HOME | DD
wingsofwrath β Tambrian Aircraft II
Published: 2013-08-28 19:58:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 9395; Favourites: 199; Downloads: 128
Redirect to original
Description
EDIT, 29.08.19: changed some of the technical specifications as well as retouched the main drawing to reflect them.The IAT-153 is the mainstay fighter aircraft of the "Confederation of Tambr".
It is a diminutive, compact design, well suited for carrier operations and it's launched and recovered via the trapeze hook situated in between the upper wings, whose tips also fold down for storage.
The basic structure of the aircraft is aluminium, with the wings covered with laminated plywood strips glued with tree resin derived glue. To give a measure of "self sealing capabilities" to the fuel tanks in the top wings and fuselage in the conditions in which rubber is unknown in this world, those areas are also padded with a layer of resin bonded cork.
The aeroplane is fitted with a supercharged 9 cylinder air-cooled radial engine capable of producing 100 abe (1300 hp), giving the design a top speed of 312 ksome (517.92 km/h, were one "ksom"=1 verst / 1 ur) at an altitude of 1000 steje (1333 m).
There's a small oil radiator integrated into the lower left wing.
The armament consists of two 12 hatte (16 mm) machine guns placed underneath the engine and firing through the propeller arc, with an ammunition reserve of 950 rounds for each gun and a cyclic rate of fire of 450 rounds/tem (882 rounds/min).
A ground attack / heavy interceptor version of this aeroplane, named the IAT-180 , also exists.
Related content
Comments: 42
π: 0 β©: 0
Does look like an I-16, but made for trapeze launch and recovering as on the Navy rigid airship, 'Los Angeles'.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's a neat, compact design. The placement of the trapeze hook though looks like it may not be tall enough to clear the propeller blades, and may block the pilot's forward view.
π: 0 β©: 1
Damn, you're right, I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!
I actually carried the design over form the IAT-180 which was drawn first, and there it actually worked fine because of the longer nose and the fact it flies slightly pitched down.
Easily fixed though, I just have to decide that the struts contain hydraulic rams and that they extend to about twice their length.Β Since they are articulated at both ends anyway, this would simply change the angle of the struts in relation to each other, while, hopefully, raising the trapeze hook far enough above the propeller.
It does block the pilot's forward view somewhat, but it's perceived as a "necessary evil".
π: 0 β©: 0
I would sneak onto base and steal one of these in a hot second! Incredible work.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!
Be advised though, that these things grow on carriers, so you'd need the complicity of a catapult operator in order to steal one...
π: 0 β©: 0
Very nice! Looks slightly inspired by the Polikarpov I-153, with a squashed Gladiator cockpit.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup, you got the main influences right, but the cockpit was inspired by the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka.
π: 0 β©: 1
A clear sign i've been playing too much War Thunder
π: 0 β©: 2
Ah yes. Finally did get a chance to play World of Warplanes - my opinion? I like it a lot more than War Thunder, despite the fact it's more arcade, because the aeroplanes a lot feel more like real aircraft. The little lag between the control input and aircraft response it's what clinches it for me.
π: 0 β©: 1
I could never get into World of Warplanes. What clinches War Thunder for me is the damage system. Also, I'm extremely excited by the concept of ground vehicles, aircraft and ships all working in the same battles. From what I understand, Wargaming doesn't intend to do that.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, the damage system and the take-off and landings do tilt the balance towards War Thunder, but all that is negated by the obtuse interface, especially when it comes to upgrading aircraft, non-intuitive research tree and, most jarring of all, the garage fight in arcade mode, that serves to completely imbalance rounds.Β
The concept of a "total battleground sim" is not a new one - it existed as far back as 1997 and a game I played a lot called "Warbirds", now reborn as "Total Simulation Series", which does the coop angle beautifully but, unfortunately, the actual graphics are waaay out of date and look like they belong in 2003 rather than 2013.
So while I will be playing WT occasionally and I'll be waiting to see how they do the whole "tanks, planes and ships in the whole game" bit, I won't be holding my breath for this one.
Also, in terms of a "total battleground sim", the only game series which, in my opinion, managed to pull it off so far is the Operation Flashpoint/ ARMA series, but that, of course, is truly a simulation rather than a casual game.
Besides, I always prefer to be a lowly infantryman to a tank commander/pilot, which, in real life, it's exactly what I am XD
I took one short ride in a tank one time (Romanian Army TR85M1, on the training field) and I won't be doing that again in a hurry. Kudos to those who want to ride to battle in a tin can, but I prefer fresh air around me...
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't tell you how jealous I am that you are in the military. I was rejected from the Royal Air Force last month on medical grounds.
Β I have always enjoyed the Flashpoint/ARMA series ever since the first Operation Flashpoint game. You're right, the game is extremely thrilling in its realism, but the simulation aspects of it is so rigorous that I can't really play it casually. Needless to say, I certainly got ARMA 3 and I'm enjoying it immensely.
Β On a completely different note, how is your Shadowless graphic novel going?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah. Bummer. This is why I never went for the Air Force in the first place, they would have rejected me as well, since I have myopia. Not a lot, but enough to count.
I did go to flight school as a private pilot though. Flying is awesome!
Unfortunately, I'm not active, I'm merely in the Army Reserve, so basically a civilian that ocasionally has to go to training. Also, I am now part of a group that serves as Historical Honor Guards for the Romanian Army, so we are used on any event that has to do with history, such as the National Day Parade, Flag Day, National Anthem day, commemorations, etc. We used to have a website but it got hacked recently, so here's our Facebook page instead (unfortunately, in Romanian): www.facebook.com/TraditiaMilitβ¦
Yeah, with time at a premium lately, I haven't managed to play anything beyond a couple of rounds of WOT squeezed in between other stuff.
Shadowless is pretty much paused, as all my creative "juice" (what's left of it after work) has been focused on finishing up the concepts for Inner Space, my other graphic novel project. The point is to launch it as well and then draw pages alternatively as I feel like working on one or the other, but, for that I must launch "Inner Space" first.
Right now I have a metric ton of half-finished drawings for both Inner Space and Shadowless on my hard drive, but I do lack the time to get them all finished, sorted out and posted to DA.
π: 0 β©: 0
Heh. oddly, I never liked War Thunder as much as WOT, despite the somewhat similar mechanics. I'll wait to see how World of Warplanes will be like. I know it's currently in open beta, but I haven't had the time to play it yet.
Also, World of Warships would be interesting, I remember I enjoyed NavyField.
π: 0 β©: 0
Of course, since that, along with the Polikarpov I-15 and I-153 were the major influences in this case...
π: 0 β©: 1
They're all pretty similar, really
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, I Know, the main difference was the retractable gear on the latter and the slightly more powerful engine.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep. It's mostly because of the hook that I mentioned the F9C rather than the I-15.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, don't forget the other majorΒ influence (mainly to the upper wings), the PZL P11.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, I didn't know there had been an actual, mass-produced plane with seagull wings in the 30s O.o Wonder why the design didng' catch on.
π: 0 β©: 1
more complicated production, extra stress point that need to be reinforced and although you eliminate one major blind spot above two new ones to the left and right are created
π: 0 β©: 1
I have to say, for something with that much frontal area, 320mph is pretty impressive.Β Not sure about the yaw stability though - thats a very short airframe, and a very small rudder...
π: 0 β©: 1
Heh. I took my data from the Fiat CR42B which, with a 1010 hp Daimler-Benz DB601A engine attained 520 km/h (323 mph) in 1941.
Please note that, albeit more aerodynamic, it had a huge fixed undercarriage. Also bear in mind that the comic takes place in a world with a slightly different atmosphere and gravity form our earth.
Yaw stability is pretty poor, to the extent that this aircraft has an unfortunate tendency to flat-spin, like the real life Polikarpov I-153...
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I'm sure the pilots aren't too worried about the yaw stability; it's not like they have a very narrow "box" they have to fly through to land...
Oh, wait XDΒ I bet they hate whoever decided that vertical stabilisers were for wimps
π: 0 β©: 1
heh.
Well, the wide interwing struts also work as vertical stabilisers and the design has been used successfully before on aircraft such as the Hansa-Brandenburg W29, Parnall Puffin, Besson MB.35...
The closest real life equivalent though is the Gee Bee Model R Super Sportster.
Also, the fact the aircraft are launched and recovered via trapeze means they can come in faster than on a field or carrier landing.
But you're right, I bet they just looove the designer XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, at least they can bail out without having to worry about hitting a tailfin.Β I'm sure that more than makes up for any minor handling peccadillos. XD
Out if interest (and because it only occurred to me after my previous reply), why a water-cooled radial?Β I would have thought that was the worst of both worlds as far as fighter aircraft design was concerned?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, that was a bit of an accident, really.
This aircraft was supposed to be powered by a 9 cylinder air-cooled radial based roughly on the Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 (and especially on the 1,425 hp Wright Cyclone R-1820-86, used in the T28 "Trojan"), but I forgot to redraw the lower wing and get rid of the radiators. OOOPS.
I'm still in two minds wherever I want to change the drawing to what I originally wanted or just leave it like this, because, back in the 20s, there was a whole series of very successful water-cooled aero radials developed by the French firm Salmson , and pursuing little known technologies really appeals to me.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, that sort of design decision lol
If you like obscure engine designs, you ought to take a look at www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/PO⦠- plenty of technological dead-ends there XD
In fact, the site is a great resource for obscure technology (although some ideas - like the acetylene engine - are probably better languishing in obscurity...)
π: 0 β©: 1
Finally, I decided to go with my original idea, so I changed the drawing accordingly, as well as modifying the power ratings on this and the other aircraft to give them a bit of extra "oomph".
Ah yes, I know that site intimately well and I already used some of the most outlandish ideas for the Inner Space locomotives .
π: 0 β©: 1
In that case, have you seen www.unusuallocomotion.com/ ? It's quite impressive how many people have redesigned the wheel over the years...
I wouldn't describe the Irish A-frame monorail as that outlandish; it did at least provide a commercial service for 38 years (and indeed lived up to the design brief of being easy to construct - I love the idea of a branch line along a road where they simply rebuilt the track each time it was needed and then dismantled it again afterwards).
Do I detect a hint of the bennie railplane in the description of the intercity services?
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't know of that site, thank you, there are some good ideas in there!
Ah well, the word "outlandish" also contains the different propulsion methods, such as a locomotives equipped with axial steam motors or Shay gearing...
Of course I'm referring to the Bennie Railplane! You sure know your atypical transit systems...
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you 
Personally, I have a soft spot for the gyro-stabilised transport systems; particularly the brennan gyro-monorail
π: 0 β©: 1
Welcome! As you can probably tell by now, so do I
Ah. I am familiar with most of those designs, and frankly, I'm amazed the idea hasn't caught on, because it has significant advantages. In my world, urban public transport uses this design, as well as some railroads. The problem is that there are so many different but interesting designs out there and I want to include them all!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure why they failed to take off - perhaps it was the timing (just after WW1 was probably not the best time to try and get investment for your revolutionary new transport system, particularly when the IC-powered road vehicle had just reached a truly useful level of maturity), or perhaps it suffered from "it just looks wrong" syndrome.Β Certainly the only real ideosyncracy I've been able to uncover is a tendency to lean into crosswinds - a little disconcerting, perhaps, but hardly a disaster.
I know what you mean about wanting to include every cool idea - it's really hard to resist
π: 0 β©: 1
Both of those sound like valid reasons. As an architect, I know plenty of things that were not successful because they looked wrong/unsafe.
Back in the realm of engineering and gyro locomotion we do have a rather telling modern example: the Segway. Great idea, good engineering, an abject commercial failure, because they failed to analyse several very important factors. They didn'tΒ adequately prepare people to it's existence, failed to find a public for it and also failed to foresee the need to slot it into a working relationship with existing modes of transport, both physically and legally - it's too slow to go on the road, too fast for side walk, too clumsy and too wide for bike lanes...
Yeah, too many of them, just too many!
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree - if something looks wrong/unsafe, it's going to take a lot to convince the public otherwise.
I'm not sure that the segway is a totally valid comparison - the brennan gyro-monorail and the various gyrocars are basically just different (possibly improved) versions of existing modes of transport, while the segway is a new paradigm (hence the trouble when people try to slot it into a pre-existing slot).
I wonder if a sufficiently good advertising campaign could get around the inate skepticism - something like pointing out the unique advantages of gyrocars [nearly impossible to roll a gyrocar without some form of mechanical failure, that sort of thing]
π: 0 β©: 0