Basically:
Aliens attack North Pole through a super scale portal gun
Government cover up
Humans rip off alien tech to outfight them
Humans try to take over alien mirage planet because it looks fine
Huge conspiracy involving aliens being able to replicate people
Humans evacuate
Aliens chase
Humans ditch them
@FasterThanLight
This torpedo can carry a much larger warhead if you want. The one I meant to publish had about 50 500kg bombs in it; which crashed my game when it made contact with the USS Tiny. It is amusing that such a small aircraft can tow such a large torpedo correct? @WalrusAircraft
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/f0acR0/Type-23-Interceptor-Mod-41-2-Mit-Type-4B-A
So I loved your idea of a torpedo bomber and took my Type 23 and my Type 4A torpedo and fused them. Does it get your approval? And yes I'm aware it turns like a brick would propel itself into out space. It doesn't. @WalrusAircraft
Year 2, third interceptor, fourth modification type (torpedo bomber), first modification type of fourth modification type, variation two, with a Type 4B (fourth torpedo, second modification, aircraft use)
I am sure I used structural panels! I have an early 27C Concept in my profile, test that. I will check on my little Zero. Maybe I did use another set of wings in my Zero. There used to be some planes on my wall called Type 8 and they were part of my advanced maneuverability program. My earlier Zero is a direct development of that! I hope I don't come across wrong, sometimes I am forgetful @Skua
Well I saw an anime I think and thought, hey why not, let's take that too. Then there was the actual stability problem I solved using it; but then accidentally solved that too. Only now I have realized the similarity. Very sorry for being presumptious bows @DeezDucks
The inverted gull wing is actually because I didn't want to use more artificial landing gear. Something about the 150 inch propeller being a little longer than the landing gear. They are both pusher prop so it is understandable that they look similar. @DeezDucks
I have new version that is on the way, just some bugs involving turning like a brick because the engine output is too high. Then there's the fact than any measure of prolonged firing (ie, 1 second), makes my iPad 3 get seizures. Then there's the air to air version that carries a little over 24 air to air missiles @ForzaFanlvl4
@Cjredwards Thank you. However, it takes 14 seconds for it to execute a full turn, speed 300 mph, at 4000 ft. Which is far above the requirement:
10 seconds 355 mph at 5000 ft
It is? 360 or so at 5000 ft, over 600 mph at 30,000 ft
Could you tell me which formula you are using to calculate armour penetrating power??? According to recent posts by forum renowned historian Azumazi, Iowa can only decap up to 12" rounds. You have that down right? http://i.imgur.com/5IkskRk.jpg This is also a penetration chart for 46cm L/45 firing Type 91 rounds. Improved Type 1 is reported to penetrate 10% more. Can we edit the rounds?@UnstableOrbit
@UnstableOrbit Hokay. Suggestions to make it realistic:
2 rpm is standard until below 36cm cannon. IRL most battleship guns, REGARDLESS of caliber did a tops of 2 rpm and no less.
Dispersion at maximum range reduces with the increased mass of each round.
Do not add shell reliability trash. Type 91 is not unreliable, shell delay is just too long.
Try to get better formula's than demarre and Krupp as they really are off by a huge margin when calculating even 120mm cannon!!! They underestimate by about 20% by 120mm...
Suggestion; motorkannon, put inside fuselage cones
Wing cannon/ mg, fits into wing better.
Let us have those little bars to let us edit the guns characteristics
Final suggestion, simplify gun barrel, we don't need the muzzle brake
Thank you! Sorry for lift imbalance and the tendency for it to nose down below 400 mph. It is an interceptor and I did not want for it to have undesirable high speed characteristics
Dream on. 406mm was inferior to the 46cm in pay load, penetrating power, range, and accuracy. By 305mm, rate of fire should be around 2pm, funny how the 46cm cannon also has 2rpm. It is all about the loading mechanism. Please factor that in. The guns themselves are actually pretty light; relative to their armour protection... Rotation speed should not be a linear pattern. Based on the amount of weight devoted --> better performance @UnstableOrbit
Err. Those are actually structural things. Only the bottom wing is actually a "wing". It is inherent design characteristics I took from lessons learned in previous aircraft. 27C is example of a larger scale model. I delete my old planes because I don't think they deserve the light of day... Those wing sections make the wing loading value lower than it actually is. I do maneuverability tests before and after the additional sections and those structural things are actually detrimental @Skua
o7! @Mod
Basically:
Aliens attack North Pole through a super scale portal gun
Government cover up
Humans rip off alien tech to outfight them
Humans try to take over alien mirage planet because it looks fine
Huge conspiracy involving aliens being able to replicate people
Humans evacuate
Aliens chase
Humans ditch them
@FasterThanLight
Now I am jealous of PC users... And your skills... @DeezDucks
This torpedo can carry a much larger warhead if you want. The one I meant to publish had about 50 500kg bombs in it; which crashed my game when it made contact with the USS Tiny. It is amusing that such a small aircraft can tow such a large torpedo correct? @WalrusAircraft
Thank you! It is funny? @WalrusAircraft
It's all about rudder authority; and inherent low speed stability. But it doesn't last long. Game mechanics make it rather hard to do so @Skua
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/f0acR0/Type-23-Interceptor-Mod-41-2-Mit-Type-4B-A
So I loved your idea of a torpedo bomber and took my Type 23 and my Type 4A torpedo and fused them. Does it get your approval? And yes I'm aware it turns like a brick would propel itself into out space. It doesn't. @WalrusAircraft
What about load carrying ability? My entry can carry a really really big torpedo... @FalaflesMan
How is it named?
Year 2, third interceptor, fourth modification type (torpedo bomber), first modification type of fourth modification type, variation two, with a Type 4B (fourth torpedo, second modification, aircraft use)
Game does not accept my plane as a successor so; https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/yO7RaP/A6M8-Zero-Type-64 @MediocrePlanes
I was trying to get it to be able to do PSM... @Skua
Well I haven't actually been satisfied with it's rudder authority... @Skua
As it turns out this is better at dogfighting than the Type 23... @ForzaFanlvl4
Very sorry, game keeps turning it into Type 23 successor. https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/5l16zk/Pusher-Boy-Type-23-Prototype-2 @FalaflesMan
Oops... I messed up... @Skua
Oops, so sorry @DeezDucks
I am sure I used structural panels! I have an early 27C Concept in my profile, test that. I will check on my little Zero. Maybe I did use another set of wings in my Zero. There used to be some planes on my wall called Type 8 and they were part of my advanced maneuverability program. My earlier Zero is a direct development of that! I hope I don't come across wrong, sometimes I am forgetful @Skua
Of course you were not mad, or annoyed. I just need to be respectful to a successful user. @DeezDucks
It actually was built... @DeezDucks
Well I saw an anime I think and thought, hey why not, let's take that too. Then there was the actual stability problem I solved using it; but then accidentally solved that too. Only now I have realized the similarity. Very sorry for being presumptious bows @DeezDucks
So can I have my torpedo back?
Could I have this back? You could you know, like, delete it @NovaTopaz
27C air superiority fighter
The inverted gull wing is actually because I didn't want to use more artificial landing gear. Something about the 150 inch propeller being a little longer than the landing gear. They are both pusher prop so it is understandable that they look similar. @DeezDucks
Voila, it is here, 28 air to air missiles, no less than 24 machine guns, what could possibly go wrong?@ForzaFanlvl4
Yea, it's what happens whe you start sticking missile launch rails that can carry 3 missiles each onto a very nice large open section... @ForzaFanlvl4
I have new version that is on the way, just some bugs involving turning like a brick because the engine output is too high. Then there's the fact than any measure of prolonged firing (ie, 1 second), makes my iPad 3 get seizures. Then there's the air to air version that carries a little over 24 air to air missiles @ForzaFanlvl4
@Cjredwards Thank you. However, it takes 14 seconds for it to execute a full turn, speed 300 mph, at 4000 ft. Which is far above the requirement:
10 seconds 355 mph at 5000 ft
It is? 360 or so at 5000 ft, over 600 mph at 30,000 ft
@Cjredwards the part about it being larger seems to impede rather than support it's dogfighting
@Cjredwards Something is wrong. 27C eats this for breakfast despite missing it's proper armament
Didn't the gun destroy the engine through recoil? @TheChosenZebra
Jesus Christ, stupid guns keep shooting the nose off!!!
Could you tell me which formula you are using to calculate armour penetrating power??? According to recent posts by forum renowned historian Azumazi, Iowa can only decap up to 12" rounds. You have that down right? http://i.imgur.com/5IkskRk.jpg This is also a penetration chart for 46cm L/45 firing Type 91 rounds. Improved Type 1 is reported to penetrate 10% more. Can we edit the rounds?@UnstableOrbit
@deusalgor try to make an updated model wider. Perfect otherwise
@UnstableOrbit Hokay. Suggestions to make it realistic:
2 rpm is standard until below 36cm cannon. IRL most battleship guns, REGARDLESS of caliber did a tops of 2 rpm and no less.
Dispersion at maximum range reduces with the increased mass of each round.
Do not add shell reliability trash. Type 91 is not unreliable, shell delay is just too long.
Try to get better formula's than demarre and Krupp as they really are off by a huge margin when calculating even 120mm cannon!!! They underestimate by about 20% by 120mm...
Sort of? It evolved far beyond what it started off as; a joke @ForzaFanlvl4
Suggestion; motorkannon, put inside fuselage cones
Wing cannon/ mg, fits into wing better.
Let us have those little bars to let us edit the guns characteristics
Final suggestion, simplify gun barrel, we don't need the muzzle brake
Thank you! Sorry for lift imbalance and the tendency for it to nose down below 400 mph. It is an interceptor and I did not want for it to have undesirable high speed characteristics
Yea, 50mm Anti Tank Gun Self Loading Aircraft Type backed up by a pair of 20mm cannon. Not too small a punch :)
Dream on. 406mm was inferior to the 46cm in pay load, penetrating power, range, and accuracy. By 305mm, rate of fire should be around 2pm, funny how the 46cm cannon also has 2rpm. It is all about the loading mechanism. Please factor that in. The guns themselves are actually pretty light; relative to their armour protection... Rotation speed should not be a linear pattern. Based on the amount of weight devoted --> better performance @UnstableOrbit
https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/b8Nx1t/Yak-3-MOBILE-FRIENDLY @Planeswinger
I edited it. I think I forgot to unlist it
Ehh? I gave it a passing grade. But thanks! @Skua
Err. Those are actually structural things. Only the bottom wing is actually a "wing". It is inherent design characteristics I took from lessons learned in previous aircraft. 27C is example of a larger scale model. I delete my old planes because I don't think they deserve the light of day... Those wing sections make the wing loading value lower than it actually is. I do maneuverability tests before and after the additional sections and those structural things are actually detrimental @Skua
Rotation glitch, aka part clipping @DatsunVehiclesCompany
@dsr1aviation I notice how you leave out that they are "nicely detailed" but still have a low part count...
a kik?
hokay?
maybe?
@dsr1aviation What should I improve on? You yourself are an excellent builder, very much unlike myself. Tell me, what should I improve?
perhaps I should stop deleting my old planes that did not make the modern standard?
@Planeswinger I go try to make an edited ver
@KurtTank https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Gz21y5/Type-27C-Concept-For-Cockpit-mounting
Newest published ver
Model 32 is just ugly though. @Destroyer5713