WesWorld

As those who've chatted with me recently on the IRC channel will be aware, one of the things I'm planning to do regarding Nordmark's military situation is to flesh out their air fleet, both land-based and naval. Between the Orkan - which seems to be a P-66 - and the Saab 21, I'm well covered for fighters landside, but my bombers are all getting a bit long in the tooth, I haven't been able to identify a dedicated naval fighter, and the torpedo/dive bomber I do have is something of a cipher.

Since I have an idea in mind that will call for somewhat more payload than the 'Torpadera' can deliver, I figure I might as well replace that, too.

At this stage, all I'm really doing is fact-checking and 'napkin sketches' to figure out what's possible, what's practical, and what's too boring for my sense of play.

For this first post, I have 'layout concepts' for the naval aircraft.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…f/Mushroom1.png

While I'll admit that the OOC reasoning behind the 'Mushroom's layout is that, even after recognizing their distinguishing marks, a Zero looks much like a Thunderbolt looks much like a Wurger to me, the in-character motivation for the layout is that it gives the pilot superior forward visibility on landing. Aside from looking odd, I don't think that it'd have any particularly distinguishing characteristics compared to other naval fighters.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…yingCarpet1.png

The 'Flying Carpet', in contrast, is an attempt to fit a two-engine bomber's capability into the deck space of a large single-engined one; its length and wingspan are actually slightly less than the TBF Avenger. Elevator, deck, and catapult weight limits are another question, granted, but I'd like to know if the thing can fly, first, so to speak.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c386/v…f/Mushroom1.png

...badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tandem wing and canard types are still very rare and experimental even in WW. Canada and Australia have done much research on this, the Brits a little less so, but operational planes are getting much nearer.

The Flying Carpet could be an interesting idea though, push-pull planes do have some attractions.

I don't think a pusher prop on a carrier plane is a viable idea.

As I suggested the other day, I'd think the Orkan Mk4 would make an excellent carrier-based fighter, and a basis for further developments. It's radial-engined and is probably pretty sturdy all-around. It's certainly better than trying to create a pusher naval fighter, which will be extremely problematical. If you need a larger radial engine, I'd suggest buying or licensing one from Germany or Britain.

Planes look similar for pretty good engineering reasons, not because the designer was too unimaginative to do things differently.

Carrier planes land pretty flat, with hardly any flare, there should be no issues with pushers. That said, if you already have the Saab 21 why not just a navalized version? Btw Denmark's main fighter is also a pusher.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
Carrier planes land pretty flat, with hardly any flare, there should be no issues with pushers.

After glancing over some WWII video footage, I don't agree with that. It might be viable in many situations, but the accident rate will be significantly higher than for a regular aircraft. I see it as the kind of choice a navy would make if they had no experience in real carrier operations.

I return to my earlier comment - the Orkan Mk4 would be a good carrier-based fighter, and would make a good base for further carrier fighter developments. Not as tough as the Hellcat, likely, but it would certainly be in the same class performance wise, and is still comparable to the large portion of carrier fighters in 1941.

That's because WWII planes were taildraggers, look at some tricycle landing gear footage, a pusher would use a tricycle landing gear.

Hmmm. So, let's be as reasonable as can be when there are acknowledged blatant prejudices in the mix.

Option 1: Conventional Tractor/Radial
- Pros: Sturdy, no trouble trapping, absolutely certain to work
- Cons: Boring, contrary to my conception of the purpose of the game, requires overseas assistance for larger aircraft

Option 2: Tractor/Inline
- Pros: No fear of wires, technologically conservative, high-power engines available natively
- Cons: Reliability and battle-damage issues, visibility issues while on deck or undergoing final approach

Option 3: Pusher/Radial
- Pros: Existing Nordmark experience with type (Saab 21), excellent approach/ground visibility, canard-types fairly compact, durability
- Cons: Prop fouling and clearance issues, canard-types relatively undeveloped, requires multiple or imported engines for larger aircraft

Option 4: Pusher/Inline
- Pros: Previous experience, visibility, native engine types
- Cons: Fouling, durability

Option 5: Asymmetric Tractor/Radial
- Pros: Durability, visibility, lack of fouling
- Cons: Lack of technical leadup, imported engines for larger aircraft

Option 6: Asymmetric Tractor/Inline
- Pros: Visibility, lack of fouling, available engines
- Cons: Lack of technical leadup, durability


I don't think that there's going to be any disagreement about my ruling out Five and Six - as much as I'd love to work with them, Nordmark's design heritage up to this point just doesn't support the concept, the way it does the pusher designs.

I'm aware of the arguments 'for' One. I could come up with most of them on my own, and the ones I'd've missed have, by this point, been raised and gone over, most of them several times.

I'm still ruling it out. In the event people are interested in my attempts to fumble out an explanation of motivations even I don't understand perfectly, I'm willing to make the attempt, but trying to convince me that I have to play a way I've decided not to is, I think, only going to irritate everyone concerned. The only way it'll happen is if the Mods put their heads together and issue an explicit order to make it so.

That said, if anyone has an idea for what to add as Options Seven and up, I'd be delighted to hear it. Until then, I'm reading Option Two as the frontrunner, followed by Three.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles
Option 3: Pusher/Radial
- Pros: Existing Nordmark experience with type (Saab 21), excellent approach/ground visibility, canard-types fairly compact, durability
- Cons: Prop fouling and clearance issues, canard-types relatively undeveloped, requires multiple or imported engines for larger aircraft

Two notes: first, the Saab 21, if it's similar to the historical one, has an inline engine, not a radial. Second, I think pusher radials usually had some issues with cooling; the only ones I recall were in wing-mounted twin engine applications, where they could have nacelles facing forward.

Also, the advantages and disadvantages you make for some of the various different types are, in my opinion, not inherently endemic to the layouts per se, but rather a function of the aircraft's individual design.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Two notes: first, the Saab 21, if it's similar to the historical one, has an inline engine, not a radial. Second, I think pusher radials usually had some issues with cooling; the only ones I recall were in wing-mounted twin engine applications, where they could have nacelles facing forward.

Also, the advantages and disadvantages you make for some of the various different types are, in my opinion, not inherently endemic to the layouts per se, but rather a function of the aircraft's individual design.

I'm aware of the Saab 21's powerplant, yes. I was speaking in terms of pusher arrangements generally.

Coolingwise, the Flying Carpet is visualized as having wing-root intakes of considerable size leading to the engine mounted at the absolute rear of the fuselage, while the Mushroom's mounting is open around the entire perimeter of the fuselage and features a cooling fan besides. The structures fanning out in front of it are more wing-root intakes, not 'full height'.

'Not necessarily an issue'... I'm guessing you're referring to visibility?

A pusher radial might well have cooling problems; whether or not that would be enough to scupper the idea, at least before an actual prototype, though, is another matter. Lots of weird and wonderful things were tried out - it's entirely possible the designers might try something with a Big Honking Cooling Fan driven by the engine and pumping air through almost jet-engine-like intakes to try and keep the radial cool.

Which, of course, begs the question of how much thrust the heated air from the cooling fan might well produce, and if it might cause somebody bright to invent the motorjet...