New Airplanes in WWI (ISOT)

"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.

"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

"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.

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

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.