THICC SWEDISH FLYING MEATBALL | J-29D (War Thunder THICC Jet Gameplay)



In the market for War Thunder Equipment? Use this link to get 3% off your entire purchase and a custom Phly emblem for your vehicles. …

source

Advertisements

You might be interested in

Comment (26)

  1. Phly, i have a good challenge for you!!
    Attempt #395!!!!!

    Play the M48 in stock configuration on 7.7 br (old lineup) . You may use APHE in one battle if you want (170 pen), but make sure to play one game with APCR only.
    No camping allowed (and not sure it would help)

    If you have fun during it, i can guarantee you are not doing it right
    . The challenge is to not lose your mind or uninstall right after.
    Good luck, you will need it.

    Requesting it before the sh!tst0rm of the stock syndrome

  2. Well… They did not call it Tunnan (barrel) for nothing 😉
    But:
    -Wings are cramped and awkwardly shaped. Putting tanks and piping in there is challenging and complex.
    -The weight/volume ratio of tanks will be bad because of the thin profile of the wings. The lightest container for a given volume is spherical. So making a tall brick fuel tank in the fuselage, for a given volume, is lighter than a thin slab wing tank.
    -The weight of tanks, piping and fuel would add up quite quickly, requiring strengthening of the wing structure, increasing the weight of the airframe. With the relatively low power engine of the time, this becomes quite an issue as it would limit the useful load (fuel and ordonnance).
    -Same reason why the landing gear is on the fuselage and not the wings
    AS for the looks of the plane, I am going on a limb and making some suppositions:
    -The engineers usually try to make the smallest, lightest, stiffest and strongest possible airframe around the engine. Making a short, stubby fuselage is not a bad idea when it is the only load-bearing structure of the plane, as it ticks all the boxes above.
    -Having the engine under the tail has several advantages: maintenance is simplified ( access is easy by just standing around it, and pulling the engine out is pretty straightforward). The tail controls and surfaces are better protected as well (debris kicked up in rough terrain operations, heat of the engine etc). The Swedish airforce does like to be able to operate from dispersal "airfields" (think glorified forest tracks) and most of their manpower is made of conscripts. Making a rugged, easy to maintain machine is therefore a great plus (and it has been proved in Congo).
    -The fat profile is also easily explained by the engine it uses. Whitley-type centrifugal engines are not exactly slim, especially with all the ancillaries around it (mig 15 is not very thin either). Sabres were equiped with the much "thinner" axial flow engines, and were delicate things supposed to be operated from beautiful cement airstrips only. Not the same design philosophy.
    In engineering, things are rarely done without reasons, and esthetic is rarely on top of the list. 😉

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: