45-Shooter
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.
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.