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.
Quoted
Given what little I recall seeing on Japan's development of jet aircraft (and I admit I may have missed something along the way) it seems rather well developed for a first attempt for a design.
Quoted
Critiquing the drawing itself, the forward portion seems a bit chunky compared with the F-86 aft fuselage.
Quoted
You reckon that it is a bit chunky acceptable or is it a bit chunky too much?
Quoted
the bulk suggests that perhaps the engine would be more a centrifugal-flow than an axial-flow type.
Quoted
It's also difficult to say "too bulky" when one does not know the technical or performance parameters.
Quoted
But as a drawing, it's not bad - if not quite "right" to my eyes.
You reckon that it is a bit chunky acceptable or is it a bit chunky too much?
Quoted
After all, the Saab Tunnan was chunky, too - and that makes this plane look downright sleek.
Quoted
I'd agree with Bruce that it's very advanced for a first attempt. Visually, I think it'd fit better in 1948-1949 period.
Quoted
The biggest concern I'd have is about the highly-angled sweep of the wings. While it raises the effective speed of the aircraft in the air, it will also result in the stall speed being rather high, a long take-off and landing roll, and poor handling at lower speeds. For that reason, I don't think it would make a very good carrier aircraft.
Quoted
I think it might be a good drawing to reuse in a few years, though. I definitely like the results.
Quoted
Uh, I failed to notice that the Wikipedia article failed to include them? Yeah, that's my answer and I'll stick to it until I can find the dimensions...
Quoted
Source is Russian Wiki (considering that it is a Russian jet, that would be the better option to use)...
Length: 9.563 m (fuselage 8.235 m)
Wingspan: 8.83 m
Height 3.8 m
Wing Area: 16.167 m²
Wingsweep: 37° 20'
Maximum speed: 1026 km/h at 3000 m
Quoted
I'm not a word magician like you or Brock to create a proper line of development.
Quoted
I like the Attacker looks and mixing with the Sabre has produced a decent image, not necessarily beautiful but not fugly either.
Quoted
As to time periods, it feels more 1949ish to me, we do seem to be pushing the swept wings a bit more than OTL but considering the sound barrier has now been broken (without swept wings and without fizzpop rockets!) then I think its logical.
Quoted
I don't feel overly left behind or worried about the Bf-329 and MNX8.
Quoted
Thank you. I’ve got a couple of sources to check (real books too!) and will certainly include the dimensional data before posting the design to the German encyclopedia.
Quoted
It’s not really a question of ‘magic’ but consistency. I’ve got the luxury of time to devote to the game plot out the timelines for development of projects. Not that I’ve not lost track of things, but keeping focus is, IMHO, important for the enjoyment of my fellow-players.
Quoted
Well I noticed no one said anything regarding that but now that you mention it here, I really feel that the +0 should be applied to it and the barrier should not be broken prior to the historical date of October 14, 1947... but that is my opinion.
I'm feeling a need to post a timeline for Atlantean jets that was cooked up some time ago.....
Quoted
Well I noticed no one said anything regarding that but now that you mention it here, I really feel that the +0 should be applied to it and the barrier should not be broken prior to the historical date of October 14, 1947... but that is my opinion.
For the record, this was something me and Brock agreed on in view of our respective programmes (Leduc ramjets and Miles M.52) and he graciously allowed Britain to bag this record.
As far as I'm concerned the events of October 14 1947 means nothing. The Miles M.52 was ahead of the American efforts...
Quoted
However, the +0 rule cannot be applied to fictional aircraft or those that never flew beyond best guesses of performance and first flights
Quoted
both Sabre and Attacker are much later than 1946
Quoted
the Lavochkin La-168 first flew on April 22 1948.
Quoted
your timeline of Japanese jets is very helpful but I find the dates misleading; is 1943, 1944 etc. date of start of design, date of first flight, date of production, date of entry into service?
Quoted
I'm feeling a need to post a timeline for Atlantean jets that was cooked up some time ago.....
Quoted
Personally, I feel the +0 rule is a little bit of a sticky wicket.
Quoted
In my view, it ought to be a guideline to ensure we don't introduce something too advanced, rather than something ironclad.
Quoted
For instance, if we went solely by +0 rule, countries that got derailed so badly by WWII (France, Germany, Japan, Italy) wouldn't be able to function very well, while countries like China that have ahistoric capabilities would be even further harmed.
Quoted
So some leeway has to exist.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH