WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood

It's about time we had more excellent aircraft to look at from the Danish and Iberian stables.

Bruce, CG has always been somewhat modern with his styles. The overall look isn't as important as the stats and equipment (engines etc).

If I understand you correct, I am in agreement with you: without even rudimentry stats and specifications to evaluate, the visualizations of the aircraft have little meaning.

This is particularly important with the helicopters - which to my eye seem quite Athenic in their emergence in full-form. Weights, engines, performance parameters - how else can one evaluate the possibility of the design being realistic?

Bruce, I've never bothered with the specs and capabilities of any of the "ancillary" things (Planes, military vehicles, etc) because they have no actual bearing on this Naval sim.

Most of the time. I just use comparable specs for the time.
For example, the DAF Roskilde Flying Boat is "speced" at the same level as the Boeing 314 "Clipper".

Personally, I'm more into aircraft design than ship design so thats why I design them.......someday I might get round to turning them into flying models.

Haven't seen any of CG's drawings for months and then a whole load come along at once.

I'm not sure on the Peregrine I myself - I think keeping the original boom tailplane would have been better. It looks a bit small at the moment. Probably means you can have a straight wing and save some mass as well.

The Aquila Series of bombers/attack aircraft look pretty good. Vuk's original Il-28 mashup was a pretty nice starting point. The balance seems a bit off to me though - I think the amount of fuselage in front of the wing needs to be reduced. On the Il-28 there was the big heavy tail turret to balance this out, but not here.

The Daedalus is interesting; I think I'd go with a fixed undercarriage like the Beverly of greater track. The current fuselage undercarriage is fairly narrow track and will likely cause problems on rough strips.

It must have been years since I drew up those rotorcraft...

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Haven't seen any of CG's drawings for months and then a whole load come along at once.

The Aquila Series of bombers/attack aircraft look pretty good. Vuk's original Il-28 mashup was a pretty nice starting point. The balance seems a bit off to me though - I think the amount of fuselage in front of the wing needs to be reduced. On the Il-28 there was the big heavy tail turret to balance this out, but not here.

Did that, moved the wing forward for the same reason.

Maybe the same amount again????

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The Daedalus is interesting; I think I'd go with a fixed undercarriage like the Beverly of greater track. The current fuselage undercarriage is fairly narrow track and will likely cause problems on rough strips.

I take the point, but I always thought the stalky undercarraige on the Beverley was very fragile looking.
The undercarraige is fixed, for simplicity and strenght.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It must have been years since I drew up those rotorcraft...

Yes...yes it is!

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
Maybe the same amount again????

Probably about that. I might raise the level of the tailplane to the top of the fuselage as well. It'll probably help with looking a bit more balanced.

Although fixing the undercarriage on the Daedalus to the fuselage gives strength, the track becomes very narrow. Hence your ability to cope with off-centre disturbances isn't very good. Losing an engine may very well cause a rapid yaw which then leads to the aircraft underturning. A wider track would help with this. This was a major issue with the A400M and the C-130 testbed with TP400. This is solved within the FADEC as the opposite engine reduces power in order to compensate.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

If I understand you correct, I am in agreement with you: without even rudimentry stats and specifications to evaluate, the visualizations of the aircraft have little meaning.

This is particularly important with the helicopters - which to my eye seem quite Athenic in their emergence in full-form. Weights, engines, performance parameters - how else can one evaluate the possibility of the design being realistic?

You can make educated guesses. I suppose I could write down the finer points from "Flight Theory for Pilots" sometime later.

Quoted

Originally posted by klagldsf
You can make educated guesses. I suppose I could write down the finer points from "Flight Theory for Pilots" sometime later.

Yes, I can make educated guesses. My guesses may be at total variance with the originator's concept.

IMHO the duty to provide some level of data lies with the originator of a design, and is not incumbent on an outside observer to 'guess' - educated or not. Your views may differ.