New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

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

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

"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.

"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 =---

"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 =---

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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