NationStates Jolt Archive

LAKERIVERWOOD, Gadsan - The war has been good for Irvin Graye so far. Never before has the Commonwealth government been so willing to pay for new ideas in aeroflight design. Graye Aeroflyers, Incorporated, of Gadsan has been solidly on the cutting edge of military flight technology, releasing such wonders as the MPAF-5 "Steed", the MPAF-6 "Colt" - which powers itself by expelling superheated gas - and the BAF-1 "Blinder".

Now, with the glaring need for more long-ranged aircraft to extend defensive options, Graye Aeroflyers has announced prototypes of its MPAF-8 "Spirit" long range escort fighter and BAF-3 "Dasher" long range heavy bomber.

Graye also expanded its aeroflyer production plants significantly, and have already nearly doubled their pre-war building potential. Mass production of the proven MPAF-5 and -6 designs has also began, even if plans for a MPAF-7 "Derby" 'superjet' fighter have had to be suspended. Another feature of note on the MPAF-8 is the addition of a light nose-mounted air search radranger, the first ever mounted in an aeroflyer.

Production plans call for the building of nearly a thousand BAF-3s and seven hundred MPAF-8s over the next two years. The first flyers should reach Flying Corps units in the next month.

BAF-3 "Dasher"
Designation: Heavy Bomber

Length: 67'6"
Height: 18'6"
Wingspan: 111'2"
Gross Weight (unloaded): 37,500 lbs
Gross Weight (loaded): 69,500 lbs
Crew: 8
Powerplant: 4 x Graye-Westerton Model 19J (1,150 HP each)
Range (unloaded): 3,750 miles
Range (6,000 lb of bombs): 2,500 miles
Range (full loaded): 1,350 miles
Max Speed: 280 miles / hour
Cruise Speed: 210 miles / hour
Ceiling: 27,750 feet
Armarment:
4 x .303 machine guns in tail turret
4 x .55 machine guns (2 nose turret, 2 dorsal turret)
up to 18,000 lbs of bombs in internal bay
Armor: Heavy

http://www.maurice.skynet.co.uk/northants/B24-2.gif
A BAF-3 prototype takes off from Graye Aeroflyers' test dock

MPAF-8 "Spirit"
Designation: Long Range Bomber Escort

Length: 42'3"
Height: 15'6"
Wingspan: 58'0"
Gross Weight (unloaded): 15,800 lbs
Gross Weight (loaded): 25,900 lbs
Crew: 3
Powerplant: 2 x Graye-Westerton Model 16G (1,750 HP each)
Range (unloaded): 2,750 miles
Range (full loaded; no bombs): 2,160 miles
Range (Fully loaded; 2,000 lb of bombs): 1,760 miles
Max Speed: 313 miles / hour
Cruise Speed: 225 miles / hour
Ceiling: 26,450 feet
Armarment:
3 x 20mm cannons fixed under forward fuselage
4 x .303 machine guns fixed in wings
either 2,250 lbs of bombs (up to eight wing-mounted rockets or 2 1,000 lb bombs) or 1 "Javelin" torpedo
1 RSU Model 255A Air Search Light Radranger (range: 65 miles)
Armor: Heavy

http://www.aviation-history.com/bristol/beaufit4.jpg
The Guardian Spirit: An MPAF-8 prototype in Gadsan

Walmington, still struggling to realise the potential of long range/heavy bombers, and of the deadly potential of combined land/air assaults, is a land in some contemplation following these announcements.

The Ercolanans have heavy bombers, the Calarcans may well have, we don't know what the Asians are up to, but now the Ians have them too. It's time to act!

Walmington sends, out of habit, congratulations to their ally on its latest developments, and is sure they'll be powerful tools in preserving the order of the world! [written with confidence!]

A long range fighter is something we geniunely lack and seek to improve upon. However it will be a while before any fighters find there way into service, and even longer until Jet aircraft follow.

(Ag: I'd gladly sell you some if we weren't...y'know...at war and all ;)

WoS: Naturally, exports of designs, engines, and finished flyers to Walmington is atop our priority list.)

ooc: I think the blitz, or a strike on Walmington itself, or perhaps progress made from distance against Asian offensives will put us in mind to seek such tech, until then we view the bomber largely as a bit of a crack-pot idea. "You'll never hit anything.." "It's ugly.." and so on :)

Hmm. your bombload for the heavy bomber chased me off to see mine, Mine has 25000 lb worth of bombs as max payload. Yet unladen is lighter than yours.

Hmm. I wonder if my stats are wrong, it's ripped off from a WW2 design. Mybe a little to many bombs in mine. lol

Edit, the Lancaster with a shorter wingspan of 102 ft could carry 22000 lb. best bring your load up to 18,000 or so rather than.

In 1940 the aircraft was redesigned. The new aircraft, called the Avro Lancaster Mk I, made its first flight on 9th January, 1941. Powered by four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, it had a maximum speed of 287 mph (462 km) and had a range of 1,660 miles (2,670 km). Armed with ten machine-guns it could carry 22,000 lb (9,980 kg) of bombs. It was 69 ft 6 in (21.18 m) long with a wingspan of 102 ft (31.09 m).

PS everyone, I bags the Lockheed Hudson for my Bat replacement in a NS/War year or two. Not time for it yet, but it will be needed when the Bat becomes obsolete. it's already a fairly old design, 18cyl Straights? thats not really efficient now we have the hang of Vs for our watercooled designs. the RP life of the bat is a lightbomber/torpbomber using the engines of our last (WW1 anyone) wars heavy bomber. about 20-30 year old design.

A hudson with 3500 HP engines rather than 1100Hp? nice.

(Walmy I think has no choice but to fly Wellington rip-offs. It just seems so right, no? I haven't thought about true heavy bobmers yet- I think they're a long way off for us. Maybe we'll settle for mediums in the war, and jump on to V-bombers afterwards.
And the Lancaster ..rocks. They fly one over the house every once in a while, anniversary displays and such. Along with Hurricane and Spitfire (hey, I'm drinking Spitfire!) oh, all these tangents. Well, we're not making much real progress to-night anyway, right? Whew.)

Yep, I like the lancaster too. One of my greatuncles was shot down and killed over gremany in one, We still have his old RAF greatcoat in use on the farm when a normal coat isn't warm enough.

And as for WoS bomber, try the Anson with an 8000Lb load.

(Walmy I think has no choice but to fly Wellington rip-offs. It just seems so right, no? I haven't thought about true heavy bobmers yet- I think they're a long way off for us. Maybe we'll settle for mediums in the war, and jump on to V-bombers afterwards.
And the Lancaster ..rocks. They fly one over the house every once in a while, anniversary displays and such. Along with Hurricane and Spitfire (hey, I'm drinking Spitfire!) oh, all these tangents. Well, we're not making much real progress to-night anyway, right? Whew.)

Just because I want to burst you bubble: Macchi's can outperform and out fly Spitfires, you couple that with A Grade Pilots and you have a deadly combination.

(A grade fighters took part when, in 1933, Italian Air Marshal Italo Balbo led 55 seaplanes on a non stop flight across the atlantic.)

We are... interested with these new warplanes.
However, we will congratulate you on this achievment. But --- we will work on our own version to counter this warplane --- to deal with the threats of the future.

Imperial International Affairs Minister, Ganze Ukan
Imperium of Omz-Earikan

Datestamp: Sept. 8, 1942

Ahh, that's a good idea. For a nation with relatively little interest in bomber development, especially.

I'm somewhat distrustful of the suggestion that Italy even now could produce something to outperform British wartime fighters, mind ;)

Alright, but y'can't drink Macchi, can you? (can you? :? )

Looking into it- the image is still sort of nice for WoS, but that's about it :)

Didn't the whole thing weight about 8,000lb?

Just because I want to burst you bubble: Macchi's can outperform and out fly Spitfires, you couple that with A Grade Pilots and you have a deadly combination.

Sure, the 1943 Macchis could beat the 1941 Spit, but by 1943, the Spit was superiorly upgraded and could beat the Macchis.

Same thing as when they tested a captured FW-190, they nearly didn't expect the outdated spit do do anything but come in last out of the 3 or 4 other allied planes they had up as part of the test group, but Supermarine cheated and sent along the first of the Griffon engined spits and wiped everyone else away. hence the spit contract was extended for more planes intstead of going to the Typhooon or tempest as it was expected.

Looking into it- the image is still sort of nice for WoS, but that's about it :)

Didn't the whole thing weight about 8,000lb?

The anson? not sure, about 14000 I think. you'd have to find a site with specs, not hard with google. lol

Just because I want to burst you bubble: Macchi's can outperform and out fly Spitfires, you couple that with A Grade Pilots and you have a deadly combination.

Sure, the 1943 Macchis could beat the 1941 Spit, but by 1943, the Spit was superiorly upgraded and could beat the Macchis.

Same thing as when they tested a captured FW-190, they nearly didn't expect the outdated spit do do anything but come in last out of the 3 or 4 other allied planes they had up as part of the test group, but Supermarine cheated and sent along the first of the Griffon engined spits and wiped everyone else away. hence the spit contract was extended for more planes intstead of going to the Typhooon or tempest as it was expected.

Hmm...I doubt that. The 1943 Macchi Veltro could easily defeat the 1943 Spitfire in my opinion (and that of the Discovery Wings channel on their episode "Wings of Italy"). That episode also stated how Italian pilots were dueling with biplanes against the best the British had in the beginning of the war, and winning. Slaughtering them actually. To the point that the British pilots were told not to engage them.

Might have had something to do more with the pilots than the planes though.

--It was either the FIAT CR.42 “Falco” or the FIAT CR.32, I cannot remember which--

The British were using the wrong tatics, trying to dogfight with a biplane when in a high speed monoplane is suicide, what they should have done was high speed diving hit and runs. A bipe will always outturn a similiar specced mono. Heck, the swordfish could in tight slow turns outmanuver a BF-109. but did the germans ever try? no they used their speed to be in shoot then get out before the bipes could get them in their sights.

No no, now that's silly. There's nothing to support superior Italian flying. They bombed a few hapless Abyssinians, the British skirmished with Germany in Spain!

The British for the most part had a superior kill ratio against the Germans, if they managed that, there's no way Italian biplanes were outdoing them- unless they were fancy biplanes and the British were in Swordfish, Gladiators, or mayyybe even Defiants.

The British were using the wrong tatics, trying to dogfight with a biplane when in a high speed monoplane is suicide, what they should have done was high speed diving hit and runs. A bipe will always outturn a similiar specced mono. Heck, the swordfish could in tight slow turns outmanuver a BF-109. but did the germans ever try? no they used their speed to be in shoot then get out before the bipes could get them in their sights.

Yeah, like I said it probably had more to do with the pilots...

Mh, that much is true, Britain did use some dodgey old tactics. How long did we hang on to the V-form flight pattern?

Nah, that's not pilots! That's tactical doctrine, and aircraft capability- the biplanes' manouverability.

Mostly Hurricanes in the African battles.

Nah, that's not pilots! That's tactical doctrine, and aircraft capability- the biplanes' manouverability.

Leadership at the Squadron level...something the Italians excelled in. It is well known that the Italian Air Force at the beginning of the war was the best trained air force in the world, with the best pilots.

(I am not making this up, I have heard it from numerous sources, including the Discovery Wings channel and the History channel to name a few.)

I thought so. Defiants proved outmoded in France, Gladiators shipped off to doom in Norway.

http://avia.russian.ee/air/italy/index.html

http://avia.russian.ee/air/italy/index.html

http://www.regiamarina.net/

Nice navy, they made ome damn pretty boats, but they weren't that good at using them. they did tie up far more British ships than would have happened if they had engaged and been sunk, even after counting the british ships sunk, there would have been shops free to push off elsewhere and do other things than watch for excursions by the eytie navy. Hanging around in port was about the best thing their anvy could do to help the german navy...

Nice navy, they made ome damn pretty boats, but they weren't that good at using them. they did tie up far more British ships than would have happened if they had engaged and been sunk, even after counting the british ships sunk, there would have been shops free to push off elsewhere and do other things than watch for excursions by the eytie navy. Hanging around in port was about the best thing their anvy could do to help the german navy...

Yeah because Logistics sucked, High Command Sucked. In Italy you are facing an extreme example of Regionalism when it comes to Command Structure. Our High Command was sooo damn ineffecient. Everything above the Squad/Squadron level was bumbled f---ed. Not the plane's, not the soldier's nor the boat's faults though.

"England sucks!! Free Northern Ireland!!"

Was there any particular reason you showed me the Aeritalia G-91? In my opinion thats an excellent plane. I believe it won NATO trials for fighter aircraft. They were ordered by Germany, France and America, although Germany was the only one to recieve them all after France and the US backed out.

Ruined the Italian Aircraft Industry, that did.

"England sucks!! Free Northern Ireland!!"

*Frowns* :? :x :(

Nah, thats just the index page. it's what comes up anyway, the bit I was trying to show was the Fiat fighters in the menu down the left side.

The Falco et al.

"England sucks!! Free Northern Ireland!!"

*Kills the interloper*

Nah, thats just the index page. it's what comes up anyway, the bit I was trying to show was the Fiat fighters in the menu down the left side.

The Falco et al.

Meh, I know all about the Falco, but it seems you know little about the Veltro :P

Mostly Hurricanes in the African battles.

Mostly but not exclusively...they fought the Allied landings in Sicily and Sardinia as well as after the capitulation in either the Royal Air Force or the Aviazione Repubblica Sociale Italiana.

Nice work, Cal. I didn't even get to bring in one of my minor characters to suggest a "Crack at the Mick, eh?" twirling his handlebars and resting a shotgun over his arm. Ah,well.


Hey look, I even resisted saying "the US sucks, free planet earth!". I'm so restrained when I've been drinking!

Oh theres plenty more micks where he came from. feel free to go on a hunting holiday. Belfast should be exciting.

Oh theres plenty more micks where he came from. feel free to go on a hunting holiday. Belfast should be exciting.

Hey, Hey, Hey, You two calm down there. Now I understand being rude to him because, frankly, he was rude to us and intervened in this, but now your just offending everyone, including me.

Ne'r been to Norn Iron, just the 'public. I was told the Irish had a reputation for being polite. Pah, that goes out the window when you open your English mouth.

It says something that in two weeks the least rude person seen in Ireland -besides us- was a French girl. Heh.

(what were we talking about?)

Its not like I expect the Sioux nation to be polite the next time I go on vacation in their reservation.....

(Trains? No. Automobiles? No....ah yes Planes)

Heh, I'm part Irish (isn't everyone?) I.. wow, I've forgotten what I was typing. Just gone right out of my head. I was trying to complain in another window that Douglas Adams died too young..and..hm.

Okay, well the Veltro was a great plane, I rest my case, that is unless you want another walloping :wink:

Right! That's it! Walmington's developing a new British-rip-off tank! Where'm I up to? Ah! The A-34...


:D


(heh, no, I won't do that for a while ...but that's where my big gun tanks start..and possibly finish)

Speaking of which, I should get to work on my Medium & Heavy Tanks.

*Tagging it on this nation*

Macchi 205 V of feb 1943
Absolute maximum speed: 642 km/h at an altitude of 7,200 m; safety speed 158 km/h
Absolute ceiling: 11,200 m; service ceiling: 11,000 m.
Cruising speed: 580 km/h

Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61 as of sept 1942)
Level Speeds.
Maximum true air speed in M.S. supercharger 380 1/2 m.p.h. (613.7Kmh)
Maximum true air speed in F.S. supercharger 403 m.p.h. (650Kmh)
CEiling 40,000ft+ (Approx 13,000M)

Right! That's it! Walmington's developing a new British-rip-off tank! Where'm I up to? Ah! The A-34...

:D

(heh, no, I won't do that for a while ...but that's where my big gun tanks start..and possibly finish)

Speaking of tanks, I'm still waiting to get a drubbing on land to cause me to make the big German supertank Muser or something.

Who's gonna crush my puny armoured cars???

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1429781

Got some tanks up. The damn site I get most my ship pictures is down, hopefully it will be back up soon.

Macchi 205 V of feb 1943
Absolute maximum speed: 642 km/h at an altitude of 7,200 m; safety speed 158 km/h
Absolute ceiling: 11,200 m; service ceiling: 11,000 m.
Cruising speed: 580 km/h

Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61 as of sept 1942)
Level Speeds.
Maximum true air speed in M.S. supercharger 380 1/2 m.p.h. (613.7Kmh)
Maximum true air speed in F.S. supercharger 403 m.p.h. (650Kmh)
CEiling 40,000ft+ (Approx 13,000M)

Theres a lot more to planes then that, but W.E..... It's just like you English to keep a man down just because he is a Catholic!! :wink: (JK)

he's not English! Diluted colonial effort ;)

Ah, the 15/42 is on hand- fair oposition for the CCMkII, lacking speed though, and the P26/40 - more than a match thanks to its 75mm gun! :shock: something of a revolution there. Still has the pathetic old Italian suspension and accompanying speed, moderate armour- but in base specs its not far from a Sherman, really. And I'd venture it is less likely to explode into a ball of flames on the first hit?

All in all I'd say Walmington's CCMkIII Lancer is a better machine, but the 75mm gun is going to be a nasty surprise if we come up against it before upgrading from 6pdr guns.

An interesting contest we have on our hands, eh?


(bear in mind I'm drunk and my friend in Canada is seemingly in trouble and beyond my help..shit)

Ah, the 15/42 is on hand- fair oposition for the CCMkII, lacking speed though, and the P26/40 - more than a match thanks to its 75mm gun! :shock: something of a revolution there. Still has the pathetic old Italian suspension and accompanying speed, moderate armour- but in base specs its not far from a Sherman, really. And I'd venture it is less likely to explode into a ball of flames on the first hit?

All in all I'd say Walmington's CCMkIII Lancer is a better machine, but the 75mm gun is going to be a nasty surprise if we come up against it before upgrading from 6pdr guns.

An interesting contest we have on our hands, eh?


(bear in mind I'm drunk and my friend in Canada is seemingly in trouble and beyond my help..shit)

I still have a line of self propelled guns coming in, as well as perhaps another medium or heavy tank. :twisted:

(Heh...nice to see everyone hijacked my thread so well while I was gone ;)

Nah, but I would like to ask everyone to please play nice! And I don't remember what I was talking about...Calarca though my bomb load should be higher?)

ah, we're getting along..aren't we? ach! [looks worried] I might have misunderstood in my drunkeness!

yeh, he thinks so..but..I assume you've based it on B-24 spes? I would have cross-referenced and come up with a hybrid that had no clear design purpose, but..never mind.

No, I hate you all!!! :evil: :cry: :x :? :( :x

Lol, we are getting along fine actually, a little heated debate never hurt anyone...wait? It did? nevermind then........

Yeah, it's listed as 10,500 yet the Lancaster, which is smaller has 22,000. and the liberator, which mine is based on (the pic on my planes thing is of a Post war Lib fitted with a diff planes tail) can take 25000.

Well done on these developments.

Now, I know nohing of WW2, so ignore me if I am wrong, but doesnt 2 engines make a fighter less agile?

(Well, the site I refrenced listed it at 12,000 lbs - may be a variant - and I reduced that some to increase the range. You rekon I could increase it to 18,000 and keep roughly the same ranges I had listed?)

FC: EDIT: I'd imagine so. The Spirit was designed for range, to distract enemy fighters while bombers make their runs. Also, the radar will make sure they have the drop on the enemy most of the time.

ooc: goodnight all. I'll probably work on my vehicles some before I fall asleep though, ah the beauty of Janes hard copy...

(Well, the site I refrenced listed it at 12,000 lbs - may be a variant - and I reduced that some to increase the range. You rekon I could increase it to 18,000 and keep roughly the same ranges I had listed?)

Reckon so. besides this is NS, the physical laws are a bit rubbery and flexible... And while I wouldn't baulk at it carrying 27000, I wouldn't complain if it carried 35000 lb for a paltry 100 miles.

Others might, but so long as range comes down in response.... ok.

(Eh, I need the range more than the bombload, really...distances in the Pacific are just so darn long! At any rate, I'll raise it to 18,000, as I imagine I was looking at some incorrect data.)

Out of interest, what are modern max bomb loads?

The B-52, 70,000 lb. racks for 52 bombs internal, 18 external.

the B-1 doesn't say actual payload, but it holds 84x 500 lbers internally.

the B2 40000, including 80x Mk 82 500 lbers


Edit: just been to the site. corrected payloads.

wow......

Shows you how much jets help, adn how advanced our technology is...

I dont even want to see teh B-52

(70,000 for the B-52. Ha. You had to see it ;))

Dear LORD......

Thats like, 4 WW2 Bombers to 1 modern one....

It would take 84 Typhoons to carry the B-1s payload, they can only carry a single 500 lber

No they dont

They can carry 2,000 lbs plus of weapons.

Plus, its a fighter, not a bomber.

"It would take over 35 million bowls of your normal fiber rich cereal to equal just one bowl of Super Colon Blow" --- Sorry SNL flashback

*now I am going to bed for real, goodnight [resists urge to continue posting]*

No they dont

They can carry 2,000 lbs plus of weapons.

Plus, its a fighter, not a bomber.

Ground attack too in the later stages of the war when there weren't enough Luftwaffe to go around between the allied units. fitted with 6x 6" rockets and one 500 lber or 6 rockets and 2x 100 lber.

Mostly used against tank units. but they could do a lot of damage to the german locos and kept troop movement down.

Yeah, the Typhoon was a let down at altitude, wasn' it? So ended up becoming a good ground attack aircraft.