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.
...somebody's in a panic.
Based of the historical examples I have discovered, I feel that the combination of cruising speed and range is excessive for an aircraft of this approximate size. I am comfortable with ether figure taken by itself, but in combination I feel that it is pushing things a little to far. I have yet to find a WW-example that dislocates the OTL trends to such a degree that this design fits.
Given the recently posted stats for the Ju390B, and the similar performance figures to the OTL Bz.308 (which will in WW be called the Ca.500, as Breda is a subsidiary of Caproni) I am wondering if moving the type's introduction up is something the membership would be ok with.
First, with regards to the Basilisco via the Gargouille, IMO these two aircraft are nowhere near the same preformace performance, class, or role, IMO. The only place where the Gargouille fails to top the Basilisco is the payload. I have been looking for a replacement/supplement for the Ba.67 for some time (I recall talking with you about it on IRC on at least one occasion). A ten year old airframe in 1945 has little place caring carrying over into the 1950's (no apostrophe here) as a primary strike aircraft of a modern Navy and Air Force IMO. Seeing the OTL longevity of piston engine strike aircraft led me to want to replace a 1930's (no apostrophe here) design with a more modern type. Because I happen to find a good example of what I think is a good combination of upgrade and reasonable figures on the same day you propose a airframe because I am looking for designs which seek to answer a question poise posed by another member does not mean I am trying to one-up what you are doing. (Suggest a restructuring to avoid run-on phrases.)
With regards to the Ca.500 via vis-a-vis the Ju390B. I attempted to poise pose the question in such a way that the Ju390B's stats had influence on the desition decision to ask about the Ca.500 because they do. If an airliner is being introduced that can match or exceed a historical type, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask if it is ok to move a historical design up and then post the planed planned figures. I fail to see how asking, in effect, "Hey, this type Y is coming out with X figures and I have a historical type Z with figures close to X. Would it be ok if I bump up Z because Y is happening?" implying that if Y does not happen it is not a valid question, is classless.
Also, if you note the timestamps, I posted the question at about 0800 PST and posed my inital initial question to Bruce about the cruise speed at the same time. I had made the assumption that the 570kph figure was quoted as the design's top speed, making it similar to the Ca.500 with a difference of only 3kph and therefor therefore such a question on my end about moving the Ca.500 up was, IMO reasonable given the commonality of figures.
Neither do I.I see no problems with the Bz.308, design started in 1946 OTL and under the +3 allowance for piston-types I see no problems at all why this can't be done. The specs are real-world so there is no doubt there (though as ever using Wiki stats has caveats), the Bristol Centaurus exists in WW and has done for years and Snips' new SAI R.25 14 is a Centaurus clone (with my permission).
I see no problem with the XBTK clone either given its based on real-world stats. The Breda Ba.67 was advanced, but its was always RA's intention to operate it into the 1950s as his Skyradier. He had planned some engine upgrades and even a turboprop final version. I don't think it necessarily needs replacing, perhaps a Mk II with new electronics and some minor kit upgrades would do just as well?
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH