![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 =--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 =--- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1988 "Aces High" (Military Airplanes) Hardcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 23rd 04 05:18 AM |
Ever heard of Nearly-New Airplanes, Inc.? | The Rainmaker | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 23rd 04 05:08 PM |
SMALLL airplanes.. | BllFs6 | Home Built | 12 | May 8th 04 12:48 PM |
FS: 1990 Cracker Jack "War Time Airplanes" Minis 6-Card (CJR-3) Set | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 12th 04 05:57 AM |
Sport Pilot Airplanes - Homebuilt? | Rich S. | Home Built | 8 | August 10th 03 11:41 PM |