Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
|
Thanks everyone for all the input. I've thought about it and agree that it wouldn't make sense to do a fully new design. So an upgrade of an old design it is...
I've zeroed in on the H9A which was produced in 1940 to 42 as a trainer for the H8K. It could carry a load of just under 5,000lb ( maximum, including fuel ) so should be able to do better with upgraded engines. The only change I made was replacing the 710 hp engines with late-war engines ( 1500hp+) and assuming a slightly larger airframe and payload on account of the engines. No changes to anything else ( defensive armament etc etc ). Obviously sticking new engines on an airframe isn't a one day job BUT if all you are doing is elongating the cargo area a bit, putting in a cargo door and putting on more powerful engines that is, relatively speaking, a relatively quick job. Certainly something which could be done in the four years in between 1940 and 1944 without needing the cancellation of other planes.
As to why it would be needed? Well, different strokes for different folks. In many ways the H8K2-L is superior but some people prefer, as Japan, to build twice as many twin-engined variants to allow for losses to bombing/CAP etc than a much smaller number of four-engined planes.
Also this isn't a strictly historical mod... I'm more interested in - What were the options? rather than What, strictily speaking, was possible being pre-determined by the designer. My design view ( which others may, of course, not agree with ) is that if I put in 50 different options of planes to build players will rationalise their production down to 1 or 2 fighters which they think will work best, 1 to 2 bombers, 1 or 2 patrol planes etc. If there are 6 types of patrol plane for the IJNAF I think we'll see the player pick 1 type for serial produciton and, possibly, 1 for smaller production runs for particular situations ( e.g a plane with particularly long range for open-ocean search ). We won't see them producing all 6. Providing all of the options for production just allows the player to choose which to produce, as opposed to having the scenario designer allocate designs before the game starts.
So, I think players will pick 1 or 2 designs for production its just that different players will alight on a different 1 or 2 depending on their plans for fighting the war. Some may pick the 2 interceptor types because they plan to fight on the defensive, some may pick the two long-range types because they plan to be flying lots of offensive missions, some may plan to build dogfighters of medium range because they want a balanced force. So, if 6 types are available ( 2 interceptor, 2 fighter, 2 offensive focused ) we'd only see 2 in production.
Obviously the best way around this would be to fully model R&D of airplane types and the limited numbers of design teams available etc but that isn't in the game so this is a compromise solution. I hope that makes my thinking clearer. It is, I admit, a different approach than most take.
Thanks again for the information re: plane types etc. It definitely pushed this in a very different direction than I was going and resulted in a much more believable plane being modded in ( an up-engined and slightly lengthened H9A vs a completely new design ).
_____________________________
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
|
Printable Version
RE: DC-3: Floatplane variant? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread