Terrible and potentially hazardous handling characteristics attempting a conventional take-off using standard Paternian take-off procedures (apply pitch up from beginning), low missile capacity, large size, lack of external stores provision, and relatively low speed compared to Paternian types. @PyrusEnderhunter
Unditching beam. So if it gets stuck, the crew can jam it in the front of the tank and the beam will provide the tracks something to grip on, and hopefully lift it out of the ditch or hole. @Wahoo12
Workmanship is good, but the design has notable flaws, including the questionable need for 180 degree elevation and the complications loading at the high elevations, as well as limitations in the traverse of the AA machine guns due to position of turrets. When traversed to engage targets to the side at low elevations, the gun turret closest to the target will be in the line of fire of the other.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation But the reason why a first-gen Pummeler can out-run and out-maneuver this thing while carrying more bombs is because it's got a 110", 3 chord, 4-bladed warbird prop instead of a 80", 1.4 chord, 6-bladed scimitar prop, and the fact that the empty weight of this thing is the same as the loaded weight of a Pummeler.
The difference between this thing and a first-generation Pummeler is that RP-wise, the first-generation Pummeler will set you back P$4,050, which is US$22,500, or the price of a Toyota Camry. It was also designed in 1955.
This thing is ten times more expensive, and designed in 2090.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation The second-generation Pummeler (E, F, G) has a T2000-3/2, which is a 3,000HP engine, and the third-generation Pummeler (H, I, & J) has a T2000-2, which is a 4,000HP engine.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation To see how bad the Pummeler's maneuverability was long ago, I did a test flight in an A-1D and A-1F (the aircraft you are referring to, I assume).
The first and second generation Pummeler is a far more maneuverable aircraft compared to this. The 250mph takeoff speed is completely unnecessary. The Pummeler's takeoff speed for earlier variants, with a full combat load, is less than 175mph. Even with a "super-heavy" load with 500lb bombs on every pylon (that's 7,500lbs of bombs, or about as much as a WWII-era B-17 Flying Fortress), the Foxtrot Pummeler will ease off the runway at 180mph.
My main suggestions to improving the type is as follows:
Move all control surfaces to the center of the wing. The elevators in the wings function more as spoilers than elevators.
Ensure all control surfaces of overlapping wing components are the same when relevant.
Get a bigger, wider-blade propeller. Cessna is for acceleration, Scimitar is for speed, and Warbird is a middle ground.
Get this thing modded aircraft engines. The one's found on a Pummeler are good, but I suggest the use of the Bulwark's T3000 engine, since the only Pummelers you have are war trophies.
Dispose of the jet engines completely. At the speeds this is supposed to operate, the T-series engine will do just as well but is considerably more fuel efficient.
Decrease or eliminate leading edge sweep. Although slower, straight wings generate more lift per area than swept wings, enhancing maneuverability. The advantage of swept wings is reduced aerodynamic drag, allowing for faster airplanes. As an attack plane, speed is less important than maneuverability, although having some speed is of course necessary.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Thanks! I know your convoy truck has integrated weapons, but if you aren't convinced this isn't very well armed (it isn't, in this form), then I shall make a gun truck version and call it "Eve of Destruction", after an actual US Army gun truck used during the Vietnam War.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation lol railguns have lots of recoil.
Although caliber is unusual for an Awwami weapon. What other 120mm cannons do you use that you didn't take off some Paternian Ardent or early model Victoria?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Thanks! After some analysis, I realized both artillery are very different pieces, although we do not foresee any procurement of a QDSPA-306-esque piece, as we feel our 60mm Mortar M1 is completely suitable for platoon-level fire support.
If you wish to know what that thing is like, it's basically the mortar tube with a base plate. It's sighting mechanism is a white line painted down the barrel and lining up said target with the line. Elevation for range was adjusted through the use of holding the barrel and moving it up and down. Firing is done by dropping a round down the barrel. This causes the round to strike a fixed firing pin at the base with enough force to set it off. While crude, it is incredibly fast and effective, since the operator can quickly adjust their aim based on the fall of the shot. Due to the high rate of fire (20 rpm), aiming is rather easy.
Alternatively, the M1A1 design uses the same basic design, but adds a bipod with simple elevation and traverse controls as well as a spirit-level type range indicator and a proper sighting unit, although the white line on the barrel remains. This is for when accuracy is needed over mobility.
I mean, how much simpler can you get than a baseplate to secure the gun, traverse and elevation controlled by holding the barrel at a different angle, and aiming by lining up a target with a line down the top of the barrel?
That's also Paternian Standard procedures. @PyrusEnderhunter
Paternian fighters can reach 2,000-3,000 mph. The phased-out F-4D Super Dart could reach speeds of 5,000mph: @PyrusEnderhunter
Nudge the gun into the fuselage.
Terrible and potentially hazardous handling characteristics attempting a conventional take-off using standard Paternian take-off procedures (apply pitch up from beginning), low missile capacity, large size, lack of external stores provision, and relatively low speed compared to Paternian types. @PyrusEnderhunter
What I mean is that it is a good airplane. Despite the flaws, we figured that your tactics can make them effective. @PyrusEnderhunter
Actually, it only carries one nuke.
The four things on the wing pylons are the engines.
Unditching beam. So if it gets stuck, the crew can jam it in the front of the tank and the beam will provide the tracks something to grip on, and hopefully lift it out of the ditch or hole. @Wahoo12
Decent enough for your tactics.
I may use this system in order to create stabilized guns.
Better than the MBT-70 it was built off of.
Workmanship is good, but the design has notable flaws, including the questionable need for 180 degree elevation and the complications loading at the high elevations, as well as limitations in the traverse of the AA machine guns due to position of turrets. When traversed to engage targets to the side at low elevations, the gun turret closest to the target will be in the line of fire of the other.
That's under our jurisdiction. So we're sending aid to rebuild the shattered area. @SimpleTechAndResearch
Yeah, join the dischord. You can see that Brazil's northern frontier is ours, and our navy is blockading Brazil. @Mudkip
Our interest is in Brazil.
Several thousand miles away from Siberia, mind you. @PINK
@Mudkip Me, @DankDorito, and @JakeTheDogg have declared war against you.
@GALM1 Want to join?
@TemDesBur Yep.
@TemDesBur Nope!
@TemDesBur It's basically like rabies.
Except worse.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Story-wise, the Pummeler saw use in nations that existed for a very long time, such as Sals and Japan.
This means that Paternia has been in the RP from the very beginning.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation But the reason why a first-gen Pummeler can out-run and out-maneuver this thing while carrying more bombs is because it's got a 110", 3 chord, 4-bladed warbird prop instead of a 80", 1.4 chord, 6-bladed scimitar prop, and the fact that the empty weight of this thing is the same as the loaded weight of a Pummeler.
The difference between this thing and a first-generation Pummeler is that RP-wise, the first-generation Pummeler will set you back P$4,050, which is US$22,500, or the price of a Toyota Camry. It was also designed in 1955.
This thing is ten times more expensive, and designed in 2090.
I NEEDED THIS MOD FROM DAY 1.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation The second-generation Pummeler (E, F, G) has a T2000-3/2, which is a 3,000HP engine, and the third-generation Pummeler (H, I, & J) has a T2000-2, which is a 4,000HP engine.
Of course, they're XML modded.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Too many?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation To see how bad the Pummeler's maneuverability was long ago, I did a test flight in an A-1D and A-1F (the aircraft you are referring to, I assume).
The first and second generation Pummeler is a far more maneuverable aircraft compared to this. The 250mph takeoff speed is completely unnecessary. The Pummeler's takeoff speed for earlier variants, with a full combat load, is less than 175mph. Even with a "super-heavy" load with 500lb bombs on every pylon (that's 7,500lbs of bombs, or about as much as a WWII-era B-17 Flying Fortress), the Foxtrot Pummeler will ease off the runway at 180mph.
