Hi, I just discovered Crimson Skies, and I think I am in love with the setting. Does anyone here have good sources of images or music? Are there any /tg/ created lit or other OC that has been generated?What's your favourite nation? I think I am partial to the Nation of Hollywood, seems to have a lot going for it, but I'd rather be an air pirate.
>>62961898I like the Atlantic Coalition.
>>62961898I think I can dig some stuff up.
>>62962371That's good. Crimson Skies is also about sky piracy, so pirate/buccaneer music fits well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWAzBZ2hDA
>>62962489I didn't can you help me out?
>>62962129>4 planes on the edge of a runway
Really shit that I can't post these faster.I'll write up some stuff for you OP. I have not flexed my writing chops recently.
The Commie Plane, the Scourge of the Prairies...
Sorry OP, these two have watermarks on them.Wish I could get the original set from Weisman.
I really wish they'd make a new game. The first one was so good. Still nothing else like it on the market.
a lot of Crimson Skies' aircraft were based off of real life airplanes, such as the BV-141
>>62961992I remember seeing that big bright box in a game store (back when PC games were sold in big boxes) and thinking "This is everything I have ever wanted. Planes, dogfights, pirates, alternate history, zeppelins, adventure and action. In one game."This is a sorely underdeveloped and under utilized franchise.
Thread needs some minis, and Crimson Skies threads should always be bumped.
>>62963339Man, I loved playing in the Tinfoilhawk.More brittle than a Mitsubishi Zero but it could dance like an angel!
>>62969248>>62969271>>62969293>>62969317>>62969340There's a tabletop game that isn't a Clix game?
>>62970363There was, and the rules were fairly neat but very dense.
>>62961898If you want an RPG that makes for excellent pulp-action dogfighting, Warbirds can help you play games in the Crimson Skies setting with minimum fuss.
>>62969248Hah, NEA, you and me just love those old FASA Games
I'll put up my writefaggotry tomorrow if this thread is still around.
>>62964924It died because FASA had no business sense, and it wasn't popular enough to amass a long-lasting grog following like Battletech
Are there simpler/more concise rules?
Bump before bed
>>62962616>Say a direct copy of the plane nearest the edge is sent to the back of the line of planes and takes the place of the first plane. The formerly first plane becomes the second, the second becomes the third, and the fourth falls off the runwayTime works the same way.
>>62975289>noble adventurer fighting bands of pirates in his seaplane with some governemental presence looming in the background.This is the closest we'll ever get to a Crimson Skies movie.IN some alternate reality, FASA hired Miyazaki to design tons of interwar planes
>>62977856this is the worst timeline
>>62977262You cheeky fucker.Am I going to find you dead on a cliff in a shitty cowboy RPG too?
My best CS experience was when my Brigand got shot up by incindiary bullets. The fire would reach through and kill my pilot in a few turns.Fuck it, I bail. Since I'm on fire, I suffer horrible penalties. Maxed out penalties, so I may as well try the 'Save the Dog in the backseat' and 'Take photo of girlfriend' while I was at it.Roll boxcars.Roll again and land on the wing of the plane tailing me. Whip out .38 revolver and shoot the other pilot in the head.Fall off wing. Parachute opens! I land safely with my dog and photo.Burn to death.
>>62978174If I were the GM, I would have introduced a mysterious pillot with a charred face shortly afterwards.
So... I can post weird aircraft in this thread?Miles M.39B Libellula
>>62982273Stratonef H.22, I mean Caudron C.460 Rafale.
>>62969248>tfw still got a bunch of those to paintDidn't make any actual squadrons though, just bought some that I liked.>>62982273
>>62982349I'll let the Ambrosini SS.4 out despite being a true beauty, and focus instead on the trully bizzare, like Lippisch's aerodyne
>>62982499Dreux Valentin helicoplane, unholy union of a plane and zeppelin, heavy troop transporter.
Time for me to go buy some more Crimson Skies.
>>62982550This might be worth stealing
>>62982398>>62976369>>62971902So how does the actual tabletop game work? There's a copy at my local half-price books and I'm thinking about getting it.
>>62983981I never really got to play it fully since I got nobody to play it with. But it's just hex based movement, you got a chart for what maneuvers your plane can do. See >>62970495If you have an enemy in your sight you can shoot at them, which is a bunch of dice rolls and then you mark off the damage on a chart. Where the shots hit are based on rolls IIRC, so aiming is a little restricted.Planes have armour and behind that are critical components, if those get hit they are dead, which can criple the plane. I think you could also shoot the wings off planes by firing through them in a staight line.You also make up your pilot who gets a few skills IIRC and levels up after engagements or missions. You could also make up your own planes with some template charts and stat them within the system.That's about all I remember, I'm sure there was more.
>>62983981Forgot. There are two versions of the game. There's the FASA one and the Wizkids one. They are different games.FASA is the one I described
>>62982757It would be perfect as a carrier>armored>very aerodynamic for an airship>designed to be able to land on waterThough between the UK being assholes, the spanish civil war, Germany gearing up for ww2 and Japan going banzai on Indochina, I think the french would be way too busy to send more than a few pilots and outdated planes to Lousiana and Quebec anyways.
So, who owns the rights currently? Microsoft Studio, or is that only for vidya?
>>62983981Get it! You won't regret it. It's a great game, I've played many games and it's good. You have a movement chart to see where you can move based on your speed and handling. Movement is simultaneously and you plot it before revealing, and then you figure out where each of you are before combat. There are many ammo options each with its damage template and depending on what you hit, depends on what happens.Zeppelins are more abstract, large and powerful.It's very fun.
>>62985318>carrierWith how every Zeppelin is already a very capable carrier in CS it might not stand out all that much in that
>>62961898Maaan, the PC game was such a big part of my childhood (even though I barely understood English and didn't know the first thing about the US or its history). I loved the atmosphere, the sound and voices, the scrapbook mementos, the plane customization, everything.The Xbox game was fun enough in its way, but not having over half the Fortune Hunters was a mark against it, and it kinda lost me when the first giant mecha spider showed up.
>>62986690Also a shame that some of the key aircraft are missing from the Xbox game. Or well, most of them.It's fun enough and for what it is I can enjoy it going over the top with the pulp, but still.
>>62977199a...anon, i did not know these minis exist. You just made me a very happy anon.
Anyone got some sharable writefaggotry or know some pulpy air adventure/doggofighting stories to check out?
>>62987958Glad to help.Ironwind Metals still sells them, incidentally.
>>62984200>>62992497Happen to have the full rules? This looks dangerously cool.
>>62992862You know what? I'm feeling helpful. Maybe it's getting away from the BattleTech threads for a bit.I just created a RAR of all the files you should need to start Crimson Skies. >Core Rules>Airman's Gazetteer>Aircraft Recognition Manual>3 sourcebooks (Behind the Crimson Veil, Wings Over Manhattan, Pride of the Republic)>Zepplins & Bombers rules expansion>82 aircraft record sheets>https://www.mediafire.com/file/1fd987ri8haz99c/Crimson_Skies.rar/fileThis wouldn't combine in the above archive for some reason, so here are some plane standees in a different rar file. >https://www.mediafire.com/file/jnblw24e3813k0k/Crimson_Skies_Plane_standies_-_print_at_150_dpi.rar/fileYou'll need to source a hexmap to play on. Crimson Skies never had genuine miniature play rules. BattleTech hexmaps are easy to find in PDF form around the internet.Good luck, anon. Your squadron is counting on you.
>>62993106Thanks for this, I'll be your wingman anytime!
>>62993106The Avenger is the worst design. It looks decent from almost every possible angle, but I can't stand that fucking radiator.
>>62995944Oh, then you wouldn't like the planes from the later books at all. The main aircraft from the core book are by far the best; FASA got rid of their art directors in the very late 1990s, and it really shows. Compare the stuff in the aircraft recognition manual to the stuff in the core book, and it's just painful.
>>62995944You take that backAlthough why it has radiators on the engines and the nose while also having the exhaust centered is a mystery to meThe overall shape is pretty cool though>>62999324Yeah some of the later ones are pretty bad. Or at least not all that well drawn.
DID SOMEONE SAY BLOHM & VOSS?
>>63001135Ship manufacturers should be allowed to make planes far more often
>>63000485The Avenger's engines are actually electric, supplied by a centrally mounted power unit. The nose radiator dissipates engine heat while leaving the cooling system more protected then in a conventional layout, and the engine openings in the pods are for oil/component cooling for the electric drives. This allows a smaller more aerodynamic engine pod then one that would traditionally occupy more space, and uses the larger fuselage space more efficiently, again, contributing to a net aerodynamic advantage.
>>63003796In addition, by reducing total engine mass on the wings, and locating it more centrally, the Avenger benefits from an improved roll rate that most twin engined aircraft would lack.It's not actually a stupid design, but one that has some actual thought put into it, and speaking as a pilot, probably has some benefits (although it would make a plane heavier then one that simply put the gas engines in the wings rather then a Gas/Electric setup) Conceivably, if there are batteries involved, you would also have some redundancy, if you lost your gas engine, in a descent your props would windmill and keep a charge in the battery, and then while you maneuver for final, you'd have some juice so you wouldn't have to dead stick the plane in.
>>63003865>>63003796Just looking at that picture I see another advantage. The grumman aircraft is relatively light in the world of crimson skies, it also has small props. So with where the guns are mounted, you don't have to worry about synchronizers to shoot the guns, you always have full fire rate all the time, which is a nice feature. Additionally, although it is listed as a two engine aircraft, maybe it just has a honkin big V16 in the fuselage, which can power both electric engines. The engines don't have to be armoured as much as the powerplant, so if you lose one electric you still have a second one that can be powered. Lowering the amount of armour to protect two props would be beneficial, especially if the pilot/engine are built into an armoured bathtub located in the fuselage, reducing weight perhaps to the point where the hybrid gas/electric configuration wasn't as much of a downside to a conventional layout as we might think?The best aircraft after all, is the one that gets you home.
>>63003978>>63003865>>63003796This sort of shit is why I love /tg/
>>63003796>>63003865>>63003978You put a lot of thought into that but diesel electric is not the first thing I would think of when making a plane. But it is interesting and it would explain a lot.I think I might steal this for something else.>V-16It could be side by side inlines with how the exhausts are put on it. Unless you want to count the electric motors, but then you end at either three or four engines for it.>guns outside propsA lot of CS planes do that. So it isn't that unique on that.>pilotOh hey, you and me both
>>63004131>Not the first thing I think of when making a planeCrimson Skies...>It could be side by side inlines with how the exhausts are put on it. Unless you want to count the electric motors, but then you end at either three or four engines for it.I8s don't cool well to begin with, and running two side by side would have major issues with heat. Now a V16 or a W16 would avoid a lot of these problems.It is all moot though, since I just counted exhausts and the Grumman has 12, so V12 or two I6s, but I think V12 is more likely for balance/cooling of the block then seperate Straight sixes.Also, woe to the pilot who steps out of the Avenger onto one of those pipes... I bet more then one pair of shoes has melted on contact to them.
>>63004131>A lot of CS planes do that. So it isn't that unique on that.True, but if you can concentrate weaponry on the central axis as well, you also increase roll rate by keeping the heavy weight out of the wings. Based on Crimson Skies Weapon weight vs engine weight, Mounting all of it in the fuselage would make sense, in addition to removing the need for synchronizers.
>>63004246>CSI know. The policy was hotrods of the sky and I love it. But I didnt think they would go this into mostly internal detail for one of them.>coolingWell that giantic radiator is there for something. But yeah a single engine makes a lot more sense. But also see above.>melted bootsYep>>63004272Of course. Was just pointing that out. Centerline guns are also far better for accuracy since you dont really have to do much in the way of convergence
>>62961898 Love me some Crimson Skies. I'm a home-towner, so I used to run Wyvern's Wastrels (air pirates) out of the Maritime Provinces, harassing shipments in the Empire State, Protectorate of Ontario, and Republique du Quebec. >>62964409 All of the designs in the core box are WW2 era un-produced designs. www luft46 com has a nice archive, poke through the designs and you will find lots of gold. Lots of very appropriate planes that didn't make it into CS that can very easily be used for new plane models. >>62970495 Fairly dense, but I was playing Renegade Legion before Crimson Skies, and the CS rules are like a simplified version of Renegade Legion: Interceptor. Damage resolution is complex (but very cool), but the turn sequence and movement vectoring are very simple and strait-forward. It's not nearly as complex as something like Check Your Six, but much more complex than Air War or Warbirds.
>>63003796>>63003865>>63003978That is my new head canon.
You know, I can't help but feel a bit left out in Crimson Skies threads. Everyone talks about the politics of the states and the technical aspects of planes, but I'm in it for the pirates and pirate hunters.Also, I always imagined life on a zeppelin to be super comfy for some reason.
>>63005269The adventures are definitely a big part of the setting's appeal. You can post pulp novels and comics to get a discussion about it going.
>>63005269You can be in it for whatever reason you want. I had a friend who loved the alt history more then the planes. I like the politics in later btech books more then the mech combat sections. Whatever floats your boat.
>>63005269Air pirates, air smugglers, racers, phantom submarines, celebrity aces, mysterious aces, hidden airdromes and revolutionary prototypes, luxury air and ocean travel, exotic backdrops and contrasting larger than life characters... before I start thinking of Great Power politics and alternate history there is a lot of pulpy fun stuff to get caught in.
