Author Topic: Sinister motives for der 'Vader (Read 1837 times)

shamroc · « **Reply #45 on:** April 05, 2007, 04:43:41 PM »

Shaw's "lethality" table takes weight of fire, rate of fire, muzzle velocity
and projectile mass into account.

In simple terms, it shows how much damage system "A" would do VS system "B" given
the same amount of firing time.

It does NOT take the explosiveness of HE rounds (cannons) into consideration -
Shaw openly states this as a caveat - his table isn't perfect, but it's a nice
starting point when comparing systems.

It is true that you do get longer reach with the 50s, however at long distances,
the 50s lose a huge amount of their kinetic energy (the farther they go, the more
they slow down). At long range, it becomes "raisins off bouncing off an Oldsmobile".

True cannon rounds don't go quite as far, but you still get the HE bang at the end
of the line.

Shamroc

tedrbr wrote:

Also, in regards to the lethality listing pulled from Shaw's work,
how many rounds and what would be the total firing time of those
4 X 20mm, compared to the 30 second firing time of
those 14 X .50's X 400 rpg?

Ghastly · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:10:11 PM »

Quote

The perk point system is there to prevent very advanced aircraft from completely dominating the arenas

By your arguments shamrock the F4U-1C shouldn't be perked - and it is.

I'm not saying that it isn't a good platform, but it's hardly a very advanced arena dominator.

humble · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:53:26 PM »

I'll be curious what the A-26 {whenever we get it} FM will be like. It's faster but it has heavier wingloading. The secret to dogfighting the A-20 is getting it slow enough (same as the vader in AW)....so while the greater speed/power might be good...it might effect its ability to fight.

I am curious about control surface/wing strength. I've lost more A-20s to popped surfaces/wings then air to air combat. If the A-26 can endure higher speeds and pull greater G's then that extra E will be useful....otherwise its a liability IMO.

I'm impressed with the leathality of the A20. Very nice pop indeed....seems every bit as effective as the P-38 to me.

I have the same concerns with the A-26 I did/do with the 410. Your a big target and with hvy wingloading I dont see how you survive as well as the A-20 (or mossie)......

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #48 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:26:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghastly
By your arguments shamrock the F4U-1C shouldn't be perked - and it is.

I'm not saying that it isn't a good platform, but it's hardly a very advanced arena dominator.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perk point system is there to prevent very advanced aircraft from completely dominating the arenas

But that's the very reason why the F4U-1C was perked.

ack-ack

tedrbr · « **Reply #49 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:31:04 PM »

A-26 made use of laminar wing/body designs, its technology has a lot in common with tech used on Mustangs and B-29's. The wing went through several redesigns and updates during the design and testing phase due to wing spars cracking..... test pilots were flying 'Vader like fighters, and over-stressing the spars.

Even war production Invaders could be flown to the point of wing failure. I don't think any surface parts or control surfaces would fail before a spar, not that I've ever read anyway. And even a over-stressed spar could get you home (8 inboard, 8 outboard spars).

Harder numbers probably can be found with the members of the Sim Outhouse, who've been developing the 'Vader for use in MS FS9 and FSX.

Also, the flaps used on the 'Vader were supposed to be better than even Fowler Flaps.

Quote

Since the new aircraft was going to be big, fast, and heavy, flaps were of extreme importance and Douglas designers came up with a flap that had multiple airfoil-shaped panels to create a large, slotted flap. Heinemann deducted that this new flap would produce a 30 percent higher lift coefficient than did the flaps on the A-20. He also reasoned the flap was better than the Fowler flap (favored by Lockheed) since it had a lower pitching moment for a given lift coefficient. The flap also improved landing and takeoff performance.

Original military requirements were looking for 5.5 to 6G capabilities, which was steadily increased through the design and testing. 7 to 8 G's in combat were reported.

The actual FM for the game would be interesting.

Karnak · « **Reply #50 on:** April 05, 2007, 07:40:26 PM »

I wonder what the spar's design limits were?

The Mosquito's was initially stressed to take 82 tons without failing. Then a stronger wing was introduced with the Mk VI that could take, if I recall correctly, 110 tons.

tedrbr · « **Reply #51 on:** April 05, 2007, 07:47:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I wonder what the spar's design limits were?

I shudder to think how hard getting the numbers for that could be. The Invader project had to be an engineer's, drafter's, and machinist's nightmare. It went through constant changes as War Department made different demands. USAAF was insisting on 75mm armed plane up to the Block-5 builds. There is a story that in one day alone, the Invader went through 35 design changes.

Probably information from Korean Invaders, or the A-26K rebuild project for Vietnam, would have better numbers for what actually went into the WWII 'Vaders.