My main suggestions to improving the type is as follows:
Move all control surfaces to the center of the wing. The elevators in the wings function more as spoilers than elevators.
Ensure all control surfaces of overlapping wing components are the same when relevant.
Get a bigger, wider-blade propeller. Cessna is for acceleration, Scimitar is for speed, and Warbird is a middle ground.
Get this thing modded aircraft engines. The one's found on a Pummeler are good, but I suggest the use of the Bulwark's T3000 engine, since the only Pummelers you have are war trophies.
Dispose of the jet engines completely. At the speeds this is supposed to operate, the T-series engine will do just as well but is considerably more fuel efficient.
Decrease or eliminate leading edge sweep. Although slower, straight wings generate more lift per area than swept wings, enhancing maneuverability. The advantage of swept wings is reduced aerodynamic drag, allowing for faster airplanes. As an attack plane, speed is less important than maneuverability, although having some speed is of course necessary.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation More efficient propeller and much lighter airframe.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation As in artillery?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Can you list the calibers of all your weapons in service?
Thanks! @Supermini555
Wow... that's lots of calibers. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
Paternian Army artillery calibers as follows:
Gun/Howitzer
76mm
90mm
105mm
120mm
155mm
Autocannon
20mm
30mm
Mortar
60mm
81mm
120mm
The Navy has some different calibers:
Gun
76mm
127mm
152mm
406mm
The last caliber is used on the PRN Iowa (BB-61) and the PRN Missouri (BB-63) Iowa-class battleships.
It's more for ambushes by insurgents, and depending on what kind of weapons we jam on it, an air defense system. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
At least they are reasonably fast once the bombs have been dropped.
They're faster than this thing. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
It's slow and not very maneuverable.
The basic definition of an easy target. @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
I see. What calibers would you consider "Awwam Standard"? @MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Thanks! I know your convoy truck has integrated weapons, but if you aren't convinced this isn't very well armed (it isn't, in this form), then I shall make a gun truck version and call it "Eve of Destruction", after an actual US Army gun truck used during the Vietnam War.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation I see.
I seriously suggest them to stop building this and start building something better.
Like a Pummeler or a Bulwark.
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation lol railguns have lots of recoil.
Although caliber is unusual for an Awwami weapon. What other 120mm cannons do you use that you didn't take off some Paternian Ardent or early model Victoria?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation lol
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Thanks! After some analysis, I realized both artillery are very different pieces, although we do not foresee any procurement of a QDSPA-306-esque piece, as we feel our 60mm Mortar M1 is completely suitable for platoon-level fire support.
If you wish to know what that thing is like, it's basically the mortar tube with a base plate. It's sighting mechanism is a white line painted down the barrel and lining up said target with the line. Elevation for range was adjusted through the use of holding the barrel and moving it up and down. Firing is done by dropping a round down the barrel. This causes the round to strike a fixed firing pin at the base with enough force to set it off. While crude, it is incredibly fast and effective, since the operator can quickly adjust their aim based on the fall of the shot. Due to the high rate of fire (20 rpm), aiming is rather easy.
Alternatively, the M1A1 design uses the same basic design, but adds a bipod with simple elevation and traverse controls as well as a spirit-level type range indicator and a proper sighting unit, although the white line on the barrel remains. This is for when accuracy is needed over mobility.
I mean, how much simpler can you get than a baseplate to secure the gun, traverse and elevation controlled by holding the barrel at a different angle, and aiming by lining up a target with a line down the top of the barrel?
So basically target practice for the Paternian Air Force.
He wanted to have his designs accepted by someone. Or something like that. @PINK
Yep. @JakeTheDogg
@Flightsonic Thanks! It worked!
@TemDesBur So, you're officially a part of Paternia?
@TemDesBur Thanks!
@Flightsonic Thanks!
@Alix451 @JakeTheDogg @TemDesBur
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation @GoldenEagle @PINK
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation Who manufactures this?
@MemeKingIndustriesAndMegaCorporation