You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

howard

Unregistered

1

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 3:46am

Future proposed BAM licensed aircraft



Comments?

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 31st 2008, 4:29am)


Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

2

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 4:57am

3 Crew seems light. Pilot, Copilot/engineer/Navigator, Bombadier/Radio operator & rear gunner?

Otherwise she's similar to the T.V, a little less payload, and little lighter but that is easily explained by less wing area/max ratings.

howard

Unregistered

3

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 5:31am

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
3 Crew seems light. Pilot, Copilot/engineer/Navigator, Bombadier/Radio operator & rear gunner?

Otherwise she's similar to the T.V, a little less payload, and little lighter but that is easily explained by less wing area/max ratings.


The guns are all in the nose. The plane is small designed as a light attack craft for close air support. Payload wise, I think it might be pushing it.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 31st 2008, 5:46am)


Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

4

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 9:56am

So the dorsal feature is for navigation shots?

Hmm we have different definitions of small. She is several meters smaller than the historic T.V., which had a 1,000kg bombload but otherwise very similar stats.

howard

Unregistered

5

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 11:49am

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
So the dorsal feature is for navigation shots?

Hmm we have different definitions of small. She is several meters smaller than the historic T.V., which had a 1,000kg bombload but otherwise very similar stats.


The base model is the Fiat Cr.25: it gets better engines and I rearrange the armament to make more sense as a ground attack plane. Its 1937 frame and fabric construction and well within the BAM capability to build. As for small? compare her to the Devastator;

TBD-1 Devastator

General characteristics

* Crew: Three: Pilot, Torpedo Officer/Navigator, Radioman/Gunner
* Length: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
* Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
* Height: 15 ft 1 in (4.60 m)
* Wing area: 422 ft² (39.2 m²)
* Empty weight: 6,182 lb (2,804 kg)
* Loaded weight: 9,862 lb (4,473 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 10,194 lb (4,623 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-64 Twin Wasp radial engine, 900 hp (671 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 206 mph (331 km/h)
* Range: 435 miles (700 km) with Mk XIII Torpedo, 716 mi (1,152 km) with 1,000 lbs (453 kg) bombs (700 km)
* Service ceiling 19,700 ft (6,000 m)
* Rate of climb: 720 ft/min (3.7 m/s)
* Wing loading: lb/ft² (kg/m²)
* Power/mass: hp/lb (kW/kg)

Armament

* Either
o 1x 0.30 cal (7.62 mm) machine gun forward-firing or
o 1x 0.50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun forward-firing
* 1x 0.30 cal (7.62 mm) machine gun in rear cockpit (later increased to two)
* Either
o 1x 1,000 lb (453 kg) bomb
o 1x Mark XIII torpedo - 1,200 lb (544 kg)

It is a small plane.

H.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

6

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 6:12pm

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
It is a small plane.



It's a funny point to disagree on. I think for me, once the wingspan is over the 50ft mark, "small" is questionable.

The plane is physically 25% longer with a slightly larger wingspan and ~50% greater max weight. I will note the Devastator is also a 1,000lb bomb bird. The comparable historic T.V, also mixed construction with the same general engines, range, etc, managed 1000kg. So I think your limitation of 500lbs, if not based on Planebuilder, is likely overcautious.

As for construction type, the mixed is likely safe and could widen the worker base to include older ones, but metal fabrication has been about some time now.

However, while I think the stats slightly conservative, that is not a stumbling block. Nice pic.

7

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 7:58pm

The CR.25 was a nice design and very reliable as a transport. Its fairly comparable to the Beaufighter, suitable for patrol and ground attack duties as well.

howard

Unregistered

8

Sunday, August 31st 2008, 9:14pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The CR.25 was a nice design and very reliable as a transport. Its fairly comparable to the Beaufighter, suitable for patrol and ground attack duties as well.


I'm working off the basis of the Caproni 310 series as the next batter up. Those planes were dogs. Entirely agree about the CR-25, It was an excellent little plane, shame is that it lost out to the Caproni 310s.

H.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "howard" (Aug 31st 2008, 9:41pm)