>>62963956I always hated this design, it is so aerodynamically impossible.
>>63010657>Top ten weirdest aircraft you didn't know existed
>>63009224It's a bit front-heavy, but I don't see the impossibility.
>>62993398>tfw country is going to shit in real life but the fallout will never end up being as cool as this
>>63011598Not them but there is almost no arm for the rudder or the elevators. So it probably wouldn't control super well.
>>63011791It's just a case of applying more force, so instead of elevator fins you make the whole foil move. Add in some elevons on the wing and that thing will dance around the sky. I'd be more concerned over the useless rudders then the elevators honestly.
>>63013709Well that and the CG probably being way forward
>>63015619Not just C of G, but index of airfoil lift as well.
>>62993398>Nation of Hollywood>Atlantic Coalition>Utahthat's legit.
>>63007871Indiana Jones in planes is the vibe I always got.
>>63017996This, plus a healthy dose of Talespin.
>>63018674Talespin was definitely source material for crimson skies or vice versa.
>>63019094Talespin is based partially off Tales of the Golden Monkey, so there is that.
>>63018674>>63019094You are now picturing Don Carnage driving a Devastator.
Not one good old Texas boy flying a Bell King Cobra? Reckon I'm the first to get here then.Not that I ever actually found anyone to play with.
Watching pic and reading "La conquete du ciel" series of book, and damn is that beyond fiction. Flying circuses, airmail and passenger transport competition for remote corners of the world, record breaking in shitty planes,...
Which imaginary plane is the closest to the real life corsair? Is it the corsair? Because having the same name often means nothing.
I love the way Crimson Skies' aircraft look. They look dieselpunk enough to be out there and unique, but grounded enough to look like they'd (barely) be able to fly. A lot of people trying to re-do the Crimson Skies aesthetic miss the last part and just go all out on the wacky look.
>>62961992This and Freelancer got me into PC gaming with a vengeance.
>>63028263>freelancermuh nigga>>63027398And most importantly, they all have distinctive silouhettes that allow to ID them at a glance.
>>63027288It kind of depends on how you define the F4U platform. What are the things that - to you - make a Corsair unique compared to its contemporaries?Aside from the gull wings. If that's what you want, the Whitney&Douglas M210 Raven already has those.
>>62990857>>62990877>>62990892overdesigned trash, can't even compare to the early 2000s stuff
>>63028417>that abomination of a tail isn't swastika-shapedWere they even trying?
>>63028984I don't think that is official in any way. Just fanart that didn't really get it
>>62982349I have one of those with butter somewhere.
>>62961898Sounds like life on the ground would be similar to Mad Maximillian 1934.
>>63029136Yep. I blame the xbox version. They departed from what crimson skies is with their design aesthetic. The original birds and a fair number of the expansion birds were designed by ww2 enthusiasts and actual pilots.The gonzo crap came just before the xbox game.
>>63030713I feel like this goes a bit too far. I prefer the broadsides of CS Zeps with very few if any large caliber turretsI also think they forgor to flip the windows on the Bismark(?) bridge section to account for it being upside downI like the P-40 Viper they made though>>63030949The planes in the xbox game werent bad though. Or at least the flyable ones I remember.Admittedly I also like the idea of the Tesla Zeppelins, the mech caterpillar? zepeaters and weather machine less soBut yeah as someone who likes to design stuff like this it is a shame if designs go from cool but somewhat reasonable for the setting to over the top even for that
>>63031379the Zep is a hot mess but the Vipers do sit in the Crimson Skies verse easily enough
Would it make sense to give a blimp sails or wings to try and help its endurance or efficiency up in the air?
>>63031689It could probably work with sails somewhat. If anything it kinda looks cool. I did this a while back for something else, it is tiny because it was just a sketch though.As for wings. From what I recall most zeps or blimps already generate a fair amount of dynamic lift, more so if they are actually shaped to do so. There were a few attempts.It mostly reduces the amount of lifting gas necessary though.>>63031560From what I remember from a still the props could be further apart. Intersecting them is definitely possible but just screams for both engines to die if one of the two slows down or breaks.
>>63031560Flying dicks.Also twin props but no motor?
>>63031801Forget slowing down or breaking - it would be impossible to start up or shut down the engines without turning them on at exactly the same time, and hoping they actually start at the same time. That's relying on impossibly specific magneto ignition timing, perfect fuel systems, and a measure of luck.On top of that, it's all done for no advantage. Maybe an extremely small reduction in prop drag but nothing compared to contra-rotating props.
>>63031935The exhausts are ontop of the rear, just behind the inlet.Although why the radiator at the front is still there is another question
>>63031986You could connect them like on a Kaman. Which is what I would do, but if they are both still driven by two separate engines that might still lead to issues once one engine quits.Ultimately it is just silly.
>>63031689>>63031801The problem with sails on blimps, is that they lack keels, so they would only be able to sail downwind like a hot air balloon. Using props as a keel would be less efficient than just using props without sails. It's really too bad, sailing airships are my favorite aesthetic, but you need light scifi or high fantasy handwaveing to design them properly.
>>63032032Depends on how you share the gearbox, you could drive each prop from one engine but have a declutching synchrogear that cuts the slower engine if the props start to go out of sync.
>>63034196I'm sure it would be doable but at that point you might as well just make a CRP with independently powered props like on some planes. That would also allow for relatively larger props>>63032898Hadn't thought about that. But yeah it looks cool to wrap some sails around them
Can we discuss the logistics of a world where airships and aircraft are more common than typica seafaring ships?What would ports/airports look like? Where would nations establish them, would certain regions/geography be better than others? Would pre-industrial airships be propelled by sails? Would industrial airships still use propellers or jet engines? Would passenger airplanes be more popular or less popular than passenger airships? If a setting with airships sticks to real life physics (no magic), I can only see airships surpassing aircraft for logistics. Let’s say nations invest in air forces instead of major navies for some reason, would it be fair to assume that fixed wing aircraft still dominate the skies? Airplanes are faster, more maneuverable, and cheaper to produce/operate/repair. Zeppelins/Airships would probably be used as the cargo ships of the setting, possibly with a massive airship carrier. I can’t imagine battleship zeppelins though, unless zeppelins can fly higher than aircraft in the setting. It’s more effective to use lots of cheap heavy bombers than an expensive, vulnerable flying warship... unless said warship is capable of something typical fixed wing aircraft aren’t.If magic is a thing in the setting, I can see airships being developed because industry is ignored in favor of magic development (no internal combustion engines to power airplanes, whereas air ships can run on helium and sails I suppose).
>>63034415I kind of doubt we'd see jets until post-zeppelins like your pic are a thing, just because zeppelins are unaerodynamic as fuck and pushing them faster seems like a recipe for disaster.Wtf would jet!CS look like?
>>63034573I don’t think fixed wing aircraft development would change too much. The trapeze-system used by zeppelins to launch biplanes requires carrier aircraft to have un-aerodynamic arresting systems on top the fuselage, and unlike landing on a modern carrier the zeppelin carrier fighter pilot has to worry about the jet stream AND that trapeze system smashing into his cockpit if he fucks up his approach.Thus, I think fixed wing aircraft will mimic WWII for a while. Prop fighters can climb to 20,000 feet within an hour with ease and have plenty of fuel to fight, so zeppelins would probably focus on deploying conventional armies instead of projecting power like naval fleets.Maybe a fleet of zeppelins would function like huge landing craft, carrying shock troops they could rapidly deploy after softening up enemy emplacements with onboard artillery. Carrier zeppelins would have to be designed for long range, high speed fighters (as carrier airships are far more vulnerable than their ocean counterparts)- maybe the launch/arrest system is internal, to protect aircraft from the jetstream when launching at high altitude. Like the front of the airship has doors that recede into the airship, allowing fighters to be sortied via catapult, and the upper rear of the airship has a short strip for aircraft to land on (no need for a long strip since aircraft that miss the wire can pull away much easier due to being much higher).Jets would probably be similar to the MiG-17 and/or F-86, and they’d be a huuuuuge advancement for aircraft. Speed would mean everything, cause a carrier with slower fighters is a carrier that’s easier to shoot down.Do you think zeppelins could be armored up in an alternate history setting (or a fantasy setting) to function like battleships? Airborne artillery would have longer range, but less accuracy and exposure to return fire. It would be a waste to fit a large zeppelin with typical bombs when bombers bomb better.
>>63034415What if the setting had ocean monsters that made ocean voyages incredibly dangerous? Combine that with large continents divided up by geographical barriers (mountain ranges, deserts, canyons, etc) and airships could be better for trade than trains or ships. That’s the kicker though, the setting has to be engineered to support airship development. The materials for lighter-than-air flight have to be accessible at the beginning of a civilization’s industrial revolution. That includes>whatever makes airships fly- gas, floating mineral, or magic come to mind>sturdy yet light metals or wood to make hull of airship>some sort of propulsion system, sails or combustion engines or more magic>goods to trade, people to trade with, and ports to trade at. How does that airship get people/stuff onboard and offboard?Once you’ve figured out the driving force behind commercial airships, you can militarize them.
>>63035259Prop planes of ww2 could climb a lot faster and to much higher altitudes then what you quoted...
>>63035612True I was being really conservative with that, the quality of engines/fuel/airframes might be inferior in this setting. At worst prop planes should be able to climb very high and still have a reasonable fuel load left.
>>63035369Maybe trains run within national borders and fleets patrol regional seas, but airships are needed for reliable long range trade? Like only airships can use portals suspended in the atmosphere, or the geography you mentioned stops sea voyages and trains. Maybe metal is rare and a lighter, tougher lumber is used?
>>63031689Sails work on ships because ships have keels, which allow them to direct the lift generated by the sails without skidding all over.Problem with sails on an airship is there’s nothing keeping the airship from being swept up in the jet stream. Sails would be good if you wanted to harness that, but tacking upwind like a sailboat would be nigh-impossible.You would need a different, direct propulsion method. Maybe an ornithopter-like wing mechanism in lieu of oars?
>>63036088Are we just plain ignoring the fact that airships have big fucking fins on them and being pedantic in claiming they have no keels?
>>63036685It happens to airplanes too, but wind affects big airships quite a bit. Their size provides ample space for the wind to attack and their relative light weigth doesn't help.They can definitely steer against it, but adding sails that are designed to catch wind feels like it would worsen the wind issue. But I don't really know how sailing works
>>63036685Ships keels have the water to brace against- airship fins are more to streamline its profile, they don’t have nearly the same effect that a submerged keel has. It’s why sailing ships often lean when being blown by the wind- the lift the sail is generating is a force in one direction, but the force the water generates on the keel keeps the ship from skidding in the direction the wind is blowing. Subtract the sail’s lift vector from the winds vector and you get the direction of the ships movement. Can’t do that with an airship.
>>63035933What if airships/zepplins/blimps/floating fortresses all fly because of something other than helium? Like a mineral that when concentrated or activated somehow allows for lighter than air flight. Possibly indefinitely, possibly consumed like a fuel. Could allow for sky islands laced with this ore, another reason why airships might be common.
>>63037734>fins are more to streamline its profileNot exactly. The stabilisers on a plane and in this case a Zeppelin are just that. stabilisers. They are meant to stabilise the plane along certain axis when flying, this is why tailless aircraft are not easy to design.Aircraft do however skid, which is why you put them into the wind to counteract and fly straight
>>63035259So superprops à la Sky Crawlers, then? Heck, I bet the flying wing bomber could also carry parasite fighters Vashmistrov Circur style.I don't think you can really armour zeppelins without inventing super-hydrogen, because they're VERY weight-restricted.
>>63040732What needs to be done is to cross over Crimson Skies and Leviathans.
>>63045689>leviathansExplain. The title is a bit bland and would probably be hard to google.
>>63045982It's an (amusingly) Catalyst Games wargame about steam powered airship combat in like an alternate ww1 I think? It's mostly European, so you can change both fluffa pretty easy.
>>63045982It was a game about giant flying battleships fighting. I forgot the lore but it was WW1 except France and Britain went at it instead of teaming up
>>63045982WW1-era flying battleships, powered by a fictional substance that gains significant negative bouyancy when electrically charged (only a turbine the size of a ship's engine can generate the power needed). It was a Catalyst game labs wargame a few years ago, and got torpedoed by the Chinese basically stealing all the mold plates and game materials, and then telling the Chinese government that the game broke the "1-China" policy since the maps (historically accurately) didn't say that Taiwan was owned by China in 1912.Fun little game, and it only covered the larger ship's. Throwing Crimson Skies stuff in there to cover the missing aircraft, and creating a general setting if airborne adventure, seems like it would flow pretty well.NEA (up thread) over in Battletech General was an author and line Dev for the game, so you can probably ask him more questions if you have any. I just like playing the game.
>>63046188I get the stealing but how would China being mad about Taiwan have an effect on the game?Or where they heavily marketing it to the Chinese too?
>>63046387basicly:Taiwan and Tibet are now retroactively always Chinaanything that claims otherwise gets shut down
>>63046387What >>63049758 said. The Chinese government embargoed the game and prevented its export to the US because China was a different color than Taiwan on the maps in the fluff book. Look at the last page of this PDF.Note: Taiwan was called "Formosa" in the early 1900s, and was ruled by Japan.Since they used a real map for the game, it was shut down by the Chinese government and the game never recovered. Shame. It looked really interesting.
http://www.ralparthaeurope.co.uk/shop/crimson-skies-c-29/You can still get the minis here!
>>63049758>>63049982Fucking Chinks, man.
>>63050038And here, in the US.http://ironwindmetals.com/store/index.php?cPath=14
>>63049982>>63049758Oh so they had their production there. Now it makes sense.Even if it is retarded>>63050038Don't make me buy some again
bump because good threads are desperately needed right now.
So, I have a couple of questions, because I'm sort of working backwards on learning this game.1. Is there a mechanic that determines how much money or what have you a plane can cost or that you can spend on planes? Or are they just sort of a rule of thumb guideline for fairness in battle?2. There's an xp system but not a campaign system that I could find, so do you just keep track of your own pilots and everyone is on the honor system?3. I found the rules for having your dog in the cockpit, but someone earlier told a story about landing on an enemy wing and then shooting him with his pistol. Are their rules for landing on wings and for personal armamanets?
>>630506681 Not really, but you set an amount based on the scenario.2&3 You want Beyond the Crimson Veil supplement for boarding actions. Its very limited in that it doesn't track specific weapons, but instead gives modifiers to how successful you will be. Remember, this is a boardgame and while I think they might have wanted to do an RPG, they didn't, so some details are abstracted. Also check out Wings over Manhattan, which in my mind are the two "Must have" supplements.If you look, the designer of the Zeppelins and Bombers supplement finished it and released it free on the web, which is great. Finally, a zeppelin construction system.I have some issues with it but it's fully servicable. My issues are because I also came across the plans for Crimson Skies 2e which has a few changes to the basic systems which we actually used in our games because they work well, and one of them was keeping zeppelins like the the original game in hex style. So we homebrewed the two - use what CS2 would have done for zeppelins, but with the new zeppelin construction system, tweak it slightly, and it's pretty dam perfect.
>>63046387>>63046188It's also due to the fact that if you get something like this done over in China, you need a man on the ground, or else things will go wrong. Catylist didn't have a man on the ground, so if I remember the conversations that NEA mentioned, they constantly "messed up" to get more money. This doesn't happen if you have someone there. But, unless you have the experience, you don't know, and Catylist didn't have the experience working with China.
>>63051195Thank you very much! I picked up pride of the republic many years ago because I'm a sucker for fictional Texas jingoism and alternate historical settings and fighter planes, but that tells you almost nothing about playing the game. I'm going to track the others down now!
>>63051482You won't want to look here then.volafile.org/r/fkucwuar
>>63051613Im definitely not the kind of person to look in mysterious places when a stranger indicates I should, so no worries there!Thank you, based anon. Fly well and watch out for sky pirates!
Is there an actual Crimson Skies RPG out there, or is this a perfectly good reason to refluff WEG d6 Star Wars?
>>63053788It would be easier to use legend of the five rings. That system already uses d10's as its base die type just like the Crimson Skies wargame does
Always struggled to find some good and fitting music for CS and all. Anybody got some suggestions?
>>63053788There isn't one, but we used Pulp HERO which worked well, but it did mean that we had todo all the Crimson Skies d10 rolls. Once we worked out a table, it was all fine. So >>63053954 might be more your thing.>>63054810Anything Indiana Jones style!
>>63055714I forgot to check those soundtracks. I was just going through PotC lately
>>63054810You could probably use the entire soundtrack to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
>>63054810Rocketeer soundtrack. And Sky Captain, obviously.
>>63049982>Since they used a real map for the game, it was shut down by the Chinese government and the game never recovered.Let's not forget Catalyst being basically shit at almost everything they do, and not punishing Loren Coleman enough for embezzling what little funds they had. Should have taken him to the cleaners, rather then let him keep his job.
>>63059629>rather then let him keep his jobYes obviously. But that doesn't have anything to do with Chinese politics.
>>63060844Does have to do with Leviathans crashing though.
bumping so this is around when I wake up
Personally I think the best part about the Crimson Skies vidya game was the fact it gave you the option to skip a mission in the event you were unable to complete it properly.I was...not good at the missions that actually required precision flying or rescuing someone from a moving train/zeppelin.
>>63063072I liked the trick where you fit a Bamoral with all .70 cal cannons, no hardpoints and as much armour as possible and gave it to the AI. That was the easiest way to finish any combat oriented mission, since it would just turn into a gunship and kill everything. Sometimes way before the dialogues even ended.>skipI dont remember that. I remember having a hard time with the Hollywood stunt flying/race mission in some segments.
>>63064236Basically if you crash enough times on a mission it gives you the option to skip it.I only really used this for the two missions that required you to pick up someone on the roof of a moving train (I could not get the speed matching right and/or be the right way up to actually grab the person for either of them)...and the one where you had to dock with the Zeppelin over open ocean.With the Stunt Flying I just climbed above the course and circled it until the other pilots finished the race.Also allow me to give my thoughts on the Spruce Goose....She was terrible (Seriously, when you have to deal with her in NY the pathing means her wings clip through the skyscrapers.)
>>63064748Considering crimson skies was built using the ms combat flight sim engine, I think they did ok. They had way more ground clitter and objects then the engine was ever designed for
So who else remembers that the PC game hid its backstory in a little radio drama that played while you were installing?https://youtu.be/A_GtGjExSJc
>>63065406It's not really hidden...But this is a perfect example of how good writing and decent voice-work is a dying art. No graphics at all but you get swept up in the Drama. They don't make anything like this anymore.
Crimson Skies: A Ken Burns Documentaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eck6ufpq04I
>>63065794Well, technically not hidden I guess, but it's a really weird place to tuck it away.And I don't think it's an art that's died out so much as the market isn't willing to go there, because right now there aren't any B-tier games. It's either indie games with small teams, or mega-budget AAA-games that are corporate mandated to chase the biggest, safest, most obvious trends.
>>63066211Crimson Skies was not a B Tier game. It was a MS Studios release, it was very much the AAA of its time.AoE II, Mechwarrior 4, MS Flight Sim, MS Combat Flight Sim, Freelancer...Microsoft was not some rinky dink B tier game company.
What we need to do anons, is fund Plog, or some of the original crimson skies artists, to remake pretty much every design in the Aircraft recognition manual, as they are mostly pure shit. The stats are fine, but the art is just piss poor in that book (see Catalyst/Fasa Incompetence with money threads for more info as to why)I'd love for the fluff to match some of those planes, and to have a bit less of a EVERY PLANE HAS AN OLDSMOBILE GRILLE OR SEGMENTED COCKPIT WINDOWS vibe.
>>63067204Name me one and maybe I have a good idea for a redesign and drawing. No promises though
>>63067495The J2C Nemesis.Good luck!
>>63067495Or the PacAir Hammerfist.
>>63067144When I say B-tier, I don't mean that as a mark of quality. It just means it was a project with a moderate budget, expected to make moderate profits. Crimson Skies shared a release year with games like Majora's Mask, FFIX, Diablo 2, and The Sims (and Daikatana, lol).Of course, it's hard to compare the gaming industry back then to the gaming industry now. Modern AAA games are considered failures even if they sell millions of copies on launch day.
>>63068975Oh, ouch. You're a hard man, anon.
>>63070483https://www.deviantart.com/ravenshard82/art/Curtiss-Wright-J2C-Nemesis-166863928For those wondering why it is a hard request.
>>63068975Alright, so I came up with something. It's not super clean, but I think it gets the point accross.>It doesn't look like the J2C from the book at allI read the description for the J2C and to my surprise, although perhaps not really given the name, it's meant to be a modification/upgrade of the regular J2 Fury, yet it doesn't look like it shares any parts with the Fury at all.As a result I decided to actually design a twin engine, upgraded Fury the way I would do it. Which was to add an engine to the rear to turn it into a push pull. This solves the torque issue mentioned in the book as well as allowing for the Nemesis to get a significant speed boost at almost no additional drag.There is now also a radiator for the second engine where the old 70 cal gun used to be.I could've gone for something more similar to what they did in the book, with wing mounted engines, but for that just imagine this design with a rounded tail and nose and two engine pods on the wings>WeaponsIt has the guns specified in the book for the Nemesis, which are a centered 50cal, two 40cals also in the nose and two 30cals in the wings. I didn't draw them as huge as CS likes to draw their guns though.The 50 cal is not visible as it is firing through the propshaft and spinner of the forward engine.>>63069009They should've called that one Dragonfly tbqh
>>63070858You are a good person, drawfriend. Good reasoning, and solid art. Thank you.
>>63070919Thanks. This one was fun to do.
>>63070858Ok, we need to fund a redesign of all of the planes in the book, because now I actually want to use a Nemesis.
>>63070858The only modification I would make, is that the rear engine is inline, and the front is a Radial. Maybe make the front and the rear both Inlines? As it is, the 50 would not fit in the center of a radial engine anyway.Other then that, solid work.
The JC2 would never fly - the center of mass is too far ahead of the center of lift, which isn't helped by the wings and the tail being a mere foot away from one another
>>63071072It's a lot of planes to go through.I might do one or two occasionally as an exercise to drawing props again because it looks like fun though.>>63071102Yeah that would also make sense. I just wanted to have it feel like a bit of a fieldmod.Imagine a 190D type nose for an inline front engine, and perhaps a slightly longer tail for the sake of keeping some internal volume for fuel.>50Did I miss something where radials can't have a hollow propshaft?
>>63071237It's a case of how a radial works. The gun barrel or mechanism would have to replace the crankshaft in the engine. I am fairly positive that you can't run a gun barrel down the center of a radial engine. Not 100%, but fairly positive.
>>63071308Yeah nevermind you are right, I didn't consider that.Well the backup on that is to put the 50cal between the two 40s, or to just make it an inline as suggested
I love that the British almost built this. It looks like it would fit right in Crimson Skies.
>>63071433To be fair, to make it an inline, just put some exhausts on the front section, like the germans. Contrary to popular belief, the push pull they had was two inlines, but the front looks like a radial thanks to Kurt Tanks spinning fan to force more cold air past the radiators.
>>63071513Or even better, run hot rod exhausts like the DH Hornet does.
>>63071493Is Boulton Paul the Blohm und Voss of Britain?>>63071513Does anyone actually believe the Do335 has a radial? Or the 190D and Ta-152 for that matter.But yeah I would've just made the front a bit smaller while adding the exhausts like that as well as cowling flaps for the radiator.
>>63071540Those just look like regular Mosquito type exhausts to me
>>63071621No, the Dehavilland HF9 Hornet from Crimson Skies.
>>63071579>Boulton paul Blohm Und VossAll of the UK built weird fucking planes.Supermarine had the 327.Miles had the M22Boulton had the P99 and P100It's not wrong, it is just british is a common saying in aviation.
>>63071710I know, they also proposed that literal X-Wing jet, they sometimes try to out french the french engineersIt is a real shame that their industry went under>>63071688I think I vaguely remember which one that could be, but I'm not sure. What book was it in?
>>63048902Six turning, four burning <3
Let's stick props on a Jet!
Miles actually had some good looking planes.
>>63071540A lot of interwar and world-war-2 aircraft had short headers/exhaust like that
>>63071761Pic is worth 1000 words.
>>63071875The M22 is prettier.
>>63071907Oh right I have a badly painted mini of that one.Those sort of exhausts are always an option of course.
>>63076120>>63051816>>63053208You are all welcome. I am not the anon who posted that compilation, but I am the anon who scanned two of his books into that compilation.
>>63076231Those scans are fabulous, so thank you!
>>63079001The bent wing looks way better, the lightning cannons are stupid.
>>63081869The original already went over the top with modelling guns. But the Xbox game had this tendency to just glue overdesigned weapons to the wings without really incorporating them into the design.The lightning guns would work a lot better if they were integrated and the barrel was the only thing you saw.Same for the missile launcher on the Devestator in that.
>>62961898Blake Aviation Security. Not really a nation but i like them really good taste in planes. Especially since the first mission I played against them in the PC version they shot down half my wingmates in one salvo
>>63079001how do some of those land?
>>63028417Does it change orientation to land like a rocket, or....?
>>63083352I am guessing on wheels.
>>63083018They also seem to appear quite a bit in the few novels and stories and are one of the more fleshed out factions.>>63083399It's presumably meant to land and take off vertically like some proposals from the time.
>>63084611>They also seem to appear quite a bit in the few novels and stories and are one of the more fleshed out factions.Blake Aviation Security are self-aggrandizing idiots. Their leader got his ass handed to him by some two-bit pirate called Nathan Zachary, who was raiding Boeing Field at the time.
Following on the RL prototypes, here's a plane that is so Crimson Skies it hurts.Potez 75>push prop>armored to the gills>pilot on an open canopy above the main cockpit, because why not>75mm nose mounted cannon, 4 .30 machine guns, and tons of rocketsPresented as a cheap, multirole observer/patrol/colonial police/ground support plane.And of course it handled like a flying brick.>>63067204The GM-1 Grizzly is decent outside of some retarded cartoony details, as is the... Yeah, it's mostly pure shit.
>>63084870I never said anything about how they appear, just that they appear quite frequently.>>63085130Thanks France
>>63087554The one that's on fire looks pretty cool.
>>63034415Airships would need some kind of amazing power source capable of allowing them to keep themselves aloft for extended periods of time. They'd overshadow seafaring ships due to being faster and less restricted by terrain. Airships could be differentiated from regular aircraft by making this spectacular power source impossible to miniaturize.On the civilian side of things, mass cargo transit could be handled by large airships while smaller scale transport would be handled by conventional aircraft. On the military side, airships would be utilized for their endurance and force projection capability. The military airships would deploy conventional aircraft as fighters, bombers, and troop transports. Like modern carrier battlegroups, aircarriers would likely be too valuable to place within range of enemy fire and would likely be constantly protected by an escort of smaller airships equipped with the latest of early warning and missile interception technologies.
>>63094127Warbirds does this with Floatstone. It's what keeps the islands floating and airships have floatstone "cores," but anything smaller than a cutter needs to use balloons or conventional aircraft theory to fly.
Is there any reason why aircraft development went with propellers on the front of the aircraft instead of the back? My physics is a bit rusty but I don't think it would make a difference if you designed everything in the other direction.
>>63094968Someone once told me "it's easier to pull a rope than it is to push it."
>>63090027Didn't find any better screenshots of it but here you go>>63094968Tailwheels were really popular and as a result you kind of have to make tractors. But pushers were pretty common too for a while.It both works.
So, when WW2 starts in CS, what would happen to the various states? Would we see a new front open in the war or would the states just send aid to abroad? Do you ever think that at some point the states would reform in the future?
>>63070858That actually looks like a realistic zepplin-based superprop.>good visibility for pilot>push/pull design existed historically (Do 335, Japanese prototypes, etc.) and was well suited for high alt high speed fighters>sleek and fast means aircraft can attain high speeds, able to intercept enemies from farther away which helps keep vulnerable carrier alive>variety of caliber armament to deal with hypothetical targets (large airships, multi-engine bombers, enemy fighters, etc)>trike landing gear allows aircraft to catch arresting wire without nose/rear propstrike, though placement of the arresting hook might be a problem (maybe it is centerline below the cockpit?)>wings could fold to minimize storage space in airship aircraft carrier hangarGreat sketch anon!
>>63040732Yeah the kicker for any sort of airship setting is a different source of lighter-than-air flight. Helium/Hydrogen works just fine if you want to make a blimp/zepplin, but not if you want an airship that mimics a sea-going warship of any sort. I was thinking about some good lighter-than-air "sources" for an airship setting->ore that reduces gravity when electrical current is run through concentrated amounts, however this slowly burns said ore. Airships would still have standard lighter-than-air gas stored onboard so they could reduce ore consumption or operate without it if need be, but this ore would be the primary lift source. It could also be responsible for sky islands>special wood, ceramic, or metal that is super light and as tough as steel, helium/hydrogen is still used but this material is used in lieu of typical building materials so airships can carry more>Magic (for fantasy settings) in the form of flight runes, enchanted ship construction, or arcane engines of some kind that grant flight>steampunk/diselpunk propeller engines slapped onto zepplins for additional lift, though fuel consumption/maintenance would be a problem>Could make airships a living creature like the airships in the Leviathan trilogy. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Westerfeld_novel)>>63054810Anything reminiscent of the roaring 20s works as well, like Jazz or Swing.>>63070858How would you go about incorporating turbochargers and/or superchargers in this setting? The P-47 was designed around a high altitude monster engine, would we see a similar aircraft design for a land or airship based high alt fighter?>>63083352Guessing long landing gear for some to avoid prop strikes and facilitate AoA during takeoff. Some might be tail draggers, some might have tricycle gear.>>63094682Have any scans of airship design using Floatstone? Trying to figure out how non-gas airships would look in a setting like this.
>>63094968Couple of reasons come to mind:>push props struggle with CATOBAR- the arresting hook would have to be over engineered to avoid hitting the rear prop, and the carrier aviator would be at risk of far more prop strikes>a pilot who bails out would hit the push prop>props on the nose get pure air, whereas push props get slightly less air because the fuselage disrupts the airflow (reducing performance)>shooting a push prop from the rear can destroy the aircraft's propeller/engine much easier than shooting a normal prop from the rear (aka airframe is less survivable)>it's easier to have the control surfaces manipulate air after the prop generates thrust, instead of canards deflecting airflow to the prop>By the time push/pull prop aircraft were being designed, major militaries either lacked the resources to continue development, had focused on improving standard prop designs, and/or ditched push/pull props in favor of early jet aircraft (better speed and handling)>>63096628Not familiar with CS lore- the US has fragmented into autonomous states/regions/nations, right? Either WWII in the CSverse would have the assorted states of North America form a allied force, or only some states would fight for one side of the conflict while the rest stayed neutral. It would be hard to imagine these states (which seem to have found equilibrium after the US balkanized) attacking each other, as WW2 was seen (at first) as another "European War.">>63076231Thanks to you and all the other anons who posted cool pics, scans, minis, etc. This thread rocks!
Air /k/ommando here. Airships never really became common in IRL airforces for several key reasons:>advancements in engine design facilitated the creation of strategic bombers before WWII, such as the B-17, which could fly for thousands of miles at crisp cruising speeds and drop far more tonnage of munitions than zepplin bombers. These aircraft became cheap and easy to produce via assembly lines, could be transported in segments via ship/train/truck, could be repaired easily with small hangars, had relatively good defensive firepower/survivability, and didn't present a large target.>zepplins didn't achieve huge success during WWI, and the crash of the Hindenberg killed the passenger airship industry and dissuaded further airship development>the Germans (main military zepplin nation) didn't have reserves of Helium, and could not get the US to supply them with helium before/during/after WWI, which meant they had to use the volatile Hydrogen as well as their own industry, so when the Hindenberg crashed they decided to abandon zepplins in favor of twin engine strategic bombers with enough range and payload to strike the UKSo if you're thinking about running a tabletop game (or writing fiction) in a setting with Airships, you gotta change the setting to facilitate airships over conventional fixed wing aircraft. The best ideas I've had so far I mentioned in earlier posts in this thread->Airships development must have reached a point where airships are common before fixed wing aircraft are developed, otherwise fixed wing aircraft will surpass them as they did IRL>Airships must be more lethal, profitable, and/or producible than both fixed wing aircraft and seafaring ships in trade and power projection. >Airships need a better source of flight than just Hydrogen or Helium if you want them to stay predominant in the skies. This source of flight can also explain the presence of sky islands and a alternate history of industrial development
>>63096938Continuing the reasoning behind airships: A setting with both lighter than air and heavier than air aircraft needs reasons for both to coexist. It doesn't make sense to use a flying battleship zeppelin to destroy enemy airships if a squadron of fighters can kill more of the same targets more efficiently. Some ideas on making a balance between flight types:>Sky islands are a great reason. Lets say there are large chunks of floating land at high altitude that have cities or fortresses on them. In order to seize control of these targets, a military force would need to establish air superiority, bombard fortifications/gun emplacements, and land troops to occupy the area. >Airships can float at the edge (or beyond) of the range of a sky fortresses guns and bombard it (much like naval bombardment IRL), whereas heavy bombers would be shot down (unlike IRL they're gonna be much closer to AAA when attacking floating targets).>It doesn't have to be huge floating islands either- lots of chunks of floating rock (like asteroid fields) could surround these areas, with smaller towns/hamlets or forts nestled amidst a cloud of debris. These floating fields could be too difficult for most fixed wing aircraft to navigate.>Fleets of airships would probably not engage each other with large guns like WWII battleships- 3 dimensions makes long range salvos very very difficult to land. Instead, fleets would have carriers that launch air wings of fighters, and destroyers would defend against attacks>Certain airships and fixed wing aircraft would be designed to deploy infantry (and maybe armored vehicles?) much like landing craft and helicopters IRL. Maybe paratrooper barges?>Logistic airships would travel with the fleet carrying fuel, food, repair materials, ammunition, and smaller support aircraft>The airships in this setting would have to survive heavy damage like WWII ships, which means compartmentalization and redundant systems
>>63097036So lets build a military airship fleet with modern ship nomenclature:>Aircraft Carrier>Largest ships in fleet, serve as flagship, light on defenses>Fixed wing launch, recovery, and in-flight refueling systems>Carries Carrier Air Wing (CAW) of fixed wing fighters and bombers and their supplies/pilots>Fighters kill enemy fixed wings, harass airships, recon enemy targets, and do light CAS>Bombers kill enemy airships, bomb targets, and CAS (maybe A2A refueling when kitted for it?)>Cruiser>Second largest airships-of-the-line>Bristling with variety of AAA and artillery, heavily armored>Escorts vulnerable fleet airships, kills any enemy fighters/bombers/airships that get through CAW>Forms the airship portion of fleet defense, doesn't usually operate solo>Destroyer>Small, fast, nimble "swiss army knife" of an airship>Decent armament and armor, versatile mix of AAA, heavy guns, etc.>Used to fill gaps between Cruiser AAA networks during heavy fleet engagements, often sent on solo voyages when a Carrier Battle Group would be overkill>Carries Marine contingent (and small squad of fighters?)>Troop Transport>Slightly smaller than Cruisers, tough to kill but few guns>Carries main Marine force deployed via smaller Landing Craft (possible airship-airplane mix?) and parachutes>Support Airship>Merchant Marine Airship carrying fuel/supplies for fleet>Facilitates ship replenishment and can repair damaged airshipsI was thinking Carrier Battle Groups could have 1 "Super Carrier" which had bomber squadrons (2-4 engined bombers with anti-airship torpedoes and typical bomb loads) and several Escort Carriers with large fighter complements. A dozen Cruisers would envelop the fleet on all sides, projecting interlacing fields of fire that tear enemies that make it within range to shreds. Destroyers would be used as needed, and the Troop Transport would land Marines to capture objectives.Thoughts?
>>63097236Shoutout to the Inverted gull wing, god I love the F4U Corsair.I think fixed wing fighters would have an inverted gull wing, gull wing, dihedral wing, low wing, or anhedral wing design if they operated off an airship carrier.Unlike others in this thread I don't think the trapeze arresting system would last past the biplane era, so typical CATOBAR would emerge in some form, necessitating aircraft that can see the deck and snag a wire consistently. Hence why I think designs like the F4U would still be prominent.
>>63096637Thanks>visibilityThat is a big one for me. I hate it when designs ignore it to a ridiculous degree. This canopy was mostly based on the Fury renders, which make some windows a lot smaller but still.>push pullThey are my favourite engine configuration. I designed my own superprop around it a while back. This isn't the latest state of the design but the only picture of it I got handy here.For the Nemesis I picked it because I thought it would make more sense to keep mods to a minimum for an upgrade of the Fury.>>63096779The P-47 was a bit of an outlier for a fighter. Most engines at the time used superchargers because they simply used less space. The Jug ended up so big that they could easily fit the turbo in there. Same for the P-38 and its nacelles.I would just supercharge most fighters, and presumably they are because they are WW2 like planes.
>>63098084Have you thought about a tailhook + landing gear designed for CATOBAR on these aircraft?
>>63097302>trapeze arresting system would last past the biplane eraYou say that but they did it with that B36 parasite fighter.If you don't care too much for zeppelin physics because pulp or have some way to explain around it though, I did see some zeps with landing strips on one side or both, which looked kinda cool. I think you would only need the arresting cables though and no carapult. You can still just drop the planes out below to have them take off.>>63098218That one is not really a navy plane. But it could include one if it had to. Nothing really stopping the design from just having a hook. I did have a version with floats somewhereWhat I need to do is find a good way to do the CS thing with the retracable hooks for the trapeze thing though. Mostly because I want that to be how most air to air docking works for my stuff.
>>63096628According to the lore Germany still has the Kaiser in Crimson Skies? And the Brits are weird... with Aus in a full blown Civil/Emu War, no Canada, and India experiencing violence but also proper home rule? Think Japan would be loving the situation.
>>63099630But WW1 still happened pretty much as before, I thought. But I do recall mention of the kaiser, so I don't know?
>>62961992Three or four times i have bought the x box version for $1 then barrow an x box and every time i start playing and realize oh fuck it's a flight sim not a rpg game
Oh shit! Incoming Nipponese Kawanishi KX-03! What do?
>>62963339That was really a end of the war WW2 jap design
>>63100463the US studied and made a copy
>>63084611That is the body of a experimental German x plane called something like a Cycloplane, it took off and landed vertically and then flew horizontally The nose had huge set of rotary blades like a helicopter with jet nozels at the tip of each blade
Farewell, sweet thread
>>63100463>>63100484The Bloodhawk is based more or less 1:1 on a Henschel design.Not the J7W or the Ascender
>>63100768It's a Heinkel Lerche. The more sensible cousin of the Triebflügel pictured here >>63100839It was powered by regular piston engines and just a ring wing with big rotorblades like a helo or something like the Osprey
>>63084611I there a specific name for mid-plane propellers? I know a handful of planes with that configuration (the the P192, surprisingly made by... B+V), but it would make tagging and searching much easier.>>63094968Dunno why. Pull prop must have its advantages, as push props came earlier (see most early ww1 planes) and allowed for easier weapon mounting on the front.
>>63102630I doubt there is. It is rather rare.>>63102688Thanks