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
Alright, I'll bite, though I have questions about Australian designs too. How is it Australia has a Mustang, an aircraft with Laminar wings, when to my knowledge the U.S. doesn't have one, nor does any nation have Laminar flow wings on their aircraft.
Quoted
What is the design progression that got Mexico to the Aguila III design?
Quoted
April 1st TNCA has unveiled its latest product. The C-5 Aguila (OOC Name has been changed) is a monoplane development of the (P-23) Tecolote II being used by the FAM. The Aguila will be capable of 320 MPH, and will carry 4 machine guns. It is being touted as a cheaper alternative to other high performance aircraft like the I-100. Orders have already arrived from the FAM for 5 pre production aircraft. The Aguila will form the backbone of the FAM for years to come. An advanced model with retractable gear is rumored to be in development.
Quoted
Also TNCA will build an interim C-5 Aguila design. Problems with the new engine will delay deliveries of the new fighter, so TNCA will introduce the C-5+, the plane will have the retractable gear but with the old 700hp engine. Armament will be 2 50cal MGs in the nose (cannot mount 1' cannon in nose, and MGs can't be mounted in wing due to RG gear). 15 will be built and flow exclusively by TNCA test pilots.
Quoted
TNCA C-10 Aguila II
Power: Curtis Emperor V-1720 1,000hp
Armament: One 25.4/1in cannon, Two 7.62/0.3in machine guns (all in nose)
Size: Wingspan - 30ft Length - 25ft Wing area - 200sq ft
Weight: Empty - 3500lb Max take-off - 4500lb
Performance:
Max speed - 350mph
Ceiling - 30,000ft
Range - 450 miles
Climb - 2500ft per minute
An improved C-5 Aguila, with Allison V-1710, and retractable landing gear. Wing MGs removed due to landing gear and replaced with single 25.4mm cannon.
Quoted
The final member of the Aguila/P-6 family. The Aguila III has two major changes from the II.
First is a new wing which changes the retractable gear from outward to inward retraction. This gives the gear a wider stance and reduces landing accidents. It also allows four MGs to be mounted outboard of the landing gear. Two hardpoints are also fitted, making the III the first multi-role member of the family.
The second change is replacing the engine with a more powerful variant, with twin superchargers. This change required the two nose guns to be moved to the wing.
Other minor changes include a new canopy, and moving the radiator further back, to make room for the landing gear. The cockpit was also moved foward slightly, improving visibility.
TNCA C-11 Aguila III
Power: Supercharged Curtiss-Mexico Emperor V-1720-2 1,400hp
Armament: One 25.4mm cannon (nose), Four 0.3in machine guns (wing)
Size:
Wingspan - 29ft
Length - 25ft
Wing area - 200sq ft
Weight:
Empty - 4200lb
Max take-off - 5900lb
Performance:
Max speed - 410mph
Ceiling - 34,000ft
Range - 500 miles
Climb - 3,200ft per minute
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
I didn't really research that area well, since it doesn't really matter in game terms. All we really care about is how the aircraft perform, and those numbers are in-line with comparable OTL aircraft.
Quoted
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
For myself, I prefer to lay a chain of development, which takes a lot longer - in game time - than throwing a design concept.
Quoted
But you have spoken to the point - it doesn't matter in game terms how you got the design untill you push matters to the improbable.
Quoted
For myself, I prefer to lay a chain of development, which takes a lot longer - in game time - than throwing a design concept.
Quoted
Who's 'we'? I know you're not speaking on my behalf here, dude. I'm more a fan of the backstory than stat-spam (possibly because most of the stats don't mean much to me, as a layman in the area)
Quoted
I've always been of the opinion that this is the preferance for the sim as a whole, as well. For example, despite RA's disputes with Canada's productivity, it hasn't come out of nowhere; It's been a steady (and as far as I can tell logical) process for the last decade or so. Longer, if you count a few news items I posted as backstory when I first took over. That buildup has only started to pay off in the last year or two, with indigineous designs starting to appear, none of them being class-leaders.
Quoted
For the sake of those who didn't hear it on IRC, I don't really agree with Foxy's estimation of Mexico's industrial potential. Mexico's news have been more dominated by civil wars and other domestic unrest, and frequent poking and needling of other powers around the world rather than the stability and aquisition of talent and experience for his projects.
Quoted
This is were Foxy said Mexico is the world's largest exporter of oil, and that revenue somehow translates into industry....but then again, I don't see top-line military equipment coming from the current oil-rich middle-east; They shop elsewhere. Selling oil drilling rights to the gringos keeps the upper class rich, it doesn't really drive industrial innovation.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Quoted
But you have spoken to the point - it doesn't matter in game terms how you got the design untill you push matters to the improbable.
Is the Aguila design improbable? Is there any reason why such a plane could not have been built in this time period?
That's what I was trying to say. Aircraft weight (a stat) matters very little in the whole scheme of things. And the Aguila is not better than other planes out there.
Quoted
The Mustang is actually a US/Dutch design by Fokker-America (I asked KK and Hrolf before entering the plane), Australian Aviation was looking at a similar design and due to its previous work license building Fokker-Avia FXXIb fighters, it joined Fokker-America as a partner in the Mustang's development. But the burnt of the work was done by the US.
Quoted
As far as laminar flow wings, they aren't that hard to develop
Quoted
Its started out with the Curtiss P-23, Mexico bought quite a few of those in the early 1930's. TNCA then took the P-23 and developed a single wing version of it as the Aguila I in 1934:
Quoted
Looking at the numbers, I doubt the series of Agula designs is possible
Quoted
That buildup has only started to pay off in the last year or two, with indigineous designs starting to appear, none of them being class-leaders.
Quoted
Have you read the Mexican news? The Mexican aviation industry didn't come out of the blue, nor did the Mexican economy. There's been a steady progression, its buried in old news articles, but it's there.
Quoted
In the 20s Mexico was also pretty strong economically. It was the leading exporter of oil and growing rapidly, except the Great Depression hit and it hurt Mexico pretty bad. However, in WW there was no Depression, and even more money is coming into Mexico in the form of the Mexican canal. Mexico has the economic potential to maintain a decent aerospace industry.
Quoted
What I have in Mexico was done in OTL, its not like I have 10 different cutting edge designs with 5 different cutting edge engines all at the same time.
Quoted
And besides, Mexico probably has the worst factories to Economic Potential ratio of ANY WW nation. All that money that would go into ship building has to go somewhere else.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (May 19th 2010, 9:48pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (May 19th 2010, 9:56pm)
Quoted
My question to RA is this. If we are to restrict Mexico, Australia, and Canada to what they had historically, we should also restrict Italy to what they had historically as well, so no carriers for you, sir. And if we are doing that, everyone can restrict themselves to what they had historically then to make it fair for all.
Quoted
If you just want us to buy foreign aircraft and not be able to build our own stuff, then I quit
Quoted
For economy purposes I'd like to see a wesworld ranking of oil exporters as I find it surpising that theres a claim that Mexico is the top exporter.
Quoted
It doesn´t matter if Mexico is 1st tier or 2nd..... This is about aircrafts. Don´t let it erode to the usual economy discussion.
Quoted
That sort of thing isn't readily apparent. Australia buying some P-51s off NAA I don't have a problem with. Australia developing the P-51 which is what has been presented, is rather more questionable, especially when Australia has been developing 1 or 2 fighters per year over the past decade. Historically; only two from 1935-1950.
What is the difference between a laminar flow wing and a regular wing? Isn't it just the airfoil shape? I might have understated it a bit, but its not as hard as you paint it to be.Quoted
I don't see how you can be an aeronautical engineer and say that sort of thing. Summarising a decade of concerted development into "not that hard". They don't work particularly well in the real world though.
Quoted
So how many P-23s were actually built? O wait, one historically. So why is Mexico 15 years early in having turbocharged fighters?
The Conqueror didn't work historically? That's news...Quoted
Then Mexico took an engine design that didn't really work that well historically, pretty much doubled the power, added turbochargers, two stage superchargers, a cannon firing through the actual crankshaft. Wait a moment, how many engines did Mexico develop historically? Now they're going from nothing to world leading in a couple of years?
Quoted
They are pretty small. Might be ok if they're weren't stressed to high g, carry much fuel, carry much armament, carry much armour - oh wait, it does all those things. It's probably killing a fair few pilots with a massive engine stuffed up the front and a really small fuselage lacking stability.
Quoted
There has been more of a backstory from Canada, rather than "look at my cool stuff". A few too many planes being developed all at once for my liking. It doesn't help that the planes being pursued didn't really work very well historically yet here they're fine. Unconventional usually doesn't work, and if you're going for a low risk development approach it's something to stay away from.
Quoted
I'm not sure how nothing -> world leader in about 5 years is steady progression. This is bearing in mind that Mexico is now designing and building the P-47 amongst many other aircraft projects.
Quoted
No, that pretty much seems to be situation. Mexico is coming up with around 5 modern designs per year rather than 1 every few years. The engines just seem to be appearing magically in the country from the US and elsewhere.
Quoted
That money went into building a massively stronger navy than historically, and buying loads and loads of destroyers. Quite how you're going to man and operate them I've no idea.
What jet aircraft? Last I checked, I was not the one with jet aircraft...Quoted
I haven't even got around to Mexico's jet aircraft yet...
Quoted
As before, ahistorical is fine so long as it's reasonable. Going from essentially no aviation industry to world beating aviation industry over a few years is not reasonable (or even necessary come to that).
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH