Page 44 of 123
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 14th, 2011, 5:00 pm
by HMS Sophia
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 18th, 2011, 2:23 am
by ONI-Defense
AH-3 Blackfoot, scaled down from DarkProxy's and Bagera3005's design.
ah3blackfoot.PNG
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 21st, 2011, 8:55 pm
by Rhade
And now for something completely different. Mitsubishi J2M was a land based fighter but, what about hypothetically a carrier version. It's possible ?
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 21st, 2011, 9:32 pm
by Blackbuck
I'd probably say possible but not likely. The thing was meant to go after heavies up high, it wouldn't be stressed for carrier work, the visibility from the cockpit (if Il-2 is to be believed isn't exactly great either) What did you have in mind for it to do?
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 7:47 am
by Rhade
Give him a fleet interceptor role, tailhook, folding wings. But what about fuel ? J2M has short range, only 560 km.
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 8:30 am
by Blackbuck
Drop tanks would help to some extent but the thing is so small there's really not much room for more fuel. You could strip all the armour off of it as well as maybe two of the 20mm guns.
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 2:06 pm
by Rhade
Blackbuck wrote:Drop tanks would help to some extent but the thing is so small there's really not much room for more fuel. You could strip all the armour off of it as well as maybe two of the 20mm guns.
Yeah, you right. I try to make comparisons with other fighters, P-47, F6F or N1K Rex. P-47 is similar to size and weight, also engine has almost identic power. Maybe if change position of one pair 20 mm to the engine cowling we can make some room for more fuel tanks. Also striping armour ? I don't know, for me it's not a good idea.
One more thing, drop tanks in carrier operation. Any fighter in WWII us that ?
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 3:18 pm
by Blackbuck
RN and USN did. I'm sure the IJN would of too. When you consider that the Japanese hardly ever armoured their planes to improve manoeuvrability I guess it's feasible they could do that with the Jack...
20mms wouldn't work in the cowling I don't think, they're simply too large. Though you could probably fit a pair of 13.2mm MGs in there...
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 3:38 pm
by Rhade
La-7 use 20 mm on engine cowling. Maybe you right with that armour, leave only for cockpit and strip rest. When we do that, we increse range ... 800 with fuel tanks ?
Re: Planebucket Discussion Thread
Posted: September 22nd, 2011, 5:50 pm
by Blackbuck
Would seem a reasonable estimate for range. The La-7 and Fw-190Ds (that had MG151s in the nose) could probably get away with having them because of the extra space between the engine and cockpit, the J2M has a much smaller ratio between the two.