Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jerick]

I think we need a proper dual engine bomber for that torpedo. It might be time to build a big proper bomber.

[piratejoe]

I don't think we are going to use that torpedo, at least not with its current weight. We probably will try to cut its weight down to half of what it currently is, to 800 pounds if not more. Then maybe use a revision on the Emu with the new engine, speaking of...

VRAC A.1b "Great Emu"
The VRAC A.1b or Great Emu is a normal VRAC A.1 Emu with the main addition being the new barnett  V 12 engine replacing the old inline straight eight. Attempts to bring the engine up back to 200 hp by using a heavier water cooling system are also to be experimented with but the main goal is to simply put the Barnett in place of the old engine the Emu had to increase its speed and maximum take off weight. If it wasn't obvious, the b in the name has a duel meaning, showing it is the second variant and also can be considered standing for the barnett engine it now uses. It also might stand for bomber, as the craft was considered to be given Bar Shelf AABR, but this was considered as a "if everything else is done and there is still time left" kinda thing.

[Sensei]

I think a two-engine bomber is a good idea. It could be a bi or tri wing (wink wink eS), since it will need as much lift as possible. However that will be a big project, we probably want to finish what's on our plate before starting a new plane.

If the Emu can carry 1200 pounds, revising the torpedo would be wise. We could lose a portion of the warhead (maybe) and some fuel to shorten down the torpedo. Since they are being delivered by air, 3km of range which they have now is much more than we need.

[piratejoe]

We could cut the torpedoes warhead down by one fourth making it 300 pounds of explosive while cutting its range down to one third. That should cut its weight down a fair chunk while still leaving a powerful torpedo to use.

[ConscriptFive]

Yeah, that torpedo was pretty much what I was expecting.  Aerial torpedoes were an interwar thing because torpedoes really are that huge.

Specs:
https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/html/part2.htm

Book chapter narrative:
https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/html/part1.htm

There were experimental "short" Mk7 torpedoes (CTRL-F Specs page for "Mk7" and "Short Torpedo Mk7"), but they never caught on as naval bombers eventually could handle full size torps.  Even then, we'd still need the Emu to at least triple its payload for even that torpedo so that's probably still a ways off.

Therefore, I'm not exactly sure how we should balance the smaller munition vs. larger bomber payload equation.

[evictedSaint]

Generic Bomb Rack

The Generic Bomb Rack is a bomb rack.

The goal of the project is to develop a number of different sizes and models of bomb racks with a simple yet reliable release mechanism, akin to a lever, button or pull-handle. These racks are made so as to be modular and easily added to existing planes at no extra cost (like our first bomb rack), as they are built with their own mechanism for adhering to a craft, or otherwise with places for bolts to be bolted onto it's frame. They are fitted when the need for them arises, akin to other munition load-outs for our squadrons.

[piratejoe]

The engine upgrade on the emu might bring it up to snuff for a small torpedo, we just have to see how well we roll for it and the resulting increase in speed and carrying capacity. Regardless we should still try to get an aerial torpedo for the simple fact that we will know how much it weighs and what we need to do to carry such a thing.

[Thanik]

I'll post a few revisions up in a short while. Expect this post to be edited.

Lol I actually though I'd get around to it.

[piratejoe]

Clown Killi Aerial Torpedo
The Clown Killi Aerial Torpedo is basically a barracuda torpedo with its fuel slashed down to only 1000 yards and it's explosive charge down to only 300 pounds as to not lose too much of its power. The whole idea of the design is to make it as light weight as possible while being able to be dropped from the air to make ships have a nice hole in their side unless they are extremely maneuverable or the torpedo is dropped at its maximum range. If we have time, we also make a hard point to carry the torpedo. Pilots are free to paint the torpedo any way they want and write little quips on it should it prove to be safe to handle.

[Sensei]

I think the generic bomb rack should do the job. We might want 1500 or 2000 yards but we can see what we get (we do want to drop it from outside the range of machine guns on ship decks, which could be as much as 1500yd).

Generally I'm in favor of it though. Do we want our other revision to be more power for the Barnett? Or maybe equipping the Barnett to emus? (Which might have to be it's own separate revision I think)

[piratejoe]

May as well set up a vote box now that we have some plans.

VRAC A.1b "Great Emu" (1): Piratejoe
Generic Bomb Rack (0):
Clown Killi Aerial Torpedo (1): Piratejoe

[evictedSaint]

VRAC A.1b "Great Emu" (1): Piratejoe
Generic Bomb Rack (1): eS
Clown Killi Aerial Torpedo (2): Piratejoe, eS

[ConscriptFive]

Since we just built a high-power V12, let's give the rotary engine alittle love.  It would be a nice final upgrade for the Rhino.  Here's a clone of the Le Rhone 9J, which powered a good deal of fighters on Allied (especially Sopwiths) AND Entente (including the late war Fokker D.VIII) sides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Rh%C3%B4ne_9J

"Roland 9" Rotary Engine
Our current 5-cylinder Rhino rotary engine is abit of a joke compared to the 9-cylinder rotaries dominating the skies over Europe.  Why can't Verusa do the same?  The Roland 9-cylinder rotary engine, "Roland 9" for short, is the VSC's attempt at a 9-cylinder rotary engine.  This engine should have at least 100 hp output, making a mockery of its 5-cylinder predecessor.  The engine must be able to be mounted within an existing Rhino frame.

Also, @GM I was looking at the technologies list, shouldn't we have "basic puller configuration" from our current project?

As before, I'm going to personally hold out voting for at least 48 hours from phase start, so new players and people who don't apparently live in this thread can research, write, and otherwise contribute.

[piratejoe]

We already have a good V12 engine, so, why waste our time with a weaker rotary that will just give us more torque for less power? Personally I would just use the V12 for everything and maybe try upgrading that if anything... although upgrading the rhinos engine isn't a terrible idea...

Also, you mean entente and central powers. The allies where a word war 2 thing...

[Cnidaros]

Also, @GM I was looking at the technologies list, shouldn't we have "basic puller configuration" from our current project?

I only tracked experience for pusher configuration aircraft as that's unusual. You may consider puller propellers to be part of a generalised "experience" that increases with each plane you design, along with stuff like general understanding of aerodynamics. Besides, you should already have experience in puller configuration from the Rhino.