37mm, a single FLaK 30 (like on the Fw-42Cs), combined with a couple of fixed MGs, would probably work just fine.

The engines probably aren't much of a problem: Siam already uses 1100 hp Jumo 211As on it's Fw-187s, and the 1200hp Jumo 211B became historically available in 1938. The top speed might be dubious, with a bulge to mount the gun(s), but the engine horsepower (assuming Siam is using something like the 211B, as seems likely) is OK.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The engines probably aren't much of a problem: Siam already uses 1100 hp Jumo 211As on it's Fw-187s, and the 1200hp Jumo 211B became historically available in 1938. The top speed might be dubious, with a bulge to mount the gun(s), but the engine horsepower (assuming Siam is using something like the 211B, as seems likely) is OK.

I have no problem with the individual power of a single engine. The RSAF uses a supercharged V-12 for the F-6D with 1250PS (something in between a Merlin XII and Merlin XX of the Spitfire II and III) too BUT the whole package is what causes me headaches - and there has not yet been a statement that this Pe-2 derivate is powered by foreign/licence-build engines.

Quoted

So I will focus on the stats given and note that you´ve stated an unrealistic HIGH SPEED. The Pe-2 was good for Vmax ~530km/h on two Klimow V-12-engines WK-105R a 1.225 PS and variable pitch propellors. Those 580km/h are hightly unrealistic and way too high.

Well, that's the speed that Wikipedia gives. The book I have on the Peshka gives a speed of 600km/h or 360mph.

... but...

"A dive was made without the diving brakes to the limiting speed of 360mph (600km/h)."
There is a number behind and int the notes section, it says:
"Interestingly, test reports in Soviet documents give different figures to that quoted here. In these, the maximum diving speed of the Pe-2 was limited to 720km/h at a 60 degree diving angle. However during the actual testing, Pe-2s in dives actually reached a maximum recorded speed of 760 km/h."

A bit further, maximum speed is given as 540 km/h at 5,0000m and 506 km/h at 2,000m (initially).