Well, I have 600 single engined craft, 150 multi-engined craft, and 30 long-range craft, I might as well flesh out what they are.
For starters, the Boeing Falcon- IRL Sikorsky Ilya Mourometz V, Type V
(http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/MISC/RAM/im-salms.jpg)
The capacities on this long range bomber are
Length- 56 feet
Wing Span- 66 feet
Engines- 4 140 hp engines
Empty Weight- 6,500 pounds
Full Weight- 10,000 pounds
Weapon Load- 1,500 pounds and 3 machine guns
Crew- 5
Speed- 80 miles per hour
Range- 400 miles
Celing- 12,100 feet
This is info directly translated from this website- http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/MISC/RAM/ILYAMOUR.HTML (http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/MISC/RAM/ILYAMOUR.HTML), so this is possible within my technology base.
25 of the single-engined craft are the Forester Rotaritary
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/MISC/RAM/sorokin-helic-sh1p41.jpg
IRL-Helicopter by N.I.Sorokin, c. 1909, updated with better engines, and with guns
The capacities are:
Length- 50 feet
Rotor Span- 30 feet
Engines- 1 80 hp engine
Empty Weight- 650 pounds
Full Weight- 1000 pounds
Weapon Load- 1 machine gun,
Crew- 1
Speed- 40 miles per hour
Range- 120 miles
Celing- 500 feet
I feel sorry for the kids forced to fly that thing. And your specs are extremely optimistic.
Better?
Any historical recorded flights that come close to the specs you give?
Also, for the same job, you could use a size 0 Airship/Blimp
But this is more evil! ;D
On the Falcon, those are strictly copied from the page, only modifed into imperial measures.
On the Rotaritary, no, but it's very evil. ;D
Regarding the Rotaritary..
I am no expert, but looking at "Helicopter" at wikipedia...
Speed: unlikely. You're probably lucky if it gets to 10 mph (which is probably optimistic)
Range: unlikely. You're probably lucky if flies for 10 minutes (which is probably also optimistic)
Ceiling: unlikely. You're probably lucky if it gets to 50 feet (which is probably optimistic as well)
MG: probably a very light one.
The Rotaritary might be very evil, but it is just not going to work right now. In the mid 20s... maybe, but not right now.
... but that is how I look at it.
First practical helicopter (1933):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroplane_Laboratoire
Ok, never mind... just a concept.
Just to flesh out the 150 multi-engined craft that Guinness built:
The Boeing Tripolate is viewed as a heavy tactical bomber, bombing area's with more precision then would be expected from a stragetic bomber, and with a more powerful bombload then a light bomber. The navy has been expierimenting with a version mounting a short-range, high speed torpedo with a 200 pound payload.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/AEG_GIV_bomber.jpg)- Based heavily on the German A.E.G G.IV
Country: CSA
Manufacturer: Boeing Tripolate
Type: Tactical Bomber
Two 260 hp engines
Wing Span: 60 ft 4½ in
Length: 31 ft 10 in
Height: 12 ft 9½ in
Empty Weight:
Gross Weight: 9,000 lb
Max Speed: 105 mph at sea level
Ceiling: 14,750 ft
Endurance: 4½ hours
Crew: 3
Armament: 2 machine guns
900 lb of bombs
EDIT:Wrong Picture
I only see 1 engine in your picture, but it says there are 2.
Maybe you should use this picture instead?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/AEG_GIV_bomber.jpg/300px-AEG_GIV_bomber.jpg)
Sorry, wrong picture. It should be fixed now.
*Sues Boeing for copyright infringement*
What, you have a A.E.G. G.IV clone? And you have Boeing?
QuoteI only see 1 engine in your picture, but it says there are 2.
No doubt they lost one during flight. ;D
QuoteWhat, you have a A.E.G. G.IV clone?
Yes, and he has to sue you since he needs the money in order to pay Italy who are no doubt sueing Curtiss. ;D
QuoteAnd you have Boeing?
I doubt he would not be sueing Boeing if he had him. :)
Personally I would ignore it. Yes, it would be nicer if there is a difference between the nations, but it is more to give others an idea of what it's like. Also, seeing how DF tends to use stats of one plane and use the picture of another, we're not sure if his AEG G.IV clone actually looks like the historical plane as he has not posted any data or picture of it yet. :)
QuotePersonally I would ignore it.
WHAT?!?!?!? Where's the fun in that? ;D
It is fun... because it's you. :D
Quote from: Desertfox on December 01, 2009, 11:44:37 PM
*Sues Boeing for copyright infringement*
IDK I just wonder how Boeing was suckerd out of the Pacific Northwest...
I think it's a safe bet that Bill Boeing never moved to what we know as Rohan.
Speaking as a mod here: Those who invent their own aerospace geniuses and write good stories about them are likely to be rewarded. Those who squabble over historical figures: not so much. At least go dig around for those who worked for these companies and in our universe might have started their own, or those who's little operation never go off the ground, but without the Henry Ford's or Donald Douglases of the world might have seen their businesses take off.
What if the squabbles are IC? ;)
Good I can Post again. Guinness, that was my intent. I have just always found it humorous how everyone grabed up historical figures without providing much if any reason for why they would be where they were.
Why grab them when you can 'clone' them? Avoids a lot of problems and conflicts that way. Seems very unlikely that Curtis, the Wrights, Zeppelin, Holland, Wells, etc., all of whom are well-respected, brave citizens full of goodness, would "move" to that despicable Den of Evilness known as New Switzerland. After all, when it comes to evilness, The Eye could learn a thing or two from the Swiss if they were still around. :D
Quote from: Walter on December 03, 2009, 02:15:25 PM
Why grab them when you can 'clone' them? Avoids a lot of problems and conflicts that way. Seems very unlikely that Curtis, the Wrights, Zeppelin, Holland, Wells, etc., all of whom are well-respected, brave citizens full of goodness, would "move" to that despicable Den of Evilness known as New Switzerland. After all, when it comes to evilness, The Eye could learn a thing or two from the Swiss if they were still around. :D
Perhaps the NS are the actual Home of the Eye ~.^
So a crusade against New Switzerland, Home of the Eye, is to be expected then? :)
New switzerland was started as the "United States of the Pacific", a melting pot of people from all over the world like OTL US (and just as evil). That allows me to use names from around the world without problems. As far as Wright, Zeppelin, and Holland, well NS had the first flight of an aircraft, zeppelin, and the first useful submarine, so why not use the historical person associated with said vehicles.
The replacement of the Martin-Cessna Model 18, which is being phased out and being sent to Rohan, the Cessna Pigeon is a lightweight fighter that is fairly long-ranged compared to comparable foreign models. It mounts 1 machine gun and minimal armour around the cockpit and engine. Naval analysists noted it was small enough to land on a "tennis court"
(http://z.about.com/d/militaryhistory/1/0/y/2/-/-/SopwithPup.jpg)
Cessna Pigeon- OLT Sopwith Pup
Manufacturer: Cessna
Type: Lightweight Fighter
Engine:1 100 hp rotary engine
Wing Span: 26 ft 6 in
Length: 19 ft 3¾ in
Height: 9 ft 5 in
Empty Weight: 875 lb
Gross Weight: 1225 lb
Max Speed: 110 mph
Ceiling: 18,500 ft
Endurance: 3 hours
Crew: 1
Armament: 1 .25 machine gun
The CNAS authorized 30 of these planes to be built as a result of "political connections". These planes mount ski launching and landing gear. Because of it, these planes can be launched from locations such as frozen lakes and slopes. The downside to all of this is that these planes are only operatable in winter or in mountain terrian.
Martin Jenny
Manufactor: Martin
Type: Ski Fighter
Engine: 1 75 hp rotary engine
Wing Span: 20 feet
Length: 17 feet
Height: 8 feet
Empty Weight: 750 pounds
Full Weight: 1,100 pounds
Ceiling: 15,000 feet
Max Speed: 85 mph
Endurence: 3 hours
Crew: 1
Armerment: 1 .15 machine gun. (same ammuntion as lightweight field models)
I'm not sure the CSA has any territory that consistently has snow or ice....
I suppose in New Mexico above 10,000 feet maybe, but the performance of one of these at that altitude would be very poor.
And the Appalachians, and the Rockies areas, and some small lakes during winter. I hate to admit it, but a airplane that can launch from a 1,000 different mountains is going to be more versitile. Also, note "Political connections"
The Rockies don't really exist. That's the byproduct of grafting Middle Earth onto N. America. There are mountain ranges as OTL in some parts of the West: In Northern New Mexico and parts of Arizona, and inland of Los Angeles most specifically. Only in the high elevations of New Mexico will you have lakes that freeze every winter.
In the east: The southern half of the Appalachians within CSA borders, most specifically the Smoky Mountains, also will have very very few if any lakes large enough for a ski equipped plane to take off or land on. There are two issues there: very few lakes of appreciable size and depth (keep in mind, there is no Tennessee Valley Authority and therefore few or any damned reservoirs), and even fewer that ice over enough to support a plane on skis. Floats might be viable in a few places, but certainly not skis. Trust me on this one: in my 33 years I've spent *a lot* of time in those mountains.
Then small lakes? I repeat, "Political Connections"
Small lakes are even less likely to have enough ice thickness and area to allow takeoffs, frankly. You still need considerable clear area to allow a take off run, and it needs to be available in the direction the wind is blowing at the time.
Quote from: TexanCowboy on December 04, 2009, 06:18:45 PM
"Political Connections"
Are excuse enough to waste $$ on useless aircraft. It's not like it didn't happen OTL.
True...the Kennedy Giant. And its $.05. Even for Romania, that just isn't a big deal.
