WesWorld

I'm comparing it to the Beaufighter, which is 515kmh, is 13% heavier, and has 800hp more in two engines. Performance-wise, this is almost a copy of the Beaufighter, but in terms of weight and engine size, it's still looking really optimistic to me.

I'd wait to hear what Hood/Hrolf/RA have to say on the matter as they're more experts at it than I am.

The speed seems very reasonable to me SAAB 18A with 1065hp engines had a max speed of 465 km/h while the 18B with 1475hp engines had a topspeed of 570 km/h

It looks a lot, to me, like the DB-7s ordered by France (except for the 20mm cannon in the turret, obviously). Those aircraft had 1000 or 1100 hp engines, a maximum speed of 305 mph, and a max takeoff weight of 17031 pounds. The later models had 1600 or 1700 hp engines and a top speed of up around 340 mph and a max takeoff weight of about 20500 pounds. So for me the speed looks probably OK, perhaps a touch fast but not bad.

The range, though, that looks like it might be a bit high: even the later A-20 versions (whose weight approached that of this plane) couldn't fly that far. The Blenheim could fly further, but weighed a good bit less and had less powerful engines.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The speed seems very reasonable to me SAAB 18A with 1065hp engines had a max speed of 465 km/h while the 18B with 1475hp engines had a topspeed of 570 km/h

I had to look up the Saab 18, and while I concede that the stats do work in that case, the Saab 18B is also a 1944 aircraft. In case you haven't noticed, it's not 1944. Forgive me if my interpretation of the "three year rule" is just a tad different than yours. I am comparing it to the 1940 Beaufighter because that's covered under the three-year rule (just barely), and according to that comparison, this design is 87% the weight, with 800hp less, and the same major performance stats.

So speed (480 km/h) is okay but the range is a little bit to far ?! No problem to reduce it down to 1800 km so it became more real.

Or any other comments ?

If you set speed to 480kmh and range to 1800, then I withdraw all objections. The other alternative would be finding a bit extra hp for the engines and adding weight, which I also don't have any objections to.

I prefer this way, because it's a new model . After one or two years in service the successor (B / C / D series) will have better engines with more hp.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The speed seems very reasonable to me SAAB 18A with 1065hp engines had a max speed of 465 km/h while the 18B with 1475hp engines had a topspeed of 570 km/h

I had to look up the Saab 18, and while I concede that the stats do work in that case, the Saab 18B is also a 1944 aircraft. In case you haven't noticed, it's not 1944. Forgive me if my interpretation of the "three year rule" is just a tad different than yours. I am comparing it to the 1940 Beaufighter because that's covered under the three-year rule (just barely), and according to that comparison, this design is 87% the weight, with 800hp less, and the same major performance stats.

The SAAB 18 was an example, not that the only difference is the engines and that began production in Sweden in 1944. I also notice that the application of the three year rule by some is very selective. Did you voice any concerns about the Argentine tank based on a 1943 Italian tank?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The SAAB 18 was an example, not that the only difference is the engines and that began production in Sweden in 1944. I also notice that the application of the three year rule by some is very selective. Did you voice any concerns about the Argentine tank based on a 1943 Italian tank?

What's your point? That I'm disqualified from objecting to an airplane design because I declined to comment on somebody else's tank design? Sorry, that argument is full of fail.

The Argentine tank is, IIRC, on par in all respects to the Japanese Type 96, and the Type 96 came out first. Did YOU object to the Type 96, eh?

That doesnt change the fact that the Type 96 is a 1940 design and the other is a 1943 design. So your interpretation of the three year rule or agreement is not a tad but very different from mine

...unfortunately its not the historical Italian 1943 design. As Gavin states in his encyclopedia its a design thats between a BT series and a Crusader, the former series developement started in 1931 and the later being a 1941 design so....

I thought the speed was high when I first saw it. Don't forget that the Beaufighter and A-2o were skinny aircraft, they had slim fuselages, I would expect this new Chinese torpedo-bomber to be fairly slim too and the rear turret would require a fatter fuselage than the Beaufighter or A-20.

I'm happy with parador's changes, I think its a good type and over time will be very effective.

The B-18 is a 1944 type but its origins go back to 1940 or so and is really a Ju-86 under the skin in concept and design.

Now about that tank folks before tempers flare... it is based on RA's tank which has been in production for some time and although it resembles the Saharaino of 1943 it is in fact a purely WW design with much more in common to the British cruiser type. I designed a 75mm gun purely for infantry support, not long-range anti-tank duties, and in any case my final choice of armament is likely to be the 47mm.
Also it has no sloped frontal glacis so it's nothing like the Type 96.

I would like to note that I havent objected to either tank even if the Leopard would have been the Saharino (that being a more or less straight copy of the Crusader), what I am pointing out is Brocks strict three year rule when it comes to certain countries while applying a comparative model when it comes to others.

Its apples and oranges, we use the 3 year rule as a guide, its only natural that others look to comparable historical designs within the 3 year gap to asses wether or not the design seems doable.

There is no double standard, those "certain country's" have also gotten their fair share of critisism.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The B-18 is a 1944 type but its origins go back to 1940 or so and is really a Ju-86 under the skin in concept and design.

Argh.

While I agree on most what you said I disagree on this one. The B-18 was designed as a more modern replacement of the Ju-86K. It was a follow-on design that had nothing to do with the Junkers except that it was her follow-on in service within the Flygvapnet.

A very good summary of the planes design history can be found in Flugzeug Classic, issue 4/2009.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
That doesnt change the fact that the Type 96 is a 1940 design and the other is a 1943 design. So your interpretation of the three year rule or agreement is not a tad but very different from mine

And as has previously been pointed out, the high-velocity gun it possesses makes it superior to every T-34 design until the introduction of the T-34/85, a tank which debuted in 1944. Yes, the art shows a tank which debuted in 1940, but that is not the tank of the statistics. Armour is on par with the original T34, yes; but the gun is in between a late-model T34 and the T34/85. Hence, a mid-1940s tank, and definitely not the as-OTL T34.

((Edited because I was in a PO'd mood with the first try. Apologies for the previous incarnation of this post.))

Stats matter more than pictures. Pictures are only there as a guide rather than anything else and really shouldn't be problematic unless they show something totally anachronistic. The M13/34 tank looks like a Crusader because I modified a Crusader drawing as I couldn't be bothered to start from scratch.

I don't have a particular problem with this design, its a bit fast compared to something like the Beaufort, but with only two crew it could be explained. I don't really think you'd need high altitude rated engines for the torpedo bomber role, so would probably shave a lot off the ceiling.

I concede the point about the SAAB origins but it must be remembered that although an aircraft might fly in, say, 1944 its design and underlying specfication might be 2-4 years before that date. Really its going to be engine development that slows airframe development.

Also there is a website that details some unbuilt SAAB designs, some of them are very good and I think might give some interesting ideas to Earl and anyone else who would copy them!

Well, the proposed design by the AB Götaverken called GP 8 (or P8B) from March 39 is pretty close to the Do-17. The AFF/SAAB worked on a design that shared many features with the Ju-88 which was not coincidentally. The projext leader, an Austrian called Alfred Gassner, was working for Junkers in Dessau in 1937 and was part of the design team that developed the Ju-88. When SAAB later joint ASJA the design was not longer of interest. Instead all focused on ASJAs design L--11 (or P8A) which later became the SAAB 18 even though the GP8 showed better results but was too difficult to produce.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
I would like to note that I havent objected to either tank even if the Leopard would have been the Saharino (that being a more or less straight copy of the Crusader), what I am pointing out is Brocks strict three year rule when it comes to certain countries while applying a comparative model when it comes to others.

It's not Brock's job to vigorously scour the posts and ascertain what year class things fall in. Primarily it's the author's responsibility, with hopefully helpful commentary from the rest of us as to what is and is not appropriate.

As for plane speed, from playing with planebuilder I've found there can be large differences in speed with the same weight and HP. Streamlining is a big variable, inline engines cut a great deal of cross section, wingspan, root thickness and loading dramatically effect drag, and then it's all complicated by the supercharger- the higher one flys the less effect drag has.

Compared to the Dutch T.VII- which was planebuilder off the historical T.V as I recall, , it's ~15% heavier but should have a smaller cross-section, and has a shorter wingspan so likely higher wingloading and less drag, has 20% more hp, 10% more range, half the crew and payload.

Given a couple of years of streamlining, less drag and bigger engines, I don't see 520kph as unreasonable.
I do think that on missions of 9-10 hours out over the sea, one might wish to have a 4 person crew, the Pilot, Gunner/Radio, and then a dedicated co-pilot/engineer and navigator/bombadier. That would increase the cross-section, degrading speed a bit.