You are not logged in.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:10pm

New TNCA Aircraft

TNCA C-10 Aguila II

Power: Allison V-1710 1,000hp

Armament: One 25.4/1in cannon, Two 7.62/0.3in machine guns (all in nose)

Size: Wingspan - 30ft
Length - 25ft
Wing area - 200sq ft

Weight: Empty - 3500lb
Max take-off - 4500lb

Performance: Max speed - 350mph
Ceiling - 30,000ft
Range - 450 miles
Climb - 2500ft per minute

An improved C-5 Aguila, with Allison V-1710, and retractable landing gear. Wing MGs removed due to landing gear and replaced with single 25.4mm cannon.

TNCA/PZL C-9/50 Tornado/Jastrzab

Power: Pratt & Witney 1000hp Twin Wasp

Length: 7.7 m (25 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 9.7 m (31 ft 10 in)
Height: 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 19.4 m² (209 ft²)

Empty, 4200 lb
Max Take Off, 5300 lb

Max Speed, 300mph
Range, 500miles

Armament: Four 7.62/0.3in machine guns, 500lbs of bombs & rockets.

A joint Polish/Mexican project. Based on the C-3 Quetzalcoat and A-1 Mapache. It is a multi-purpose fighter bomber.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Desertfox" (Feb 18th 2008, 6:30pm)

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:16pm

...and you called the F.K. 58 ugly !
ok, so it is- but it has a fair similarity in appearance to the Tornado.

A 1" cannon? A new Mexican weapon I presume. And th Aguila looks much better :)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Kaiser Kirk" (Feb 18th 2008, 10:20pm)


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:17pm

Unusual to have the Empty weight in Imperial and the Max Take Off weight in metric.
... range... 500 meters. :D
(no doubt you mean miles, but to Metric Me, 'm' stands for meters)

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Rooijen10" (Feb 18th 2008, 6:17pm)


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:24pm

So will you be rebuilding Aguila into Aguila II? Or just new builds?


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:27pm

Unfortunately its not possible to mount a gun in between the cylinder banks of the V-1710. I'd ditch one of the machine guns or mount the cannon in the wing root. What cannon did you have in mind, theres quite a variety of weapons in that calibre, most extremely large and powerful.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 6:28pm

The 1" cannon is actually an Atlantean weapon, already in use in the Mexican FW-187s and A-1 tankbusters.

Ahhh!!! Typos!

All Aguila IIs will be newbuilds.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 7:39pm

Hmmm, that is a problem. I could go with a different engine or a different armament layout, but neither option appeals to me. Maybe the WW version of the V-1710 is cannon capable?

Was there a difference in performance between engines mounting cannons and those that didn't?

The cannon is Atlantean, Im not sure what the specs would be.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 7:54pm


Originally posted by Desertfox
Hmmm, that is a problem. I could go with a different engine or a different armament layout, but neither option appeals to me. Maybe the WW version of the V-1710 is cannon capable?

Was there a difference in performance between engines mounting cannons and those that didn't?

Not noticeably, the main difference was in how some of the accessories were laid out. For instance, the Jumo -213 A & B were not designed to support an engine-mounted cannon (as initially the -213 was aimed at bombers or twin-engined fighters). When the idea of mounting it in single-engined fighters gained momentum, the -213C was created, which moved some of the engine accessories around so a cannon could be mounted in the engine.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 8:02pm

Klimov motor cannon

The real difference is space and the location of the reduction gear. There isn't space in the bank of the V-1710 to put a cannon barrel because the intake manifold is in the way. Given the section-view I can't see any way around this problem.

The other problem is the reduction gear which is shown here. As can be seen, the reduction gear doesn't change the axis of the shaft. You'd need a big step up to allow the cannon barrel and propellor shaft to interline.

I'm pretty sure that wing root or lower fuselage locations should be fine unless its a massively powerful 25mm round.


Monday, February 18th 2008, 8:35pm

Depending on the cartridge and weapon design, synchronization could be a fairly serious problem, or even impossible. If the weapon is an API-blowback design, like the Oerlikon, it's not going to be synchronizeable. If it's got a larger case, it may have an uneven propellant burn problem, as was found with the 30mm MK-103, which also makes it unsuitable for synchronization.


Sunday, March 2nd 2008, 7:45pm

I'll change the engine from an Allison to an AH Curtiss design. Since Mexico is Curtiss leading buyer, it probably will work better.

Also TNCA will build an interim C-5 Aguila design. Problems with the new engine will delay deliveries of the new fighter, so TNCA will introduce the C-5+, the plane will have the retractable gear but with the old 700hp engine. Armament will be 2 50cal MGs in the nose (cannot mount 1' cannon in nose, and MGs can't be mounted in wing due to RG gear).

15 will be built and flow exclusively by TNCA test pilots.


Sunday, March 2nd 2008, 8:18pm

Why doesnt TNCA just use the ties they have with GW and license build the 107?


Sunday, March 2nd 2008, 8:45pm

I want to build my own planes too! ;) Besides the Aguila II and Type 107 are very similar, the 107 is faster but the Aguila is the better dogfighter. Oh and the Aguila is much better looking! :D

What happened to the heavy fighter/attack plane? Mexico might want to take a look at it to compare it with the FW-187.


Sunday, March 2nd 2008, 9:50pm

There was no interest from the market so work was halted, a new longrange heavy fighter/attack aircraft is being studied to meet a future Persian requirement.


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 7:36am

Not an aircraft but rather a new engine.

Curtiss-Mexico will be introducing the CM-1100 Emperor liquid-cooled V-12. The engine will be in the same class as the Allision V-1710, RR Merlin, Hispano-Suiza 12Y, and DB-601.

The new engine will power the C-10 Aguila II and Fw-187M+ Halcon II. Due to limited numbers of the new engine, the first units will be used on the Fw-187s.

Now a question. Mexico has quite a bit of experience with high altitude flight, from the early LUSAC 11s to the record breaking Mapache Special. The question is, what route would be most logical for Mexico to follow?

Superchargers (Single or two stage?), Turbochargers, or Turbosuperchargers?


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 3:25pm

What does the designation mean? I guess that this engine follows on from the V-1570. Maybe increase the bore a bit and up the rpm to have a greater capacity and just a general redesign. 5.4" x 6.25" gives V-1720 and about 2850rpm. Should be pretty similar the V-1710 but withe slightly lower power from the capacity difference.

Turbochargers and turbosupercharged setups are most likely out for Mexico, its unlikely they'd have the tech to make them work. It took the US until 1940/41 to make their setups anywhere near reliable, and then only with the bomber versions on the R-1820. The turbosupercharged V-1710 remained pretty bad until 1943ish.

The most reasonable setup for Mexico would be a two speed single stage supercharger which for the V-1720 would give something like 1200hp at 6000ft and 950-1000hp at 20,000ft with mid altitude performance suffering a bit. It just depends on what gear ratios are adopted. Could go for something in between to give around 1100-1150hp at 14000ft.

Multistage superchargers are still out for a bit.


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 5:29pm

Was doing a bit of research and both the LUSAC 11 and XP-23 used turbochargers. Superchargers might be easier to make but turbos seem more logical for Mexico, due to previous experience.

Wes, are the Spartan engines on the F-8 Cyclones, supercharged or turbocharged?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

The designation (CM-1100) stands for Curtiss-Mexico 1100 hp, the expected power output. Neither the engine nor the turbo/superchargers are wholly Mexican, there will be a large amount of US help.


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 6:50pm

Huge amount of difference between a few prototypes and mass production types. It took GE twenty years to develop an effective turbosupercharged system. Pretty much all current production engines will be naturally aspirated or supercharged with the possible exception of the Ju 208 if it exists yet. However, thats still very very small numbers and the lower temperature exhaust helps a lot.

Another problem with the turbosupercharged setup is that it massively adds to the bulk of the engine making it extremely difficult to fit into a single engined fighter. Theres no chance of a set up fitting into the DB600/601 nacelles on the Fw 187 without making them about twice as long.


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 10:00pm

Ah ok. I'll use superchargers on my current fighters and most of the other aircraft, and try to wrangle a few turbosuperchargers from the US for the Do-17 upgrades and for continued tests on high altitude flight.


Sunday, June 1st 2008, 11:21pm

The F-8 Cyclones have supercharged engines.