The CSA is, as always, working on some strange and interesting aircraft in La Paz.
A few people see something very different form any previous aeroplane taking off occasionally from the runways near the beach. The number of takeoffs currently greatly exceeds the number of landings... but they are slowly working on reducing the differences between the two.
:)
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/Confederate%20Air%20Corps/CesnaG-1.png)
Autogyro! My favorite.
I want, would be useful if it could haul things for a good distance, saves from the need for an airfield really.
LOL... well, this one will be about 4-5 years in development- at least, if aircraft development continues at the current rate. A Soviet design co-opted to my purposes (like so many of the CSA's planned aircraft).
The Problem with the Auto Gyro even the good ones is by World War II they could carry 2 People and 1 200 Lb Depth Charge into the Air. They were most often used as a Light Artillary spotting aircraft by the Japanese.
They lack both range, payload, and endurance...... ;)
But they can operate from large clearing in the Jungle.
Charles
But the advantage is that they can land in any open clearing. Conventional aircrafts need a long even clearing to land.
Yes as long as all they are carrying is a pilot and observer and a radio they work well as a spotting aircraft if you want to use them for anything else they cant take off vertically with a combat load.
Charles
Too much foresight, they are excellent ASW weapons and don't require carrier tech.
I just wanted cargo haulers that didn't need an airstrip to operate. ;)
Quote from: Desertfox on August 26, 2010, 11:04:48 PM
Too much foresight, they are excellent ASW weapons and don't require carrier tech.
Too much foresight my hind end.
The CSA was the first nation to try and put aircraft aboard a ship.
This is just an alternate way of accomplishing their goal which does not involve catapults. And as the CSA is researching aerial spotting (part of the next fire control) and these would make great AERIAL SPOTTERS...
Well, damn your torpedoes.
If anything, the CSA has little need for ASW- and has done very little to research it.
Quote from: Logi on August 26, 2010, 11:31:45 PM
I just wanted cargo haulers that didn't need an airstrip to operate. ;)
A blimp just needs a field and trainload with resupplies as long the weather holds up.
trainwagons of low pressure hydrogen to fill the envelope....
The C.S.A. will be using Kamov gyros and choppers.
There aren't a lot of options, so I picked the first one I found.
Cool Kamov's as maybe flying (and hopefully ,frying) money pits
Quote from: maddox on August 29, 2010, 05:12:34 PM
Cool Kamov's as maybe flying (and hopefully ,frying) money pits
LOL... yeah. The CSA is willing to sink a lot into autogyros (and later choppers) for use as artillery spotters for their big gun ships.
That's not hindsight at all....
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 29, 2010, 07:47:04 PM
That's not hindsight at all....
It's not, actually, as long as I develop it through plot.
1.) I have a flying machine that can take off in a short area.
This makes it good for working off of ships.
2.) This machine can fly relatively slowly.
This makes it good for watching a fixed point.
1 + 2 = 3.) it would make a good naval gunfire spotter.
Hmm
Short take off.
Good loitering speed and time.
Sounds perfect for a Blimp.
Quote from: maddox on August 29, 2010, 07:57:39 PM
Hmm
Short take off.
Good loitering speed and time.
Sounds perfect for a Blimp.
Item 4, then, would be 'low mission prep time' compared to a blimp.
There you got me. Unless you got a mobile hangar that can turn in the wind...
Hmm, Blimp carrier ain't bigger than one of the Demarce III's... Maybe that a IIIb Hull is a good subject for conversion....
Nope, to narrow...
Quote from: Carthaginian on August 26, 2010, 04:40:17 PM
The CSA is, as always, working on some strange and interesting aircraft in La Paz.
The number of takeoffs currently greatly exceeds the number of landings... but they are slowly working on reducing the differences between the two.
:)
I haven't yet heard of any plane that managed to stay up :P
Well, the problem isn't that they can't stay up...
The problem lies in the manner in which they come back down.
splash?
Quote from: snip on August 31, 2010, 05:54:15 PM
splash?
And, less often 'splat' when it takes place on land. :(
KABOOM!?
Quote from: TexanCowboy on August 31, 2010, 06:37:59 PM
KABOOM!?
No, not with just some avgas aboard.
Most of the planes at La Paz don't even take off with a full tank (unless not doing so makes for bad balance) most of the time. Only on the rare occasion that they are doing final pre-deployment testing is anything really explosive (read 'munitions') even aboard.
[fantasy]
*seen by a boatload of fishermen off La Paz on 09MAY1954*
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r114/Carthaginian/CessnaHydra.jpg)
MA-132 Cessna Hydra Flying Boat
[/fantasy]
I don't know what those fishermen sniffed, but I want some too. (not)
I don't know about sniffing, but they might have been sampling some of the local 'herbs.' ;)
Or, (by then) General Luke might just be hard at work on another secret project. :D