You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Tuesday, December 19th 2006, 6:00pm

Future Aircraft Technology

Personally, I'm planning on doing the following with aicraft tech:

Propellor tech is approximately 3 years ahead of historical, and will remain so.

Jet engine tech will be, at most 1 year ahead of schedule, because of the difficulties in accellerating it.

Rocket engine tech will be as historical, for the same reasons that jet engine tech will not be accelerated much.

The result of this is that propellor tech may go further than it did historically, since it's accelerated vs jet tech.


Tuesday, December 19th 2006, 7:03pm

Piston-engine technology - there's no substitute for more displacement. Although the ATL Italian engines will produce more power, they'll be running at similar hp/L values, just being larger and heavier.

Jet engines needed time to develop into something useful that worked.

Example 1: Although Power Jets had an engine running in 1937 it couldn't be used for anything useful. It wasn't until 1943 with the W.2B/Welland running well that anything useful could be done.

Example 2: Von Ohain had a hydrogen powered jet engine running in 1937. By 1945 Germany had yet to produce a jet engine that was reliable or have sufficient thrust.


Tuesday, December 19th 2006, 7:16pm


By 1945 Germany had yet to produce a jet engine that was reliable or have sufficient thrust.

Depends: the Jumo 004 was clearly producing sufficient thrust, and while in general reliability was only fair (needed overhaul after 10-20 hours use), some individual units were quite capable of running for 200 hours or more. It all depended on the availability of materials and workmanship, not the design of the engine.


Tuesday, December 19th 2006, 7:32pm

The helpful hint for the Germans would be not to use steel for turbines as it melts. But they didn't have access to other metals to use as high-temp alloys, so there was no way around the problem. However is the average life of an Me 262 less than the 10hours before the engine conks out?

The 004 is bulky, very heavy, has awful fuel consumption and is generally inefficient. The RR Welland had half the weight, much better fuel consumption, but most importantly was reliable.

The HeS 011 axial+centrifugal flow,which was to power most of Luft 46, never got beyond the "pile of junk" stage. It produced nowhere near its design power, still had awful fuel consumption (but better than 004) and wasn't reliable when used by the USAF postwar. This compares to the Nene running at 5000lbf reliably in 1944.


Tuesday, December 19th 2006, 8:00pm

The life of a Me-262 was mostly determined by hostile fire on landing or takeoff, and sometimes by a problem with a collapsing nosegear. The engines were easily removeable for overhaul, so they were not a primary problem (though having enough to operate all the airframes that were built was a bit of a problem).

Could the Jumo 004 have been better? Of course, more available metals would have helped a lot. Given the lack of them, though, the 004 got the job done.


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 8:25am

Atlantean aircraft tech won't really be much ahead or behind other nations, average I'd say.The only area I see some serious efforts being made are rockets and electronics.


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 9:53am

Since Filipino aircraft are either Martin, Nakajima or Heinkel aircraft, I will depend on Canis, Walter and Hrolf for aircraft designs and speed of development, although all three of these countries could perhaps independently develop aircraft for the Philippines if I worked through the players.


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 2:07pm

Various, and more or less historical, Italian designs from 30s and 40s.


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 4:55pm

Australia and Mexico will not be building historical aircraft. They will also be very advanced compared to historical Aussie/Mex planes, but will be inline with other planes.


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 6:02pm

Both nations being noted for their aeronautical prowess...


Wednesday, December 20th 2006, 8:19pm

...yet pail in comparison to some nations tech levels accross the board....

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message


Thursday, December 21st 2006, 3:27am

The I-100 upped the ante overall, and I'm basically moving Fokker from using historical models up until ~1930 to being a little more advanced. I figure piston engines appear to be to be 2-3 years ahead.

As a result I'm pulling the mid-late 1930s designs forward, sticking 1934-35 power plants in them and modifying to taste via planebuilder. The D.XIV / D.IXX , T.V, and G.1 are pretty close to done.

As for Jets.. haven't even touched the idea yet. Not entirely sure how much R&D the Dutch should support, though I could always announce (with Hooman's agreement) the SAE division of Fokker was working on such.


Thursday, December 21st 2006, 8:53pm

Argentina's future aircraft plans...

A hint of

just a dash of

a spot of

and finally


Friday, December 22nd 2006, 3:53am

Hood - what is that second thing? (You did notice the roundel is on the wrong wing, I presume. :P )

As for the Pulqui II - the Ta 183 as developed into said plane was an utter dog. This seems like it might be rather more reasonable.

(If the Argies are going to be leaning on Herr Tank's expertise, perhaps something like the Marut might be in order?)

As for the RSAF:

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning..."


Friday, December 22nd 2006, 4:18am

This baby for the FAM:

And this one for the RAAF:


Friday, December 22nd 2006, 4:46am

...didn't we do this topic already? <<


Friday, December 22nd 2006, 9:44am

The second design is the IA 37 fighter. All of these are real projects with help from Kurt Tank and the Horten brothers. The airliner also being a Kurt Tank design.

Funny you should mention the Marut but the Pulqui III designed in around 1955-56 is exactly like the Marut but Tank disliking Peron's politics left Argentina and took the design with him to India...

[See and find the Argentina Projects post for more info and links to relevent Argentine sites]

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Hood" (Dec 22nd 2006, 9:44am)


Friday, December 22nd 2006, 1:37pm

The Pulqui II was awful even when given a engine producing 3 times as much thrust reliably. The Ta183 is way overrated. More short sterm for Argentina would be the various IAe designs like this which looks familiar somehow...

CAC.15 with R-2800 and Griffon