aircraft/loadouts Arsenal VG 90

[CaID 8,992]

 

I would like to suggest a nice Naval Jet fighter for the french tree (maybe for the end of a eventual light/navy fighter line) the Arsenal VG 90

the VG 90 is a multipurpose fighter developed by the French company l'Arsenal. After the war, the French Navy announced a tender for the creation of a deck-based jet fighter. The company l'Arsenal took part in it with the VG 90 aircraft. Its rivals were the SNCAC NC 1080 deck fighter and the Nord N.2200 multi-role fighter. The aircraft was equipped with a turbojet engine Rolls Royce Nene 102 with a draft of 2270 kgs, manufactured by Hispano-Suiza.

During the development, the technologies used in the production of VG 70 (German version of DFS-346) and VG 80 aircraft were used. The first flight of the aircraft took place on September 27, 1949. On April 10, 1950, the aircraft was tested for the aircraft carrier Bretigny. On May 25 of the same year the plane crashed into an accident. The second copy of the VG-90 went on trial in August 1951, on February 21, 1952 it was also destroyed in the accident. After that, the program of the VG 90 fighter was discontinued.

The design of the aircraft: A free-running monoplane of a normal aerodynamic scheme. Fuselage type monocoque, oval section. In the bow was planned to place an armament compartment with two 20-mm guns and two 7.7-mm machine guns. There was also a REO compartment and a niche of the bow support of the chassis. The lantern of the cockpit of the pilot consisted of a fixed visor and a backward flap. On the sides of the middle part of the fuselage, under the wing - two uncontrollable air intakes. In the middle part of the fuselage there were fuel tanks, niches of the main landing gear racks, aircraft equipment compartments, and in the rear part of the fuselage there was a compartment of the power unit. The wing is high, swept, trapezoid in shape with rounded endings. Mechanization of the wing - two sections of flaps on each wing. The ailerons had axial aerodynamic compensation. The fuselage, wing and vertical tail assembly were all-metal construction. The tail wing is single-kelet, with a low-lying stabilizer. The stabilizer frame is duralumin, the ply is made of plywood. The rudders are two-sectional, the rudder is one-section, all the rudders are equipped with trim tabs. Chassis - three-pedestal, with a front rack. All stands with oil-air suspension and single wheels. Front rack - lever type, retracted into the bow of the fuselage. The main racks are telescopic, retracted to the root of the wing towards the axis of the aircraft.

Armament:

VG 90-1: for the first prototype it was planned to install 3 x 20-mm cannon Hispano-Suiza, bomb armament - 2 x 500-k bombs on the underwing hangers;

VG 90-2: on the second prototype - 2 x 20-mm cannon Hispano-Suiza, 2 x 7.7-mm machine gun, as well as 36 x NAR RAC 50 in the weapons compartment and 16 x NAR T10 (or 80 x NAC RAC 50) under the wing.

General characteristics

• Crew: one pilot
• Length: 13.44 m (44 ft 1 in)
• Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 4 in)
• Height: 3.55 m (11 ft 8 in)
• Wing area: 30.7 m² (330 ft²)
• Empty weight: 5,100 kg (11,250 lb)
• Gross weight: 8,090 kg (17,840 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Hispano-Suiza-built Rolls-Royce Nene, 22.2 kN (5,000 lbf) thrust

Performance

• Maximum speed: 920 km/h (570 mph)
• Range: 1,550 km (960 miles)
• Service ceiling: 13,000 m (42,640 ft)
• Rate of climb: 23 m/s (4,500 ft/min)

Armament

• 3 × 20 mm cannons or 2x 20mm cannons and 2x 7.7mm mg
• 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs

 

 

Source

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/arsenal_vg-90.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_VG_90

http://en.valka.cz/topic/view/44868/Arsenal-VG-90

https://www.aviafrance.com/arsenal-vg-90-aviation-france-1038.htm

http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20548.htm

http://www.air-journal.fr/2014-02-21-le-21-fevrier-1952-dans-le-ciel-larsenal-vg-90-02-de-claude-dellys-se-crashe-596988.html

Edited May 19, 2018 by CaID

[SAUBER_KH7 3,325]

Open for Discussion.

[*AceArchangel 908]

I think the VG 90-1 would make a great early 7.0 BR fighter, I believe the VG 90-2 should be a gift though. +1

 

However given it never had its armament installed or even accounted for on the airframe, I am hesitant to say this will be surely implemented, unless absolutely necessary.

Edited November 12, 2017 by *AceArchangel

[Battered_Walrus 995]

i definately think that these should be ingame, but with the VG 90-2 should be foldered under the -1

[CaID 8,992]

41 minutes ago, *AceArchangel said:

I think the VG 90-1 would make a great early 7.0 BR fighter, I believe the VG 90-2 should be a gift though. +1

 

However given it never had its armament installed or even accounted for on the airframe, I am hesitant to say this will be surely implemented, unless absolutely necessary.

it's not like it would be the first time Gaijin add an vehicles that was never armed. some was not even completely built.

 

the MB.157 for example wasn't armed. the E-100 wasn't even finished

Edited November 12, 2017 by CaID

[blockhaj 3,559]

a great 7.0 vehicle.

[*AceArchangel 908]

17 minutes ago, CaID said:

it's not like it would be the first time Gaijin add an vehicles that was never armed. some was not even completely built.

 

the MB.157 for example wasn't armed. the E-100 wasn't even finished

I never said it would be the first time, I was just pointing out that vehicles tend to be selected for implementation based on their development and their necessity in game, the MB.157 and Ho 229 are great examples as they were needed in their respective research trees as there was a lack of any other vehicle. The E-100 is a good point but it is an ultra rare event vehicle.

Edited November 12, 2017 by *AceArchangel

[CaID 8,992]

26 minutes ago, *AceArchangel said:

I never said it would be the first time, I was just pointing out that vehicles tend to be selected for implementation based on their development and their necessity in game, the MB.157 and Ho 229 are great examples as they were needed in their respective research trees as there was a lack of any other vehicle. The E-100 is a good point but it is an ultra rare event vehicle.

type 5 chi-ri II then, this tank is not rare at all and was never finished. just like the Ho-Ri. this last one wasn't even built and only a mock-up was made. while there is source that say 5 tank was built, there is neither photo or tank to be found after the surrender of japan. and to be honest, Japan didn't even had finished the prototype of the tank on which the Ho-Ri was based one, so designing another tank on a unfinished prototype and producing it even before the prototype was finished sound way too unlikely to happen. but i do not want this tank to be remove for those historic details.

 

the need of filling the gap is a good reason to put a vehicles in a tree for the balance. but some vehicles can be added just to make the tree more enjoyable with some variety. i do not say we should add it right away, i would rather put the priority on more historically important plane such as the MB.151 & MB.152 or LN.40s. but eventually, the game need to have vehicles to add to renew the gameplay. this is when the VG 90s can find their place in the game. i just dont want to simply add more sabre, venom or Mig-15 in the top tier battle. giving the french a lot unique plane will make the game more interesting to the player.

Edited November 12, 2017 by CaID

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

29 minutes ago, CaID said:

type 5 chi-ri II then, this tank is not rare at all and was never finished. just like the Ho-Ri. this last one wasn't even built and only a mock-up was made. while there is source that say 5 tank was built, there is neither photo or tank to be found after the surrender of japan. and to be honest, Japan didn't even had finished the prototype of the tank on which the Ho-Ri was based one, so designing another tank on a unfinished prototype and producing it even before the prototype was finished sound way too unlikely to happen. but i do not want this tank to be remove for those historic details.

 

The Chi-Ri II (and Chi-Ri I) were both built, as well as the Ho-Ri I, II (the version we have in game), and III (the slated production version), just ask Mai. 

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

+2 for the both of them. france needs its MiG-9 - MiG-9 late/P-80 - F-80/R2Y2 entry jets.

[CaID 8,992]

4 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

The Chi-Ri II (and Chi-Ri I) were both built, as well as the Ho-Ri I, II (the version we have in game), and III (the slated production version), just ask Mai. 

here is your chi-ri II

 

here is what people used as a prove for a super heavy tank like the O-I or Mitsu

wich is in fact a casemate turret of Koto Fortress. and below the track of the O-I

and it's well know that the O-I was the only vehicles to used track. so it's clear that those track was built specifically for the O-I and no other tank or any other tracked machine. and sure the single track link is the prove that a whole tank was built and sent to Manchuria where no report was made while obviously the Japanese had difficulty to find enough steel to built their ship which was the national priority at a points they even salvage the steel of the tanks under construction to built more ship and also they surely suddenly found an new engine able to power the 120ton tanks while they barely found the engine strong enough to power their 37 ton tanks at a decent speed or find the fuel to feild all their vehicles. and yeah they also sent the 120ton tanks to Manchuria without been noticed by anyone and went in the wildness of Manchuria without a single witness to mysteriously desapearing. it's obvious that was something that actually happen.

 

While out of any doubt Mai is very good at finding information, i do not have good relation with her and still doubt half of the think she bring as fact. most likely that most of the heavy tank in japan never pass the paper or mock-up stage of their development.

 

[blockhaj 3,559]

I dont buy that coastal fortification as the turret of the type 4/5 heavy but the Shi-Ri was apparently built to an extent.

[XDrake991 278]

Can we please stay on topic.  Japanese tanks should be discussed elsewhere.

[CaID 8,992]

12 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

I dont buy that coastal fortification as the turret of the type 4/5 heavy

 

yeah. it's was a turret at Koto fortress. just like this one. or maybe exactly this one.

 

and the Chi-ri II was never finished but almost.

Edited November 12, 2017 by CaID

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

20 minutes ago, CaID said:

here is your chi-ri II

 

here is what people used as a prove for a super heavy tank like the O-I or Mitsu

wich is in fact a casemate turret of Koto Fortress. and below the track of the O-I

and it's well know that the O-I was the only vehicles to used track. so it's clear that those track was built specifically for the O-I and no other tank or any other tracked machine. and sure the single track link is the prove that a whole tank was built and sent to Manchuria where no report was made while obviously the Japanese had difficulty to find enough steel to built their ship which was the national priority at a points they even salvage the steel of the tanks under construction to built more ship and also they surely suddenly found an new engine able to power the 120ton tanks while they barely found the engine strong enough to power their 37 ton tanks at a decent speed or find the fuel to feild all their vehicles. and yeah they also sent the 120ton tanks to Manchuria without been noticed by anyone and went in the wildness of Manchuria without a single witness to mysteriously desapearing. it's obvious that was something that actually happen.

 

While out of any doubt Mai is very good at finding information, i do not have good relation with her and still doubt half of the think she bring as fact. most likely that most of the heavy tank in japan never pass the paper or mock-up stage of their development.

 

 

13 minutes ago, CaID said:

 

yeah. it's was a turret at Koto fortress. just like this one. or maybe exactly this one.

 

and the Chi-ri II was never finished but almost.

 

I would like to debate this, but as @XDrake991 said: let’s stay on topic. 

 

 

I think I’ll upvote this, but for the 3x 20mm as the 2x 7.7mm would only make the “stock syndrome” of this plane unbearable. 

 

+1 

[*AceArchangel 908]

10 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

I would like to debate this, but as @XDrake991 said: let’s stay on topic. 

 

I think I’ll upvote this, but for the 3x 20mm as the 2x 7.7mm would only make the “stock syndrome” of this plane unbearable. 

 

+1 

neither of them are that bad even for stock, the First prototype was to mount 3 20mm cannons and the second was to mount 2 20mm cannons and 2 7.7mm guns, which isn't a bad compliment.

[CaID 8,992]

49 minutes ago, *AceArchangel said:

neither of them are that bad even for stock, the First prototype was to mount 3 20mm cannons and the second was to mount 2 20mm cannons and 2 7.7mm guns, which isn't a bad compliment.

at this tier the 7.7 is nearly useless but when you wait for the cannon to reload in arcade battle, it's nice to still have something to shot with. the 7.7mm take a very short reload time and 20mm is still decent in high tier. since they aren't likely to be Hs404 but rather M50 cannon, they will have a more decent munition load.

[IxiRip 182]

+2 One of the planes I wanted the most before even the french aircraft update due to how good it looks and it's armament.

 

[Milocat 4,848]

+2.  I think these would be excellent additions. 

 

I cringe at the thought of having rifle-caliber machine guns in jet battles . . . but I'm also intrigued. 

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,349]

+1 GIVE ME ALL THE JETS IN THE WORLD!! 

[CaID 8,992]

3 hours ago, Milocat said:

I cringe at the thought of having rifle-caliber machine guns in jet battles . . . but I'm also intrigued. 

 

well, it's not like the 7.7mm was the only gun the plane was using, there was also a pair of 20mm wich is decent. of course if it was the 7.7mm alone, it would be a real pain to play. still i killed 2 plane with the mg of my ARL-44 in a single game, they didn't crash, i destroyed the planes in the air and they wasn't diving on me but flying by at low altitude looping around me, it's just prove the LMG still can kill a plane if it have serial hit.

 

those plane was an some hellcat and a IL-2 who are common in the tier when i was playing the ARL-44

[Milocat 4,848]

2 minutes ago, CaID said:

 

well, it's not like the 7.7mm was the only gun the plane was using, there was also a pair of 20mm wich is decent. of course if it was the 7.7mm alone, it would be a real pain to play. still i killed 2 plane with the mg of my ARL-44 in a single game, they didn't crash, i destroyed the planes in the air and they wasn't diving on me but flying by at low altitude looping around me, it's just prove the LMG still can kill a plane if it have serial hit.

 

those plane was an some hellcat and a IL-2 who are common in the tier when i was playing the ARL-44

 

Oh yeah, of course the 20s are going to be your main damage dealers.  I'm just saying that if these planes are added I'm going to grind to it, fly it out, and take some potshots at jets with a pair of 7.7s just to see what will happen. 

 

Should be an amusing experiment.

[onemax9000 1,242]

+1 gib that long boi

[TheTetac 13]

wow that aircraft is beautifull sur +1

 

[FrizBeee 229]

+1 france need a french build jet before the ouragan, around 7.0/7.3