Aeroduel, and Boat Wars (Hydroduel?) in 6th?

[GrauGeist]

swordtart is right.

A *small* plane can have a stall (i.e. minimum) speed of 75 mph or so, below which, it drops like a rock. That's why there's a big "thump" when an airplane lands - it's either literally dropping out of the sky onto it's landing gear, or it's using its engines to literally fly itself into the ground.

Near stall speed, aircraft maneuverability is not good. For example, turning slows the speed of the inside wing. If you are near stall speed, a sharp turn could easily stall just the inside wing. With a sudden loss of lift on the inside wing, the plane will suddenly wingover and probably spin/tumble. That is *NOT* an easy recovery, especially at the low altitudes that you'd need for arena combat. At CW altitudes, the plane is almost certain to hit the ground.

And in a Car Wars context, 75 mph is somewhat fast for how small arenas tend to be.

[Angrytubist]

I always thought gyros were easier to land unpowered than helo's because they tend to be so much lighter. I wonder if it would be the same after you armored up.

Not that I know much about planes, just what I've read to satisfy personal curiosity. If you have any cool autogyro links feel free to pm them. There doesn't seem to be that much info avalible (beyond the basics). (now if anybody wants to talk about rockets, I'm your guy.)

also, I'm fairly sure that autogyros have no swash-plate to destroy or damage (I know that this must be a high strength component from my RC flying friends)

As far as the stall speed thing. What if electric powered planes don't have the horsepower of their gas-guzzling cousins, therefore are designed to go slower, with slower stall speeds. I've already said I think we should probably use ultralights instead of small planes as a model, as this puts prices/capabilities more in line with a cars, and require less industrial capacity to manufacture. (also fits better with source material. the road-warrior chopper was an ultralight.)

[swordtart]

Tons of autogyro coolness on the web via your favorite search engine (but perhaps not through your phone).

Autogyros do have swash plates as they still have a cyclic control. They do not usually have collectives (as the rotor pitch is fixed). The throttle of course is tied to the pusher prop not the rotor. The rudder is less use as speed increases.

Some even have rotor tip rockets to allow vertical take off ;)

[Too Bo Coo]

Originally Posted by Angrytubist

Even a piper cub could carry more armor than a CW cycle. Plus "most" of our hypothetical prop-planes are fuel-cell plant powered.

That's true. But when the engine of a bike goes, you get road rash, when a plane stops working, you drop like a rock.

Just sayin....

[Angrytubist]

True, anyone that wasn't suicidal would at least carry a parachute, and most planes would probably come standard with an ejection seat.

I think for the most part a lone aircraft would try not to get involved in a ground based firefight. I for one would probably try to get up out of range and look non-threatening were I flying cross country post-apocalypse.

[Too Bo Coo]

Originally Posted by Angrytubist

True, anyone that wasn't suicidal would at least carry a parachute, and most planes would probably come standard with an ejection seat.

I think for the most part a lone aircraft would try not to get involved in a ground based firefight. I for one would probably try to get up out of range and look non-threatening were I flying cross country post-apocalypse.

You need to be at a certain height to parachute, and the height one would need to be at to fight against ground veh's would most likely preclude this. Unless someone had a military jet, but then, this would not be much fun for anyone and again be out of scale.

The only way I would have aircraft in my games would be special scenario one off's, and I can't think why I would want that. Or, aircraft v aircraft, but then we wouldn't be playing 'car wars' anymore...

I'm really confused why people are so intent on trying to 'make this work' when it seems so clearly out of context for this particular game at this particular scale....

To 'armor up' an aircraft so that it could be a match in a typical duel would it seems, impact upon handling, range and a host of other factors. Without it, as you said, it's just asking to be fragged....

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but having played CW from the first release, my gaming buddies and I always viewed the aircraft, boat and tank expansions as dubious homages to fans who clamored for things that bordered on the just plain unrealistic.

But to each his own I suppose....

That said, I would not be very pleased if these rules made their way into any core set at the expense of anything to do with what most see as the core of Car Wars, that is the auto rules. I'd much rather SJG spend their efforts on minis, extra content, etc.

[juris]

So CW isn't even rebooted yet and already people want to add boats and planes? Lol

[Chris Goodwin]

Has anyone actually played with the air and boat rules? I've run a chopper or two, but never airplanes nor boats. I ordered Aeroduel off of Amazon last week, and I'm planning to play with it when it gets here.

I'm planning to treat it as more or less a different game that is mostly compatible with Car Wars, though.

[Angrytubist]

I've found them useful in highway games, and occasionally a player wants a pilot character in an ongoing campaign.They fill a "logical" hole in the "universe",( nobody has to ask why its impossible to fly the news chopper.). Aeroduel is a related but as you said separate sport in-universe. Two of the three Mad Max movies featured aircraft.

It isn't something that many pages should be devoted to, and they should be built with car design elements, to prevent power creep, and "supplement dilution". I would prefer that all maneuver be turning key based, and all use the same key. I still have no idea how boat wars could affect anyone's land-based car game.

Aeroduel got plenty of good reviews when it came out, and is a fun game, it would still be fun if the mph number (and its just a number, especially when you must resort to a special scale to use it.) was a little more reasonable. I really hate switching scales within a (tabletop) game anyway.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

swordtart is right.

A *small* plane can have a stall (i.e. minimum) speed of 75 mph or so, below which, it drops like a rock. That's why there's a big "thump" when an airplane lands - it's either literally dropping out of the sky onto it's landing gear, or it's using its engines to literally fly itself into the ground.

You're ignoring ground effect, and a number of other factors.

Having landed 15+ different aircraft (of 8+ designs), including C-152, DHC-2, S-32, C-185, C-182, Navaho, V-tail Beech... I've seen (and occasionally done) landings without a "thump". (Due to getting my flight instruction through CAP, I was often in a different aircraft than the prior flight - including 4 different DHC-2 Beavers... Not counting simulators.)

All landings are, in essence, controlled stalls, but it's possible to set the angle and speed such that there's a smooth touch, especially on small aircraft, as the last several FPM get cushioned away by entry into ground effect. And on some, the whole wing might not be stalled...

The better the glide ratio, the harder it is to land without thump - the S-32 sailplane suddenly drops the last 10', for example, while the beaver can be set down with a deft touch (as it's only partially stalled and in ground effect, still bouyant but sinking).