View Full Version : New poll for all the aviation buffs here.

10th Mar 2012, 00:21
Please answer these TEN questions using your 20-40 hind sight, to form a consensus and allow us to compare our ideas?

If we were to design the best possible fighter-fighter/bomber of late WW-II, what characteristics would each of you put in it.
1. Wing Loading; High, Medium, or Low. (High = fast, low = turning power.)
2. Aspect Ratio; High, Medium, or Low. (High = More efficient, but high weight/square foot, low = less efficient, but light weight/foot2.)
3. Wing/foil thickness ratio; High, Medium, or Low. (High = More efficient, and low weight/square foot, low = faster and less efficient, but more weight/foot2.)
4. Over all size; Small, Medium, or Large. Small, Medium, or Large. (Small = hard to see or hit and less expensive, Large = more of everything and value for the money, but less maneuverable and more expensive.)
5. Air, or liquid cooled; (Smaller frontal area and more power per pound, but fragile and expensive, vs larger bulk, weight and cost, but with damage tolerance and easy installation.)
6. Weapons fit; Minimum, Medium, or Heavy, Proportional to size; Small plane with one to four guns? Vs large plane with four to eight, all depending on caliber.
7. Caliber, HMG= 13-15MM Bullets, Small Cannon= 15-20MM Shells, or larger Cannon, 23 to 30MM Shells? (Smaller guns have higher rates of fire and more MV for any given power/weight ratio, Vs. lower rates of fire and higher weight per unit of power.)
8. Ammunition store; Small, Medium, or Large. (Enough for 3-5 seconds, or one or two attacks, Enough for 5-10 seconds, or three to five attacks, or Enough for 10-20 seconds, or six to ten attacks.) More ammo equals more weight which is detrimental to all areas of performance!
9. Weapon installation; all in the nose, or close to the Centerline, or in the wings. ( Nose/C-L is limited in number of guns and weight of fire, but high effectiveness vs high weight of fire and low cost of installation for reduced effective range.)
10. Configuration; Conventional; wing and tail, Canard; tail and wing, or all wing, AND Front, or Rear Engine. (Too many advantages and defects for each type to list here.)
11. Bonus; Fewer narrow blades, or more and wider blades; Fewer and narrow is lighter and more efficient at lower altitude, vs more and wider is better up high, hurts down low, and is heavier and more expensive.

10th Mar 2012, 09:08
12. Airframe material used - wood or metal? ;)

10th Mar 2012, 10:36
Design it first up for carrier ops.

Lightning Mate
10th Mar 2012, 12:14

Neptunus Rex
10th Mar 2012, 18:42
Duk, someone's nicked the guns!

11th Mar 2012, 10:45
LM, I'll raise you. Far better social experience as well. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

For reasons connected with my name I resent that remark :*

Lightning Mate
11th Mar 2012, 11:35
For reasons connected with my name I resent that remark http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif

Wossat remark?

11th Mar 2012, 15:53
Ooh - he's deleted the post (and the nice piccy of three DH Hornets) - hope he didnt think I was being serious!

12th Mar 2012, 16:07
You're joking! What possible reason? Was a nice piccy too.

Lightning Mate
12th Mar 2012, 19:24

13th Mar 2012, 03:35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg/300px-De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_Havilland_Hornet_F1.jpg):ok:

PPRuNe Pop
13th Mar 2012, 06:55
Brian Abraham. Your post of the Hornets was too large and extended the page laterally, which makes it hard to read. Feel free to post the pic again but please keep the size to no more than 850x850.

13th Mar 2012, 20:48
Start with the A-IH,and go from there...just upgrade the inboard cannons to 30-37mm...OK ,it`s not a fighter,though it knocked a few cocky MiG-17s down,but if you wanna go `downtown` ,then get `dressed to kill`...can`t post a pic,but I`m sure someone will oblige....
ps..more multi-role than any other aircraft...

13th Mar 2012, 23:11
one of the greatest pieces of aeronautical architecture to take to the skies,

Brian - I'd agree with that, although it came in 10 or more years too late for discussion in this thread. Can't believe someone on another thread described the English Electric Lightning as "ugly" :ugh:

Pleased to see the "banter" wasn't the problem. Get that pic resized and let's see the Hornets again! The 8 Sea Hornets of 809 Sqn FAA based at RNAS Culdrose were known as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Each aircraft had the appropriate dwarf depicted on the nose, with Snow White being the Squadron Commander's aircraft. I guess the junior pilot got to fly Dopey!