Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).

Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
Allies win faster. It's up to you.

So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
and armed by the natives?

My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and dominate the
skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time. With a
thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic bomber. It
should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last so long.
Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.

Or for a more advanced plane how about a Grumman F-4 without the turbocharger.
I'm not sure the industry of the time was able to build large complex machines of sheet
aluminum, but if so this is a nice plane for world war one.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just
that the
> Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
<snip>

I'm having trouble seeing any aircraft that the combatants of the time could
build significantly changing the end results.

--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just
that the
> Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
> So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
manufactured, fueled,
> and armed by the natives?
>
> My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and
dominate the
> skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time.
With a
> thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic
bomber. It
> should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last
so long.
> Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.
>

Hardly, the Swordfish was catchable by most late WW1
fighters and didng have much more disposable load
than a Vimy

> Or for a more advanced plane how about a Grumman F-4 without the
turbocharger.
> I'm not sure the industry of the time was able to build large complex
machines of sheet
> aluminum, but if so this is a nice plane for world war one.
>
>

The real challenge is to produce something that
can be built with the technology of the day.

The Hurricane has an airframe that would be
familiar to any WW1 mechanic, especially if
you stick to the fabric covered Mk1

The engine is the real problem, probably something like
the 1930's Hawker Hart would be the best option

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
> So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> and armed by the natives?
>
> My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and dominate the
> skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time. With a
> thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic bomber. It
> should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last so long.
> Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.
>
> Or for a more advanced plane how about a Grumman F-4 without the turbocharger.
> I'm not sure the industry of the time was able to build large complex machines of sheet
> aluminum, but if so this is a nice plane for world war one.

Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight. The
Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
trenches be a significant addition?

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
> known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.

The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate

> The
> Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
> trenches be a significant addition?

Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
bombs as it was.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
>> The
>> Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
>> trenches be a significant addition?
>
> Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> bombs as it was.
>
And the Germans certainly had flamethrowers by the end of the war.


--
Nik Simpson

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just
> that the Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
> So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
> manufactured, fueled, and armed by the natives?
>
> My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and dominate
> the skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at
> the time. With a thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a
> great strategic bomber. It should hold its own even in 1918 though I would
> not expect the war to last so long. Again, it's no F-16 but it should be
> buildable.
>
> Or for a more advanced plane how about a Grumman F-4 without the turbocharger.
> I'm not sure the industry of the time was able to build large
> complex machines of sheet aluminum, but if so this is a nice plane for
> world war one.

Junkers had already pinoneered All alloy construction monoplanes in
WW1. The Junkers J1 is generaly accorded that honour and by all
accounts it was a succesfull designe extremely difficult to shoot
down.

My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.

I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an Junker J1
style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph). Higher speeds with
knowlege of the wing sections & aerodynamics that were developed
between the wars. Armed with machine gun and perhaps the 20mm cannon
that were appearing (and capable of punching through any armour of the
day) an effective air superiority, reconaisence and ground attack
aircraft would have resulted. Reconaisence is a particularly critical
mission.

An larger two engined aircraft capable of delivering bombs and
torpoedoes would also have been required to damage the British Fleet
and break the naval blockade strangling and starving Germany and
Austria-Hungary and it might require some higher quality bomb sights.

Such a technical leap probably would have been possible if luck had
placed the right managerial and technical people in the right
postions. The Germans and Austro-Hungarians were an inventive lot.
Had someone decided that aircraft were the way to go an invested a
little extra time. Where was that someone but?

The inventor of Radar was a German called Christian Husselmeyer. (He
called it a telemobilscope) patented in 1899 and demonstrated in 1903
it was rejected by Gross Admiral Tirpitz whom said "my people have
other ideas". Husselmeyer had been motivated by witnessing the deaths
of many people due to a collision of barges on the Rhine during a fog.
His designe had a very effective directional antena.

I have no doubt that had he received funding (and had users of Marconi
radio network not erroneously though that it interfered with Marconis
patents) the Germans could have developed radar with ranging abillity
by 1914 for opperation from capital ships for detection of the enemy.
It would have simplified high speed night time opperations. It may
have been decisive at the battle of Jutland.


It would have also changed the whole Titanic saga as its primary
purpose was collision avoidence.

However the secret is to ascertain what technolgy is advantageous and
then meld it appropriatly. The Germans repeatedly gave up technical
leads, even in microwave techniques, through bad managment and bad
luck. Doenitz had been warned in 1935 that submarine coning towers
were bing picked up by experimental german radars at 2 km range. They
could have optimised their submarines for underwater attack at that
time, instead of waiting for the type XXI but they didn't. It cost
him his son and Germany the war.

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
> > known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.
>
> The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
> Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate
>
> > The
> > Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
> > trenches be a significant addition?
>
> Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> bombs as it was.
>

Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
would be a challenge.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message ...
>
> > My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and
> dominate the
> > skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time.
> With a
> > thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic
> bomber. It
> > should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last
> so long.
> > Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.
> >
>
> Hardly, the Swordfish was catchable by most late WW1
> fighters and didng have much more disposable load
> than a Vimy

I said a Swordfish in *1914*, which is beyond unbeatable by the planes of
1914.

I don't even think it's catchable by fighters of 1918. A Spad XIII has a top speed of
135 mph, an Fokker D. VII has a top speed of 120 mph, and a Swordfish has
a top speed of 138 mph. Remember, a fighter has to be significantly faster than
the bomber to catch it and make repeated passes at it.

http://www.budiansky.com/planes.html#wI

"Eunometic" > wrote in message om...
> My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
> what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
> these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
> seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
> improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
> NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
> fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
> liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.

Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype
of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common
radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to
the needed tolerances?

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> "Eunometic" > wrote in message om...
> > My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
> > what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
> > these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
> > seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
> > improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
> > NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
> > fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
> > liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.
>
> Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype
> of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common
> radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to
> the needed tolerances?

No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of sufficiently high octane to allow it to
produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the engine, and chances are the oil would be
inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should now weigh in). If you want to postulate time
travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that could actually be produced 20 years
earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen.

Guy

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> > bombs as it was.
> >
>
> Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
> would be a challenge.

The typical bomb used for anti personnel use was the 25lb
cooper bomb which was a fragmentation weapon,essentially
a large hand grenade. They also dropped flechettes.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > > My first guess, a Fairey Swordfish in 1914 should be buildable and
> > dominate the
> > > skies. The speed, range and bombload would be simply unknown at the time.
> > With a
> > > thousand mile range and a 1,600 lb bomb it would be a great strategic
> > bomber. It
> > > should hold its own even in 1918 though I would not expect the war to last
> > so long.
> > > Again, it's no F-16 but it should be buildable.
> > >
> >
> > Hardly, the Swordfish was catchable by most late WW1
> > fighters and didng have much more disposable load
> > than a Vimy
>
> I said a Swordfish in *1914*, which is beyond unbeatable by the planes of
> 1914.
>
> I don't even think it's catchable by fighters of 1918. A Spad XIII has a top speed of
> 135 mph, an Fokker D. VII has a top speed of 120 mph, and a Swordfish has
> a top speed of 138 mph. Remember, a fighter has to be significantly faster than
> the bomber to catch it and make repeated passes at it.

A Swordfish may be able to do that clean, but it cruises at 85-90 kts loaded, and most all of the inline
engine fighters of 1918 are faster than it, even ignoring that they will considerably outclimb it and
will most likely be making diving attacks. Its bombload is 1,500 lb, no big deal for 1918 if you look
at multi-engined bombers, and its range isn't very exciting either -- you are apparently assuming that
it can achieve its maximum range while flying at maximum speed and carrying its maximum load, and that
isn't the case for any a/c. Here's the Swordfish II range with a 1,610 lb. Mk. XII torp and the max.
fuel (143 Imp. Gal.) it can carry with that load: 450nm @ 90 knots; combat radius would be around 1/3rd
- 2/5ths of that.

In 1914 it would very difficult to catch, but about the only way it might change the war significantly
would be if it was used as a torpedo bomber carrying 18" full-size torps in a mass sneak attack on the
German (and/or Austro-Hungarian) fleets in harbor. Even then it would have to operate from land,
because no one had a carrier during the war with sufficient deck run and speed for it to take off from
fully loaded, barring very high (and consequently rare) winds. Loaded with a torp and 143 gallons of
fuel, a Swordfish II required a 540 ft. deck run with 20 kts. WoD (Wind over Deck), and 345 ft. with 30
kts. WoD.

In late 1918 (i.e. after the end of the war) HMS Argus would have been able to launch them given
sufficent natural wind (550 ft. flight deck, 20 kt. speed), but couldn't have spotted more than a half
dozen or so at a time. HMS Furious was faster, but had a much shorter takeoff deck at the time, only
228 feet (before her conversion to a full carrier), and her a/c capacity was limited, so any kind of
carrier-launched mass attack during 1914-1918 was out of the question. But that assumes that sinking a
fair number of one of the Central Powers fleets in harbor would have significantly changed the war in
the allies favor, and that seems a bit questionable.

Guy

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>
> I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
> produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an Junker J1
> style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
> resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).

What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.

The type remained in service until 1932

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
> > > known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.
> >
> > The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
> > Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate
> >
> > > The
> > > Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
> > > trenches be a significant addition?
> >
> > Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> > bombs as it was.
> >
>
> Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
> would be a challenge.

Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
> > > known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.
> >
> > The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
> > Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate
> >
> > > The
> > > Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
> > > trenches be a significant addition?
> >
> > Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> > bombs as it was.
> >
>
> Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
> would be a challenge.

Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps not the airplanes but their armament, a machine gun based on
> > > known Gatling technology but significantly lighter in weight.
> >
> > The problem would synchronising the gun with the engine.
> > Vickers and Lewis guns were perfectly adequate
> >
> > > The
> > > Brits used incindiary rockets on the Zeppelins, would napalm on the
> > > trenches be a significant addition?
> >
> > Not really , they dropped poison gas and phsophorus
> > bombs as it was.
> >
>
> Cluster munitions would be even more effective, although the timing
> would be a challenge.

Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
weapon without defense.

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...

>
> Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
> this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
> them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
> personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
> second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
> weapon without defense.

Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
could afect a short stretch

They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication
trenches which allowed troops to move into the front
line without being exposed to attack. There were also
more than one line of trenches.

The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination
of new technology which included fighter bombers
and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies
managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks
than the preceding 4 years.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
> > this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
> > them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
> > personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
> > second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
> > weapon without defense.
>
> Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
> an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
> could afect a short stretch
>
> They were equipped with deep dugouts and communication
> trenches which allowed troops to move into the front
> line without being exposed to attack. There were also
> more than one line of trenches.
>
> The answer to breaking the stalemate was a combination
> of new technology which included fighter bombers
> and tanks and new tactics. When perfected the Allies
> managed to roll back the Germans further in 3 weeks
> than the preceding 4 years.
>
>

Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems
that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into
caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your
skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the
trenches or die. You don't fire napalm, although there were instances
of pouring it into caves, you drop it from the air. You make the
trench systems traps, the same way the proper use of tanks made them
traps.
http://eport2.cgc.maricopa.edu/published/t/gr/tgraham97/collection/4/1/upload.htm

> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote
> >
> > Incorrect, the trenches followed a zig zag pattern to avoid
> > an enemy being able to fire along long stretches. At most you
> > could afect a short stretch
>
> Napalm is a fluid, it flows into just those parts of trench-systems
> that you describe, it was used first against the Japanese dug into
> caves on Tinian, in addition to the burning--it sticks to your
> skin--it sucks the oxygen out of the air forcing men to leave the
> trenches or die.

And lets not forget that those WWI trench systems used a lot of wood
in their construction, which would burn fiercely once hit with a napalm
bomb.

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..

> No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of
sufficiently high octane to allow it to
> produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the
engine, and chances are the oil would be
> inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should now
weigh in). If you want to postulate time
> travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that
could actually be produced 20 years
> earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen.
>
> Guy

Simple, just put some information on how to make a catalytic cracker in the
cockpit.

-E

--

To reply, get the 5 out as if I were my own ISP.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
> So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> and armed by the natives?

Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
lots of power.

The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
to be feared.

A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
and recon especially given their speed and range.


-snip

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message om...
> > My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
> > what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
> > these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
> > seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
> > improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
> > NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
> > fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
> > liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.
>
> Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype
> of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common
> radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to
> the needed tolerances?


I think they would have to make the aluminium alloys for the heads of
the cylinder from scratch but given the proportions they could make
them.

Might have to drop the compression ratio a bit to make use of the
lower grade gasolines and fit an oversized oil cooler and change the
oil more often.

The engine would still be superior to what they had.

"alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
om...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>...
> > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
> > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
the
> > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a
manufacturing
> > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).
> >
> > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or
just that the
> > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> >
> > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
manufactured, fueled,
> > and armed by the natives?
>
> Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> lots of power.
>

It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
anything achievable in 1918.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
> >
> > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> >
> > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> > and armed by the natives?
>
> Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> lots of power.
>
> The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
> of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
> to be feared.
>
> A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
> climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
> rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
> and recon especially given their speed and range.
>
>
> -snip

problem: that aluminum wing spar

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:

/Mitsubishi Zero../

>It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
>anything achievable in 1918.

I'd thought of the Ishak, but again the engine was well beyond anything
possible in 1918. Best engines available were the Cosmos (later Bristol)
Jupiter and the Napier Lion - hurrying these along by a few metallurgical
nudges might have been possible, and it's not too much of a leap from the
technology required for those to being able to build the Curtis V12
of the middle 1920s - which leads to my suggestion:

The Fairey Fox

2 seat light bomber, first flew in IIRC 1926, when it was close on 50 mph
faster than any fighter. Carried a decent load for its time (1.5 times or
so the DH9A load, I think) and was also available as a heavy 2-seat
fighter. Trying to deal with Foxes in 1917 or 18 with the fighters
available then would be like trying to stop Canberras with 1944 fighters.
Just not on. I'd suggest the Fox as one possibility. Another might be
one of the big 1920s commercial transports plus gliders (the Lion, Jupiter
or Curtis V12) could give enough power for glider tows. That would allow
rapid re-supply of troops after advances across no-mans land (this was
being done with smaller aeroplanes and parachute drops by 1918) and
would mean that you could provide recently-advances troops with artillery
pieces, heavy machine guns, wire entanglements and probably even light
armoured vehicles - tankettes - by glider before the enemy could arrange
a counter-attack. That would probably have the greatest effect of all.
Perhaps something like a more powerfully-engined Vickers Victoria or
similar?

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
>> "Eunometic" > wrote in message om...
>> > My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
>> > what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
>> > these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
>> > seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
>> > improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
>> > NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
>> > fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
>> > liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.
>>
>> Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype
>> of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common
>> radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to
>> the needed tolerances?
>
> No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of sufficiently high octane to allow it to
> produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the engine, and chances are the oil would be
> inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should
now weigh in).

Not a Petroleum Engineer, but some of teh vehicles in the Family
Collection date from that period (In particular, the FWD 3-5 Ton
Truck, and the Van Dorne 6-ton Tank (Renault FT). The Gasoline back
then was a lot better than most people think - it was a byproduct of
Kerosene production, and they'd basically boiled & squeexed anything
that wasn't Iso-Octane out in order to maximize the yeld for teh other
products. Of course, here aren't any good samples lying around, but
I'd place teh Octane Rating at somewhere above 80, so it wouldn't be
too dissimilar from 80/87 AVGAS. Materiels werent' a problem either -
The Engine Block, Intake Manifolds, Transmission and Transfer Case on
the FWD are Alumin(i)um, and nearly pure at that - (I took a sample to
the Materiels Lab when I was working for the World's Largest Producer
of Consumer Batteries and checked it out) much better than most
Aluminum stock these days, but probably as expesive as All Get Out.

A lot of that Octane Rating was wasted, though. Because of the need
to actually get the thing started, and because the Electric Motors of
teh day weren't up to it, the maximum Compression Ratio that was
practical to use was around 4-4.5:1. (It took 3 guys to prop a 1650
cu-in Liberty, for example, and the 400 Cu-in on the FWD is a serious
workout, even with an Impulse unit on teh Magneto to help)
Note that this wasn't just confined to the 1910-1920s - many engines
used flywheel starter systems, either hand-cranked or electrically
driven, to store up enough energy to get the bit engines turned over.

The big drawbacks to producing a high-powered engine at that time were
Carburetion and Ignition. Carburetoes were simple in the extreme, adn
weren't very good at atomizing fuel, or at adjusting to the varying
air densities encountered by an airplane engine.
Ignition systems were crude - they all worked with extremely high
voltage, (70 Kvolts or so), to try to get the strongest spark they
could, with the Spark Plugs that existed at that time. That's all
well and good, but there weren't any good insulators available. This
led to internal breakdowns in the Magnetos, and arcing and shorting of
the plug leads. It's bad enough at Sea Level, and it's horrid at high
altitude, where the dielectric properties of the air are much worse.
(Heat tolerance by these materials was poor, as well.) Insulators
were ceramic, Natural Rubber, and Mica. It took the development of
Plastics in the late 1920s-early 1930s (Most Notably Bakelite and
Formica) to produce reliable high-power Ignition Systems.


> If you want to postulate time
> travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that could actually be produced 20 years
> earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen.

Concur - there were a lot of steps that had to be made before you
could build anything more advanced than they were. In fact, teh Forst
World War, and the technology race that it spawned was the major
driver for those advances.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article >,
"Eric Boyd" > writes:
>
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of
> sufficiently high octane to allow it to
>> produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the
> engine, and chances are the oil would be
>> inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should now
> weigh in). If you want to postulate time
>> travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that
> could actually be produced 20 years
>> earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> Guy
>
> Simple, just put some information on how to make a catalytic cracker in the
> cockpit.

As pointed out in my reply to Guy's post, fuel quality wasn't the
problem.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
fuel).
>
Given the lack of high-powered engines, would some of the early autogyro
designs be easier to produce than a more advanced airplane?
--
Zamboni

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> >
> > I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
> > produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an
Junker J1
> > style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
> > resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).
>
> What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
> of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.
>
> The type remained in service until 1932
>
> Keith
>

At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
flop.

A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
> attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
> could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
> flop.
>

Which is like saying the only thing that save the Me-109
from being a flop is that it was a good fighter.

> A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
> which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
> bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
> sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
> Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
> logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.
>
>

I doubt it, as WW2 showed you need much more range
and payload than that for the strategic mission.

Better aircraft such as the He-111 and Do-17 failed
in that role

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> >
> >> "Eunometic" > wrote in message om...
> >> > My feeling is that knowledge of materials for engine development was
> >> > what kept engine weight up and kept down the performance of most of
> >> > these aircraft. For instance an engine of the quality of the cyclone
> >> > seen on Charles Lindbergs Spirit of St Louise would have immeasurably
> >> > improved the performance of these aircraft especially if fitted with
> >> > NACA style cowlings. It most certainly was easily buidable by the
> >> > fabrication techniwques of the day. Prior to that engines were bulky
> >> > liquid cooled models or clumsy rotaries.
> >>
> >> Suppose someone gives them a construction manual and a prototype
> >> of a radial engine (probably without the turbocharger) for any common
> >> radial engine of the 1940s. Can they get the correct alloys and build to
> >> the needed tolerances?
> >
> > No, and just as importantly, they probably couldn't produce fuel of sufficiently high octane to allow it to
> > produce the higher power it's capable of, even if they could build the engine, and chances are the oil would be
> > inadequate as well (petroleum engineers with a history minor should
> now weigh in).
>
> Not a Petroleum Engineer, but some of teh vehicles in the Family
> Collection date from that period (In particular, the FWD 3-5 Ton
> Truck, and the Van Dorne 6-ton Tank (Renault FT). The Gasoline back
> then was a lot better than most people think - it was a byproduct of
> Kerosene production, and they'd basically boiled & squeexed anything
> that wasn't Iso-Octane out in order to maximize the yeld for teh other
> products. Of course, here aren't any good samples lying around, but
> I'd place teh Octane Rating at somewhere above 80, so it wouldn't be
> too dissimilar from 80/87 AVGAS.

Pete, thanks for jumping in. I had/have a vague memory of reading that WW1 Avgas was around 60 octane, but that
could be way off. However, see below.

> Materiels werent' a problem either -
> The Engine Block, Intake Manifolds, Transmission and Transfer Case on
> the FWD are Alumin(i)um, and nearly pure at that - (I took a sample to
> the Materiels Lab when I was working for the World's Largest Producer
> of Consumer Batteries and checked it out) much better than most
> Aluminum stock these days, but probably as expesive as All Get Out.
>
> A lot of that Octane Rating was wasted, though. Because of the need
> to actually get the thing started, and because the Electric Motors of
> teh day weren't up to it, the maximum Compression Ratio that was
> practical to use was around 4-4.5:1. (It took 3 guys to prop a 1650
> cu-in Liberty, for example, and the 400 Cu-in on the FWD is a serious
> workout, even with an Impulse unit on teh Magneto to help)
> Note that this wasn't just confined to the 1910-1920s - many engines
> used flywheel starter systems, either hand-cranked or electrically
> driven, to store up enough energy to get the bit engines turned over.
>
> The big drawbacks to producing a high-powered engine at that time were
> Carburetion and Ignition. Carburetoes were simple in the extreme, adn
> weren't very good at atomizing fuel, or at adjusting to the varying
> air densities encountered by an airplane engine.
> Ignition systems were crude - they all worked with extremely high
> voltage, (70 Kvolts or so), to try to get the strongest spark they
> could, with the Spark Plugs that existed at that time. That's all
> well and good, but there weren't any good insulators available. This
> led to internal breakdowns in the Magnetos, and arcing and shorting of
> the plug leads. It's bad enough at Sea Level, and it's horrid at high
> altitude, where the dielectric properties of the air are much worse.
> (Heat tolerance by these materials was poor, as well.) Insulators
> were ceramic, Natural Rubber, and Mica. It took the development of
> Plastics in the late 1920s-early 1930s (Most Notably Bakelite and
> Formica) to produce reliable high-power Ignition Systems.
>
> > If you want to postulate time
> > travel for a one-time deal, fine, but if you're looking for something that could actually be produced 20 years
> > earlier and be supported for the long term, it just ain't gonna happen.
>
> Concur - there were a lot of steps that had to be made before you
> could build anything more advanced than they were. In fact, teh Forst
> World War, and the technology race that it spawned was the major
> driver for those advances.

Googling found this:

www.enginehistory.org/OX5to3350.pdf

aka "OX-5s to Turbo-Compounds: A Brief Overview of Aircraft Engine Development", covering roughly 1920-1950. It
basically says that improvements were made more or less concurrently in seven areas, fuel being one of them. It also
states that "early" [no idea what period, but presumably pre-1920] gasoline had octane ratings from 25-50.

Guy

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> > > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> > > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> > > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
> > >
> > > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> > > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> > >
> > > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> > > and armed by the natives?
> >
> > Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> > relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> > engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> > thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> > lots of power.
> >
> > The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
> > of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
> > to be feared.
> >
> > A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
> > climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
> > rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
> > and recon especially given their speed and range.
> >
> >
> > -snip
>
> problem: that aluminum wing spar

What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.

http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/

---quote
As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
due to their excessive weight.
---end quote

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
> prototype
> > > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians
> the
> > > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a
> manufacturing
> > > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
> fuel).
> > >
> > > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or
> just that the
> > > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> > >
> > > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
> manufactured, fueled,
> > > and armed by the natives?
> >
> > Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> > relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> > engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> > thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> > lots of power.
> >
>
> It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
> anything achievable in 1918.

Hogwash.

Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
till the introduction of electronic chips.

The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
it can be built.

Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
reasonable substitutes did.

Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.

Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
it from the steel mill on.

I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
reviewed the designs of many more.

Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
industrial society in WWI era could build them.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single
> prototype
> > > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the
Austro-Hungarians
> the
> > > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a
> manufacturing
> > > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet
> fuel).
> > >
> > > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or
> just that the
> > > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> > >
> > > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be
> manufactured, fueled,
> > > and armed by the natives?
> >
> > Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> > relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> > engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> > thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> > lots of power.
> >
>
> It wasnt, the engine was at least 2 generations beyond
> anything achievable in 1918.

How about a Boeing P-26 Peashooter?

"alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...

>
> Hogwash.
>
> Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
> does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
> WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
> changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
> till the introduction of electronic chips.
>

Apart from the alloys available, lubricants, cooling systems
and ignition systems

The fact is you couldnt get the materials to manufacture the
engine from, most engines of WW1 were cast iron, the
lubricants were simple mineral oils or vegetable oils,
cooling was a major problem , hence the rotary engine
and ignition systems were extremely crude

> The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
> 1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
> it can be built.
>
> Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
> reasonable substitutes did.
>

Evidence please

> Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
> allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
> originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
> the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
> minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
> specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
> cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
> exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.
>

None of those tests were in common use in WW1, steel production
was still more of an art than a science.

> Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
> and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
> it from the steel mill on.
>

They didnt have gas chromatographs in 1914

> I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
> reviewed the designs of many more.
>

So have I

> Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
> and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
> the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
> industrial society in WWI era could build them.

Yet first rate engineers like Harry Ricardo were severely constrained
in their engine designs by the technology available. Some of his designs
could not be manufactured until the 1940's, his sleeve valve engines
required techniques that were still difficult to master in 1939

Keith

(alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > (alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> > > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > > > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> > > > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> > > > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> > > > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
> > > >
> > > > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> > > > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> > > >
> > > > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> > > > and armed by the natives?
> > >
> > > Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> > > relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> > > engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> > > thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> > > lots of power.
> > >
> > > The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
> > > of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
> > > to be feared.
> > >
> > > A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
> > > climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
> > > rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
> > > and recon especially given their speed and range.
> > >
> > >
> > > -snip
> >
> > problem: that aluminum wing spar
>
> What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.
>
> http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/
>
> ---quote
> As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
> mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
> usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
> often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
> due to their excessive weight.
> ---end quote

True, little thin pieces of aluminum, not a full depth wing spar,
which required a special new aluminum developed by Sumitomo. In later
years the few Zeros still extant had this spart crystalize and fail.

"It was the first aircraft credited with using wing spars that
provide high strength, but were constructed of light weight aluminum.
" http://www.pacificwrecks.com/reviews/roaring_a6m5.html

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
> > > produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an
> Junker J1
> > > style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
> > > resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).
> >
> > What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
> > of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.
> >
> > The type remained in service until 1932
> >
> > Keith
> >
>
> At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
> attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
> could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
> flop.
>
> A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
> which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
> bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
> sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
> Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
> logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.
>
The Atlantic/Fokker B-8 from 1929/31 pretty much fills that order, top speed
of 160 mph, 950 mile range 1600 lb bomb load, steel tube and wood
construction. It had 600 hp V-12's, a fair step up from the Liberty but
probably not an impossible jump, though you're probably going to have mass
production problems.
For a fighter you could start with the PW-8, top speed of 171 mph and a 435
hp V-12, structure is wood and fabric and its a bi plane so not too many
nasty shocks for the pilots, from 1922/24, one of them flew with a
turbocharger, one of the first though building them might be a bit tough,
and not really needed for WWI.
>

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> > (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > > (alfred montestruc) wrote in message >...
> > > > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > > > > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> > > > > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> > > > > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> > > > > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
> > > > >
> > > > > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> > > > > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> > > > > and armed by the natives?
> > > >
> > > > Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
> > > > relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
> > > > engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
> > > > thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
> > > > lots of power.
> > > >
> > > > The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
> > > > of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
> > > > to be feared.
> > > >
> > > > A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
> > > > climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
> > > > rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
> > > > and recon especially given their speed and range.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -snip
> > >
> > > problem: that aluminum wing spar
> >
> > What problem? German Navy Zepplins of WWI used aluminum for frames.
> >
> > http://www.richthofen.com/dark_autumn/
> >
> > ---quote
> > As the war progressed, the German Navy and Army each built their own
> > mutually exclusive airship fleets. The Navy zeppelins however, were
> > usually of aluminum Zeppelin Company manufacture, whereas the Army
> > often used the wooden Shutte-Lanz or "SL" ships rejected by the Navy
> > due to their excessive weight.
> > ---end quote
>
> True, little thin pieces of aluminum, not a full depth wing spar,

Sure they could. Aluminum extrusion was invented before 1905.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0102/fig2.gif

that timeline GIF file is from this website.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0102/Sanders-0102.html



> which required a special new aluminum developed by Sumitomo. In later
> years the few Zeros still extant had this spart crystalize and fail.
>
> "It was the first aircraft credited with using wing spars that
> provide high strength, but were constructed of light weight aluminum.
> " http://www.pacificwrecks.com/reviews/roaring_a6m5.html

I think others have shown that statement to be in error.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> >
> > Hogwash.
> >
> > Any IC engine that I can give a WWI machine shop the plans for that
> > does not use late 20th century solid state electronics can be build in
> > WWI so long as the alloys specified are available. Very little
> > changed in basic machine shop technology from the lat 19th century
> > till the introduction of electronic chips.
> >
>
> Apart from the alloys available, lubricants, cooling systems
> and ignition systems
>
> The fact is you couldnt get the materials to manufacture the
> engine from, most engines of WW1 were cast iron,

Silly them.

> the
> lubricants were simple mineral oils or vegetable oils,

some vegetable oils are very good lubricants, they are just expensive.

> cooling was a major problem , hence the rotary engine
> and ignition systems were extremely crude
>
> > The issue is were the alloys used in the engine available in the
> > 1914-1918 era, or were reasonable substitutes available. If yes, then
> > it can be built.
> >
> > Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
> > reasonable substitutes did.
> >
>
> Evidence please

Artillery gun tubes of that era. They were (obviously) subjected to
high stresses for many thousands of repititions. Obviously the
pressures in a gun tube near the breech during fireing of an artillery
gun are much larger than in an IC engine that has a peak compression
ratio of 10:1 at most.

Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
gun tube is made from.

I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
to the block. See any showstoppers?

This would not be the way to duplicate the engine of a zero, but the
alloys of the cylinders, crankshafts, pistons and so on cannot have
been vastly superior to those of gun alloys, else one would have seen
a revolution in artillery technology in WWII, and that did not happen,
and little improvement in basic artillery gun tube materials has been
made since the very early part of the 20th century till now. As in
WWI gun tubes are not hopelessly obsolete.




>
> > Note that commonly in design of machines where the engineer wants to
> > allow the potential builder to substitute materials when that
> > originally specified is not available or the price rises, will spec
> > the required material properties like hardness, and yield strength and
> > minimum percent elongation in a tensile test, a range of chemistry, a
> > specification of acceptable processes (forging, casting, hot or
> > cold-rolling), and sometimes Charpy impact tests and sometimes more
> > exotic tests to prove the quality of the material.
> >
>
> None of those tests were in common use in WW1,

Most were available, including tensile testing (quite old) and Charpy
impact testing which became popular soon after the Titanic sank.


> steel production
> was still more of an art than a science.
>
> > Sometimes one goes whole hog and specifies the chemistry of the steel
> > and tolerences on that chemistry, and all the processes used to make
> > it from the steel mill on.
> >
>
> They didnt have gas chromatographs in 1914

One does not use a gas chromatagraph to determine the chemistry of
steel, even now. In modern times several methods are used, a popular
one being Optical Emission Spectroscopy, but in those days one kept
track of what one put into the mix and you could also get a read on
Carbon and Sulfer content by combustion analysis using a bomb
calorimeter IIRC, and doing tests on the combustion products.

http://www.materials.co.uk/chem.htm



>
> > I work as a mechanical engineer and have designed many machines, and
> > reviewed the designs of many more.
> >
>
> So have I
>
> > Basically your statement is flat wrong, given the plans for the engine
> > and material specifications for the steels and other materials used in
> > the engine, which would fit in a shoebox and weigh very little, any
> > industrial society in WWI era could build them.
>
> Yet first rate engineers like Harry Ricardo were severely constrained
> in their engine designs by the technology available.

But if the design and a working example is handed to him?


> Some of his designs
> could not be manufactured until the 1940's, his sleeve valve engines
> required techniques that were still difficult to master in 1939


As I recall the radial engines we are discussing use pretty standard
cam actuated cylinder head valves.

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >
> > At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
> > attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
> > could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
> > flop.
> >
>
> Which is like saying the only thing that save the Me-109
> from being a flop is that it was a good fighter.
>
> > A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
> > which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
> > bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
> > sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
> > Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
> > logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.
> >
> >
>
> I doubt it, as WW2 showed you need much more range
> and payload than that for the strategic mission.
>
> Better aircraft such as the He-111 and Do-17 failed
> in that role
>
> Keith
>


However both these fine aircrat, virtualy invulnerable in the Spanish
civil war and against Polish aircraft, had to face of against
spitfires and hurricanes. In this hypothetical situation our
technology would provide enough of a leap to make them immune to any
interception. The performance I mentioned, perhaps the range is a
little short, would allow attack as low as 5000 feet with freedom from
interception by biplane and with a very low chance of being hit by the
AAA of the day. Level bombing at 5000 feet even without computing
bomb sights is very accurate and at 1000 feet even moreso.

Without the need to attack at night or high altide with low accruracy
they would deliver great and accurate destruction. I've heard it said
that a squadran of Ju 87 Stukas could do more damage than a squdran of
Lancasters as long as they were either escorted or not heavily
opposed.

"Nicholas Smid" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I suspect if an engineer of the capability of Hugo Junkers had of
> > > > produced a light weight air cooled radial for mating with an
> Junker J1
> > > > style airframe an immensly fast and tough aircraft would have
> > > > resulted. (I would say speeds of 160-170mph).
> > >
> > > What you are describing is basically the Bristol F2b Fighter
> > > of 1918, except that it had a water cooled engine.
> > >
> > > The type remained in service until 1932
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> >
> > At a speed of 123mph it was far to slow and suffered form Albatross
> > attacks even with its rear lewis gun. Only the realisation that it
> > could dog fight as well as most fighters saved this scout from being a
> > flop.
> >
> > A decisive advantage in WW1 would have required a speed of 160-170 mph
> > which would be decisevly beyond anything. It would also require a
> > bomb load of over 2200lbs as this would allow large torpoedoes and
> > sticks of bombs and a range of up to 1000 miles for a bomber.
> > Sufficient of these could shift the balance at sea, be able to destroy
> > logistics, bridges, docks, etc and factories I think.
> >
> The Atlantic/Fokker B-8 from 1929/31 pretty much fills that order, top speed
> of 160 mph, 950 mile range 1600 lb bomb load, steel tube and wood
> construction. It had 600 hp V-12's, a fair step up from the Liberty but
> probably not an impossible jump, though you're probably going to have mass
> production problems.
> For a fighter you could start with the PW-8, top speed of 171 mph and a 435
> hp V-12, structure is wood and fabric and its a bi plane so not too many
> nasty shocks for the pilots, from 1922/24, one of them flew with a
> turbocharger, one of the first though building them might be a bit tough,
> and not really needed for WWI.
> >

It would seem to me that the engine and aircraft constructors would be
able to quickly produce superior aiircaft with their then current
fabrication and knowledge becuase.

1 The vibration and cooling problems they had would be solved by the
plans given them.
2 The alloys would have to be made but would have the appropriate
properties.
3 Some issues such as fuels and maybe oils (some vegetable oils are
superior to synthetics) but

4 I suspect that they engine designes could be adapted for the lower
grade fuels but still achieve superior performance.

The aircraft would have to be hand made by craftsmen and this would
slow down production.

5 Devices such as accurate altimeters and artificial horizons did not
yet exist but I believe these shouldn't be to difficult.

alfred montestruc wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
>>>reasonable substitutes did.
>>
>>Evidence please
>
> Artillery gun tubes of that era. They were (obviously) subjected to
> high stresses for many thousands of repititions. Obviously the
> pressures in a gun tube near the breech during fireing of an artillery
> gun are much larger than in an IC engine that has a peak compression
> ratio of 10:1 at most.
>
> Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
> rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
> engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
> the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
> gun tube is made from.
>
> I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
> to the block. See any showstoppers?

Weight? We do want to fly, rather than tow, this thing around.

What is the thickness of a cannon barrel wall compared to an
engine cylinder?

What happens to the strength of that cylinder when we reduce
its thickness with machined cooling fins?

What would the weight of an engine built in this manner be,
compared to the engines of the day?

They've been making cannons for 600 years. Not certain I'd
want one as a cylinder in my truck, let alone a combat
aircraft.


SMH

On 8 Jun 2004 04:16:21 -0700, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

>Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
>this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
>them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
>personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
>second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
>weapon without defense.

Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
in bomb form though I question whether it was available in large
enough quantities to cause grief to miles and miles of trench lines.

The Horny Goat wrote:

> Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
> in bomb form though...

That was proved (again?) in Korea.


> I question whether it was available in large
> enough quantities to cause grief to miles
> and miles of trench lines.

Napalm was available in sufficient quantities to turn targets such as trenches
into graves, once we found them. "Shake and bake" also worked on other related
targets

Napalm was a bit more expensive to apply than the targets and their defenses
were to construct, of course. But we solved that problem nicely by avoiding the
highest value targets. We became expert at killing trees and dirt in the South,
and avoiding ships, port facilities, and dams in the North.

Heaven forbid we should destroy the enemy's ability to resist when it is so much
more convenient to destroy the environs of our allies. But then war being
diplomacy by other means, the so-called "diplomats" had their way, just as they
are doing today.



Jack

The Horny Goat > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jun 2004 04:16:21 -0700, (Jack
> Linthicum) wrote:
>
> >Flamethrowers need someone on the cold end to run it, IIRC in WWII
> >this was an aiming point for the Japanese who were being assualted by
> >them. Napalm is more fluid, ie runs along trench lines, and less
> >personal, drop it and forget it. If you need a second dose, bring in a
> >second raid. With those large trench complexes it would seem to be a
> >weapon without defense.
>
> Vietnam certainly demonstrated napalm could be effectively delivered
> in bomb form though I question whether it was available in large
> enough quantities to cause grief to miles and miles of trench lines.

You don't have to do miles and miles. Pick one juncture with a command
post nearby and hit it for two or three days. You will find Swedish or
Netherlands diplomats making telephone calls in Paris and London
asking if there isn't some way we could reach a mutual understanding.

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
>
> Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> Allies win faster. It's up to you.
>
> So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> and armed by the natives?

Any such aircraft could, I suggest, have a decisive effect in only two
circumstances.

One would be if the technology behind it were so difficult for the
other participants to knock off that it became and remained dominant
for long enough to provide air supremacy. This assumes that air
supremacy would have been decisively useful, and I'm not sure it would
have been with anything built in 1914-18 (and given that you've used
your trump card to achieve the supremacy in the first place).

Getting the supremacy sounds like a job for a fighter, eg the Fokker
E-I in 1915. Using it decisively sounds like one for a bomber, and if
I think about bombers that have had a decisive effect on surface
campaigns, I struggle to think of any that did not rely on other
factors. Eg the Stuka was arguably a decisive weapon but only if you
had the Bf109 to clear its path, and I doubt if you could have built
one in 1914-8 anyway.

The other circumstance in which the aircraft would be useful is if its
availability enabled an attack, or the threat of an attack, that would
severely discourage further participation in the war by the attackee.
In this context, it seems to me that the best candidate would be an
effective long-range torpedo bomber. A version of the Handley-Page
0/400 deployed in Malta, say 24 strong, might have been able to sink
Goeben before she escaped to Constantinople in 1914. This in turn
might make it more difficult for Germany to get Turkey into the war on
her side, thus removing the need for the Triple Entente to fight on an
additional front.

From the German perspective, a wing of Zeppelin-Staakens deployed in
1914 within range of Scapa Flow might have presented enough of a
threat to the Grand Fleet that it would be reluctant to occupy that
anchorage. The threat of U-boat attack drove the Grand Fleet back to
the west coast of Scotland, so this does not seem improbable. If the
threat of severe dreadnought loss was sufficient, it might deter
Britain from joining in in the first place, or at least until a
countermeasure had been evolved. This would of course have offered
Germany a window in which to secure the early defeat of France.

This would, though, require a port attack. I doubt whether such a
squadron could have executed an effective attack on a fleet at sea.
PoW and Repulse were despatched by 50 torpedo bombers carrying larger
and more effective torpedoes than Germany possessed in 1914. They were
also about 6 times faster than the ships they were attacking. A 1914
60-knot Gotha might have trouble threatening a division of WW1
battlecruisers doing half their own speed. You'd also need a lot of
them because if took 50 WW2 era bombers to sink one WW1 BC and one WW2
BB, you'd need still more to offset the fact of fewer less potent hits
distributed among many more targets.

(John Redman) wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message >...
> > Lets suppose you get to give a single new airplane design and a single prototype
> > to a participant of World War One. You can offer the Austro-Hungarians the
> > design for a B-52 if you wish. However, that might prove a manufacturing
> > challenge to them (and one can only wonder about their supply of jet fuel).
> >
> > Your goal is to change history. You can hope for a German victory or just that the
> > Allies win faster. It's up to you.
> >
> > So, what design do you offer, remembering that this design must be manufactured, fueled,
> > and armed by the natives?
>
> Any such aircraft could, I suggest, have a decisive effect in only two
> circumstances.
>
> One would be if the technology behind it were so difficult for the
> other participants to knock off that it became and remained dominant
> for long enough to provide air supremacy. This assumes that air
> supremacy would have been decisively useful, and I'm not sure it would
> have been with anything built in 1914-18 (and given that you've used
> your trump card to achieve the supremacy in the first place).
>
> Getting the supremacy sounds like a job for a fighter, eg the Fokker
> E-I in 1915. Using it decisively sounds like one for a bomber, and if
> I think about bombers that have had a decisive effect on surface
> campaigns, I struggle to think of any that did not rely on other
> factors. Eg the Stuka was arguably a decisive weapon but only if you
> had the Bf109 to clear its path, and I doubt if you could have built
> one in 1914-8 anyway.
>
> The other circumstance in which the aircraft would be useful is if its
> availability enabled an attack, or the threat of an attack, that would
> severely discourage further participation in the war by the attackee.
> In this context, it seems to me that the best candidate would be an
> effective long-range torpedo bomber. A version of the Handley-Page
> 0/400 deployed in Malta, say 24 strong, might have been able to sink
> Goeben before she escaped to Constantinople in 1914. This in turn
> might make it more difficult for Germany to get Turkey into the war on
> her side, thus removing the need for the Triple Entente to fight on an
> additional front.
>
> From the German perspective, a wing of Zeppelin-Staakens deployed in
> 1914 within range of Scapa Flow might have presented enough of a
> threat to the Grand Fleet that it would be reluctant to occupy that
> anchorage. The threat of U-boat attack drove the Grand Fleet back to
> the west coast of Scotland, so this does not seem improbable. If the
> threat of severe dreadnought loss was sufficient, it might deter
> Britain from joining in in the first place, or at least until a
> countermeasure had been evolved. This would of course have offered
> Germany a window in which to secure the early defeat of France.
>
> This would, though, require a port attack. I doubt whether such a
> squadron could have executed an effective attack on a fleet at sea.
> PoW and Repulse were despatched by 50 torpedo bombers carrying larger
> and more effective torpedoes than Germany possessed in 1914. They were
> also about 6 times faster than the ships they were attacking. A 1914
> 60-knot Gotha might have trouble threatening a division of WW1
> battlecruisers doing half their own speed. You'd also need a lot of
> them because if took 50 WW2 era bombers to sink one WW1 BC and one WW2
> BB, you'd need still more to offset the fact of fewer less potent hits
> distributed among many more targets.

One ISOT story from Analog about a guy flying a cross between an SR-71
and and a F-35, hyper sonic and VTOL. He joins the Allies, can't get a
lock on his missiles against the WWI Germans but eventually does a
mach 3.0 sweep through a German circus. He needed to filter the 1917
kerosene through chamois for fuel.

In article >,
(Jack Linthicum) writes:

> One ISOT story from Analog about a guy flying a cross between an SR-71
> and and a F-35, hyper sonic and VTOL. He joins the Allies, can't get a
> lock on his missiles against the WWI Germans but eventually does a
> mach 3.0 sweep through a German circus. He needed to filter the 1917
> kerosene through chamois for fuel.

"Hawk Among the Sparrows" (Dang, I forgot who wrote it).
The aircraft was the Pika-Don, a carrier-based hypersonic VTOL (It had
skids, rather than wheels, so it wasn't a VSTOL) used for intercept
ICBM warheads.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(alfred montestruc) wrote

> Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
> rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
> engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
> the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
> gun tube is made from.
>
> I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
> to the block. See any showstoppers?

The gun tube is not a homogeneous metal casting though. WW1-era guns
were of wire-wound construction, which is as it sounds; i.e. a series
of inner tube segments around which a thick wire was wound under
tension in a tight spiral with a further metal casing on top.
Effectively it was a like a barrel with one long continuous hoop
around it.

You couldn't literally slice one of these into cylinder lengths and
have a usable tube, nor could you machine cooling fins into it, for
obvious reasons. Nor can I see how you could use the same "alloy" to
make pistons, rods, or crankshaft, since there is no single alloy
involved.

>rom: (John Redman)

>
(alfred montestruc) wrote
>
>> Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
>> rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
>> engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
>> the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
>> gun tube is made from.
>>
>> I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
>> to the block. See any showstoppers?
>
>The gun tube is not a homogeneous metal casting though. WW1-era guns
>were of wire-wound construction, which is as it sounds; i.e. a series
>of inner tube segments around which a thick wire was wound under
>tension in a tight spiral with a further metal casing on top.
>Effectively it was a like a barrel with one long continuous hoop
>around it.
>
>You couldn't literally slice one of these into cylinder lengths and
>have a usable tube, nor could you machine cooling fins into it, for
>obvious reasons.

I saw some film on the History Channel where they showed the wire wrapping
being hammer forged into a single monolithic piece of metal. Granted the film
was from the 1930, but I would guess it was the same in WW2.

Knifesmiths make "Satan's lace" blades using a similar method of hammer
forging rods into a billet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >rom: (John Redman)
>
> >
> (alfred montestruc) wrote
> >
> >> Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
> >> rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
> >> engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
> >> the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
> >> gun tube is made from.
> >>
> >> I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
> >> to the block. See any showstoppers?
> >
> >The gun tube is not a homogeneous metal casting though.

I never said it was any sort of casting. My impression was that
modern era cannon tubes were either forged from billets, or are made
of hot rolled bar stock that was quenched and tempered then machined
to final shape. Casting (especially steel) is something you generally
do only when having lots of flaws in the metal is ok, which is not the
case in a gun tube.

If you must, then you must use a much larger factor of safety and
thicker gun tube.




>WW1-era guns
> >were of wire-wound construction, which is as it sounds; i.e. a series
> >of inner tube segments around which a thick wire was wound under
> >tension in a tight spiral with a further metal casing on top.
> >Effectively it was a like a barrel with one long continuous hoop
> >around it.

Cite this please, I goggle searched and found not a single refernce to
that.


> >
> >You couldn't literally slice one of these into cylinder lengths and
> >have a usable tube, nor could you machine cooling fins into it, for
> >obvious reasons.


You could if they were hammer forge welded.

>
> I saw some film on the History Channel where they showed the wire wrapping
> being hammer forged into a single monolithic piece of metal. Granted the film
> was from the 1930, but I would guess it was the same in WW2.

Hammer forging is the oldest form of welding. It is done by black
smiths. Japanese sword smiths use that technique to make the layers
of the samari sword that make it both strong and hard at the same
time.


> Knifesmiths make "Satan's lace" blades using a similar method of hammer
> forging rods into a billet.


Sounds plausible to me.

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> alfred montestruc wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>"alfred montestruc" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>>Point of fact, I am very sure that alloys needed either existed, or
> >>>reasonable substitutes did.
> >>
> >>Evidence please
> >
> > Artillery gun tubes of that era. They were (obviously) subjected to
> > high stresses for many thousands of repititions. Obviously the
> > pressures in a gun tube near the breech during fireing of an artillery
> > gun are much larger than in an IC engine that has a peak compression
> > ratio of 10:1 at most.
> >
> > Imagine if you will I take say a 75mm cannon, hone the bore free of
> > rifling, then cut it into 6" section to make cylinders for a radial
> > engine. I can make the engine block out of a ductile iron casting,
> > the pistons, rods, and shaft from forgings of the same alloy as the
> > gun tube is made from.
> >
> > I can then machine fins on the outside of the cylinders and bolt them
> > to the block. See any showstoppers?
>
> Weight? We do want to fly, rather than tow, this thing around.

Duh!

> What is the thickness of a cannon barrel wall compared to an
> engine cylinder?


Suggest you look up an engineering text on mechanics of materials and
thermodynamics and work out first the pressure on the inside of the
cylender via thermo calcs, then the required thickness via mechanics
of materials, and the strength of the material used.

I'll give you a hint, cast iron (common material used in IC engines in
WWI) will have a useful strength a whole lot lower than most any grade
of steel. Note also that for serious engine applications you need to
keep stresses lower than the endurance limit of the material, else
have fatigue cracks and failures in service.

http://www.anvilfire.com/FAQs/cast_iron.htm


Typical modern gun steels will have tensile stengths of ~150,000 psi,
with yields stress like 130,000 psi and endurance limits in the range
of 50,000psi. While I am sure the steels used at the start of WWI
were not that good, they may well have had endurance limits in the
30,000psi to 40,000 psi range. When you compaire that to the 20,000
odd of the very best cast iron grades one could get, I think you
should see the point.



> What happens to the strength of that cylinder when we reduce
> its thickness with machined cooling fins?
>
> What would the weight of an engine built in this manner be,
> compared to the engines of the day?
>
> They've been making cannons for 600 years. Not certain I'd
> want one as a cylinder in my truck, let alone a combat
> aircraft.
>
>
> SMH

On 8 Jun 2004 22:23:24 -0700, (alfred
montestruc) wrote:

>Probably a Japanese Zero. The Zero could land and take off on a
>relitivly short grass runway as long as the ground is not soft. The
>engine should be within their capacity to build, and that is the main
>thing, a late 1930's evolved internal combustion aircraft engine with
>lots of power.
>
>The airframe had lots of wood and nothing very sophisticated in terms
>of metal parts. The 20mm cannons would make it's firepower something
>to be feared.
>
>A Zero would be a terror of the sky in 1918, it can outrun and out
>climb everything else. A small number with fuel and ammunition can
>rout the other side's airforce and do nasty things in ground attack,
>and recon especially given their speed and range.

I'd go for a Me163...

Dangerous, yes, but doable...

Cheers,
Richard

"John Redman" > wrote in message om...
> One would be if the technology behind it were so difficult for the
> other participants to knock off that it became and remained dominant
> for long enough to provide air supremacy. This assumes that air
> supremacy would have been decisively useful, and I'm not sure it would
> have been with anything built in 1914-18 (and given that you've used
> your trump card to achieve the supremacy in the first place).
>
> Getting the supremacy sounds like a job for a fighter, eg the Fokker
> E-I in 1915. Using it decisively sounds like one for a bomber, and if
> I think about bombers that have had a decisive effect on surface
> campaigns, I struggle to think of any that did not rely on other
> factors. Eg the Stuka was arguably a decisive weapon but only if you
> had the Bf109 to clear its path, and I doubt if you could have built
> one in 1914-8 anyway.

I don't think this is clear.

Lets assume that the Germans get something like a 1920's
fighter and that it will be a year before the allies can copy it.

A sudden decisive air domination means that the allies have
no arial recon ability. Just that alone could change battles.
A fighter from the 1920s can knock out railroad lines
and bridges, which is a large logistics problem.

Basically, a fighter form the 1920s means that the Germans can
mass for an attack without the Allies knowledge and
can reduce the Allies ability to reinforce the attacked spot.

Even if you think the French can overcome these problems, I doubt the
Russians and/or Serbs can. An early fall of Russia gives Germany the
war.

Sure, it's not the nuclear weapons of World War One, but the war
was such a close thing that the teeter-totter can be made to fall
the other way.

Talleyrand
Who is just as willing to argue for the Allies use of airplanes

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote

> A sudden decisive air domination means that the allies have
> no arial recon ability. Just that alone could change battles.

Debatable - neither side had useful air recon in 1914, but nobody
seriously suggests this affected events. Also, you can do air recon
over a trench system from a balloon, and you don't need fighters to
defend balloons. You just need to protect them with artillery whose
fuses are pre-set to the height at which an attacking scout would
approach.

A few hundred Fokker D-VIIs would secure air supremacy for whichever
side had them, but I question whether this would change land battles.
AFAIK Germany had air superiority for much of the war, and this didn't
materially alter outcomes on the ground.

> A fighter from the 1920s can knock out railroad lines
> and bridges, which is a large logistics problem.

Which 1920s fighters could lift, and deliver accurately, a payload
large enough to destroy a militarily-useful bridge? Dive-bombing was
invented in the late 1920s largely because bombloads were so small
that you needed either a huge air force, or direct hits, to cause
worthwhile damage. It was the 1940s before small, agile aircraft
became powerful enough to lift a decent payload - Hurricanes armed
with rockets, for instance. Once you had 1,000hp engines, a lot of
things became possible. I can't see a 1,000hp engine much earlier than
when they did arrive - the mid-1930s.

> Even if you think the French can overcome these problems, I doubt the
> Russians and/or Serbs can. An early fall of Russia gives Germany the
> war.

German war planning was the actually other way around though:
seven-eighths of their forces attacked France because the
Schlieffen-Moltke Plan said that that was how you beat Russia. You
beat France first. If you weren't at war with France, well, you
gratuitously took steps to make sure you were, by demanding insulting
guarantees of neutrality.

The Schlieffen-Moltke Plan further specified that you defeated France
by violating Belgian neutrality. Britain specifically asked Germany in
July 1914 whether she would respect Belgian neutrality in a war with
France. Germany refused to do so, because the Schlieffen Plan could
not be modified, so you invaded Belgium even if this resulted in war
with Britain.

Thus, German doctrine in 1914 effectively was that the best chance of
beating Russia was to go to war simultaneously with Russia, France,
and Britain.

> Sure, it's not the nuclear weapons of World War One, but the war
> was such a close thing that the teeter-totter can be made to fall
> the other way.

Unfortunately, including France and Britain in the war ensured defeat;
and the trench stalemate proved impossible for Germany to break even
after Russia was eventually removed from the allied line-up.